Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

RESOLVED: In the United States, the Stay-At-Home Orders Should Not Be Repealed Before the Pandemic Ends

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 8 votes the winner is ...
BearMan
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 1
Description
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.
Round 1
Published:
I waive the first round, and my opponent must waive the last.
Published:
No thank you. You can have the first word and I'll take the last.
Round 2
Published:
Thanks, EricT for accepting this debate.

RESOLVED: In the United States, the Stay-at-home Orders Should Not Be Repealed Until the Pandemic Ends

I will have to prove that: In the United States, the Stay-at-home Orders Should Not Be Repealed Until the Pandemic Ends

My opponent will have to prove that: In the United States, the Stay-at-home Orders Should Be Repealed Before the Pandemic Ends

 Key Definitions: 

United States: a country that occupies most of the southern half of North America as well as Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands; population 321,800,000 (estimated 2015); capital, Washington, DC. Full name United States of America. (Oxford Dictionary)

Stay-At-Home Orders: We will be using this: https://www.in.gov/gov/files/Executive%20Order%2020-22%20Extension%20of%20Stay%20at%20Home.pdf as an official example of Stay-at-home orders.

Repealed: revoke or annul (a law or congressional act). (Oxford Dictionary)

Specifics:

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. 

Everything in this debate will be related to, even if not directly to the novel coronavirus or COVID-19. The use of “Pandemic” is referring to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and stay-at-home orders or social distancing will be referring to the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders or social distancing.

I would also like to specify that social distancing is not quarantine, they are two different things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contention I : The Stay-At-Home Orders are an Effective and Good Way of Combating the Coronavirus or COVID-19

The use of stay-at-home orders has effectively combated the coronavirus. The pandemic will end sooner if we continue to stay at home. This case was found in the 1918 flu pandemic in which we will compare two cities, Philadelphia and St. Louis. Philadelphia did not have social distancing measures in place, and when the pandemic came to the city, it was still having large parades. The quick spread of the flu (similar to the coronavirus) overwhelmed the medical system and that resulted in a very high mortality rate. On the other hand, in St. Louis quickly and aggressively canceled events with a large number of people and enforced social distancing. This delayed the peak mortality, and lowered it by eight times (compared to Philadelphia). This effective tactic was also applied during the Mexico 2009 Flu Breakout which similar results were found.[1]

Contention II: The Ending of the Pandemic, if Social Distancing is Applied Will Come Sooner

I have proven in my first contention that the social-distancing policies are an effective way to combat the coronavirus. It comes with logic that if it is effective, it must end the pandemic sooner. This is the case for many examples:
  1. If the enemy applies more effective tactics, then the war will end sooner
  2. If the dealer provides better and good deals, then the product will sell out sooner
  3. If the sports team applies more effective strategies then the game will end sooner
And if the pandemic ends sooner, it will provide a plethora of benefits. Economic problems will be fixed, the coronavirus will kill at a smaller proportion, people can protest without worrying about contracting a fatal disease and of course it’s the very fact that the stress caused by the coronavirus will be no more.


Conclusion

The world will benefit, not suffer from the social distancing measures put into place. It will end the pandemic sooner than it would be if there wasn’t any, and can help put people in their safe homes instead of in the hospital.


(this might be short, but I will be adding more contentions during the rebuttal, as these are only my key contentions)







Sources:


Published:
I'm very new to this website so I won't do the fancy formatting or whatever. Sorry.

Your definitions are accepted.

Rebuttal for Contention 1
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. 

Rebuttal for Contention 2
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.

Contention 1: We can put a value on a human life
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. 

Conclusion
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. 


Round 3
Published:
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.

My opponent has not provided sources for any one of his misinformed claims, nevertheless I will continue to refute his rebuttal to my contentions. First, there is a moral issue with my opponent's point. Will people allow other people to die and suffer just for money? If we continue to allow the coronavirus to take over the world, millions will die. I think it is safe to say that a human life is more valuable than a green piece of paper, or a economical place in the world. Second, if I may, the Great Depression lasted three years.[1] It yielded the same impact as my opponent described in his representation of post-coronavirus life. We have been in lockdown for less than a year. The vaccine will be in January 2021, as of the latest source.[2] The month is currently June. That means it will take seven months to produce a vaccine, this is hardly the amount of time my opponent has described. When you look at the numbers, my opponent's story just doesn't match up. Finally, as I proved before with my second contention, the world if applying social distancing will make the pandemic end sooner. This will give us more time to heal the economy safely, rather than be reckless and kill people while doing so. I have debunked my opponents rebuttal with morality, numbers, and logic. My opponent has not provide any sources, and with my sourced info, I have proven his story as false and exaggerated. The fictitious background of his argument is likely seen in a movie, it is simply not realistic. 

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. 
Again, my opponent has failed to provide any sources, and again I will continue to refute his misinformed claims. My opponent claims that at one point in the future, people will be going out and risking their lives to keep their businesses open. Though this might be true, the problem is not that the shop owners are risking their lives, but that they are risking others. This isn't like a hurricane or a tornado, it is a pandemic. It is possible to spread danger. Since my opponent has not provide any sources for the non-essential business owners opening up illegally, it is safe to dismiss this claim (though it will be brought back up if my opponent provides sources). I would also like to share that the government foresaw this and provide something called "small business loans" and a stimulus package.[3]

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. 
I understand about the formatting. but I disagree with your point. The economy should not be chosen over millions of human lives. Let me ask you: What is economy without humans? Economy is in the human's imagination. It would not exist, if we hadn't imagined it. It is only an idea. Human lives are more than that. Would you trade something for effectively nothing? No.


Contention One Continued:

Since my opponent effectively conceded to contention one: "Yes, I do not deny that the stay-at-home orders are extremely effective", I will not add any more to it. I have proved that economic stability is not an issue here.



Sources
Studies show it has the same credibility as a Britannica Article.

Published:
First off, I'm too lazy to cite sources so don't expect that out of me. 

My Contention 1
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. 

My Contention 2
Sorry, I am too lazy to provide sources. My opponent believes that shop owners opening up will endanger others. No. It is another's choice to walk into the open shop and accept the dangers of the virus. If you don't want to take the risk, don't go into the shop. Why should the fears of one drag another down? People should be able to open their businesses as they wish, and it is not their fault if a customer gets infected, it is the customer's, who should be informed of the pandemic and has the responsibility to determine whether or not they want to walk into the shop. Also, regarding the stimulus packages, they are not as effective as you believe. Many small businesses used their stimulus money in a few days, and they will need a lot more than a couple thousand dollars to support their businesses. They can hardly pay off a month's rent with the money the government provided, and have no way to support their employees and produce income. The government cannot be expected to prop up all the small businesses until a vaccine is available, and it is absurd to force the owners of these businesses to stand idly by while their life's work is destroyed by the stay-at-home orders.

Economy Argument
Yes, the economy is run by our imagination. However, we rely on it so much that we cannot just forget about it and wish it away. 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".

I would like to note once more that I do not want to provide sources. Vote against me for it, sure, I don't care. I hope my opponent will take my facts at my word as I have his and debate using logic and reasoning, not the claim that it is invalid due to no sources.
Round 4
Published:
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.
Ok, let's play through my opponents scenario. The government lifts the Stay-At-Home orders. Thousands, maybe millions flock out. It takes only one person to spread the virus. The thousands that go out get the coronavirus. This is by no means good. My opponent is suggesting lifting the Stay-At-Home orders is somehow good, yet he hasn't proved it once without being debunked.

My opponent also suggests that he is by no means forcing people outside their homes. Yet this is also detrimental to his point. Let's us say that 50% of all people go outside. The other 50% stay at home. This means the 50% that go outside get the coronavirus, and the 50% that don't go outside still make the economy worsen. This by no means is a good solution to the pandemic. This means we are paying in both money in lives, not just money.



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. 

My opponent states that the CDC is not trustworthy. My source provided does not even mention the CDC, but Director Anthony Fauci. It specifically states: "Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Dr. Anthony Fauci said he expects the US will have "hundreds of millions of doses" of vaccine ready to deploy by early 2021[it mentions January in the top of the article] in a June 2 interview with Journal of the American Medical Association Editor in Chief Dr. Howard Bauchner.". 

My opponent also mentions that the process of manufacturing the vaccines and spreading it around the United States could take several more months. This is not true. In fact my source even states that hundreds of millions of doses will be ready as of 2021, not vaccines will be created in 2021. 


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".

It is essential to keep it running, yes but it is more essential to keep our lives. It could take three years to get the economy back again.[1] But if we don't provide stay-at-home orders it could take longer.[2] I have proven that one, the stay-at-home orders help save lives, and two, the stay-at-home orders will help the economy repair from the coronavirus faster. 

[2] ibid 
Forfeited
Round 5
Published:
My opponent has been banned. Vote Pro.

Forfeited
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
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.
#41
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
**************************************************
>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.
**************************************************
#40
Added:
--> @BearMan
FYI, attempting to impose rules in R1 is not binding.
#39
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
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).
#38
Added:
--> @BearMan
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.
#37
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
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.
Instigator
#36
Added:
--> @Crocodile
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.
#35
Added:
--> @BearMan
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.
#34
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
" Forfeiting twice will merit a loss." It's from the rules of this debate. There's no way EricT would win.
#33
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I admit to reporting fauxlaw's vote. As EricT FF'd. There can be no way that he merits a win from this.
#32
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
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/
Instigator
#31
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
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!
Instigator
#30
Added:
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.
#29
Added:
--> @BearMan
I mean, I am Chinese but I actually agree with Crocodile. Constructed criticism is never bad.
#28
Added:
--> @User_2006
Nah. All croc talks about is China.
Instigator
#27
#8
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Enter the reason for your decision
#7
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
CON forfeits thus PRO wins
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Pro won because he didn't forfeit.
"Forfeiting twice will merit a loss"
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
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.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
""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.
#3
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture, with the pre-agreement that such would count as a concession.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
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.