The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Ebola is a rising crisis.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 66978
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Ebola is described as an 'often fatal illness' by WHO, or the 'World Health Organisation'. The case fatality rate of this particular outbreak is believed to be approximately 50%. Originally, Ebola struck as a outbreak in, or near remote villages located inside of Africa. However, during the past few months, the more recent outbreak has spread to more developed urban areas, including the United Stares Of America, as well as many rural areas.

Ebola is most definitely a rising crisis, and may even become as severe as 'The Black Death', which took the lives of an estimated 75 to 200 million people in the years 1346-1353, mainly in Europe, and which was also described by Wikipedia as " of the most devastating pandemics in human history".


Unlike the Black Death, Ebola can only spread through fluids. Even then, patients are not contagious until symptoms appear. This makes its spread incredibly slow when compared to other diseases, and is typically only spread when a doctor comes in direct contact with a patient. True, it poses more of a threat in the less developed West Africa. But still, Ebola's death rate in Africa is much less than other diseases- malaria has killed 70 times more in this year [1]. With enough external aid and education, it is even possible to destroy it- 3 nations globally have eradicated it, and only 3 nations currently have outbreaks. Thus, Ebola may be dangerous, but it is not infectious enough to be considered a rising crisis.
Debate Round No. 1
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DaSadKid 2 years ago
Thank you for you vote blade of truth. I'll try to do what you told me to do in the future.
Posted by DaSadKid 2 years ago
No, it's okay. He sent me a friend request after I nominated him as a judge. I chose top judges from the list.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Also, if you feel like his friend gives a biased reason for voting, you can always report the vote which is an option given in the top right corner of the screen when looking at the votes.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
I only typed in "test" because I wasn't 100% sure if I was a judge on this or not.

My full vote should be visible by now though :)

Also, those character limit restrictions can be a bitch!
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
Never mind, I guess it wasn't a test debate or something- the person who voted just redid his vote.
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
I would've posted more sources, but unfortunately the character limit was 750- I had to tinyurl it just to fit one source.

Also, I just noticed that one of the judges is the Instigator's friend... and the one who just voted just commented "test"... hope I didn't run into some weirdo rigged debate.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
who are the judges?
Posted by Benjamin_Manus 2 years ago
Good job, the both of you. Negative/opposition should try to use more statistics and sources
Posted by DaSadKid 2 years ago
Good luck whoever decides to become the contender.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. While Pro presented a compelling case, Con was able to overcome it with ease after showing that it's only transferable via liquids - thus showing that it's not as dangerous as 'The Black Death'. Con also showed how some countries have completely eradicated it while also showing that the death rate has been declining when compared to other more pressing diseases currently in Africa. Due to Con showing that it isn't as infectious as Pro would have us believe, he wins arguments. Sources - Con. While pro did quote wikipedia, it was con who actually cited a source. Due to his citing a source rather than just quoting one, these points go to Con. This is a clear win for Con. I would also recommend that Pro stay away from 1 round debates, they don't let you provide rebuttals to whatever your opponent presents which ultimately hurts your chances of winning.