Instigator / Pro
14
1479
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2003

PETA should be banned.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
28
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

It is very controversial and I do not like it.

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 affectively missed three rounds.

1. The first just pointing to a link, but not saying anything about the content.
2. The second saying he would post later...
3. And the third, forfeiting the final round.

This debate is a foregone conclusion, but without putting the work into reading it, I do not feel comfortable awarding the various other points.

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's sources were doubtful and oromagi showed they were biased. Also he forfeited more than con.

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: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no associated argument by Pro. "That says all" is not a valid argument. It says all WHAT? WHY? HOW? - etc. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by Pro's rebuttals, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.

Sources: Pro's sources reflected bias, inconclusively and self-contradiction. Example: "PETA is notorious for it's criticism of everything." Con successfully rebutted this point as being "hyperbole" made by several Pro sources, such as https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/23/peta-steve-irwin-tweet-group-faces-fire-conservationists-birthday/2962313002/ By contrast, Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages which fully supported Con's arguments. Example: the focus of PETA of four specific goals to achieve. points to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation: no argument in r1, just a linked source [needs both sourcing and argument, forfeit r5. Con was professional and credible in all rounds. Point to Con

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 forfeited. Everything else was ok.