Instigator / Pro
7
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#2002

Legal ages for restricted activities(such as alcohol, weed, etc.) should be based on biological or physical age

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

CaptainSceptic
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
14
1527
rating
8
debates
62.5%
won
Description

No information

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:

As Con correctly pointed out, the basic premise presented in round 1, though imaginative, was based on a flawed and somewhat tenuous hypothesis. Round two therefore came across as a somewhat detached and separate narrative, and so limiting the debate to two rounds meant that Pro was never able to create a cohesive whole. All that Con needed to do was provide ongoing simple but pertinent responses and evidence. Pro's semantics card just came across as clutching at straws, so too did making too much of an issue over Con's spelling oversight. Grammatically though, Con's presentation was overall, more accomplished.

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:

I wish this was a three round debate.

I agree with pro's definition of should. As much as con's closing gave light to an implied case that pro should have made the resolution about the developmental level of the mind itself as that was really where his case seemed to be.

A couple obvious things which were missing: The snap example from Spider-Man. Emancipation of minors. And the greater problem that would stem from minors freezing themselves to get on social security! ... On a similar note, con did very well in identifying the regulatory testing to drive cars (I just heard that one state is suspending that... WTF is wrong with us?).

In short con showed a lack of benefit to this hypothetical, such as hibernation not wholly stopping development, and a massive cost in the testing. He also of course used legal issues, which was a nice appeal to the status quo, even if of disputable relevance.

S&G:
A single minor mistake will never be enough for this point. As much as I do appreciate the sight of someone else fighting for whatever categories they can get.

Note:
If it were allowed, I would give pro 1 point (credit for effort and entertainment), and con 3 (still the clear victor).