Jeffrey Epstein is Still Alive
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
spin off off of crossed's debate
I waive first round.
“I admit that he could have been murdered." Concession. Walked back or not, still the most logical part of pro’s argument. Things like “666” do not indicate someone is alive.
Cons arguments were mainly that pros were terrible, challenging the sources as fake news, etc. his case would have been better to open with any source pointing to the death certificate, but the talk of crime families wanting to kill him did a decent job getting pro to concede.
As a reminder, pro had BoP to at least suggest the public figure is still alive, which requires something to suggest that, not just complaints that we don’t have a video of him dying.
Bump. VOTE PLS
Removed for the same reason below.
*******************************************************************
>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.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>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.
************************************************************************
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.
you screwed up when voting.you gave me points when in your reasoning you wanted to give points to con
i need a vacation
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.
Yea
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?
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.
your right they can
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.
so?, what about the cameras and clinton connection
DOC F.
They haven't, the gurney photos are obviously fake.
They have done a great job as well as the JFK assassination
Crazy how well they done that
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?
I agree
True. This debate is terrible.
what an awful debate