mama mia
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
mama mia means gay. like bro, you wanna suck wang? vote me if you support gays
“Mamma mia, cos’ha sbagliato!”
“Leviticus 20:12-13”
“If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.” (12) [3]
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (13) [4]
“motherfucka”
mama mia is the word I use to DESCRIBE gay people
I'm saying that GAY PEOPLE are bad
R1:
First Con provided a false definition of mama mia in the description then Con proceeds to use a bible verse which is unrelated to the topic.
Pro provided an excellent and solid argument and provided the correct definition of mama mia.
R2:
Con did not rebuttal any of Pro's arguments and points in R1. Con loses conduct points for saying "you dork"
Pro yet again provides another solid argument.
Rounds 3-5:
Con provides no arguments/rebuttals for the rest of the debate. Also loses more conduct points by calling Pro a "bitch" in R3.
Pro asks Con to extend arguments but that never happened.
Arguments go to Pro | Pro provided arguments for R1 and R2 and Con didn't rebuttal and/or give any arguments in return to defend their side.
Sources go to Pro | Pro provided sources for R1 and R2 of their arguments and Con never provided any.
Legibility go to Pro | This also goes to Pro. I feel they had more legibility with their grammar and their arguments were clear.
Conduct goes to Pro | Pro had a great attitude the whole time and had better conduct than Con whereas Con called Pro out of their name.
Pro did not prove "Mama mia" correct, and Con did virtually nothing. Args tied.
As for the other points, Con cited 0 sources, made several grammatical mistakes giving me the impression that Con did not care at all. Also, Con did not care at all, as seen in his lack of efforts with all his "arguments" being one-liners, that is, if they had practical meaning in the first place.
Pro, on the other hand, at least tried, even if he attempted to prove the negative of a negative instead of a positive. Then as how unclear the title is, I give it a pass. The contender wins.
Thanks for pointing that out, Devon.
r3: post nose, bitch
r4: white america
Dear Con, please note args + sources + conduct = 6/7 of your score. Not cool!
Nah I'm good. The real debate you had is a big lie. How about every debate you make is a real debate and not a troll debate. Troll debates aren't allowed.
hey assholes. vote on the real debate i had
This debate... happened... I guess.
hello voters!!!
"You cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance."
um... is this allowed in a debate?