I Am A Devil-Worshipper
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 9 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
I thank my opponent in advance for this opportunity to clear my name and erase all suspicion that I am in fact a worshipper of demons, or any unclean spirits. What happened to Billy had absolutely nothing to do me. Between the hours of 2 and 4 AM on Monday, February 22nd, I was sound asleep in bed, believe it or not. There was no hastily inscribed pentagram on the floor of my outhouse surrounded by 5 cheap candles between 2 and 4 AM, nor at any other time before or afterwards.* The blood-stained parchment found in my left pants-pocket (allegedly) was in fact neither a parchment nor blood-stained, therefore it is not real and cannot be presented as evidence against me.
Also, the voice on the cassette tape chanting the Angelus backwards, in Latin, in a very muffled yet deep voice, cannot possibly be mine since it employs the classical pronunciation and I would never desecrate anyone's most sacredly held beliefs by trying to channel Abaddon in an insultingly vernacular dialect.
* Since I do not convene with the demonic, I am unable to predict the future, hence the asterisk signifying a certain reasonable allowance of uncertainty.
Full forfeit
Full forfeiture.
Full forfeit
Full forfeiture
Full forfeit
The exhibit of Billy, notwithstanding, I am confused by Con's R4 argument re: capretto, which is not pork, short, or long, but kid, i.e., an immature goat. I've eaten both, and have a clear, distinctive palette for both, being an omnivore. Further, strictly by Voting Policy, I could potentially call the debate a tie since both participants forfeited at least a round, and at that, only by Con's R2 statement was it a mutual forfeit. Further, Con's only argument relative to the Resolution exists in R1, after which, the commentary, while entertaining, was not convincing as further argument, further advancing [or retarding, in this instance] a vote for Con. R4, as noted above, was confusing.
All considered: Tie.
Full Forfeit
Full Forfeit
Con while gorging himself on long pig, went wholly unrefuted... Poor billy!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed (non-moderated debate)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: none
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This debate clearly falls into one or more category of non-moderated debate, and the vote does not seem to be cast in malice. Therefore, no intervention is merited.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#non-moderated-debates
Additionally the vote was tied anyway...
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
Thanks for acknowledging my superior skill in outwitting my opponent, much appreciated.
I respect that, thanks for voting. Perhaps my culinary lingo is not strictly on point.
Thank you for voting!
Thanks!
🍖 Yum! Thanks for voting!
He has no alibi, motive, means and opportunity.
There was a lot of physical evidence at the scene of the alleged offense. A lot of ritualistic devices and con can be placed in the area, considering the location
There is literally no evidence. I don't know if Pro can win in any way possible.
"As a man thinketh..." is the axiom, and the reverse may also be true. As the Description is a 'thinketh,' it qualifies.
You don't say?
????????????????????