Instigator / Pro
32
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Topic
#224

Reverse Rap Battle: Supadudz (represented by RM) and RM (represented by Supadudz)

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
9
Better sources
10
8
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
5
5

After 5 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
27
1540
rating
30
debates
56.67%
won
Description

RM represents Supdudz and Supadudz represents RM.

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:

These debates are extremely difficult to judge. I preferred pro to con’s rap. I am going to analyze the debate more in the comment section when I get a chance. Good job to both of you. It was very close.

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:

Full disclosure; I was asked to vote on this debate, but my vote will be fair.

Rap isn't my area of expertise, so this is a tough one for me to judge. As far as I can tell both sides made excellent and well-crafted "arguments" for their respective sides.

One area where I did see a clear difference was sources. Both sides provided a source for the "beat" of their argument, however Pro went above and beyond by also inserting links to specific "topics" that were referenced in his "argument." For example, when accusing [his opponent/himself] of being a flat-earther, he provides a link to the forum topic where flat-earth theory was discussed. When using "angry-looking goose" as an insult, he links to a photo of the same. This added a lot of clarification to what these references were supposed to mean and how they applied to the subject being "debated" in this case. If I could give "style" points for this, I would, but awarding points for sources seems to be the best option within the voting system.

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:

So freaking close. I've read it with the music open in another tab so many times, and at the end of the day, I was pretty satisfied from the efforts of both contestants. By a slim margin I will give my vote to SupaDudz.

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 have to say “You think this beaks for squawking, you're the one typing here all day, like a wannabe rebirth of a debate-oriented Stephen Hawking,
You're a faulty-spermed worm whos 'snake's as dysfunctional as himself, filthy vermin,” won it for me.

RM was in my view a bit more creative, in both insults and scanning style.

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:

You both should take a bow on this one as far as I'm concerned. That shit was awesome, boys. Lmao.

All points awarded evenly to both Pro and Con for their mad skills at turning self-insult into poetry.