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
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.