Instigator / Pro
5
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#2172

Astrology accurately explains many things

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
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

shadow_712
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Description

Definitions:
Astrology: the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world.

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, this debate comes down to Pro's failiure to address Con's arguments in R1. Pro's R2 arguments moved the goalposts by changing the definition of astrology, and also went completely unsourced. Con failed to address any of this and instead entirely missed the point of Pro's args by claiming that astrology cannot explain individual events (when Pro's point was that Astrology explains events that happen as a whole). He also made an unnecessary point about astronomy and implied that it was mutually exclusive to astrology, when it was not. Pro's argument regarding fields of study was completely dropped by Con, too. In the end, though, the BOP was shared, and Pro failed to address Con's arguments (regarding the Berkeley study) altogether. This is a mistake that frankly can't be recovered from in most/all debates.

Both sides failed to source many claims that they make (and also failed to source a lot of definitions) and both had S&G mistakes, and so I feel like going any further there would be nitpicking.

Regarding conduct, Pro employed an unorthodox strategy of dropping his previous arguments and introducing new ones in the final round. I actually like it, and since Con had the opportunity to respond to Pro, I don't think it's bad conduct either.

Overall, this was a tough debate to read and analyze. I'd recommend that both debaters read their opponent's arguments carefully, source their claims, and have someone else read their args/run their args through Grammarly to ensure that they make sense. Both Intelligence_06 and Nikunj_sanghai are both truly voracious debaters and I wish them well in the future.

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 presented an irrelevant factor in his debate: multiple universes with the transparent attempt to artificially bolster the argument of accuracy of astrologic prediction. The attempt failed. A cited 29% accuracy in not convincing. Further, for the second round, Pros shifted the argument to one of claiming that because astrology has relation to other disciplines, astrology "owns" or dominates those other disciplines. Such a claim requires evidence, or it remains a mere claim. Not a convincing argument. Conversely, Con presented a consistent rebuttal to Pro's claims, and succeeded. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro's first round had sources, but the linkage of them to argument content was vague and required scurtiny to find the references in the body of the text. Eventually found them, but it should have been easier to distinguish from the text. In the end, the only valid sources that did not present mere theory instead of facts were the dictionary definitions, and included one source that is clearly opinion and not scholastic [Quora]. Plus, in round 2, Pro abandoned offering sources, claiming lack of necessity. Con's sources supported his arguments consistently. Points to Con.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro's attitude re: sources lost the point. Point to Con