Society is dysfunctional
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Pro could have won. Both parties had good arguments, but got hung up on defining "dysfunctional".
Had Pro pressed for a more clear idea such as "society is not functioning as well as it could" , Pro could have won.
Because Pro forfeited a rounds, I sadly award points to Con
This is an interesting debate, although the question of "dysfunctional" provokes an interesting subdebate:
That "subdebate" was more or so like this
> CON says dysfunctional is not functioning properly, but there is no social norm because only 1 society exists (logic is correct here)
> PRO implies that more than one society exists, and thus our society can be dysfunctional due to anti-social behaviors
> CON asks PRO to define dysfunctional
> PRO defines dysfunctional and society, proving that they don't contradict and an individual human can be dysfunctional per PRO's definition
> CON questions PRO's source of definition
> PRO mentions that a google search reveals that Oxford Languages provided the definition
However, CON provided his definition of dysfunctional in round 1, without a source? (lol)
Yet I'd say CON would win the "subdebate" here since he pointed out that it is unreasonable to assume a source when not provided.
I'd suggest to PRO next debate to a) define necessary terms within the first round itself and b) provide sources (links) to where the definition came from.
CON also repeats that 1 society cannot be abnormal because there is only 1 society, and that would be considered "normal society".
CON satisfied his BOP. PRO has not yet because he mainly just argues the definition of dysfunctional, rather than actually arguing how society is dysfunctional.
Also PRO, when you say CON's debate intentions are "moreover to deflect away and come up with abstract interpretations in the hopes that you ‘win’ the debate."
... Definitions, topic statements, a true meaning of a title need to be adequately defined for a debate to resume, this is usually done by the R1 instigator since that is the first actual words of a debate.
CON wins here since he had the better argument and PRO ff'ed R5.
-> “ society is dysfunctional because gay people feel the right to now wave their dick in your face and mold your children into monsters therefore pro wins”
Without even verifying if pro indeed made said argument, both sides need to be analyzed.
Vote deleted.
bump