The Coronavirus Spread is the Most Influential Event in the Last Decade
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Decade: 10 years, starting from 2010 to 2020
Coronavirus: a large family of viruses that cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV).
Event: a thing that happens, especially one of importance.
Influential: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others
Burden of Proof is shared
I.a Considering Pro’s flawed definition of an eleven-year decade, which, as demonstrated in my r1, invalidates the entire debate, and in light of my hope that Pro will, regardless, carry on the debate, as evidenced by the effort of an r2 argument, and, based on his r1 conclusion that I have not offered a more influential event for my corrected decade [2010 to 2019], ignoring that I do not fire all my guns at once [not all arguments in one round, I will humor my hope, and my opponent, with additional argument.
I.b First, however, I will rebut Pro’s r2:
I.b.1 Pro indicated that a decade “…does not necessarily mean 2010 – 2019.” Correct; it is any period of ten years, per the definition of “decade.” However, Pro did designate 2010 as the beginning of his decade of argument within which the Coronavirus must allegedly be the most influential of the decade, which, by my r1 argument, must conclude in 2019. Therefore, I repeat the conclusion of my r1 argument: as of the close of 2019, the Coronavirus was not yet “the most influential event”of even that decade, but only was under the condition that Pro’s decade extended to the eleventh year: 2020. As that does not meet the definition of a decade, and since I charge that even though Pro admits the mistake, it renders his argument null and void. I see no other course of a decision.
I.b.2 Pro offered a source in his brief r2 argument, https://itstillworks.com/out-cell-phone-carrier-information-6184932.html
- which, though interesting information relative to the coincidental ten-digit telephone number, including U.S. area code, [like a ten-year decade?], and the search for cell phone carrier information – this information does not appear relevant to the debate subject. Perhaps Pro can explain.
I.b.3 Pro followed this referenced source with another to indicate people’s difficulty to “agree on when the decade ends.” The article, again, is an interesting bit of information, but I question the relevance of this reference, as well. We do have designated centuries, periods of 100 years, such as our current 21st century. However, decades do not have socially significant designations that will always begin and end on particular years, so the reference, again, has naught to do with this debate. This debate was defined, erroneously, on a period designated by Pro as beginning 2010, and ending 2020. Refer to my complete r1 argument, and above, I.b.1.
II Argument: Significant event of the decade 2010 to 2019
II.a For the sake of argument, let’s discuss an event that might compete for the top influencer of the proper decade ending 2020; 2011 to 2020. At the close of our proper decade, in 2019, literally 13 days prior to its close, the President of the United States, for only the third time in this country’s history, suffered impeachment at the hands of the United States House of Representatives, affecting the lives of every voting adult in the U.S., at least; some 138M people.[1]
II.a.1 138M people affected by impeachment of the President, against, to date, not yet August 2020, 130,250 dead by Coronavirus in the U.S, is 0.9% affect by the virus. Considered against the worldwide Coronavirus-caused infected as of now, using Pro’s figure of 15M, 10.8% issue of influence against the impeachment. There was a risk within the period of time between the impeachment and the resulting Senate trial to convict the President [remove him from office] that may have had worldwide effect, however, two points negate the effect.
II.a.1.A First, the risk of removal of the President was low considering a majority of the Senate consisted of members of the President’s party.
II.a.2 Second, and more to the point, the decision of the Senate fell outside the far limirt5 of the close of the decade, 2010 through 2019, rendering the risk of change in the U.S. Presidency after the close of the decade, rendering it the same non-effect as that of the Coronavirus in 2020. Therefore, by the numbers of this argument, the Coronavirus is not the most influential event, even limited to a political event, in a corrected 2010 to 2019 decade, let alone a decade as defined by Pro.
I conclude this round of rebuttal/argument, certain of my meeting my Burden of Proof that, contrary to the debate proposal, the Coronavirus is not the most influential event of the proper last decade, 2010 to 2019. I await Pro’s round 3.
Got to say, it's nice to see pro's skill develop.
Ok obviously pro gets sources. .edu and .gov get extra credit from me, but in general he did a great job highlighting the long term damages from this pandemic to which we can only guesstimate.
Arguments must go to con. He mitigated the effectiveness of everything pro had, by pointing out when the decade ended.
I also give credit to con for bringing up a counter example of something influential. While Trump getting impeached was clearly not as influential, it played out within the time period of the decade in question. Compared to the virus starting to be reported on NYE... Pro might have been able to take the debate, by focusing on the start date and how far it had already spread undetected; but it wasn't done adequately to overtake both the blunder and the counter example of an influential event.
Had the debate been on 2011-2020 the virus would win. There was not enough from pro to push for this, especially when the mistake was his (I personally suggest pointing out such blunders before accepting, but it's not a conduct hit that sportsmanship could be exceptional, the point is only as a penalty for enough badness)
Had the debate been on 2020-2029, based on what I've seen, the virus would most likely win as there is a low probability of any event being more influential (could happen... just unlikely).
Con countered Pro's points successfully.
1p: Pro demonstrated how influential Covid-19 is using sources. That argument was OK as it demonstrated how influential it is, but it could be better as it did not demonstrate how it is the most influential.
1c: Con pointed out that officially the last decade is 2001-2010 instead of 2010-2020, so Covid-19 did not even start before 2011 and thus should not be classified as the most influential event in the last decade.
2p: Pro then appeared to move the goalpost saying that any group of 10 consecutive years is a decade, such as 2015-2024, 1911-1920, etc. However, even if the decade's bounds are 2011-2020 or 2010-2019, he did not prove that it was the MOST influential.
2c: Con then brought a more influential event within the last decade.
3p: Pro then attempted to move the goalpost one more time by stating the ORIGIN of the virus which happened in Dec.2019. However, according to my research and theirs, Covid-19 did not spread in such times. The major part is not in 2019 and Pro has stated "spread" in the title, which negates his r3 argument from being true.
3c: Con then pointed the mistake out and concluded.
Argument points: Con. Pro did not do his job as he failed to prove his BoP. He did not sufficiently prove that Covid-19 is the most influential event in 2010-2019. Con did what he is meant to do here as he pointed out the inaccuracies of Pro and disproved Pro. Look above.
Sources: I am giving it to Pro. He did much more research within his side. Con just provided single sources that are sufficient, even though they are not as sufficient as Pro's thorough research regarding the topic.
S&G: Good job guys.
Conduct: Lean-con, because Pro commited a fallacy pointed out by Con, though the use of a single fallacy wouldn't really affect the total conduct.
Overall I think Con takes the W. People can respectfully disagree if they really do.
Thanks for voting
Who says I'm the one who is confused? You're the one who confused your own calendar. And I have no confusion about "influential." You defined it, and I have no objection to your definition. So, we carry on...
I can understand your confusion about "influential", and I apologize if you didn't know what exactly to argue.
This debate could have been worded "the effects caused by X were the greatest, in the time span of ...[whatever]"
But I'm arguing that "X, which occurred in time span of ...[whatever] would go on to cause the greatest effect".
The first debate, I don't think makes sense in the context of 2010~2019
Fascinating. So, we may as well do away with all judges, journalists and progress trackers of any kind.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” -TR
Do you never view sports as a spectator? Lol.
Teddy Roosevelt had a comment of critics [spectators] and the field of play. But, if bleachers are where RM would like to sit...
We are not here to say we can defeat Pro or that Pro is wrong. We are here as spectators discussing the debate. Not every fan in a stadium claims they could beat the player on/in the field/pitch/arena that they analyse in their comments.
Now that I have accepted the debate, while the rest of you [except oromagi] strain at gnats...
It is, gentlemen, like this: If you're going to take out your gun, shoot the damn thing and stop talking about it.
Which coronavirus outbreak? If you are not specifying then it or unfair.
in the 2010's?? god no
https://media0.giphy.com/media/xT0xeI4yXZHyNSkKru/giphy.gif
https://media3.giphy.com/media/yow6i0Zmp7G24/200.webp
PRO's definition includes mers and sars.
Fun Fact: The word flu is an abbreviation of influenza which is the Italian word meaning "influence" as in, under the influence of the stars, evil spirits, etc. If we define influential as flu-like then I think its fair to say that coronavirus is the most flu-like event in recent memory.
I think PRO wants to mean the coronavirus will likely have more influence over the next decade than any other event in the present decade. An easy K would be to say that coronavirus came in the final year of this decade and so had relatively little influence over the decade as a whole. I'd argue that Vladimir Putin had far more influence over the 2010's than coronavirus.
I don't plan on accepting this one, but what I know is that "Coronavirus spread" is not a single event. You should say "events" instead of event because I could say that driving, traveling, sleeping, and eating, each one is more influential than "the" coronavirus spread.
I don't have a counterexample that shows a single event simply more influential than at least 3 rounds of a virus, but I know a good critique.