hammmmm
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
csjkhfrhjuwydusdtgsyegdeyut
It is obvious they are the same person but whatever.
Pro had slightly better grammar than con. otherwise, complete tie.
Quick Note:
It can clearly be seen that they are both the same person. Both were created on the same day, and this argument was posted where nobody could accept the challenge but one person. This person being iamham. However, i'll still judge accordingly.
Arguments:
Pro states "Ham is bad because it is hammy and it is not plump and not healthy", which in last part of his argument is his rebuttal and con then argued about the protein, minerals, and other nutrients however never rebuttals against the rebuttal about ham being "plump".
I would also state that con made an argument as of which pro never responded, however, it was in the last round and really nobody could counter that. Either way, an argument is an argument, and pro dropped it. His (cons) last round argument wasn't necessarily valid but did provide a valid point.
Meaning I give the arguments a tie.
Sources:
No side provides sources, thus a tie.
Legibility:
iamham states "and sfdhijahdfiu" which determines, though a small mistake, who's the winner of legibility.
Conduct:
Con makes a new argument in the last round whereas con can no longer make a rebuttal against, meaning I give pro this point.
---
Questions? I'll answer them in the comments or messages.
Both sides created on Feb 9th. Instigator starts a debate called ham and the contender creates an account called Iamham to accept the debate. This is clearly one user testing the sites defenses against cheating and clearly discovering there is not much defense here against multi-accounters and other cheaters.
Con cites "chicken nuggies" as a valid argument, which is currently composed of chicken, not ham. This is a critical point to consider and Pro's arguments about the health benefits and hamminess of ham are also very convincing, all whilst having relatively good grammar. In comparison, Con doesn't refute Pro's arguments well and fails in the grammar category, as to the point of being incoherent.
Pro argues ham is healthy and no rebuttals were offered until the final round when it was too late to count
"Ham Is yummy true but it can cause diseases and chicken nuggies and sfdhijahdfiu" (Con R2) is grammatically incoherent. Given the fact that both players only wrote 1 sentence per round argument, the error of 1 sentence weighs a ton here.
The others... Well, let's say, both players under-cultivated the 10,000 character limit.
I noticed a lot of the voters giving the win to Pro, which is understandable, but what they fail to recognize is the argument that Con gives at the end of R2 was the nail in the coffin. While Pro repeated his stance and added a little more, even emphasizing on his point with bold font, Con busted out the Trump card with "chicken nuggies". Con really takes it home letting us know, "sfdhijahdfiu". Both sides didn't provide any references but, come on, does one have to cite references when we all know "sfdhijahdfiu"? Clearly here, Iamham, is the winner above all criteria, especially when hammmmm is the subject and csjkhfrhjuwydusdtgsyegdeyut is to described here. Con knew his subject well while Pro just rambled about how much he liked ham. All Pro's arguments were moot since it was only a prerogative and not a scientific fact. Con threw some science, and some banger science I might add, into the mix, clearly showing that Con is the real master debater in the field of hammmmm.
Pro keeps winning spelling and grammar points even though in The title of the debate he spells ham with no less than 5 M's.
And spells the following word in the description
"csjkhfrhjuwydusdtgsyegdeyut"
I'm not understanding the point of this argument. Is it to say "Ham is not or is good for you"? Based on your comments that's what I am assuming. However, the title just states "ham" meaning both sides can be correct as they're both talking about ham. There really aren't any rebuttals, nobody counters anything. I think the only thing that determines the winner is spelling and grammar. iamham states "and sfdhijahdfiu" which determines, though a small mistake, who is the winner.
Simply stating this for when I come back to vote.