Total votes: 63
Full forfeit. Bad arguing and bad conduct. Con cites in the debate.
Both debaters did a good job.
RFD:
RM said, "Are you a demigod here to beat over and over multiplied by infinity?". Lying is poor conduct.
Good effort by both people. It's hard to judge songs subjectively since I prefer the cold hard facts.
Both songs were not my interest. Good effort though. Tough to pick.
Both rappers did better then I think I could.
Pro Forfeit.
Con forfeit.
Pro forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Forfeit by Con.
Spelling, Conduct and Sources: Tie for each of these. Both debaters cited and their spelling and conduct was comprobly good.
Better arguments: Virt. Virt had a good argument with pointing out Hitler. Blamonkey did not adequately address this, so I think Virt won the debate 7 to 4. A more thorough analysis is below:
Pro's arguments(R1):
-Death penalty has racial and social class bias.
-Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment without parole.
Con's arguments(R1):
-The death penalty serves "justice".
-The guilty party can't murder again.
-Someone like Hitler deserves the death penalty(DP), therefore making the DP justified in extreme situations like this.
Pro's case R2:
- Whether or not the DP serves Justice is opinion based, so if he dropped this, I wouldn't blame him.
- The guilty party almost never escapes from jail and when they do, they are recaptured within a day. Con does not counter this, so Pro wins this battle.
- Pro drops the Hitler question so Con wins this battle.
Con's case to R2:
- Under his plan no one innocent is executed. This is wishful thinking. He agrees with the race based claim, so that point can be put to the side. He offers a solution to this by making every defendant have at least half of the members of the same race on his jury. That will mean that black people will be more likely to be on jury then white people, since blacks are more likely to commit murder. I don't think this is a problem.
- His cost argument is to decrease the amount of time spent on death row. However, this results in more innocents getting killed. He states, "If a just punishment is more expensive than an alternate unjust punishment, don't we have a moral obligation to go with the more expensive just sentence?" This was a poor argument for Virtuoso to make since his argument contradicts what he said here.
The debate went off topic. However, he cited as to why Jesus is not the messiah and cites the bible and Torah multiple times. I say this as a non jew.
Con didn't provide any evidence to support his claim.
Full forfeit by both sides.
Mostly forfeit on Pro's part.
Arguments for Pro's concession and forfeits.
Conduct for RM's insults in the final round.
Arguments:
Con's main argument was that it was bad for the children. However, lets say for the sake of his argument that homosexual marriages are bad for children. Wouldn't this not prohibit childless homosexual marriages?
His 2 arguments got thoroughly debunked by Pro.
Conduct:
Con appeared to troll with his 1st body paragraph. He stated, "Uh, I disagree with your second contention. ... So he asked Trump if he can get it, but Trump said: "Nah bro, that's gay." This suddenly makes Mike Pence realize he is gay but he then just said ok then I won't be gay anymore. The End."
Sources:
Con had a better source, as he managed to find a left wing website(Huffpost) that was right wing on this issue.
Conduct:
Pro called Pro's site a "hate group". They were merely right of center. This is poor conduct.
I would score this 4-3 Con, but there wasn't much of a clear winner in my opinion.
Pro forfeit one of the rounds without apologizing for it.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit on Pro's part. Con cited. Pro didn't.
Full forfeit on Pro's part. This is poor arguing and poor conduct. Con cites.
Pro forfeited the whole Big Boy debate.
I can't access YouTube on my Chromebook, but I knew one of the songs from Pro's list, so I like that song better then a lot of unknown songs.
Almost full forfeit on Pro's part.
Pro gave arguments. Con forfeit and had no arguments, which in my book count as poor conduct and poor arguments if none were presented. Also, Pro cites the bible. This is a source point.
Full forfeit on Con's part.
Full forfeit.
Nothing in the debate.
No argument from either side. At least Pro wanted to debate and the BoP as on Con.
Con had an argument and had better conduct.
At least Pro tried to debate the topic.
BOP is on Pro and no proof was provided. Pro forfeited. This is poor conduct.
Pro was more convincing, stating that it created revenue. Con said that this revenue was a bad thing. However, Pro forfeited 1 round without an apology. This is poor conduct. Despite Pro stating that he was going to lose this debate, I think my vote points in the opposite direction. I hope I don't get blocked for this vote.
Con actually cited. Pro did not. However, Con forfeited without apology in the debate or in the comments.
There was no arguing.
Pro was a little racist in his argument. He said, "Your whack ass rhymes will expose you for being white". He also forfeited multiple rounds. This is not convincing and poor conduct.
No debate.
Full forfeit on Con's part. Pro actually had arguments, sources and didn't forfeit a round.
I disagree with Con about guns, but their arguments and grammar were about even, so I put it as a tie. Both debaters used slightly biased sourcing. Although Pro's source he tried to keep objective, the president of that website writes for Fox News, so there is some potential bias there. https://crimeresearch.org/about-us/. However, Con cited a university which tends to have liberal bias as well so they are even on sources.
Pro forfeit a round. This is poor conduct.
Pro failed to provide proof. I don't believe that YeushaBought has the same account as NKJVPrewrather. One of them is a liberal, the other is a moderate. I forgot who was who.
However, Con swore and threatened to block Pro. This is poor conduct.
Pro forfeit multiple rounds. But when he did speak, he changed my mind.
At least Pro did not want to forfeit. The BoP was on Con.
They agreed it would be a tie.