RESOLVED: In the United States, the Stay-At-Home Orders Should Not Be Repealed Before the Pandemic Ends
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 8 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Specifics: I will be arguing for Pro and my opponent for Con. We will both have exactly three days to post our arguments. Forfeiting twice will merit a loss. Conceding will merit a loss. Trolling will merit a loss. K'ing will merit a loss.
Debate Information: We will be debating about the states that have a lockdown not the states that don't.
- If the enemy applies more effective tactics, then the war will end sooner
- If the dealer provides better and good deals, then the product will sell out sooner
- If the sports team applies more effective strategies then the game will end sooner
Yes, I do not deny that the stay-at-home orders are extremely effective. In an ideal world, we would be able to stay home and wait for the disease to pass. However, this is not the case. We have an economy to think of as well as the people who would suffer if this economy were to collapse. If we stay at home for the next year and a half, which is the estimated time for a cure or vaccination, many small businesses and companies that cannot survive virtually would be gone. For example, our cruise lines would be financially destroyed, eliminating the thousands of jobs that were available. If we allow the economy to plummet as such, then the people will also suffer. Hundreds of thousands if not millions will plummet into poverty, falling into massive debt and financial trouble. Also, the previously known middle class would fall into the lower class category. The current lower class that has their heads above financial water will drown, and America's middle class will fall into the lower class. While they may have trust funds or saved money, our middle class as we know it would be destroyed, with them losing jobs and having to resort to using their trust funds. The upper class would also be hit, as they could lose millions off of the stock market and the fall of their corporations. Overall, if we stay at home, we may be able to combat the coronavirus but we would not be able to support our economy, possibly putting millions of Americans into a situation that would be considered as some, worse than death. We would lose our economy and spot as the number one country in the world in terms of stability.The virus would pass faster, yes, but at what cost. If we dig ourselves a financial hole by staying at home for at least a year and a half more, we may never come out of it. For example, people today still feel the effects of the Great Recession, with some losing their life savings and family businesses. We could be looking at something much worse than the Recession if we stay at home for the foreseeable future.
Every day we follow stay at home orders, someone loses a certain amount of money. At one point in the future, we will be losing so much each day that people would rather go out and risk their lives to keep their businesses above the water. In fact, many smaller restaurants and non-essential businesses are doing that now, going to work and opening their shops in desperation despite knowledge of the virus. When these people start losing enough, they will fall into a fate worse than death. They will be homeless, in poverty with no way out, and many other horrible fates that come with financial stress. This is worse than death, and we should open rather than forcing many to suffer this fate.
Sorry for the weird formatting but those are my points. We as a country have to choose between lives and our economy, and ultimately, the economy should be chosen for the listed reasons above.
My opponent misunderstands his own definitions. Repealing the stay-at-home orders does not mean people have to go out. If they are uncomfortable going outside, they can remain in lockdown. The people that are willing to accept the risk of their life in exchange for a "green piece of paper" should be free to go outside and accept the risk. I am in no way forcing people to go outside and catch the virus, they are free to do what they want.
My opponent also claims that a vaccine will be available in January 2021. First, we cannot rely on the CDC's estimated date because the CDC has proven to be untrustable and have followed their own agenda. It is not a safe assumption to trust the media on when a vaccination is available. Even if a vaccine does become available in January, it will be long before the masses can obtain this vaccination, creating herd immunity. The process of herd immunization could take several more months.
The economy is as much in our lives today as anything else, and it is essential to keep it running because, without it, we could be destroying more lives than we are "saving".
Enter the reason for your decision
Pro won because he didn't forfeit.
"Forfeiting twice will merit a loss"
Forfeiting twice will merit a loss, according to the special rules in the description that Con agreed to when he accepted the debate.
Con forfeited twice, thus breaking the rules and resulting in a win for Pro.
""Forfeiting twice will merit a loss."" Con forfeited twice, so he loses this debate, he agreed to the rules of the debate and violated them.
EricThanos tried to slap Bearman but he didn't know that Bearman is not from Marvel universe. Bearman has that girzzly grip that gone gripe ya.
Forfeiture, with the pre-agreement that such would count as a concession.
Thank God this debate is a straight-up declaration of a winner without having to award points in the various categories [argument, sourcing, s&g, conduct]. However, I will use those terms in explaining my RFD:
Argument: Pro argued that stay-at-home was not the same thing as social distancing, then applied the rest of his argument, and sourcing, applying social distancing as the bar against which to measure, thereby undermining his own argument. Con argued that extended stay-at-home would collapse the economy; a far more valid argument.
Sourcing: Pro used sources, then argued against them. Con used no sourcing, admitting such. Both lose on this one.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's proposal declared no waiving of rounds until saying so in round 1, thereby expecting debate protocol not agreed to beforehand. Bad conduct. Con forfeited two rounds, plus waived a round when it was not necessary by the protocol established. Also bad conduct. Both lose on this one.
I conclude, on merit, that Con wins the debate by PRo losing in arguments.
Favorite vote I've seen in awhile!
RationalMadman
11 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
EricThanos tried to slap Bearman but he didn't know that Bearman is not from Marvel universe. Bearman has that girzzly grip that gone gripe ya.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
This vote received a few reports, so going to give added commentary...
It addresses the main argument both side offered, which is the core thing any vote should do.
It does go against the presumptive winner, which is fine, that just means that it is eligible for moderation.
**************************************************
FYI, attempting to impose rules in R1 is not binding.
Two things:
1. The only category to which grading is required, is arguments. I don't quite want to say the others are for outliers, but they on average are tied and them being tied never needs to be spelled out (if arguments were tied, some justification would be needed, but to a lower standard than if awarding it to either side).
2. You are not required to obey the special rules from the description, but for future reference you have the option (and they're a good thing to mention when going against for the sake of seeming fair).
A house is an apartment is a tent is a cave.
These are given different descriptive names, but they all can serve the same purpose of consequence, which is my voting decision support. But this is all nonsense because your sources include both stay-at-home AND social distancing as effective countermeasures, yet you do not allow for social distancing in your debate proposal. Why you entertain quarantine in your complaint about my vote is a smoke screen. My vote exposed your sources' allowance of social distancing while your argument separated from it.
yes but they aren't the same. It has been proven again by a scholarly source. So I don' think my entire argument is invalid just because of that.
Can a debater countermand the rules of the site? Seems countermanding policy is itself a reason for discipline. Policy says "A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited." But Con had 2 argument rounds and 2 forfeit rounds. That meets the policy. You want to play rules, know them. Also, Pro only imposed waiving a round in round 1; not the time to do that.
Because a law firm says they are not the same, you're going to buy that? Quarantine [defined by your source]: "...isolates an individual inside their own home or in a hospital." Stay-at-home is self-explanatory. Isn't the effect the same? It's a distinction without a difference. Lawyers. They'll argue anything, even against itself.
" Forfeiting twice will merit a loss." It's from the rules of this debate. There's no way EricT would win.
I admit to reporting fauxlaw's vote. As EricT FF'd. There can be no way that he merits a win from this.
Oh, btw quarantine and stay-at-home orders are different things.
https://forrestfirm.com/blog/stay-at-home-or-shelter-in-place-orders-are-not-the-same-thing-as-quarantine/
Argument: Pro argued that stay-at-home was not the same thing as social distancing, then applied the rest of his argument, and sourcing, applying social distancing as the bar against which to measure, thereby undermining his own argument. Con argued that extended stay-at-home would collapse the economy; a far more valid argument.
Can you please explain what this means? Thanks!
Before I vote on this one, just want to point out [again] the uselessness of waiving rounds. If the debate is to be a 4-round debate, call it that, and stop this nonsense of waiving. It accomplishes northing, and no one to date has demonstrated successfully that it does. As it is, it is called a 5-round, and Pro has tossed one of them, and Con has tossed one of them, plus forfeited two more. However, since waiving is not really counted as a forfeit, I suppose the debate is live for both participants because more than half the five rounds have not been forfeited by either one, in spite of Pro declaring that less than half the rounds forfeit means a loss, which is not what the debate policy says. I'd consider both having lost conduct, but the format does not speak to deducting points; only giving them.
I mean, I am Chinese but I actually agree with Crocodile. Constructed criticism is never bad.
Nah. All croc talks about is China.
Are you, perhaps, an Alt of Crocodile?
Okay
erict was banned so he wont be responding
Whatever you say, mate.
Agree wholeheartedly. That is why I am not very active on our forums.
--> @User_2006
Firstly, yes they are, secondly Oromagi is less so and in my opinion he's not that good at mafia.
I agree and for roughly the same reasons I have trouble sustaining a squabble in the forums. In mafia and squabbles, the advantage is all in profligacy. It doesnot matter if what you say is unwarranted or irrelevant so long as you are constantly pursuing the last word, escalating every perceived slight and ignoring any valid ripostes. The thread and weight of real arguments gets lost in long games of what amounts to text pong and I just get so bored with it. I understand that I'm discounting the major activity on this site but text pong has never been much of an attraction for me.
Firstly, yes they are, secondly Oromagi is less so and in my opinion he's not that good at mafia.
Nope, Neither Oro nor Danielle was the type you mentioned. They are one of the best ones too.
Mafia isn't a game I hate, it's the crowd and type of people (manipulative, arrogant) who are attracted to it that I prefer to avoid. That's not at all a DART thing, it's a 'social game' thing. Whether it's survivor, big brother, mafia or something along those lines, the crowd are always majority cunning bullies who are unpleasant even to one another but especially to someone who is both very good at the game and unwilling to join the sheep they rule.
Taken from my pre-written debate:
A pandemic ends when, as stated by the New York Times, the disease is eradicated or when “people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease”. Essentially, it is either ended by medical data or sociopolitical processes.
how are we defining the "end of the pandemic?"
Fair enough. I genuinely wish you would get into games of Mafia.
bump
bump
If you were curious how I garner reads on people, you just word-for-word revealed that you're anger-driven in that post. I insert it into a mental profile that I have on you in my head and it transforms a puzzle-like web into a more developed and clearer formation.
Good luck on this one. While I'm happy to give advice, I have too much else going on in my life right now (lame as this may be, I now pretty much only debate if something pisses me off).
If anyone is confused by the K rule, here's a guide: https://tiny.cc/Kritik
That said, as a voter I'm fine with states without lockdown being used as evidence for or against the benefits of said lockdown.
bump
Updated it. Thanks.
Shoot you got me.
Is gradual repeal a K?
Yeah I know.
Gradually they should be repealed but US is on upswing of Covid-19 spread, not downswing (unlike all other highly developed nations).
The same. Notice I said "current"
How severe will it be enforced? No offence but other countries are already beginning to relax their lockdown rules, US is only starting to properly ramp theirs up.
Are you up for the challenge?