Instigator / Pro
28
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#841

Girls joining the BoyScouts Of America

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
6
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Description

Rules:

- Keep it civil

- No semantics ( they hurt my head )

- The BOP is shared since I have to prove that it's a good idea and Con has to prove why it's a bad idea.

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:

For pro, the benefit of his proposal are clear: making the benefits of the BSA available to the entire population of children.

Importantly, pro points out that troops are not coed, but the meetings can be. This appears to be an important distinction, as it means the BSA remains largely the same.

Cons response seems as if he didn’t read this second point, as 2,4,5,6,7 appears to be predicated on the idea that troops will be coed, an issue that pro corrects.

Cons issues 1&3 as pro points out are appeals to tradition. Con does not offers a key impact or harm for changing these cases, so does not provide a compelling reason to treat these as substantial.

Cons second round basically asserts his position is valid and denies the necessity for him to provide any evidence: he focuses on issues that have already been dealt with by pros coed troop examples. And then forfeits the remaining rounds.

As a result, the bulk of cons claims are either erroneously assuming that troops are coed in pros plan, or are appeals to tradition with no justification. At no point are the benefits outlined by pro negated - and as such arguments go to pro.

Conduct to pro for cons forfeits.

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:

More than half the rounds were forfeited

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:

The entire pro case dropped without challenge (or even being read, as his #2 and #7 was already contradicted by pro's #2), and forfeiture.

Pretty straight forward, a benefit made available to twice the current population, at the expense of a negative effect applied to precisely zero people... The traditional values issue for example, is done without showing any way even one traditional value would be harmed... The distracted angle was not shown to be meaningful and was countered with basic logic.

Note on the distracted clause: Pro technically if there were so many more gay people in the scouts, they would not be the ones banned, you would be for being so distracting to them; that is the standard pro's logic proposes. AND since boy scouts are about teaching discipline, learning to deal with distractions (which I know, your number 2 prevents anyway) would lead to greater self improvement for them.

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:

Con forfeited the minimum of 50% of Rounds. This enables Conduct vote alone.