You pick the topic.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points 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.
Pro used a kritik or semantic trick that he has utilised in 'rape should be legal' debates but this time the sides were flipped and therefore Mall ended up actually making a case for it being legal.
Mall argues that all things relating to law are legal, so it blatantly backfires.
Another easy vote in my opinion. Con wins.
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 last couple of sentences). There are numerous sentence fragments and comma errors that make it difficult to understand their argument.
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 the text of the first amendment, which explains the government cannot ban religion. This helps support their argument that Christianity shouldn’t be banned for solvency reasons.
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 over legality and illegality. Specifically,
“Whatever laws that are passed by the United States government should in fact be legal.
That's just simply what it would mean.”
However, this argument is contradictory to their position in the debate as Con points out. Con is the one that rightfully points out the Constitution prohibits banning of religion, and so it shouldn’t be banned.
Con wins.
"first of all, pro argued against his own side, so I don't know what to say.
Second, we are not debating whether passing laws should be legal, we are debating whether Christianity should be made illegal. You can pass a law that legally makes something illegal, that should not have been made illegal. We are debating the normative ethics in which you should argue that we ought to make Christianity illegal. No argument has been given for this, so the resolution defaults to con.
My argument is that the United States should not make Christianity illegal because the first amendment guarantees the freedom on religion and speech/expression. "