The Instigator
Staerkel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

It is morally justified to purge, (annihilate) a city with a level 4 infection outbreak.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,126 times Debate No: 16097
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Staerkel

Pro

1st round is acceptance.
2nd round is the main arguments
3rd round is refutation of opponents arguments rebuilding your case.
4th round is Voting issues.

Dropped arguments are conceded
Grape

Con

Sorry for the delay, I have been busy and I am trying not to spread myself too thin. I accept the debate challenge and give the floor to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Staerkel

Pro

I thank Grape for accepting this debate.

For some clarification i will define the following terms.

Moral- Founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

Justified- Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason

Annihilate- "total destruction" or "complete obliteration" of an object or place.

Level 4 outbreak- This level is required for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of aerosol-transmitted laboratory infections, agents which cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which vaccines or other treatments are not available, such as Bolivian and Argentine hemorrhagic fevers, Marburg virus, Ebola virus, Lassa fever, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Smallpox, and other various hemorrhagic diseases.

My method of purging an infected city a presented by my case will be the use of a thermobaric weapon, which includes the type known as a "fuel-air bomb", is an explosive weapon that produces a blast wave of a significantly longer duration than those produced by condensed explosives. Thermobaric explosives rely on oxygen from the surrounding air, whereas most conventional explosives consist of a fuel-oxygen premix (for instance, gunpowder contains 15% fuel and 75% oxidizer). Thus, on a weight-for-weight basis they are significantly more energetic than normal condensed explosives.

This is extremely effective when dealing with a airborne virus because, the said oxygen bombs suck in all oxygen within a 50 to 100 mile radius (depending on the strength of the bomb) and incinerates said oxygen, including the pathogens that preside in the air such as the Ebola, Lassa, and other viruses mentioned.

I will base my case on a Teleological standpoint whereas "The ends justify the means". This is an important aspect of the round because through out my case i will prove that in the end we are saving more lives then we are ending.

C1: The multiplication complex.
Person A contracts the Ebola strain.
Person A infects Person B
Person A and B infects Person C and Person D
Person A, B, C, and D, infects Person E, F, G, and H

I will stop there, but as you can see the rather "slippery slope" infection can take. A city can be overrun with a life threatening virus within a week, and there is no cure. Not only is it moral to spare innocent people painful bloody death brought on by these viruses, a state is justified in doing so, because in the end, it could mean the difference between an outbreak, to a nationwide epidemic.

C2: The Black Death
The Black Death was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, peaking in Europe between 1348 and 1350. It is widely thought to have been an outbreak of bubonic plague caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, an argument supported by recent forensic research, although this view has been challenged by a number of scholars. Thought to have started in China, it traveled along the Silk Road and had reached the Crimea by 1346. From there, probably carried by Oriental rat fleas residing on the black rats that were regular passengers on merchant ships, it spread throughout the Mediterranean and Europe.

The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population,[1] reducing the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400. This has been seen as having created a series of religious, social and economic upheavals, which had profound effects on the course of European history. It took 150 years for Europe's population to recover. The plague returned at various times, killing more people, until it left Europe in the 19th century.

Saying we didn't purge an infected city, what then? I'm not going out on a limb and saying that the exact same thing will happen, but is entirely possible. And since there is no given cure at this point in time. It makes these viruses that much more of a threat.

http://www.militaryfactory.com...
http://www.who.int...
Grape

Con


Introduction:


This is a debate that pertains to moral principles. Moral principles dictate how we ought to act in situations regarding the rights and wellbeing of our fellow humans. Practicality may be a consideration in morality, but the task of ethics is not to tell us the most efficient way of doing things. It would be a strange moral position indeed to suggest that it is more moral to dig with a shovel than one’s hands because it is more practical. Thus, for this debate we should favor the course of action that achieves a satisfactory result with the fewest moral problems even it is somewhat more costly or difficult. I believe that my solution will be both more morally acceptable and more practical.


I will make a few points about my opponent’s exposition prior to his arguments:


O1: The disease Pro references are not as dangerous and incurable as presented. Smallpox, one example, has been almost eradicated by vaccination [1] Researchers at Boston University have developed a drug that completely protects monkeys from Ebola [2]. While these diseases are dangerous, modern medicine allows us to effectively deal with them. Biosafety levels refer to how much caution must be exercised in using something in a laboratory, not to its dangerousness to populations. Pro’s case is also plagiarized in part from Wikipedia [3].


O2: Thermobaric weapons will not work as effectively has he believes. The damage radius of such weapons is about 500 square meters [4]. To purge a 200 km by 200 km area would require around 80,000 of these devices. The cost of these weapons is around $10,000 to $15,000 per unit [5], putting the cost of such an operation at around 800 million dollars (conservatively) plus the cost of operating aircraft. Due to blast overlap and imperfect targeting, it would probably require more bombs than the bare minimum. The total cost of the operation would run into the billions of dollars. The economic value of the people and property destroyed would also be lost. I can propose a much cheaper and more humane solution.


O3: Mass slaughter of people would have massive international repercussions. Eradicating an area of this size would kill millions of people. No nation could undertake such an action without massive international repercussions. It is questionable whether the military would even comply with an order to annihilate so many innocent people who are not even wartime enemies. Possible responses to this could include tax boycotts, embargos, cessation of alliances, or even rebellion or foreign invasion.


Proposal:


The alternative to this option that I propose is quarantine. It is much cheaper to set up a barrier around the area and prevent people from leaving than it is to destroy the entire area. The quarantine barriers would primarily focus on cutting off major areas of transportation, and a no-fly zone could be imposed over the area. The cost of this project cannot conceivably be anywhere near that of the prolonged bombing of a large area. People who wished to leave and passed medical examination would be permitted to leave, so no one needs to unnecessarily die. This method is somewhat fallible, but in cases when people escape there will be only minor outbreaks elsewhere and they can be contained quickly because of the high alert brought on by the quarantine. This method also allows for attempts to treat the disease by physicians and scientists venturing into the area with hazmat suits and other equipment, potentially saving thousands or millions of lives.


In the quarantined area, several public health measures would be implemented. These would include administering vaccines and other treatments to people (both infected and uninfected), distributing breathing filters if the disease is transmitted by aerosol, distributing bottled water if the water supply is contaminated, wiping out populations of animals that transmit the disease, keeping people at home through curfews, and educating people about methods of disease prevention. These measures would greatly reduce and potentially stop the spread of the disease even within the infected area.


CA1: Multiplication Complex


It is well understood how diseases can spread. Quarantine prevents a disease from spreading outside a given area. Thus, only the people in the area could be infected. It is not given that 100% of them will be infected or that 100% of the infected will die. Pro’s method assures that everyone will be killed (if it doesn’t kill everyone, it will not have worked). None of the diseases cited by Pro have the potential to cause a national outbreak in a developed country due to advanced and organized methods of disease control and modern public health measures. All the areas around the quarantine zone would be on high alter and probably would prevent people from entering. Most of the diseases cited by Pro have limited infectiousness because they have short latency periods and kill their hosts very quickly, Ebola being a noted example of this [6].


CA2: The Black Death


It is very unlikely that another outbreak like the Black Death could occur. No attempt whatsoever was made at stopping the disease and people in the Middle Ages lived in squalor. Many attempts to combat the disease actually increased its spread [7]. These people did not even understand the germ theory of disease. Modern medicine makes combating these outbreaks much more feasible through methods such as the quarantine I proposed. It is not necessary to kill everyone who may possibly be infected and destroy all property to stop such a disease. Note that since the revolutions in medicine in the beginning of the 20th Century, there have been no such major outbreaks in developed countries. This point was also plagiarized from Wikipedia [8].


C1: Utilitarianism of Lives


The method proposed by Pro assures that everyone in the area designated to be purged will be killed. Using the quarantine method, the number of people killed is equal to the population times the infection rate of the disease times the lethality of the disease. If we assume a very dangerous disease like Ebola [9] with both figures at around 50%, Pro’s method will result in four times as many deaths as mine. It is unlikely that people will escape from a quarantined area and outbreaks resulted from escaped people could be contained quickly. My method also allows scientists to attempt to treat the disease, potentially saving even more lives.


C2: Natural Rights


My position is superior to Pro’s on utilitarian grounds, but if we consider any form of natural rights my solution becomes even stronger. If we believe that people have a right to life, we should not kill them just because they have a dangerous disease. We certainly must not kill people who we only suspect are infected! Pro’s position is totally incompatible with any respect for human rights. He could argue that the situation is too desperate to consider individual rights, but that is clearly not the case when solutions that do not require rights violations are available. I will not detail an extensive natural rights position because as long as we consider not killing people superior to killing them when all else is equal, this point stands. This assumption is difficult to contest when debating morality.


Conclusion:


Pro suggests an expensive and inefficient plan that requires us to slaughter millions of innocent people and is based on the assumption that our ability to combat disease has not advanced since the Middle Ages. Modern technology allows us to contain disease and fight it using the many advances in public health that have emerged over the last century. We do not need to resort to such a barbaric method of solving public health problems when more advanced and humane methods are available. My method of fighting dangerous outbreaks employs all the knowledge of modern science in a way that is effective and human.


Sources:


http://tinyurl.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Staerkel

Pro

I thank the con for his well thought out case.

I agree with my opponents pre-case observation. However i would like to analyze individual parts of the statement.

"Moral principles dictate how we ought to act in situations regarding the rights and well being of our fellow humans."

Of course i agree, but when we are talking about our "fellow humans" we are not only talking about infected persons within ground zero of said "Outbreak", We are also pertaining to humans outside of the infection zone. So in this case what is the most the viable option? By bombing the city right away we dissolve the chance of the virus ever slipping out, and in the end save millions upon millions of lives. It is justified to purge the city because it is much safer than an attempted quarantine. Therefore meeting my teleological standpoint of the ends justifying the means.

"Practicality may be a consideration in morality, but the task of ethics is not to tell us the most efficient way of doing things."

Again i agree with the statement.

However my case never stated that ethics would tell us the efficient way of doing things. My case is primarily states that if a city is infected with a level 4 outbreak, purging it would be a much safer option. I don't argue efficiency, I'm simply arguing that in the end i will preserve the most life. Now is that efficient in a way? Yes of course. But it isn't exactly the same scenario as digging with your hands vs. digging with a shovel. We are talking about human life and how it will be impacted through out both of our cases.

"We should favor the course of action that achieves a satisfactory result with the fewest moral problems even it is somewhat more costly or difficult."

I actually have to disagree with this statement.

Shouldn't our actions be weighed on which decision is more costly? Basically what my opponent is stating is that even if 4 other cities succumb this to infection it is a more "Acceptable" solution.

Now my question for my opponents case, what does satisfactory of others have to do with the issue of morality? Bombing an infected zone would of course enact some question from a large majority. However does that alone tell you it it now immoral? Of course not, in my case i am stating that it is justifiable and moral to purge the city, because we are saving more lives than we are ending.

My opponent goes further to state that disease are not as dangerous as i presented by bringing in an example of smallpox, and it being close to eradicated. However this is not the same with the other viruses mentioned. He also states that since we have a drug that protects monkeys from Ebola, it is not much of a threat. However, we are not monkeys, and we still have not found a cure that will work on humans. So this piece of information is mostly irrelevant.

Next my opponent argues that thermobaric weapons are too expensive, and not that effective. However the alternative is not as cost effective. Quarantining, and treating infected citizens is only delaying the inevitable. The disease is incurable at this point in our medical knowledge, and in the end quarantining and an attempted treatment is literally just throwing money away. Also the longer we try to quarantine the much larger risk of the disease escaping the city will be. As it is not limited in it's ways of traveling.

His 3rd observation is based on the premise that the action would have international repercussions. I will not deny this. However it will have even larger repercussions if we allow said disease to spread. Losing one city is not as bad as losing half or even an entire country. He also states that it is questionable that the military would perform such an action. However lets take a look at two events that could be view as inhumane, that have been carried out by the military.

Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, killing roughly 300,000 civilians.

During the Vietnam War, between 1962 and 1971, the United States military sprayed 20,000,000 US gallons (80,000,000 L) of chemical herbicides and defoliants in Vietnam, eastern Laos and parts of Cambodia, as part of Operation Ranch Hand.[2] The program's goal was to defoliate forested and rural land, depriving guerrillas of cover; another goal was to induce forced draft urbanization, destroying the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, and forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, thus depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base and food supply.[3][4]

There is absolutely no question that the military would be able to do this task without question as mass slaughter and herbicide are two of the many cruelties that the U.S military has enacted.

My opponents proposal is to quarantine the infected zone. However i will cross-apply my arguments made previously and say that Quarantine only delays the inevitable. The people will die regardless and if we keep a pro-longed quarantine, there is a much higher chance that the disease will get out and rapidly spread upon more cities.

Also my opponent states that we can thwart the spread of disease with the processes we use now, in the resolution, a massive outbreak has already occurred. This debate is over how we should control it. My opponents way of controlling the outbreak only delays the inevitable and brings even more pain among the infected who have to go through the horrific stages of the disease. It is morally justified to put these innocent people out of there misery, then make them suffer for nothing, which is what will happen by trying to quarantine the city.

He argues that the black death happened a long time ago, and we have advanced far in the medical field. So what about the influenza outbreak? This is a much more recent outbreak and it killed nearly 40 million people.

My opponent next states that by purging the city I kill four times the amount of people then if we just quarantined. However i would like to stress that if one tiny mistake is made, the small outbreak could turn into a nationwide epidemic. By siding with the con solution, you are willing to risk the security of an entire country rather one city. Next my opponent states that we should not kill someone just because they have a dangerous disease. However i will further stress that once you contract Ebola, or any of the other level 4 disease, there is no cure. People with the strains will die regardless. The difference is whether they suffer or not, and by siding with the con you only pro-long their suffering.

I give it to the con.

SOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Grape

Con

Introduction:



I’m slightly peeved that my opponent has completely dropped the format of the debate because it makes it difficult to comprehend and respond to in an organized way. Technically he has forfeited the entire debate according to his own rule, which is that dropped arguments are conceded. I’ll just try to go through his mess of a case and find a rebuttal to ever specific argument.



O1: Pro barely responds to this point. He concedes that some of the diseases he mentioned have been eradicated and his only objection is that the Ebola drug has only been tested on monkeys, but it was used on a human [1] successfully as a last result. He continues to pretend that these diseases are magical blights that annihilate all life, but we are talking about real diseases. Throughout the debate he continues to assume that these diseases are unstoppable because of a laboratory safety classification. Real pathogens, even the most dangerous, aren’t transmitted so easily and don’t kill all their victims. Even the most dangerous strike so quickly that their host is stricken before it has the opportunity to spread the disease much. All of this was argued and cited in Round Two and disregarded by Pro [2][3][4].



O2: The only rebuttal Pro has is that his method must be more cost effective because mine will fail. This is based on his false assumption that Level Four Biohazards are unstoppable and incurable diseases. He’s just making bare assertions here and has no response to that fact that I argued it was enormously expensive. There is no effective way to burn an area larger than the state of Rhode Island (this is the burn radius Pro recommends in Round Two).



O3: Pro cites other US atrocities and notes that such things have been done before. However, eradicating a domestic city would elicit a much stronger response than dropping herbicide on a foreign country. This attack would kill US citizens in numbers orders of magnitude above the death toll of Hiroshima (which was carried out before the implications of WMDs were fully understood). Even if this were somehow carried out, it would be regarded as the greatest crime in the history of humanity.



Defense of Proposal:



Con has very little to say to my proposal beyond the fact that it arbitrarily wouldn’t work because the diseases are magic and cannot be stopped. Modern methods of disease control do in fact work. He doesn’t actually challenge any of these methods; he just says the disease would escape because it would. Well, if the quarantine were carried out properly it wouldn’t and even if it did efforts to contain it would be made immediately. All of the public health measures I suggested were not responded to.



CA1: Multiplication Complex



Con just asserts that quarantine doesn’t work. If you surround an area and stop people from leaving by force of arms with a modern mechanized army, that is an effective way to contain them. Physical barriers, helicopter patrols, and heightened security in other area would all help. It is implausible to assume that if a city were quarantined in this manner, people would escape and infect others. Consider also that the diseases are extremely debilitating to their hosts and kill them quickly [5]. Escaping under these conditions would be neigh impossible.



CA2: The Black Death



Dropped. Because of advances in technology, it is virtually impossible for another outbreak like this. Pro cities the Spanish Flu, but this outbreak occurred in 1918, before the methods I suggested were discovered [6]. Influenza is not even a Level 4 Biohazard, the problem was poor public health measures and not infectiousness [7].



C1: Utilitarianism of Lives



Pro can’t really respond to this point because he simply does not grasp the point that if Ebola reaches a city of 100,000 people, not all 100,000 die. The worst case scenario would be about 25,000 deaths, assuming the disease is permitted to spread uninhibitedly. Pro again assumes we’re debating magicitis, which kills everyone who thinks about it, when we are talking about real diseases. Anyway, if even one person survives the disease my method has saved more lives because Pro will kill everyone. He assumes the disease will spread and infect the entire nation, but I’ll extend my arguments from above that when real diseases are countered by real techniques this simply doesn’t happen.



C2: Natural Rights



Dropped. If we think people have a right to life my position is automatically more moral than Pro’s. It is more utilitarian anyway.



C3: Discourse Ethics



Pro will have a chance to respond to this argument, so I don’t feel it is unfair to bring in another point, especially because he has dropped many of my others. Since Pro doesn’t want to talk to me about epidemiology at all, arguing based on utilitarianism is no fun anymore. Instead, I’ll point out that his resolution asks us what is morally justified. I will present an argument for a discourse ethic that renders it immoral to take the life of one person.



When we debate with someone, we make certain assumptions through the act of argument. One such assumption is that our opponent’s consent in the matter is relevant. Thus, we cannot argue for the use of coercive force without self-contraction, at most we can ask that people do the things we ask for voluntarily. Pro cannot argue that people should be killed without contradicting his implicit assumption that consent is relevant. His entire case is self-contradictory and logically incoherent, so it totally fails as a moral statement. The sentence “A person should be murdered” is incapable of being true by tautology, and Pro calls for the murder of millions.



If this argument stands, I have won the debate automatically. I didn’t want to take this approach because I wanted to talk about disease rather than challenge Pro’s teleological approach. However, he hasn’t discussed disease in any relevant way and still doesn’t even understand what biohazard levels mean.



Conclusion:



Pro’s response was totally vacuous. He simply does not get epidemiology. Real diseases are not as potent as he thinks and there are public health measures. We can eliminate vectors, implement medical technology, control population movement to prevent the dispersion of the disease, and do everything else I recommended last round. Does anyone seriously think that if you take an epidemiology class the first thing you will learn is the most effective way to slaughter people to prevent the spread of disease?



Pro doesn’t even understand his own resolution. He says it isn’t about ethics (despite the fact that the resolution says it is) and then that he’s arguing from teleology, which he doesn’t bother to justify. Pro’s whole argument is just an unorganized mess of assertions without no moral arguments or references to real science, which makes it hard to even debate.



Sources:



http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Staerkel

Pro

I thank the con for posting his response.

I would first like to address the resolution and how i stay true to it through out the debate.

My opponent says that i have somehow dropped the format of the debate, also dropping arguments and having a messy case, etc.

We are arguing that RESOLVED: It is morally justified to purge, (annihilate) a city with a level 4 infection outbreak. We can assume that my BoP is that doing this action is morally acceptable, simple enough. Now by examining my case we can also see that i meet my burden. I effectively prove from a teleological standpoint that we are saving more lives. I stay within the resolution. Now onto conceding/having a messy case.

By looking at the round 2 posting, i specifically picked apart and attacked each point of my opponents case, also restructuring my own. By saying i dropped some arguments tells me that if anything, he hasn't read my round 2 posting thoroughly enough. Again on the point of me having a "Messy" Case. However i am confused. I attacked each part of his case in order, and had no text wall. Ultimately i just have to say that this is just a rude attack in general with no warrant.

First he says that i conceded that some of the diseases i mentioned have been eradicated. Now i did agree that for the most part that smallpox has been eradicated. However it is the only disease we have managed to eradicate thus far. He also states that "The Ebola drug has only been tested on monkeys, but it was used on a human [1] successfully as a last result." If you scroll up to his first round constructive you will notice that the "but it was used on a human [1] successfully as a last result." was never in his case. Not only is it a new argument that should be overlooked he provides no evidence showing how it has worked on a human.

He states that i assume that these diseases are magical and can defy quarantine, however i only state that an attempted quarantining would increase the chance of it getting outside. He over-exaggerates my claims and is mostly just rude on that account. You can cross-apply this argument to his Defense Proposal and MC arguments.

His argument about the utilitarianism of lives states that not everyone in the city is infected so i will kill more people than i save. However he dropped my argument about disease spreading outside the city. Even if there is a quarantine, mistakes can be made. And these mentioned diseases are very flexible in their ways of travel. He dropped my arguments about how we would be throwing money away by quarantining, and also dropped my argument on how it is immoral to make people suffer horrendous deaths.

The following are statements from the con.

"Back Plague argument is dropped. Because of advances in technology, it is virtually impossible for another outbreak like this. Pro cities the Spanish Flu, but this outbreak occurred in 1918, before the methods I suggested were discovered [6]. Influenza is not even a Level 4 Biohazard, the problem was poor public health measures and not infectiousness [7]."

"Natural rights dropped. If we think people have a right to life my position is automatically more moral than Pro's. It is more utilitarian anyway."

Wait a minute....if i cited an example and then argued about something, did i drop it? Of course not. I supplied efficient attacks/arguments for everything. I don't have to give you an example just read my case. However since my opponent simply said "dropped", that means he didn't attack my argument on natural rights. Which means that in the end, he was the one who dropped it.

My opponent states that i do not understand these diseases and they are not as potent as i described.

He provides absolutely no evidence for his claims that these diseases are not that potent.

Final statement by the con.

"Pro doesn't even understand his own resolution. He says it isn't about ethics (despite the fact that the resolution says it is) and then that he's arguing from teleology, which he doesn't bother to justify. Pro's whole argument is just an unorganized mess of assertions without no moral arguments or references to real science, which makes it hard to even debate."

When did i say it wasn't about ethics? All in all this is a false claim.
Also, my moral arguments are based around how we shouldn't make the infected people suffer, and protecting people outside the infection zone.

Voting Issues
1: Drops

Dropped my natural rights argument.
"My opponents way of controlling the outbreak only delays the inevitable and brings even more pain among the infected who have to go through the horrific stages of the disease. It is morally justified to put these innocent people out of there misery, then make them suffer for nothing, which is what will happen by trying to quarantine the city."

Dropped my throwing money away argument.

"Next my opponent argues that thermobaric weapons are too expensive, and not that effective. However the alternative is not as cost effective. Quarantining, and treating infected citizens is only delaying the inevitable. The disease is incurable at this point in our medical knowledge, and in the end quarantining and an attempted treatment is literally just throwing money away. Also the longer we try to quarantine the much larger risk of the disease escaping the city will be. As it is not limited in it's ways of traveling."

Dropped my military argument.

He states that "Pro cites other US atrocities and notes that such things have been done before. However, eradicating a domestic city would elicit a much stronger response than dropping herbicide on a foreign country."

Doesn't refute my attack only stems out to say it would create a large reaction. In the end, the main point was ignored.

Drops argument on how disease could potentially slip through quarantine. Tries to justify by saying that diseases are not magical. However neither is quarantine. And there is always room for mistakes as we humans are imperfect.

2: Fallacious claims

By reading my opponents case you will notice he throws out several false statements about my case. Whether it is saying i dropped something that i really didn't. or saying i said something that i really didn't. (Look at arguments above).

3: "Assumptions"
My opponent often rudely states how i think that these diseases are magical and can get through quarantine. However i only argue about the risk we are taking. My opponent shows terrible conduct throughout the round. My case was basically misconstrued.

4: Conduct
My opponent often arbitrarily calls my case a mess, and makes untrue statements about my case. Conduct in the end has to go to the Pro.

5: Impact Calculus
The impact in my case is that in the end by not purging the city, we are risking way more human lives. My opponents main impact is to protect those that are not infected. In the end i solve for the end of infected people's suffering and i end the spread right there.

I now give it to the con.
Grape

Con


Introduction:



Pro has ignored my request to keep the debate organized so I once again have to pick through this stream of consciousness to find his arguments. Pro’s case is absolutely painful to read and sort through. What’s worse, he accuses me of dropping arguments because I couldn’t find his responses to them. Well, I looked again and I still can’t find a response to some of my arguments. It’s not my fault that the Pro case had no discernable organization.



Because Pro has ignored the format of the debate so thoroughly, I’m going to have to adopt an entirely new format to address it. Here is a list of points responding to Pro’s claims prior to the “voting issues” section.




  1. The Ebola example was used to show that significant progress has been made toward immunizing humans against dangerous biohazards. Ebola has not been eradicate to the extent smallpox has and my case does not hinge on this. I am only stressing the fact that infectious diseases are no longer as dangerous as commonly believed.

  2. His claim that I dropped his argument that diseases can spread even if quarantined is pretty ridiculous. Pro made a bare assertion that the disease would escape quarantine (by magic, presumably) which I addressed as without warrant. If human movement can be stopped, and a military force is certainly capable of this, the disease CANNOT spread. Obviously if the quarantine is successful and cheaper than alternatives, it isn’t a waste of money so that argument isn’t dropped. Finally, Pro’s claim that “these mentioned diseases are very flexible in their ways of travel” is just more appeal to magic. Ebola will not just teleport from city to city unless millions of people are murdered.

  3. Pro claims the Black Plague argument isn’t dropped because he talked about the Spanish Flu. That’s not the Black Plague, and he didn’t address any of my explanations of why neither outbreak could happen today.

  4. The natural rights argument absolutely has been completely dropped. Pro’s response is not even related to natural rights.

  5. We should ignore all of Pro’s accusations that I have dropped arguments because it’s necessary to pick through his rant with a fine toothed comb just to figure out what his arguments are.



I’ll stop here because trying to read this and pick it apart is incredibly frustrating. I’m going to address each of Pro’s “voting issues” and then bring up a few of my own.



Drops:



Pro’s response to the natural rights argument has nothing to do with natural rights, so it is actually dropped. I didn’t drop the argument that the quarantine is a waste of money if it fails because I argued that it would not fail, rendering this point moot.



I will let voters decide how the eradication of a US city by the military would probably be taken by the public. I would say that open rebellion is not an outrageous prediction.



Overall, Pro is just claiming I dropped points because his arguments were long streams of dribble and I did not individually address each and every sentence. It’s painful to read and I have to prioritize what is important enough to respond to. I don’t see how Pro can criticize me for dropping arguments when he didn’t organize them in any discernable fashion. On the other hand, Pro has virtually no response to points I made under bold, underlined heading.



2. “Fallacious” Claims



Pro criticizes me for not knowing everything in his long stream of ungrammatical sentences with no discernable organization and vague references. That’s too bad; he didn’t respond to me in a way that remotely followed the format of the debate. I looked through his case, but due to the make of headings it is up to interpretation what his statements are referring to and I could not find a response to many of my arguments.



3. Assumptions



Pro’s arguments assume that the diseases in question behave differently than the sources we have both presented indicate. He just asserts that all my methods for combatting them will fail because the diseases with escape (presumably by magic, as there is no scientific evidence to explain how diseases spread when we eliminate all vectors). Maybe if he had read the sources he plagiarized he would have known, to make one example, that a waterborne disease will not spread if everyone drinks and uses distilled water distributed by the government (as I recommended). Instead he just keeps on asserting that diseases cannot be stopped by anything but firebombing.



If Ebola is so unstoppable, why will firebombing even kill it? Presumably because of more special magic that is never explained. We could have had a serious debate about ethics if we fiated that the pathogens were otherwise unstoppable, but Pro chose to talk about real diseases. He then went on assuming we were talking about a magic fiated disease and ignored all my scientific arguments about how infectious diseases actually are.



4. Conduct



Pro’s case actually is a mess. It is such a mess that it has seriously interfered with my ability to do this debate. My criticisms of his presentation are totally warranted. If you see no difference between the readability of my second round and Pro’s second round, feel free to vote for him on this point.



5. Impact Calculus



I’ve been over this ad nauseam. Pro assures the death of the entire city. My method reduces the number of deaths in the city dramatically. The disease will almost certainly not spread if quarantined and if it does it will be contained rapidly once identified due to heightened security.



My voting points, since this seems to be necessary:



1. Spelling and Grammar



Pro doesn’t even capitalize the word ‘I’ and generally writes his debate like a text message. The heinous errors in his grammar go above and beyond simple typos and make his already unreadable arguments even harder to decipher.



2. Drops and Weighing Issues



The discourse ethics argument is truly totally dropped. Pro has no justification whatsoever for teleological ethics. I chose to debate on teleological grounds anyway because I wanted to debate epidemiology, but when it became apparent that Pro was just going to ignore science I switched to debating ethics. He did not challenge my alternative to teleology, which means the debate automatically weighs in my favor.



3. Sources



Please give me some time to correct the problem with my sources in the previous round. There was a problem with closing the debate my sources were posted in and someone accepted it, so they don’t have a home for a while. I have far more and better sources than Pro in just Round Two anyway, and Pro PLAGIARIZED information in Round One, so I don’t even see this as an issue for me.



Conclusion:



Pro’s entire debate has consisted of unsourced assertion, complete failure to understand concepts, unorganized and ungrammatical rambling, and criticism of my inability to easily decipher that kind of response. I don’t see how he could be remotely construed as having won a single voting criterion. Clearly he is lost on spelling and grammar, arguments, and sources. If voters think he deserves the conduct point because I find his awful presentation annoying, then fine. All of my complaints have been warranted. Pro’s case is so poorly presented it’s difficult to actually debate against it. He has not engaged me on any of the topics this debate was about (ethics, epidemiology) and has forced me to waste my time sorting through long, rambling exposition that shows no understanding of the concepts relevant to the topics.


Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"My opponent says that i have somehow dropped the format of the debate, also dropping arguments and having a messy case, etc."

Pro, just look at the way Grape presented his argument, very clearly outlined and easy to read. You fragmented the debate and made it very difficult for Grape to respond to a scattered argument and it makes it much harder for people to actually read your posts, they are much more likely to skim and focus on Grape.
Posted by Staerkel 6 years ago
Staerkel
Yeah, XD Just saw the movi Outbreak with morgan freeman, so i really wanted to debate this.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
"Dropped arguments are conceded"

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
"Ideology:Libertarian"

lol wut?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JoshBrahm 6 years ago
JoshBrahm
StaerkelGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This wasn't even close. I've researched level 4 viruses and Con clearly doesn't understand how they move. Pro could have explained this a little, but it's in his sources. Con made lots of assertions but didn't prove a thing. I would enjoy reading a similar debate based on a theoretical virus that IS unstoppable, as Pro suggested.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
StaerkelGrapeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As noted by Grape, Pro made a lot of assertions and assumed behavior for an outbreak which was based on seriously outdated information with poor sourcing. That being said he did present an argument and was not completely outshadowed. 1 pt to con for argument, 2 for general presentation/sourcing.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
StaerkelGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Straight 7 to Grape on this one, as he won on all points, both scientific and ethical. Bitching about Grape being mean to you won't help you, it just makes you look weak.