Instigator / Con
17
1596
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic

The Outlaw of Public Prayer in the United States

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
0
Sources points
2
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
1

With 3 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...

Discipulus_Didicit
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
10
1692
rating
76
debates
69.74%
won
Description
~ 421 / 5,000

The claim is "Public prayer is currently outlawed in the United States"

The debate is about whether this claim is truthful or not.

The debate is not about whether public prayer should/ought to be outlawed.

Round structure will be semi-formal. Rounds one through three may be used for argument and rebuttal. Round four is for concluding statements only. No new arguments may be brought up in round four by either party.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Basically the same reasons as VonKlempter. I agree with him.

Con has proved that public prayer is not outlawed in the US as fundamentally it cannot be outlawed. Pro used mainly historic examples, but they failed to refute the most steady of Con's points.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro took this debate out of context by arguing about mandatory prayer in school, which is not at all relevant to the resolution.

Con, meanwhile, specifically highlights that praying in public is in fact legal, and that the school scenario was only to further prove his point, it was not designated to act as his main argument for his position, which Pro took, wrongly, much effort to refute, and consequently drops the resolution.

Con failed to provide any sources for the debate, so point to the Contender for taking the time to do research and source his claims.

Pro forfeited a round, so point to the Instigator.

Added:
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This is very simple to judge, as the debate is either yes or no.

The claim is "Public prayer is currently outlawed in the United States"

The arguments were very off point. Pro tried to argue that the constitution and case law expressly prohibits public prayer, yet in Pros own narrative, the prohibition is not about praying in public. It is about mandating prayer in school. Specifically Pro states "I contend that public prayer in public school "

Con does well to highlight that prayer in a public setting, in on itself is not illegal. And whilst the fact pattern that Con opened with is hearsay, it was effective and believable. Pro does nothing to show that the conduct exhibited by Con was illegal.

In short, Pro did not show prayer in public is illegal as set in the debate definition. Con showed an example were prayer in public was legal.

All other aspects are unremarkable