UFOs exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 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
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
UFO has a defined definition: An unidentified flying object.
Pro failed to give a proper definition of UFOs, and entangled his argument with a bunch of complexities on the government point. He has failed to prove his point, only to muddle my brain.
As for Con, he managed to refute the Instigator's points, and was met with nought defence.
Con has supported his claims with reliable sources. Point to him.
All other aspects are unremarkable.
Argument: 2 issues in argument by Pro: 1] defining UFO as unidentified flying object is the description of a acronym, not a definition. 2] argument of government agencies is completely in the weeds. Appears to be an attempt of obfuscation. Difficult to follow why that whole discussion is in the debate. Cons argument refutes the gov't thing, as well as dissolving the argument of UFOs being potentially merely earth-bound craft no one recognizes simplyu due to an acronym. Although I oppose a one-sided BoP, I appreciate Con's argument for his position and it is well argued. Point to Con
Sourcing: All Con sources make sense and contain valid supporting arguments. Point to Con
S&G: tie
Conduct: Both wer verty civil tie.
This is an interesting one.
Thanks for voting.
Can you explain your paradox you seemed to have set up?
I am watching this one with immense curiosity.
No, I don't want idiots having my debates. That ruins all the fun. If I can get a win against someone who has 1600 rankings, that is what is fun.
I am not telling you. I might be brave enough, but I will be a gigantic laughing stock if I tell you what am I planning to do.
Are you not trying to get a fee win by idiots who accept your debate thinking they are going to debate alien visitations?
Abusive? The definition is given in the description section.
Con contact me if he uses an abusive definition. Of UFO, I will find a way to award you the win