Parents Should Prohibit Their Sons From Wearing Skirts to Kindergarten
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Pro had won this debate, so I was curious if anyone could beat pro's arguments.
Pro makes a case for preventing bullying. Con adaptly steals this by saying it would be better if the schools enforced that, as opposed to the parent sets individually opting in or not. Pro tries to defend that parents could reinforce it, but this misses the thrust of the K that all stated benefits would be better attained if the schools did it (it honestly could have been a good defense if built out a little, such as parents prohibiting their children from violating kindergarten dress codes in general).
Con explores different angles with this, such as "Why are skirts even a 'thing' if they're a sore spot for feminine boys and masculine girls?"
Sources lean con, but they did not appear to be built into the case (with how little effort pro put in, I'm admittedly skimming).
Conduct for forfeiture. While some might find con's closing to be bad conduct, even were that true, being egotistical isn't a comparable magnitude of infraction.
Point Breakdown:
Convincing Argument - The arguments of Pro were quite strong to begin with, but Con effectively showed the entire argument and debate itself to be critically flawed. Con's arguments were much more convincing throughout. Points go to Con.
Reliable sources - Con had sources, Pro didn't. Pretty simple one - points to Con!
Spelling and Grammar - Although Con's argument was laid out much better, not enough to separate them. Tie.
Conduct - Pro forfeited the last round. Points to Con
If you two try this again, with more substantive arguments, I'll vote on it.
Also, I am Con. In America, any person who takes Pro would be cancelled immediately after the match, should it be broadcasted. People in China are nationally supporting and when it comes to social rights, centrists. They are not really exposed to western opinions so it would still make sense for them to argue this. Not here in America though.
The only reason Con lost in the original is because he wasn't even a pro at debating then. He was a fashion designer. He is there to give a speech about himself rather than to argue. In reality, if you take up this topic with any sociologist in the United States you'd be clapped.
Indeed I would have been, I was gone for UIL today, lol
are you Con on this topic?