Instigator / Pro
42
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#3170

THBT The Lab Leak Theory is Similarly Likely as the Spillover Hypothesis

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
0
Better sources
12
0
Better legibility
6
0
Better conduct
6
0

After 6 votes and with 42 points ahead, the winner is...

Nyxified
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1480
rating
6
debates
33.33%
won
Description

Lab Leak Theory (LLT): The hypothesis that COVID-19 was originally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Henceforth the WIoV) and, for whatever reason, COVID-19 came out of the lab and began to infect people.

Spillover Hypothesis (SoHt): The hypothesis that COVID-19 was originally in an animal and not dangerous to that animal that, for whatever reason, spread to humans (e.g. A mutation occurred in a Coronavirus in a bat that allowed it to become infectious to a Pangolin that then infected a human).

Similarly likely: In the context of the debate, this means that neither theory is considerably/significantly more plausibly the case than the contrary and both deserve to be considered as theories for the origin of COVID-19 that deserve investigation. This is to say that there is not considerably/significantly more evidence for the SoHt than the LLT.

Pro must prove that the LLT is similarly as likely OR MORE likely than the SoHt while con must prove that the LLT is sufficiently/considerably less likely than the SoHt.

I will make a considerable effort to ensure I don't hold any bias towards China, Chinese people, the WIoV or scientists at the WIoV, nor the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). I will also make considerable effort to ensure I am not biased by media reports of China, the LLT/WIoV, the CCP, political figure's opinions on the LLT or SoHt, nor the actions of the CCP unrelated to COVID-19 and I ask that con make those same efforts for the sake of a productive debate. All things mentioned can still be drawn upon, the point is to ensure I don't use, for example, the Uighur genocide to frame China as an evil nation in lieu of actual evidence or let my preconceived beliefs cloud my logic.

Please comment for questions or any requests for changes. Constructive feedback is always welcomed!

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:

Full forfeit by Con. Congratulations to Pro for well organized, sourced and justified arguments in round one; all that were needed. These arguments may have been overwhelming to try to rebut. Well done.

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:

Full forfeit

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:

Full forfeit

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:

Full forfeit by Con. Con had no arguments, sources and Con went missing during the entire debate. All of my points are awarded to Pro. I think this is my first vote on a debate. I'm proud to have it here; I think nyxified made a compelling, well-read case.

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:

Just as likely that a nation run by psychopaths that separate muslim children from their parents and brainwash them was making a biological weapon as it is that a zombie bat infected a man who became the original covid vampire of Wuhan province.

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:

Pro for all the points, due to opponent forfeit.

Pro's case 'does sound plausible to me, though I found it a bit hard to follow, that's more 'my issue than how or what Pro said.
Technical details and a lack of familiarity on my part.

Plausible though, isn't certain.

And who knows, maybe someone explored a bat cave while the bats were hibernating.
Suspicious, guarded, groups or individuals, not same as confession.
Still, I assume debate made for the purpose of arguing that there ought be or should have been further investigation.

Though, maybe it's better for diplomacy that it's not, different question.
Anyway, there's my vote.