Nicola Tesla was the smartest person in history
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 21 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
One the one hand, Pro entitled the debate "Nicola Tesla was the smartest person in history" but only put forth an argument regarding the number of inventions Tesla had, but failed to explain the connection between the two. On the other hand, Con does not refute this data, or the implied connection between it and the resolution, and instead focused on the definition of smartness.
Con placed a burden of proof on Pro to demonstrate the resolution, but Pro's first round, in an implicit fashion, did: Tesla was the smartest because of the list of inventions. Given the lack of explicit argument on Pro's part, and lack of explicit rebuttal on Con's, I make this a Tie.
Both sides provided adequate sources in support of their positions. Tie.
I saw no major discrepancies in spelling and grammar between the two opponents. Tie.
Pro's style is needlessly antagonistic. More importantly, Pro forfeited a round of the debate. Conduct goes to Con.
Pro forfeits in Round 3 after what I assume is it becoming apparent to him that in congratulating Tesla on his objective ingenuity, Pro forgot that there's nothing objective about such a congratulation which Con explains in detail, proving with solid links too.
Linking to a Wikipedia page of Tesla's supposed inventions (some of which were as a result of him, not actually him inventing it) and then linking to Merriam-Webster for a definition is nowhere near to equal to Con's direct sourcing in raising bout scepticism in measuring intelligence itself and then in the proof that Tesla's was never and can never be measured at least by current means.
Pro forfeited. Additionally, pro refused to provide any evidence that everyone else in history was less smart than Tesla.
Conduct goes to con because of the forfeit.
Pro has a tall burden of proof that he simply never meets. He never gives us an objective rubrics in which to judge who the “smartest” person in history was. In round 2 it’s easy to see that he doesn’t understand the burden. Con doesn’t need a counter example, a point that he argued quite well.
Neither Con nor Pro had particularly convincing arguments and both spent the debate on semantics, however Pro did not fulfill his BoP, so Con wins. I think Pro would have been better off had he defined "smartest" in the introduction, but he did not. Pro has forfeited, as thus loses conduct.
haha, con, you bastard, that's not how it works, if Bill Gates asserted he was the richest man on earth there is no need to check that everyone on the planet has less money than him, it would be up to someone to have more money and challenge Bill Gates for the title