Instigator / Pro
6
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#2262

TOURNAMENT R(1):Speedrace vs Crocodile

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Judges
Barney's avatar
Barney
50 debates / 1,280 votes
Voted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Judges
Contender / Con
2
1436
rating
22
debates
38.64%
won
Description

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bhNN3TEx1wJmf_Tq2yevvEvAhyIFOmKJYkBN_DLumOA/edit?usp=sharing

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:

Ultimately a concession...

Pro did a fine job showing variety of education is double good plus (pardon the Newspeak pun). I think had the debate proceeded this ultimately would have been the deciding factor, that a variety of education improves the population via making them as a whole more complete.

Con did a good job countering given the poor performance of some, and the inability to actually prune the bad ones. I will say that I was unmoved by the appeal to pity that not everyone wins the lottery for them (sorry I've seen this type of thing too much, just because something does not lift up everyone, does not mean it should not be allowed to lift up anyone).

Pennsylvania is a fine point. It runs the risk of cherry picking, but even as a numbers guy, I do relate well to individual cases even while I know it's not everywhere (toss in one or two more bad states, and it would feel like it's not a mere outlier).

The ability to reform was a good defense, even if it was open to being exploited by con via expectations vs. reality (kinda like a proposal to raise taxes to put money into x, sure you can raise taxes, but that does not guarantee the earmarked money will actually go into x).

The wages one was a nice example of a defense which harms the credibility of an opponent. While it leaves an unexplained wage gap (around 3.6%), it isn't a significant one when it was promised to be a huge one.

Sources:
Flipping Rep. Roebuck's appeal from con was well played, when pro already had a significant lead from well utilizing the numerical data points.