Instigator / Pro
14
1551
rating
26
debates
57.69%
won
Topic
#1672

Puerto Rico should become a state of the United States of America

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

PoliceSheep
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1350
rating
29
debates
20.69%
won
Description

Puerto Rico should become a state of the United States of America.

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:

Con joined this debate not intent on engaging in discussion, but rather to act as a type-2 troll, and largely an off topic one at that. "Your Alt-Right way of thinking is downright ridiculous." Served as a fine example of the conduct violations which caused the allotment (not even getting into the ranting and raving about race).

Arguments are no contest (a researched argument vs. deranged assertions). Not being a state continually hurts Puerto Rico, as both sides showed (lack of support following a hurricane,m and the president having no incentive to change this); similarly there is no benefit reaped from this.

Pro well supported their case with evidence. Chiefly they predicted counter cases to invalidate them ahead of time, such as the population being greater than many US states; they did this so well that con did not bother finding even one shred of evidence to make a warranted argument.

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:

Arguments - Pro opened with a simple argument about democratic rights and enfranchisement. It was not the most sophisticated or in-depth argument I've ever seen on the subject of territory statehood matters, but it was adequate. Con responded by suggesting that granting PR statehood would lead to its increased exploitation. Con used examples like US neglect of PR during Hurricane Maria to support this. Unfortunately, these supporting examples failed to support because Con failed to link them to his original claim. In the case of Hurricane Maria, he points out that the US neglected PR, but he fails to show how granting PR statehood would make situations like this worse. For these reasons, I give arguments to Pro.

Sources - Pro
Pro's sources are decent (although I recommend using the sources within Wikipedia instead of Wikipedia itself), but the main reason sources are going to Pro is because Con made several statements that should have been validated by a source, but were not. For example, he asserted the US was engaged in forced sterilization of PR women, but provided no evidence to back the claim up. Essentially, Con lost sources, rather than Pro winning sources.

Extra comment: Pro, your opening round was filled with too much debate groundwork (definitions, burdens, basic description of PR status quo). That stuff should go in your debate description, for two reasons. One, it allows you to devote more characters to substantive argument in R1. Two, it allows prospective opponents to have a clear idea of what they're getting themselves into before joining. Just my two cents.