Instigator / Con
7
1503
rating
26
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1281

Jeffrey Epstein is Still Alive

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Club
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
4
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Description

spin off off of crossed's debate

I waive first round.

Bump. VOTE PLS

-->
@Gatorade

Removed for the same reason below.

-->
@PressF4Respect

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Press Ff4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, Sources and conduct

>Reason for Decision: Arguments:
PRO used circumstantial and coincidental evidence with no backing whatsoever
Sources:
PRO used biased sources (Infowars, really?)
S&G:
About equal
Conduct:
PRO should have waived

Reason for Mod Action>The voter doesn’t sufficiently justify or weigh arguments, compare sources, or conduct, or really justify any of the voting criteria, and offers a minimal justification on all points.

Please review the code of conduct; for specific detail of what is expected from voters.

*******************************************************************

-->
@Gatorade

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Gatorade // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, grammar, and conduct

>Reason for Decision: See below

>Reason for Mod Action: The arguments are borderline, but the rest of the vote cannot stand. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
 Finally To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.

************************************************************************

-->
@Gatorade

Round 1
CON waives, per description.
PRO brings up points about how Epstein was not watched, PRO also brings up a fake news source called "InfoWars". PRO mostly used conspiracy theories here to prove his point.
Round 2
CON brings up points attacking PRO's sources. These claims are correct, because InfoWars is not a reliable source. But CON does not have any sources backing up his claims of the 'YouTube' video being fake, and has no sources backing up his claims about the gurney photos being fake either.
PRO concedes that Epstein could have been murdered. PRO also makes several grammar mistakes, which makes it really hard to read. PRO states that the same guy investigated MLK and JFK, but that is simply not true. PRO also states that "he doesn't want to bring up fake news" which is just a simple way of stating "I'm to lazy to refute your claims".
ROUND 3
CON makes grammar mistakes in this round too, which makes it sort of hard to read, but nowhere close to the amount of PRO. CON rebuts PRO's points.
PRO should not have answered this round as BOP per CON's first argument rules.
ARGUMENT
CON convinced me.
SOURCES
Both had terrible sources.
GRAMMAR
PRO had the grammar of a five year old.
CONDUCT
PRO should've forfeited last round.

-->
@Gatorade

you screwed up when voting.you gave me points when in your reasoning you wanted to give points to con

-->
@Club

i need a vacation

-->
@crossed

https://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_number_1_cause_of_death_to_animals_in_the_world

Death to animals? really?

this debate is unbearable to sit through.

-->
@crossed

Yea

-->
@Club

Was i suppose to waive the last round. If yes i would happily concede the debate

made a mistake

If the BoP is shared then why did you waive?

-->
@DapperMack

He first created this debate against speedrace, and I wanted to do the same debate, so...

This is one-sided af. Of course he's dead.

-->
@Club

your right they can

-->
@Dr.Franklin

they would of easily faked his death on camera doc f

they did

The government could've easily faked it, and the Clinton crime family, well, he would've killed himself, before he could testify against them.

-->
@Club

so?, what about the cameras and clinton connection

-->
@Dr.Franklin

DOC F.

They haven't, the gurney photos are obviously fake.

-->
@Club

They have done a great job as well as the JFK assassination

Crazy how well they done that

-->
@crossed

I forgot to mention this, VOTERS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE.
if the government were really trying to cover it up, don't you think they would've done a better job?

-->
@TheAtheist

I agree

-->
@Dr.Franklin

True. This debate is terrible.

what an awful debate