Media fashion "requirements" are harmful.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
No constructive case from pro, makes the outcome a foregone conclusion.
While pro did assert that requirements exist, he never attempted to imply they are harmful. Whereas con denied the requirement, meeting his minimal goal against the lack of a pro case.
Per the DART voting policy, argument points are awarded like so: "Goes to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default."
This is not a tied resolution; there's no reason for me to be unsure if the resolution has either been affirmed or negated. There's only a failure to affirm the resolution and thereby no need for con to negate the resolution.
If I could somehow penalize both sides for their conduct, I would. While it was a little funny, objectively both sides did not act respectfully.
My best guess is that they don't want to be the first to speak so that they have the chance to do more rebuttals and/or because they don't want to lay the groundwork.
I don't know what the point of the excessive apathy, but that cost you the debate.
Autowin for Con then
y'know I can't lie: It would be funny as hell if they did this shit for the whole debate
I'll commend you for that one
Yeah, these type of tactics are really annoying and ridiculous
R1... Well played con, well played!
will one of you please just go first