You pick the topic.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Here's a chance for you to design the platform based on your topic selection.
We'll obviously have opposing sides.
Whatever topic you choose of course, it'll fit whichever side it falls on for you in tandem with the position preset .
***THE TOPICS CANNOT BE DUPLICATE. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC FORFEITING IF THR SAME TOPIC IS CHOSEN***
Questions and concerns, leave a comment or send a message.
This is a pretty straightforward decision in my opinion.
S/G: I award this to Con. Their sentences made sense and were easy to ready grammatically and structurally. Pro on the other hand had run-on sentences (like the very first sentence). Second “sentence” has a sentence fragment as well just as another example.
Conduct: This is a tie as both sides were respectful to each other and there was no cursing or inappropriateness.
Sources: I am going to give this to Con because they provided a source unlike Pro. The source is an official government website that demonstrates bilateral relations and cooperation, which undermines any notion that the US should attack India.
Arguments: This one goes to Con as well. The S/G by Pro really makes it hard to understand their argument. My understanding is that Pro makes an argument for defense and preservation of lives in the United States. However, this argument only makes sense if India were to attack the US, which Pro doesn’t talk about at all. Con rightfully points out that India is not in any war, which means the defense argument doesn’t apply. Plus he mentions the benefits of not nuking India with his source, thus fulfilling is burden.
Con wins.
I have 4 debates and 8 hours.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3755-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3756-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3762-you-pick-the-topic
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3754-you-pick-the-topic
I am in critical need of a vote at this point of time, can anyone please vote for these debates? They are extremely rudimentary decisions.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ehyeh // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
"None of con's arguments provide any reason to nuke India. My argument is pretty simple: India is not involved in any war that makes it necessary to use nuclear weapons. India is a country that has overwhelmingly positive relations with the US, and they have not caused any major global issues, therefore, we should not destroy millions of innocent people. "
>Reason for Mod Action:
This isn’t an RFD, just a direct quote of Pro’s final round. That is not sufficient.
**************************************************