Rolls-Royce Is Better Than Ferrari
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 34 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
original topic. I'd prefer a less subjection comparison than just "better than" because just about everything is better than just about everything else in some way.
Pro's argument was too brief and far too unsubstantiated. Con's arguments were persuasive, succinct but sufficient. I was surprised that Con's argument was mostly sensory (as opposed to some performance or status argument) but that worked well in this context.
Args to Con
Only Con used sources and those were fun and effective
Conduct to Con for quadruple forfeit (really?)
Con produced better arguments. Con had more and better sources. Both had acceptable spelling and grammar. Pro forfeited almost every round and in addition to that, he conceded the whole debate in the final round.
Concession
Concession
Forfeit/concession
I'm pretty sure he is a casual not as experienced debater and your deriving theories from that...
That's the point. He/she only has to state one way it's better and say 'yeah it's worse in other ways but that doesn't mean the Debate Resolution is wrong in the way I said it's true' and Con will have no angles left. This is a toxic Burden of Proof style baiting.
In what way? If I understood the context a bit more I would happily accept your debate.