Instigator / Pro
27
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Topic
#3338

[February Tournament 2022] The majority of the world is better thanks to Covid.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 4 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
10
1518
rating
15
debates
40.0%
won
Description

Rationalmadman vs Computernerd: [Round 2] [February Tournament 2022]

Definitions are as follows:

---------------

'thanks to' is a colloquial phrase that doesn't literally require people to thank nor does it imply we ought to feel genuinely grateful, it means that the benefits and/or drawbacks that Pro and Con will respectively present are due to Covid (overall).

~

'majority of the world' means that most of Earth (primarily its human population). It can include other aspects but ultimately this is about the world as a whole, which both sides agree includes humans and in this debate humanity is certainly included as a factor.

~

'better' means
'in a more suitable, pleasing, or satisfactory way, or to a greater degree'
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/better

'more attractive, favorable, or commendable
more advantageous or effective'
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/better

--

The debate structure is Round 1 is opening arguments and should not have many rebuttals from Con to Pro, if Con violates this then voters should consider to penalise for it.

Round 2 should be rebuttals, no new arguments are allowed but new evidence and rebuttal-supportive angles are permitted.

Round 3 is conclusions and defense against rebuttals as well as reinforcement of rebuttals.

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:

That ended anticlimactically. I spent a substantial period of time reading the debate, re-reading portions of the debate, evaluating sources, and contemplating which participant I would vote for and why, only to discover that Con conceded. Oh well.

Given my extensive prior knowledge of relevant topics, and my personal investment in policies pertaining to the Covid-19 pandemic due to how it has affected me, it would have been extremely difficult for me to maintain tabula rasa. However, I think I would have most probably voted for Pro anyway, despite agreeing with Con's resolution.

RationalMadman, I would like to debate this topic as Con against you.

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:

Concession. Solid debate though.

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:

Concession, but neat debate. Not positive if pro was playing devil's advokate or not, but he certainly put himself out on a limb with such an unpopular position; which con seemed to rely too heavily on it being unpopular and everyone hating Covid rather than properly supporting the clear larger harms.

A highlight from pro's case was that governments cannot lie anymore about not having enough money for social programs (which I find well reasoned but shaky on that conclusion), and likewise other politicians having something real to complain about. He managed to argue peace (ironic timing as he cited Russia not going to war with Ukraine, but not was not leveraged by con). The environment ('nuff said). And medical research for once being prioritized properly with less barriers.

Con of course argued students (a lot of young people here, so a good appeal to a likely voter pool), and the economy (pro does well by going after the framing of these as primarily psychological torment). One moment that stood out against con was:
"But did we need to suffer all of this, lose trillions of dollars, scar billions of people to reach the place we find ourselves at now? If Covid never happened, sure it would have taken a few more years, with not the same effect."
Which was nearly a concession in itself, as it's not actually disagreeing with pro, just saying it sucked that we had to go through all this (all this needed to be expanded to show proper impacts) for the benefits pro outlined.

Pro also came ahead on sources (conceded debate, so I am not going to take the time to drill down into them as would otherwise be required).

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:

Concession warrants a loss.