Instigator / Pro
2
1449
rating
14
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#3217

THE CORONAVIRUS IS A FRAUD

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
0
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1763
rating
29
debates
98.28%
won
Description

CORONAVIRUS: an infectious disease

fraud: not real, staged.

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:

Conduct: Plagiarism by Pro, Round 3 calling Con several curse words as well as accusing Con of being morally corrupt and a member of a real world conspiracy. Con didn't really violated Conduct other than having an arrogance throughout.

S&G: Pro had worse S&G and both debaters used a terrible amount of quote stacking that made it extremley difficult to read their Rounds so I leave tied as Pro's S&G errors didn't reduce legibility that much and Con was just as bad with that quote-stack nonsense.

Sources: Pro fails to use sources throughout the debate, not just with the plagiarism but even to back the claims of conspiracy and that bacteria and viruses are a hoax whereas vitamins cause diseases... None of this is sourced at all throughout the debate. Con uses New York Times and World Health Organization in Round 1, amongst other sources, to back his claims. Therefore, Con automatically win the Sources point.

Arguments: Pro's entire Round 1 is disqualified as it's plagiarised. Therefore, Pro actually made nearly 0 constructive arguments of his own. Even if we consider the Round 1, Pro's case is a series of claims, with zero expansion or proof, accusing Con and the CDC of being in on a conspiracy together while backing absolutely nothing up. Con's case is that both eyewitnesses and the deaths attributed to Covid are genuinely so. Con's case also suffers from assertion-without-proof syndrome but less so than Pro's. For instance, Con baselessly says that Pro is wrong about denying germ theory, while providing literally 0 URL or books to back his own claim up that diseases are indeed caused by said microbes. He also strangely relies on two anecdotal quotes that suffer from 'appeal to authority' simply because one is a doctor etc but Pro never counters Con's appeal to authority without himself failing to provide any source with authority or even without (Pro's only source is himself as the asserter).

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:

If this was meant to be a joke debate, it wasn't clear, neither side treated it like one, and it wasn't funny. While it's clear that drlebronski was being ironic in this instance, if he wanted a joke debate to mock conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience, he should've stated that's what he wanted from the outset.

All of the claims made by pro in r1 are unsourced, many of which con refutes or points out have no source and gives a source proving the contrary. Pro's entire argument never attempts to poke a logical hole in con's constructive arguments or rebuttals, instead just disputing the validity of his sources. If he could prove to me that every source that pro gave was either a) Unhelpably biased, b) Irrelevant to the claim being made or invalid for any reason, or c) Pseudo-scientific evidence designed to deceive, then I would believe him, but he doesn't. He simply claims that they are invalid despite the fact they're obviously, at least for the most part, logical. He cannot simply make a claim and then not explain it or source it.

Pro doesn't give a single source except for one from the CDC which he claimed was untrustworthy one paragraph prior. Con gives many sources.

Pro's first speech is literally a single block of text. I honestly want to give S&G a tie vote because of the quote indentation that gets worse the longer the debate goes, but it's still legible, whereas the block of text genuinely hurts to read.