Instigator / Pro
7
1469
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3073

Kids aren't simple minded

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Simple minded- Unsophisticated, No understanding beyond the basics, illiterate
Teenagers-13-19 years old
Kids/children- Younger than 13
Kid's age this debate refers to: 10-12

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:

RM in R1 provided reasons which is more than his opponent did. Add called RM lazy, so he loses the conduct point.

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:

One had a single assertion (that the resolution was true), the other had five which directly challenged the one. Pro never defended against any of the claims, save for complaints of sourcing even while his own claim was similarly lacking.

Con forfeited more, but pro called him lazy even while he offered more than five times as much detail in his case. To me the hypocrisy pushes it over the line.

As for if pro might have felt insulted by someone disagreeing with him... For the millionth time: When you start a debate on something, you are literally asking someone to disagree with you!

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:

Argument: Pro started with a reasonable resolution, but spoiled the effort in each succeeding round, effectively taunting Con for the balance of rounds. Simply put, Pro offered a truism, kids are smart. Yes, they can be. But that is not enough to convince this voter. The killer for Pro was accusing Con the lack of sourcing; something Con failed to do himself. For making the accusation, as if Pro did better, but did not, since confirming evidence is not a voting issue, Pro loses, Con wins these points

Sourcing: noted as part of argument. Con wins by default for a Pro-limiting accusation.

Legibility: tie

Conduct: Pro accusations and personal attacks loses this point. Con wins