Instigator / Con
1
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#1157

Resolved: The US government should de-fund sanctuary cities

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

blamonkey
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1557
rating
7
debates
71.43%
won
Description

Round Structure:

Con waives
Pro posts constructive

Con posts constructive
Pro refutes

Con refutes
Pro responds and crystallizes debate

Con responds and crystallizes debate
Pro waives round

If there are any questions pertaining to the round structure or topic, feel free to PM me.

-->
@sigmaphil

No problem

-->
@blamonkey

Congrats on your win! And thanks for your advice.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks for taking the time to vote on this debate!

-->
@Barney

Correct, he would use the final round

-->
@Barney

Pro was supposed to crystalize and make his final remarks

-->
@blamonkey
@sigmaphil

For clarity, was it agreed that pro would not waive the final round as per the debate description?

-->
@blamonkey

Yes, I would appreciate any advice you would kindly give.

I did just finish my final argument. Thanks for the debate! Good luck!

-->
@sigmaphil

Cool. Thanks. You're not bad. After the debate, since you asked, I'll offer some advice to make your case a bit stronger. Nothing major, but just a few things. Sorry my response was so long. I had to rebut and defend in the same post.

-->
@blamonkey

Okay understood.

-->
@sigmaphil

As a reminder, don't add any more refutations your next round. I can't respond to them. You can defend your positions from my refutations and make your final reminder to the judges why they should vote for you.

-->
@blamonkey

Thanks! Feel free to give me any advice. I know my spelling in the first argument is not great

-->
@sigmaphil

Don't worry, I was a noob at one point as well. You're pretty good for someone who is relatively new to the site.

-->
@blamonkey

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I'm a newbie here, lol!

-->
@sigmaphil

That's what you are supposed to do. That is fine.

-->
@blamonkey

I did, however, make some arguments in the Constructive round. Is that okay?

-->
@blamonkey

Sounds good.

-->
@sigmaphil

That's fine. I came up with a good round structure to stick to.
R1 con waive
R1 Pro posts constructive
R2 Con posts constructive
R2 pro refutes
R3 con refutes and Crystalizes (make final appeal to judge as to why I win without adding new points, just summarizing the debate.)
R3 Pro defends against refutations and summarizes why he won.
This way you don't need to waive, and my final points won't be refutations that go unanswered.

-->
@blamonkey

We are under an incredible storm alert. I had to finish quickly and post the argument before my computer went down. I made a small error in the first argument. I said I am arguing on three fronts, I meant to say four fronts. Sorry about that.

-->
@blamonkey

Yeah that's no problem.

-->
@sigmaphil

I just realized that the debate structure won't work given the number of rounds.
The only thing I ask is that you waive the last round so that we have an equal number of rounds of posted text. Sorry about that.

-->
@sigmaphil

No problem. Life can happen.

-->
@blamonkey

Sorry for taking so long o post the first argument. I've had a couple of personal things in my life come up. But rest assured I will have something posted by the deadline!

-->
@sigmaphil

No problem! I'm going to waive the round so that Pro( you) starts.

-->
@blamonkey

I accept! Good luck friend!