Instigator / Pro
17
1449
rating
14
debates
35.71%
won
Topic
#3124

Joe biden only has 2 yil remaining

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
3
4

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

TheUnderdog
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
23
1498
rating
5
debates
50.0%
won
Description

joeeeee biden

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:

Obviously.

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:

Nobody knows what "yil" is and what it does and why Joe Biden has two of them left. Every argument regarding "years" would be irrelevant. The fact there is an existent source supporting the Pro position, however how unreliable, would mean Pro has the only valid argument in the debate. Since Con did not define "yil" as years or as anything at all, his arguments would therefore be disconnected from the skeletons of the debate itself and thus has no weight.

I looked at dictionaries and it does not mention anything remotely related to "years". The closest I have got is that "yil" is something that Joe Biden has 2 of, which is circular reasoning. Nobody's arguments were convincing at all but Pro at least has some real arguments that contributes to the topic statements compared to Con's none.

As for S&G, Pro failed to capitalize first letters in many places, and Con presented himself in a more professional manner.

Then for Conduct, Pro failed to treat this seriously whereas Con succeeds in doing so. Pro did not bring any constructive arguments, not even people on YouTube saying related stuff that is more reliable as a source than linking why F1 needs to change its rules(and no, Joe Biden will probably not drive a racing car any point later in life anymore, even if he has more than 2 years.).

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:

Not enough jokes from pro to merit comedic victory. All that remains is a foregone conclusion.

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:

Con argued the point beyond "I said so." Although a joke debate, the humour wasn't funny enough to levy the debate in Pro's direction.