Roasting Competition
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes 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
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
You have to come up with some pretty funny roasts against your opponent. Go for the jugular. May the best person win.
Pro: sometimes hard to connect with provided meanings or sentences. Although there was more content, quality is more important
Con: sometimes less is better. Especially if everything is said right. Overall responses were easier to understand.
Evaluation: con wins
R1 roasts were definitely good on both ends, but I think Con's response to Pro's roasts in basically all subsequent rounds were lacking a bit more depth when expecting a comeback from Pro's roasts. Win to Pro.
RND 1: Unimpressive by both, just because Pro wrote more, does not make it more cutting. Very hard to read. - Tie
RND 2:: Pro has a few quips that are funny. Nothing unique, however, I did chuckle. Con falls hard with one retort. - Pro
RND 3: Pro not impressive, yet Con fails to show.. - See Round 4.
RND 4: Pro extends, so I have to look at RND 3 and 4 together. Cons' comeback to Pro's round 3 was not impressive. On the balance, Pro takes the rounds.
RND 5: Cons response to Pro was not vicious enough.
Pro takes it.
That group of eighth graders after someone made a "yo mom" joke be like:
I challenge with my grandmother's roasted brisket she used to make when I was little.