Total votes: 11
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
full forfeit from SorinkaVGlazu (CON)
Forfeit debate.
The entire discussion revolves around the resolution and the proper usage ("should") and interpretation of the word "atheist" itself.
CON argues that because the word itself has been used in some cases and by some people to mean "belief in the impossibility of any and all god(s)" that means that the word itself ALWAYS means that and only that.
This is obviously inaccurate.
CON is making an argumentum ad populum AND an argumentum ad verecundiam (with their reliance on famous quotes).
PRO confirms the resolution by comparing the word "apolitical" to the word "atheist" which elegantly illustrates that simply adding an "a" prefix to another word DOES NOT necessarily mean that you are "anti" or "the opposite" of that word.
No participation beyond the first round.
This is merely a statement of opinion, NOT a debate.
I'm calling this a tie because the core components of the debate, the terms themselves that comprise the debate resolution are never clearly defined.
This makes a "win" impossible.
PRO nearly won this.
Round 3, PRO states: "I 100% agree with you that 17 million people died in the holocaust what i meant was 6 million jews died in the holocaust as i stated in the comments. its bad formatting on my part. so we can either agree on a tie or u can just win"