Instigator / Pro
15
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Topic
#856

I am a radical left-winger who hates Jews and believes the rich should be killed and/or put in gulags

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
1
3

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Twelve hours
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
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:

Punking shite is what

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:

Counter vote bomb

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:

I was unclear what Con was trying to convey or meant by 'troll'. It seems to me like Con intended there to insult Pro or to convey something about Pro that somehow related to the resolution. I'm just not sure, it seems like semantic games to me and badly executed at that. Gotta say this is poor conduct and S&G. I truly didn't understand what Con was trying to convey and the use of a colon in the last Round, it felt like an inverted run-on sentence, where he split it up and I just couldn't follow? Colons are meant to be used before lists, what was the list?

Not only does Con insult Pro, I feel he gish galloped, trying to overload Con with too much to handle. This adds to the conduct mark. I just couldn't grasp Con's points. They were poorly communicated and outright rude at times intended only to evoke reaction. Don't be so strange, Con, it makes normies like me struggle to grasp your cryptic but possibly intelligent points.

Pro uses himself as a primary source for his own urges, I feel like this was a great use of source and the argument that all men are created equal and the sexist connotation of one who truly believed in that disliking women adds to how radical an outlook Pro has. Con relies on second-hand sourcing and frankly was outright rude to assume he knew the inner workings and thoughts of Pro. Poor sourcing and arguments, Con.

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 ff half of the debate, that's poor conduct