Instigator / Pro
5
1360
rating
19
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1891

For Jerry Farwell Jr, it is business as usual...Sue, Sue, Sue

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
2
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

After backlash for his decision to reopen Liberty University’s campus amid the coronavirus pandemic, Jerry Falwell Jr., the school’s president, said arrest warrants had been issued accusing two journalists who covered the controversy of trespassing.
Falwell ― who has repeatedly downplayed the threat of the virus, going so far as to characterize the response to the pandemic as an attempt to undermine President Donald Trump ― lambasted articles in The New York Times and ProPublica as “false and misleading.”
Falwell told conservative radio host Todd Starnes on Wednesday he intends to sue both publications for defamation and had gone to a local magistrate to swear out misdemeanor warrants against Julia Rendleman, a freelance photographer for the Times, and Alec MacGillis, a ProPublica reporter, accusing them of trespassing on the Liberty’s campus in Lynchburg, Virginia.

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:

Virtual FF from Pro.

R1 Forfeit plus sardonic tone and laziness in debating give Con the conduct point.

Only Con used Sources.

The Arguments point clearly goes to Con because Pro's only argument is restating the resolution in a ruder way. He states that genetics are to blame but doesn't even go into the genetic evidence. In contrast, Con gives a lot of evidence supporting his side.

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: Con's arguments are thoughtful and thorough. Pro offered fluff of pundits. Points to Con

Sources: Con's sources were reliable; Pro's sources were non-existent. points to Con

S&G: Neither had issues, but with greater opportunity to have errors, Con's usage was more at risk. points to Con

Conduct: Pro had little to contribute either way, but managed to make the meager attempt by contempt, only. Points to Con, whose conduct was unassailable.

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 offered zero case. Con offered an in depth one with sources. Basically a troll debate anyway.

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:

Not much to say here. Pro dropped all of Con's points without offering a single argument of his own which is backed up by any evidence.

Conduct to Con because of pro's forfeit.