Discipulus_Didicit loves, or at some point loved, open borders.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 7 votes and 22 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Greyparrot has made the claim that DD is in favor of open borders. BoP is on pro. If pro can find a single post of DD saying anything remotely in favor of open borders on DART or DDO, no matter how long ago it was made, then pros BoP is fulfilled. If pro is unable to do this then he is simply creating fake news about DD for no particular reason by making this accusation and the mature thing for pro to do would be to admit that this accusation was simply pulled out of his ass.
The burden of proof was on Pro and was clearly outlined in the description. Pro needed to provide a quote proving that Discipulus_Didicit used to support open borders. He failed to do so, and thus did not meet his burden of proof. Arguments go to Con.
Pro failed to meet the necessary requirements for Pro's BOP, therfore, Con wins.
Pro lazy and mocking actually towards Spanish speakers more so than to Con because he is associating not understanding something with the other person conveying the Spanish language (when BoP actually is an English abbreviation of Burden of Proof).
Arguments to Con because Con has de facto authority to say that the belief is not present and Pro did nothing to suggest otherwise.
Credit to pro for accepting the debate, but he then could not provide any evidence (even while the description stated he just needed to find a since piece). Con on the other hand explained BoP and such, and pro failed to even try to advance any points.
Also pretty sure that doesn't rise to the level of a K. Those have:
Analysis: The main complaint, and Kritik introduction.
Link: What specific element of the opponent’s case it deals with and how.
Implications: The damage done if the K is ignored.
Alternative: What better solution does the K suggest? If none, we should use the status quo.
Pro fails to uphold his BoP. Not a shred of evidence was offered to lead me to believe that Discipulus_Didicit loves, or at some point loved, open borders.
Con did not fulfill the BOP of the debate (showing evidence for DD loving open borders). Therefore, the arguments go to Con
Con essentially concedes in the final round. I don't think he should've accepted the debate