Instigator / Pro
35
1512
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#3219

The sentencing of Brock Turner

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
3
Better sources
10
0
Better legibility
5
1
Better conduct
5
0

After 5 votes and with 31 points ahead, the winner is...

dfss9788
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Background: In 2015 Brock Turner, a Stanford student, was caught in the act of raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. After Turner was convicted by a jury, the judge sentenced him to 6 months in jail and 3 years of probation, among other terms. The sentence was perceived as light by the community and the judge was ultimately removed from office using California's recall procedure. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

Resolved: The sentence given by Judge Persky in People v. Turner (2015) was appropriate

I will be arguing in favor of the sentence.

5,000 character limit per round in the interests of brevity

Format:

I will waive round 1 by stating only the following in round 1: "Round 1 waived per debate rules."
You will waive round 3 by stating only the following in round 3: "Round 3 waived per debate rules."
I (Pro) will not be permitted to respond to your (Con's) round 1 until round 3.
I (Pro) will not be permitted to respond to your (Con's) round 2.
Voters are instructed to disregard any response I (Pro) makes in violation of these rules, except that it may be considered a conduct violation.

The purpose of the foregoing rules is to conduct the debate in a manner which eliminates the contender's advantage and also to deprive my opponent of any opportunity to take advantage of me posting my case first.

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:

Full forfeit

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:

Full forfeit

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:

Win by Pro by full forfeit by Con., which makes the overall judgment easier to issue.

However, personal bias in the case presented by topic would have made judgment more difficult had Con actually presented argument because of my shock by the judge's decision in this case. Rape, in some jurisdictions, is second only to murder 1. I feel his removal from the bench was a positive step for justice in the jurisdiction; this judge ought to have been ashamed to render such a decision in a case of such personal, intimate violence. The victim's appeal for justice was slapped in the face. I'm left wondering why the judge chose to rape her a second time, by words, alone. If the judge's decision-making is that poor, I pity anyone having to deal with this poor excuse for a human.
That said, a personal appeal to Pro: why waive any round? You want a two-round debate, just specify a two-round debate. I view designed waivers in a debate by an initiator as cowardice. You want to have the final word in a debate, never initiate a debate, because reasonable protocol has the initiator offer the first word. Only cowardice wants to initiate, and then see what the opponent's arguments are before rendering one's own argument. Just because waivers are not formally prohibited is no reason to initiate a debate with that feature. In other words, get a backbone.

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:

No arguments from either side, but at least pro showed up.

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:

annihilation