Instigator / Pro
42
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#1811

Animals have moral weight.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
0
Better sources
12
10
Better legibility
6
4
Better conduct
6
0

After 6 votes and with 28 points ahead, the winner is...

K_Michael
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

If there are any parameters on the debate you'd like to change before accepting this debate (character count, number of rounds, etc.) just tell me.

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's argument literally made Con concede. Pro's the only one having a relevant reason all in all. Points to Pro.
Sources: No sources, no points.
S&G: Both sides presentable. Tie.
Conduct: Con conceded and forfeited. Points to Pro.

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:

Concession + 50% forfeit

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:

Concession and Forfeit

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:

Argument: Pro demonstrated viable argument from both human and animal moral value. Con, in disagreement, did not argue against moral weight to animals, which Con acknowledged, but by disagreement with the proposal of the argument, that it represented a "truism," something Con argued did not deserve debate because Con believes everyone believes the truism [making it a truism]. Though I disagree with the truism, and would have taken the debate just argue a point with which I disagree, which is both possible and doable, Con could have taken the same approach. Challenging; yes. A debatable point? Absolutely, with a little creative thought. Instead, Con accepted the debate, then complained for two rounds, and forfeited two rounds. Point to pro.

Sources: neither pro, nor Con offered sources. Tie points. [There sould be an option to award no point since neither side complied with the debate necessity of providing sources.]

S&G: Points to Pro for having the greater risk of failure to not have better S&G.

Conduct: Con forfeited half of rounds. Points to Pro

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:

Pro conceded and forfeited. By accepting the debate he agreed to the topic, whether it's a truism or not.

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:

Concession. And forfeiture.

Additionally, "Animals have had moral value in almost every culture and religion throughout human history" the almost is a big clue that there is another side. Some football fans think dog fighting isn't a crime for example, so there's even subcultures today which deny the truth of the resolution.