Prove I don't use any applicable source (evidence) in any applicable topic of mine.
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
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- 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.
Prove I don't use any applicable source (evidence) in any applicable topic of mine.
The source as in evidence, something that is actually proof to you, proof to anybody like water being wet to the touch.
Questions or comments, ask or leave them.
Pro immediately goes for the coup de grâce using this very topic, and con replied asserting things exist but without clear examples of them...
Pro gives a number of examples of lack of citations, to which con eventually falls back on saying says other things should count as sources too... Which is ironic, since had he just pulled a dictionary he might have won this.
If evidence shouldn't be needed, is not the topic at hand. So within the scope of this debate, pro has easily shown a topic where con lacks sources.