Instigator / Pro
49
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#2083

Pineapple on pizza should be allowed

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
21
0
Better sources
14
6
Better legibility
7
5
Better conduct
7
0

After 7 votes and with 38 points ahead, the winner is...

User_2006
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
9,090
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1440
rating
6
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Definition provided. I have learned from my loss with Pense.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pizza
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pineapple

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:

If one gladiator stands in the coliseum while his opponent pees his own breeches than slits his own throat, the less wet swordsman obviously wins the day. PRO offered a well researched opinion in good faith and CON only replied with ad hom and bad faith only- worse conduct than forfeit and absent any assertion relevant to topic. One of the few efforts on this site that could have been improved by full forfeit.

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:

Con didn't provide any arguments and had terrible conduct.

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:

Arguments: Pro offered several arguments, with multiple sources [and only one wiki! - yeah] in favor of pineapple on pizza, including health, taste, and acclamation of pizza eaters. Con offered the argument that it is disgusting, but further denigrated Pro's arguments. points to Pro

Sourcing: Pro had multiple qualified sources. Con ad no sources but personal opinion. points to Pro.

S&G: Pro had one grammar error "...of the people thinks..." plural noun, singular verb. Con had multiple errors: "wasnt," [twice] and "didnt." [no apostrophes. Point to pro

Conduct: Con: "you dirtbag." Pro was professional: Point to Pro.

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:

Basically a concession.

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 was the only person to offer an argument and Con called him a dirtbag. That is really bad conduct.

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:

Arguments:
Pro made two relatively strong arguments for why pineapple on pizza should be allowed (the health benefits and the fact that it is a somewhat popular pizza topping). On the other hand, Con only provided his own opinion ("Pineapple on pizza is disgusting") followed by a rant. Argument point to Pro.

Sources:
Pro provided polls and an article to substantiate his claims. Con provided no sources whatsoever. Sources point to Pro.

Conduct:
Con called Pro a 'dirtbag' and generally blasts Pro with insulting language in Round 2. This is bad conduct, thus conduct point goes to pro.

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:

Con completely trolled baselessly asserting that pineapple is disgusting and calling Pro a dirtbag and having consistently sardonic tone in Round 2.

Only Pro used sources and only Pro even remotely made an argument that used other people's taste and factors like health.