Instigator / Pro
1
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#2295

We are being dumb down by the powers which rule over us

Status
Finished

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

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

After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

We will be discussing the poising of our food water and the wireless war.And GMO mosquito's

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:

There's honestly just not a lot to do with this debate, so I'll make this quick. Pro, you really need to make sure you define your burdens from the outset and all your terms. You let your opponent string you along with responses on that front that could have been confronted straight up in R2, but which you largely responded to by just saying he was wrong. I buy that you have to show that there are at least 2 powers that are facilitating this process, which isn't good for your arguments because that does mean I need two distinct groups. You can't just throw out a bunch of possible suspects; these had to be very clear at some point in the debate.

Meanwhile, much of Pro's arguments in support of his side have more to do with physical harm than dumbing down, so much of his case is just off topic. That just leaves the cell phone argument and the vaccines cause autism point. The cell phone point seems divisive, but it probably could have held some weight if it was clear what powers are involved in this plot. Pro seems set on arguing that it's more than just a single guy, but he never provides any support for that, relying on sources that may not be accurate enough to stand alone. As for the vaccine point, this is better linked to powers (mainly corporations), but lacks the links to prove it. Pro almost entirely focuses on a claim that DNA found in these vaccines can cause cancer (off topic) and autism, but provides no support for those arguments, and Con provides sources that both run counter to those claims and address the issue more thoroughly.

Pro's entire case amounts to a series of claims with threadbare evidence to support them, and with most of them off topic and the remainder failing to check all the necessary boxes to meet his burdens, Pro's case just doesn't have any teeth to it. As Con doesn't have these burdens, he wins the debate by default. I also award sources to Con, as Pro's sources largely devolved as the debate went on, including several YouTube videos and highly suspect (read: biased) websites. Finally, I take the rare step of awarding S&G. Seriously, Pro, work on your spacing between sentences. It's jarring to read through your argument when there's no space between your period and your next sentence. Also, at least occasionally, it would be nice to see some proofreading. All these misspelled words make it so much harder to read through.