Instigator / Pro
14
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#3411

THBT Mask Mandates Should Remain Indefinitely

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 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
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

This house (pro) believes that mask mandates should remain indefinitely. Masks are not only a tool to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but also a tool to prevent the spread of the common cold, the flu, and many more.

Mask mandates: The requirement to wear a cloth/disposable mask in public spaces when there is no good reason not to (i.e. you can take your mask off while eating, drinking, if you have certain medical conditions, etc...). Does not necessarily mean mask mandates exactly in the way that have been implemented throughout the COVID-19 pandemic (For example, Kindergarten to grade 4 students and teachers could potentially be exempted to help children learn facial cues).
Indefinitely: Without a definite ending; remaining in place until there is no longer a need, there is a more effective method, and/or previously unknown a reason to stop due to any sufficient negative comes to light.

This debate will assume that disposable masks are provided to public spaces by the government either for free or are covered by a relevant tax credit and are freely available to anyone at those public spaces who does not already have a mask on their person at that time.

Burden of proof: Pro must prove that there are good reasons for mask mandates to remain in place that outweighs the reasons not to. If pro cannot provide any reasonable affirmation of the resolution, the resolution falls and pro has not met their BoP. However, in light of any reasonable affirmation of the resolution that is even mildly convincing, con must present reasons the resolution should fall that, on balance, the combined reasons the resolution should fall are more convincing than/outweigh the reasons the resolution should stand in order for con to meet their BoP. If the combined reasons the resolution should stand as presented by pro are more convincing/outweigh the reasons the resolution shouldn't stand, pro has met their BoP.

Criticism, suggestion, and clarification in the comments are welcomed and appreciated!

-->
@Intelligence_06

I understand your thought process, but I figured that my definitions were sufficient because of the implication that there currently and into the foreseeable future is a need ("if there is NO LONGER a need"). If there is not a need presently and into the foreseeable future (excluding COVID-19, which is the obvious reason), I believed the resolution would fail because it doesn't meet the definition of indefinitely. I thought the resolution would then just be "is there a need for mask mandates currently and as far as we can reasonably see into the future (even if COVID-19 dies out)," but I can see how the definition could be abused.

That's my mistake and I thank you for pointing that out to me.

From my point of view this topic is a tautology for Pro. If it is needed, it exists. If it is no longer needed, it is gone. Mask mandates of course should continue until they are no longer needed. If most people hate it, that is another form of "it is no longer needed".

-->
@RationalMadman

Look, I am a really humble person and I don't have much of an ego.
I honestly think you had a lot on your plate, and you didn't have time for this debate. That's 100% fine because we all have lives.
This is quite literally an extension of respect to your name because I know (and hopefully we can agree) that you should have won this debate.

-->
@Novice_II

Whatever your ego tells you.

-->
@RationalMadman

Well we have to consider:
1. I have retired from debating
2. I am focusing on more challenging debates if i do decide to re-engage

-->
@Novice_II

Then try it

Yeah, this debate just seems like a really easy win from my perspective.
I think Rational Madman was just busy.

-->
@Mharman

It was effectively a concession, I believe.

I assume this was a concession and I voted with that in mind. If this was not a concession, let me know and I will delete my vote or ask a mod to do so.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

I'll compromise at 15k and 2 weeks.

-->
@Nyxified

At 10k characters and 2-week debate time, I'd take this as Con.

-->
@Novice

Challenge sent.

If this is unvoted in a couple weeks, someone remind me and I'll cast one.

-->
@Novice

good luck

-->
@Nyxified

I will debate you on the exact same topic

Especially with one week for arguments

-->
@RationalMadman

Because of the resolution I feel that you should have won this debate.

-->
@Nyxified

It is weird btw, other than a vaccine mandate kritik, I couldn't come up with solid reasons to oppose the mandate that did not appeal to emotion

-->
@Nyxified

Ah shit gg

"indefinitely"

Even after humanity disappeared? LOL

-->
@TheUnderdog

You really are comical.

-->
@Nyxified

You've done plenty of Twitch streams without a mask, you hypocrite.

-->
@Nyxified

https://youtu.be/sBpkQfuQp9g

Holy shit, RMM! You sniped this literally the minute I posted it lmao