Cross Examination
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Join me on https://www.chatzy.com/18498196534691. We agree on a topic and position, then begin debating. Whoever argument is more convincing wins the debate. After we both agree to end the cross-examination, any additional arguments are to be discounted.
First, as someone who has participated in cross-examination debate, this was not at all how one would go, there would be a lot less back and forths and much more conciseness within the answering of each question. A simple yes or no with a source would suffice.
Arguments:
It essentially boiled down to a point of semantics, as pro ADMITTED:
-would a federal level reform of criminal justice be effective?
-would it be justified for the federal level to enact the reform?
First of all - Con does demonstrate that there have been programs that have started the process of reform, thereby proving that their effects in some regard, and, citing the agreement of Pro, that there should be criminal reform
Second - Pro delves into the semantics about how a local reform would be better, but Con rightly points out that the federal government could simply enact a law, requiring each state to reform criminal justice systems.
As both points are ultimately won out by superior sources and rhetoric by Con - Arguments go to Con.
Sources:
As to sources - Con provides 5 different sources throughout the affair, each backing up the point they were making adequately; however, Pro uses 11 sources, each of which does correlate to their point and provides impact. Sources go to Pro.
BS&G: Both debaters are adequate in this regard, tie.
Conduct:
Con asks to end the debate after it has dragged on, Pro has made self-admittable semantic points, each with the implied goal of slowing down conversation. Conduct to Con.
Alr, it's fine.
I was actually gonna do the conduct thing the first time, but I am exhausted and kind of forgot to do that, so I had to fix it. Sorry
I saw you delete your already good vote and was wondering why.
Yes?
bruh
Judging that we both knew close to nothing about the topic, you'll have a fun time fact checking ;)
Yup, I got it, reading it now
I'm fine with losing this debate as I really didn't do well in the cross ex, and I suck at policy debate.
It's unrated and it's an alpha test for Cross-Examination.
try this one: https://discord.gg/wyGfWy7DVP
You do realize the invite is invalid right? I can't access the actual debate.
plz someone vote
bump
https://discord.gg/QKD9rru
New link.
Vote Bump
https://discord.gg/QKD9rru
New link.
Vote Bump
https://discord.gg/QKD9rru
New link.
Vote Bump
the link doesn't work. try https://discord.com/channels/764887724158222347/764925377256095824
https://discord.gg/5jnXErs
Vote.
done.
Make it unrated, and I'll accept.