Instigator / Pro
7
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#606

You don't know what socialism is (for right wingers only)

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

GuitarSlinger
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

No information

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

It was impossible to win this debate if Con didn't truly shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak.

Pro never can prove that Con didn't know everything that Pro said about Socialism that was true and has to prove that what Con disagrees to Pro with is actually true for Pro's stance and not Con's stance on Socialism.

Con literally proved that he knew what Socialism is because he even shows a level of further interpretation of Pro's own stance (being the anarcho-communist that Pro is) and challenges Pro to explain how the redistribution is done if not by government. Pro lost because Con displayed comprehension of what Socialism is and that's all Con had to do in order to win.

Pro used sources to defend his take on Socialism, so Pro wins sources as Con never used a single source.

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

Pro offered a definition of socialism, and con offered his definition which seemed broadly in lines

As pro doesn’t challenge either his or his opponents definition - it appears con negates the resolution by showing he understands what it means.

Now, pro goes on to argue that con is talking about big bad government. This may be the case, but con added “typically” as a caveat to his position, which didn’t appear to necessitate government intervention.

As pro offers no additional definitions, nor really contests cons definition other than this - con successfully negates the resolution. Arguments to con.

Conduct to con for pros forfeit.