Instigator / Con
6
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1472

Antarctica aliens

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
21
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Your profile says you live in Antarctica and you have an alien profile pic. With the alien in Antarctica being pushed by mainstream media this is very weird .

The new York post wrote this.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/11/discovery-in-antarctica-changes-everything-we-know-about-aliens/

similar Antarctica aliens article
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/618769/Antarctic-UFO-mystery-deepens-after-researchers-find-tanks-guarding-alien-crash-site

Why are so any mainstream outlets saying there could be aliens in Antarctica. What is going on.

In ancient books like the book of Enoch that are not cannon.
It says god chained a bunch of demons in a frozen desert. and they would be released in the last day.
https://youtu.be/Bez4DKZI7yU

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Weird one... Generally the title itself or the description should clarify if the debate is about said aliens don't exist, or if they are morally bad?
NOTE: I have flipped pro and con in this RFD, realizing the needless reversal, I don't feel like editing my RFD to match)

Getting into the debate... Pro, I highly suggest using the formatting suggested here, so that people can easily track when a new contention begins: tiny.cc/DebateArt
Once you've concluded politicians are secretly demons as a fact for your case (without any proof), I want to skim ahead to the next point.

Con, thank you so much for narrowing down what this debate might be about, and for using clear formatting so it could be easily followed (seeing the bold names of things, I can skip each in turn, already knowing basic history and such).

The debate is half way over before a clear position for each is made, and con showed very good conduct by agreeing. So the debate is that Hitler, Kerry, etc., are more likely demons than aliens. Shared BoP.

Oro soundly refutes Crosseds case, even using syllogism to show that earthquakes do not prove anyone is secretly a demon. It seems he did the tactic of outright disproving claims of demons, which leaves the not disproven case of aliens more likely (even if unsupported).

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro consistently clashed with con while con's arguments were largely aimless.

Examples:
1. Pro clashed with con on the book of enoch.
2. Pro proved that no person of any particular fame visited Antarctica apart from John Kerry. Con did not refute this.
3. Con concedes that his memory is unreliable as it relates to the book of enoch rather than challenging pro's assertions.

S&G: much of con's writing was lacking in proper syntax and general coherence. for example

"I should have made your role more. You on alien side i am on demon side.If you want to dismiss both and hoaxes and i argue that these are demon encounter then we will go ahead with the debate."

Sources: Con's sources added little substance to the debate while pro's sources added many facts to the debate.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This was an ... interesting ... debate.

Let's review the rounds.

ROUND ONE

Con - Con provides a few scattered arguments, all of which can't be supported by actual fact. In addition, COn's sources did not add any factual value to the debate.

Pro - Pro spends his entire text clashing with Pro, and provides no new information. That is acceptable since Con didn't define a BoF. Pro also reworded the resolution in favour for Pro.

ROUND TWO

Con - Con poorly clashes with Pro, and replaces valuable text space with links instead. Links are for reference and context only, and are not suitable to substitute for an entire argument. Con's links Con doesn't properly challenge Pro's refraining of the topic.

Pro - Again, uses his entire text to clash with Con. Sufficiently does so.

ROUND THREE

Followed literally the exact same format as the last two rounds.

OVERVIEW

Arguments - Pro ; Pro used more factual and sensical arguments. Con used biased and wet concrete arguments
Sources - Pro ; Both sides had sources, but Pro's sources were reliable, and added value tot he debate. Con's did not.
S&G - Pro ; No explanation needed
Conduct - Tie ; No explanation needed