For Jerry Farwell Jr, it is business as usual...Sue, Sue, Sue
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 23 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
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.
Pro offered zero case. Con offered an in depth one with sources. Basically a troll debate anyway.
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.
I once took a journalism class where if you made a mistake with a single person's name in any article the result was an automatic fail in the course. The professor justified this draconian measure by advising writers that few mistakes hurt a paper's reputation as hard as getting a subscriber's name wrong. Some people wait all their life to get quoted in the newspapers and if their name was wrong, the moment was ruined. I am probably alone in thinking major faults in the thesis (including misspelling the subject's personal name) should auto-forfeit the debate. How can we expect to enjoy an efficient discussion of terms if we have to waste a round correcting and confirming major elements of the thesis? If I see major grammar or spelling mistakes in a thesis, my instinct is to drive that mistake into the heart of the instigation.
what??
Wow... just wow!
Congratulations, again!
Many thanks for voting!
"jesus the spam!"
Dr Franklin loves talking about himself!
jesus the spam!
We live in the age of Spruce Goose-ism. Everything to our right is right wing extremism, everything to our left is left wing extremism
I am having so much fun on debateart.com..
So many fools here supporting that useless piece of you know what in the White House.
Too bad the country is going down the drain!
Another case of endless nonsense from oromagi
This birdbrain doesn't even know the meaning of SUE!