Total votes: 29
I knew this strategy would work so it didnt suprise me or make me laugh.
LucyStarfire tamed Con somehow out of autowin.
Neither side made an argument.
FF by Britain.
Conduct to Con for the insults to Alabama saying baptists from there are R slur and fake Christians also it was based no logic backing it, in Round 2. It was unprofessional conduct and also unwarranted in any logical sense for where the debate was going.
Arguments to Pro.
Con decided to drop Islam completely as he said he did not know about it. In my opinion, Islam is the single best way to win the debate for Con. The issue is that since he did not do so, the debate has then only 2 religions unless Jehovah's witnesses, seventh day adventists, latter day saints, gnostics etc got involved.
Those 2 are Judaism and Christianity. Even though Islam is technically in the debate, Con not challenging it means Islam defaults in Pro's favour as affirmibg Judaism (this is untrue but I cannot hse that knowledge as a voter because it is from outside the debate).
Con argues that Judaism must refer to modern Judaism that has more than only Tanakh involved. Pro argues that Judaism of the Old kind is enough to win.
In essence the entiee debate becomes abiut whether Judaism is true if the Bible's old testament is true. If you read Round 3 that literally becomes the sole clash.
I warned Con that on skimreading it was plausible Pro won. He demanded I vote.
I vote.
Pro wins. I do not find sufficient reason to doubt Judaism inside of Christianity. The rest of the debate ended up fluff from both sides.
Debates like this need to end.
FF regardless.
Pro outperformed Con on every level in this debate. The reason I cannot give Sources to Pro is that Pro relied on Con's source and did not source his own rebuttals. He did not even mention the source.
Con never ever presented the 5 ways by Aquinas. He linked, too lazy to present his case. That would be okay is those 5 ways were a subpoint backing ither stuff up but it was the skeleton of his case not even the meat alone.
In Rounf 2 and 3, Pro step by step clarifies issues with the 5 ways by Aquinas as well as how big bang and evokution don't necessarily prove wrong the resol tion that there are no arguments for or against the existence of God that actually make agnosticism less reasonable.
He had uncontested points against Aquinas' 5 ways are that the prime mover and prime cause must be moved or caused by what Pro interprets from the earlier premises in said ways. Another strong rebuttal was that if God is the greatest of everything he would need all opposite traits too. In fact one can i tuit from that rebuttal an even further issue that the proposed god would need to be infinitely evil, powerless, unwise to also be infinitely good, powerful and wise. There are ways to address this but Con never bothers to in the entire debate.
2 Rounds. Con forfeits 50% then blitzkriegs.
Unfair
I vote Pro.
If Con had done the identical flipped around it would be FF. So why isnt it FF this way around?
I agree with David's reasoning, I repaste my old rfd and I demand only Barney or David habdles this vote if it gets reported. I directly appeal Whiteflame.
I am ethically against final Round blitzkrieg strategy. It is feigning a forfeit, turned a 2 Round debate into a 1 Round debate.
Immoral, cunning not acceptable. I believe 0 new point raised in a final Round should be acknowledged in any situation outside a 1-Round debate (excpet on rebuttal to new points first speaker of last Round made but I am against that too unless they are direct rebuttal).
Take over jobs implies doing the task of the job, letting us relax and/or do others.
However, the rebuttal that we make no money does neutralise it as neither elaborated on either I vote tie.
FF .
Mods, handle this.
The debate is a FF as all Rounds after the opening had no argumentation from one side.
Give me mod powers. I will show you how to run the show. The reign of the Ratman shall come.
FF .
FF .
In this debate the description renders both sides defunct.
Pro's entire Round 1 basis is semantics via 3 key definitions. If I ignore those arguments as the description demands then Pro has 0 case all debate as he is asking me to blindly believe that the letters a-g-n-o etc are equidistant in definition to t-h-e-i-s-m and the a-same-letters
word.
Con uses Bible, dictionaries and Wikipedia to back his case
Pro uses the R slur in Round 3.
Both sides severely violated the description but Con used identity as a non semantic argument in Rounds 2 and 3.
I do agree with Pro that maybe they are wrong. I cannot know they are right as apparently all semantic arguments are banned so I must treat the topic as gibberish.
Conduct to Con for at least trying a non semantic angle that doesn't violare description and because Pro used R slur.
FF. Also, of the onky Round Con posted, the 2nd song was a fake song. Meaning it isnt Islamic at all and was just straight up hoax... Rihanna isnt Muslim AT ALL and it wasn't her but an AI that was singing.
Both sides were poor debaters in this debate. Let me be very clear on that.
Con intentionally forfeited 3 out of 4 Rounds. I don't care the he posted 2 of the 3. He really FF'd. The problem is so did Pro but with 1 Round less of intent.
Con basically plagiarised a website using copy paste to make his arguments. That website blatantly is geared towards Talmudic Jews and at the very least severely Conservative ones.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/about-jews-for-judaism
If you scroll down to the images with the bearded men it blatabtky is an Orthodoxy movement behind the website.
Pro noticed 0 of this. Con used literal Talmudic reasoning and Orthodox are among the Jews that hold Talmud, written after Christ was around, to dismiss hom based on redefinitions of what the Messiah had to fulfil or ignoring that Christianity did spread around the world and did hell world peace eventually happen.
The fact Pro dropped all of this and says now it is time for Voters to 'pick favourites when he had 2 different Rounds still left to reply to Con, loses the debate for him.
As for Pro's case, it seems he is trying to explain how Christianity opens up Judaism's faith and heaven to gentiles. I don't really know what to do with that since he doesn't address the fact that in Round 3 of 4, Con raises some reasons to dismiss Jesus as the Jewish prophecied Messiah (but these were mostly Talmudic reasons which is what is so utterly irritating).
There is nothing we can really do but vote arguments to Con. I don't think copy-pasting ones entire constructive out of a solo linked source should win the sources point.
Voting Justification:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6097/comments/64357
End at this:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6097/comments/64351
If it somehow gets jiggled later, it is 6 parts, you can surely find it.
Both sides seemed to somehow agree on the 4 questions where at least 1 needs to be a yes to make the law count as valid.
Pro's Round 1 covered many harms from kissing:
The problem here is this:
1. It cannot be cured
2. It lasts for life
3. It is transmitted to others then
4. It literally affects billion of children
5. It hurts really a lot
6. It can be transmitted not just by kissing, but also from mouth to genitals much later in life, making sexual life uncomfortable.
Con challenged NONE of these at all.
This means Con lost the harm question alone. Since Con agreed if 1 is a yes, the law passes and Pro clarified he addressed it in prior Round, Con loses.
Neither side define 'important'.
Con defended the idea that grades being jigbest are often attaiend by wasting time in childhood studying that could be spent having fun.
Now how he justifies it being wasted is that even the job being high hours and high paying ends up backfiring in less free time later in life.
Pro's case states priorities but doesnt prove they are important.
FF but topic makes Pro seem like a woman abuser.
FF Pro
Con also argued well.
Round 3 forfeit gives conduct to Con.
Round 2 shows Con exposing Pro's definitions as backfiring. Pro's definitions of fire magic and blood magic backfire. They do not let trickery alone be a validated magic form.
This sealed the deal as seen by Pro forfeiting Round 3.
This was semantic sepukku.
Both sides FFd after Round 1. This negates FF and males it a 1 Round debate.
bith sides severely disagreed on what Anesthesia is vs the triggers of it (anasthetics).
Only one side used 1 source (other used 0) but I am not entirely sure Pro write his Round himself as opposed to AI structuring it as it is very strangely structured.
My conclusion is not based on outside knowledge of what anesthesia is but only from this terrible debate.
In this debate Con says anesthesia is a state where one can 100% lose consciousness by conceding they lose consciousness.
Neither side define 'cause'. So, does losing consciousness cause loss of consciousnessness? Pro clearly advocates this while Con also grasps at an angle that you do not need to lose consciousness to be abesthetised. He did fail to.back that up with a source and specify what I know outside this debate to benlocal anesthetic.
Instead he doubles down on this lapse of sourcing and argumebtation by defining it as the state of losing consciousness. He says this is an effect rather than a cause.
The issue is that an effect can still cause. An effect can either perpetuate or anew cause more.
he contradicted himself literally the next line of arguments after defining anesthesia in a way that lets it not necessitate loss of consciousness.
The used of source was not well utilised by Con as it backs Pro in a way.
I vote Pro as both sides terribly debated this and I find that the semantics Con attempted gebuinely backfired. Losing consciousness causes people to lose continuity of consciousness. Neither side defined 'cause' or 'continuity' for me to conclude Con's Kritik is valid.