Instigator / Pro
0
1474
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2969

Lockdowns slow the spread of coronavirus

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Description

I am not necessarily arguing that lockdowns save lives, or that lockdowns were worthwhile, because whether people think something is worthwhile is subjective, according to their individual values and circumstances. I am arguing that lockdowns had an impact on the spread of covid. 3RU7AL said "There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control." coal said the same thing, and then blocked me when I said he was wrong. I aim to defend somewhat unpopular positions on this site, so I will debate this.

By spread I am referring to the transmission of covid from one person to another.

Con should be arguing there is no relationship between lockdowns and the spread of covid.

-->
@Intelligence_06

If you are genuinely con on this topic, feel free to challenge and see why I am pro despite offering 30 studies in refutation.

-->
@Barney

feel free to throw one before this debate disappears

-->
@Intelligence_06

that's not what Pro is trying to argue and you know it. If lockdowns work as proposed (my Pro mindset), the overall spread would slow because you limit to those people in home rather than those in public. It matters especially for people who live on their own. If individuals are isolated then obviously Pro's case works to a certain extent...

Obviously no. Lockdowns prevent a portion of spreading cases, but when one sneezes in the home or in the hospital, the transmission speed of Covid-19 is still the same. Sneezing in home isn't any slower than sneezing in public.

-->
@Unpopular

Alright, let's do this. I'm probably the most dangerous debater on this site who's willing to argue the Con side. Let me warn you though, in order to beat Con's arguments, you have to break the framework, which is not easy to do.

-->
@Undefeatable

Significantly and effectively can mean two different things. Effectively could just mean something was effective, as in it worked and was accomplished, so the word effectively is just confirming the Pro position. The word "significantly" would mean that I have to prove covid spread was cut down a lot thanks to lockdowns, and that is not what I argued. I said it reduced the spread, I never clarified by how much.

-->
@Unpopular

change it to "significantly" or "Effectively" and I will accept this debate. Though I'm Pro on this, the Pro side is actually incredibly difficult to argue once a certain threshold is introduced.

-->
@gugigor

coal blocked me for disagreeing with him on lockdown spread. This was after I disagreed with th3tt about it. 3RU7AL made a comment in the forums that lockdowns have no impact on covid transmission at all, and two anonymous people liked his post. Let's see if any of these 5 people will accept.

-->
@gugigor

You'd be surprised...

-->
@Unpopular

Unpopular?? This position is a truism.