Analysis of Arguments for and Against Allowing Unvaccinated Player in a Tournament

This report analyzes the arguments presented by Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace regarding allowing an unvaccinated player to participate in a tournament. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments and recommends a rational decision based on policies and ethical considerations.

PHILPHIX1037 FINAL
ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
1. Two standardizations...................................................................................................................1
2. Analysis........................................................................................................................................1
a) Types of arguments utilized by Dr. Ada Lovelace.................................................................3
b) Problem in the arguments.......................................................................................................3
c) Analysis of the language.........................................................................................................4
3. Recommendations........................................................................................................................4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
This report is based upon a cultural event that has been organized in the local area of
Australia namely Cooper's crossing, NSW, which is an International Championship Bowls
Tournament. Within which One famous European player i.e. Bojak Horseovic who is still not
vaccinated. Although their fans are calling for exemptions specially for this player and want
them to play in the tournament. But a debate has been arises among the two groups which has
been lead by Mr. Charles Babbage and Dr. Ada Lovelace. Each group has been invited by the
chairman to submit a short summery regarding their view points to the sub committee. Both are
on different sides and create arguments as per their own opinion which will be discussed within
the study.
1. Two standardizations
Dr. Ada Lovelace letter constituted with the arguments which are based upon the fact
that one rule should be implemented to each citizen irrespective of their public image as a well-
known personality. On the other hand, Mr. Charles Babbage stated that the sports authority
should allow Bojak for the purpose of playing in the tournaments. Charles Babbage backed his
arguments stating that the success rate and effectiveness of the vaccine has not been proven yet
and restricting the player on the basis of the same is not right. After analysing both the
arguments, it has been evaluated that both the arguments are different from each other as one
speaks in favour that Bojak Horseovic allowed to take participate into the tournament while Ada
speaks against participation in the tournament as lots of people are in danger because the Bojak
Horseovic is not vaccinated yet.
2. Analysis
Mr Charles Babbage “Let Bojak play” (arguing against the mandate)
On the basis of the arguments given by the Charles Babbage, it can be stated that the
arguments used by him are deductive arguments. This can be stated because, deductive
arguments are those arguments which are specifically based on a logic and on the basis of the
same, relevant conclusions are formed. Similarly, it has been observed within the arguments
1

presented by Charles Babbage that he wants the Bojak to play. It is the main argument which he
backed up by presenting several principles such as the fundamental right of personal autonomy,
also stated reasons that restricting Bojak from playing can affect the economy of their country as
they will not be able to earn money from the tournament if he does not play. Also, he states that
forcing an individual to get vaccinated even when there is no surety that the vaccine is not
completely effective is not right. The major strengths of deductive arguments include the ability
to make important decisions, it is dependable when the major premise is true and it depends on
the initial premises of an argument. Similarly, the Charles Babbage presented his arguments on
the fact that he wants the board of authority to make a decision and allow the Bojak to play even
when he is not vaccinated.
However, if the sports authority allows the Bojak to play, it violates several ethical
principles in the need to enhancing the position of the economy. Allowing the Bojak to play
within a tournament will put a great number of audience within the country at a huge risk of
being affected by the Covid 19 as he is not vaccinated. Many organizations have made the rule
of not allowing any of the employees or visitors within the premises of their organizations who
are not vaccinated. If the sports authority allows the Bojak, it will be unfair to all those
individuals who had to leave their work or whose work got affected as they were not vaccinated.
It will be unfair to all those individuals. It will influence the general public of Australia into
questioning that why is he getting the privilege of playing at a public place and being allowed to
risk the lives of other individuals. It has been observed as well as known that covid is an air
borne disease which is highly infectious in nature, therefore allowing him to play at a public
place where such a large audience will be presented is highly risky for the visitors and other
audience that will be present at that time.
The language of the Charles Babbage is rhetoric in nature. On the basis of the arguments
presented by him in the favour of allowing the Bojak to play within the tournament, it can be
stated that the Charles is efficiently taking a step forward and trying to make impactful
statements in the favour of the Bojak. The arguments presented by him are capable of making an
impact on the audience. According to him, the effectiveness of covid 19 vaccines is not proven
yet and therefore, it is not correct to restrict a playing from playing within a tournament just
because he is not vaccinated with vaccines whose effectiveness is not yet proven. He also states
that by restricting the Bojak from not playing within the tournament, the POLISCCCBA is
2

affecting the economy of the Australia. Also, on the basis of the opinions presented by Charles,
it can be observed that he feels that one should only make the public comply with the rules
which are actually effective in nature and whose results are proven. Therefore, it can be stated
that the tone of Charles is rhetoric and impactful and has the power to influence a wide range of
audience.
a) Types of arguments utilized by Dr. Ada Lovelace
On the basis of the arguments that has been presented by Dr. Ada Lovelace in “The
importance of fairness: One rule for them, another rule for us?” illustrates the inductive kind
of arguments that has been utilized into the specific report. According to this type, Ada
introduces the statement into general contexts by providing specific conclusions. In this, the
statements illustrates that during the Covid-19 situation, it was mandatory for each individual to
get vaccinated, then it is not at all fair for others to allow Bojak Horseovic into the tournament
without getting vaccinated. As inductive statements are based upon the criteria to make the final
conclusions stronger enough to elaborate the concepts in detailed manner. Thus. Here Ada also
did the same things and illustrates that one rule should be followed by everyone irrespective of
their position or popularity because if anything happens it could have cost a lot for lots of people
who are going to attend the tournament. The major strength of inductive arguments are based
upon the prediction what might have happened into the future terms and here Ada also
highlighted the possibilities of Covid spread because of allowing Bojak Horseovic without
getting vaccinated.
b) Problem in the arguments
On the other hand this specific argument style have certain weaknesses as well which
includes that sometimes it might reach towards false conclusions as in this case, Ada concluded
that other people have caught in Covid situation because of unvaccinated Bojak Horseovic
which might not be correct nobody predicts the future and it is not ethically correct as well to
force someone to do something without their own consent. Thus, this violated the rules related to
right to live their life as they want. If committee does not allow the Bojak Horseovic to play
within the tournament, then it highly affects the overall economy of the country in drastic
manner. Within the article the most unsupported and poorly supported claims highlighted that
3

Ada states that most Australians are decent and sensible and no one who is decent citizen will
never oppose the Covid-19 vaccination. Moreover, Ada highlighted that people who believe in
conspiracy theories and other such kind of nonsense are the ones who against the vaccine
mandatory rules. In addition to this, the effectiveness of Covid vaccination is not proven yet, na
hence, it is useless to force anybody to take vaccine or restrict them to take part into the
tournament. Furthermore, these type of judgements might have also affects the economy if the
tournament cancelled because of vaccination mandate.
c) Analysis of the language
The language that has been used by Dr. Ada Lovelace is assertive in nature as the
statements that have been imposed by Ada are clear and expresses the exact point of view in a
way which is highly clear as well as direct but still respecting others. Ada was very much clear
about their saying and according to them, it is not at all right to treat sports person and general
public in two different ways. If the vaccination for Covid-19 is mandatory then Bojak Horseovic
will not allow to take participate into the tournament without applying the vaccination. On this
basis, Ada is highly confident on their part and thus unapologetically illustrates that majority of
Australians are support the mandate regarding Covid-19 vaccination as they are highly sensible
and decent citizens and the people who are not sensible and only believes in conspiracy theories
are not ready to accept the mandatory things and go against the vaccine mandate. Moreover, it
has been illustrated that there are no jargon as well as possible biases had been used into the
article. In addition to that, the sentences that are being used by Ada are highly in support of the
public or citizens of Australia due to which they elaborate the mandate of the Covid-19
vaccination for all.
3. Recommendations
As per analysing both the arguments, it has been evaluated that the chairperson should
consider both the arguments on the basis of policies that have been created specifically for
organizing any tournament and most importantly after the conditions of Covid-19. They should
be well aware about the prepared regulations before conducting such huge amount of gathering.
Moreover, they should also consider the ethical aspects as well which highlights to them that
what is right in ethical manner or what is not. In addition to this, the chairperson also have to
4

ficus over the safety measures while examining both the arguments into most successful manner.
Moreover, they have to think on the basis of logical and take decisions in rational manner rather
than going towards the decisions in emotional ways.
CONCLUSION
From the above report, it can be concluded that making a choice between what is right
and what is wrong is very difficult in certain scenarios. The present report includes an analysis
and evaluation of the arguments and statements presented by Charles Babbage and Ada
Lovelace. The Charles presents his opinions in the favour of allowing the Bojak to play within
the tournament and Ada is against the decision of allowing the Bojak to play within the same as
it will put a huge number of people at a risk of getting affected by the Covid 19. The present
report aims to determine the tone and the nature of the language chosen by the Charles and Ada
and determine the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments.
5