Instigator / Con
21
1677
rating
24
debates
93.75%
won
Topic
#534

Resolved: The US government should end the War on Terror

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

blamonkey
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
15
1496
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

Round structure:

Con skips first post
Pro posts constructive

Con posts constructive
Pro rebuts

Con rebuts
Pro crystallizes

Con crystallizes
Pro waives last round

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Both debaters did a good job.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RfD from comment: https://www.debateart.com/debates/534?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=10

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I vote CON for framing of the debate and the impacts of the debate.

It was a fairly good case debate overall and executed fairly well. I don't have ground to prefer any team here in this scenario. I will break down all of the advantages

Death and Moral: I don't vote on a moral right. FMPOV, 224K+ is not substantial enough to allow the judge to prefer the interp of the PRO to be favored in this debate. This is a paradigm of mine. I don't care about the moral right when it effects little. CON extends it well enough, but could be done better. It is a sufficent enough argument here

We LOST: Pro has a point here. I value his evidence over the CONs saying how the troops have died more than any other war and as of now, currently are drawing back. I believe we have lost more troops and more lifes, a costly toll on the military, which outweigh his argument saying soldiers still fight no matter what. This is a term very broad and unclear and the PRO does a sufficent enough job here to prefer args here.

I don't get a clear ballot for the rest.
My issue starts with the PRO and the Framework.

PRO assumes he implied the framework. However, I need more than "application." Tell me it straight up and tell it to my face what it is. CON says, they condeded framework, which I am more inclined to believe. Why should I fish through your impacts to find your framework? I shouldn't as a judge. The framework turns some of the case stuff, but not enough to allow me to vote CON yet.

The impact is the nail in the coffin. I weigh the economy impact over anything the PRO says in this debate. The oil prices will clearly spike and that is clearly a huge ripple effect on the economy because everyone knows about US and oil here. I need strong cards saying why this doesn't impact, and I am not persuaded by the PRO to vote.

This is a good statement by CON: "Also, weaning off nearly 1/5 of our oil supply will take time. If AQAP were able to shut down the strait, the economic impact would be felt almost immediately. "

There is no virtual answer here and no real args that make prefer it. Therefore I am inclined to prefer CON. Good debate