Instigator / Pro
8
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2185

The Coronavirus Spread is the Most Influential Event in the Last Decade

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
10
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.