Instigator / Pro
4
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic
#1625

Without the contact between the New and Old Worlds, the New World may still be living in the past

Status
Finished

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

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

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

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Definitions:

New World (West) - North and South America
Old World (East) - Europe, Asia, and Africa

Explanation:

Hypothetically speaking, if the West had never contacted the East in any way, shape, or form, then their civilization would likely never change. Remember, this is only hypothetical!

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

This debate was very close.
Sources: Both referenced anything from WikiPedia to academic sources.
Conduct: No issues on either side.
S&G: Neither sides had issues with these.
Arguments: Both sides acknowledged that the New world was at a disadvantage compared to the Old World in regards to geography and trade. Pro attempted to argue that the religions in the New World would have led to a disadvantage, but failed to address the similarities between the Old and New World religions that Con pointed out. Concerning society, Pro was able to point out the advantages held by the Old world, and Con's counterexamples were inapplicable because they all existed after contact between the New and Old worlds was made.
The main point of this debate was the burden of proof. The premise was that the New World "may" have been in "the past." Pro did provide enough evidence to demonstrate that possibility. However, Con challenged that premise by characterizing Pro's premise as "IF the NW NEVER CONTACTED the OW IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM, THEN THEIR CIVILIZATION WOULD LIKELY NEVER CHANGE." Pro completely failed to respond to that challenge. As such, Pro allowed Con to frame the debate in a way that gave Pro a much higher burden of proof. Rather than having to prove the possibility that the New World "may" have remained in "the past," (which does not imply that it would never change) he allowed Con to dictate that he had to prove the the New World "likely would have", not just "may," "never changed," not just "living in the past." Pro failed to meet that burden and failed to challenge Con's imposition thereof. Thus, arguments lean toward Con.