AleutianTexan

Notes in comments

Really good topic, I vote Pro, here's why:

1. I buy RM's analysis of the resolution, Pro must defend no economic regulations, Con must defend some.

2. I buy that a FM econ (Free market) creates innovation and solves diseases from vaccines and that government ownership failed education.

3. I buy that a GR econ (government regulated) economy forces executives to pay their taxes, however, it is immoral to make people pay taxes for things they don't agree with.

4. I buy that a GR econ forces toxicity labels. I also buy these labels lowers the quality of the food.

5. I buy that a FM econ would have boycotts that stop toxic foods. I also buy that the labels are expensive leading to hunger in impoverished communities.

6. I buy that a GR econ forces safety standards.

7. I buy that a GR econ gives union rights AND right to work regulations.

8. I buy that a GR econ gives minority protections.

9. I buy that a FM econ abolished child labor through the market before there was an actual regulation.

10. I buy that a GR econ gives fair pay, unpaid leave, agricultural visas, and restaurant woerker's rights.

11. I buy that this debate is only about the US and any comparison to a nation in the Global South is not a useful comparison because of different morals and cultural values and wealth.

12. I buy that Slavery wouldn't come back if we had a FM econ.

13. In regards to cartels, I buy that consumer sovereignty solves any price issues.

14. I buy that autobiles proves government innovation makes it unaffordably expensive and causes more old vehicles

15. I buy that healthcare becomes more inaccessible from the exorbitant costs.

In conclusion, I buy that a free market economy stops hunger in the poor and stops a lot of car accidents by making new cars more affordable. These are the only terminalized impacts. Con lists a bunch of laws like pay, child labor, abolishing slavery, etc., but they don't impact this out, and Pro is leveraging arguments like morality prevents these, customer boycotts prevent these, and that customer sovereignty controls prices. These are never contended with, giving them a lot of defense to weak arguments to begin with. For example, RationalMadman talks about restaurant worker's rights, but that's the entire conversation that happened on that point. I buy that boycotts can probably solve AND a free market economy can solve for hunger in the poor.

Notes for Pro:
1. You start answering Con's individual points late in the round. You should answer it the round after they say it, not wait a round.
2. You had a good out on the definition debate. You define "government intervention" with a list of what that entails at the end. You should say that Con has to defend those and that anything else is "social regulation", like child labor.
3. You seem well understood on the anarcho-capitalist argument of consumer boycotts and things of similar nature. The only thing I would add is looking out how government regulations stop worker representation, for example, Biden just stopping the railroad strikers. That, and union strikes happened pre-National Labor Relations Act. This means arguments about "pay" and "worker's rights" are solved under anarcho-capitalism.
4. Finally, not a note, but a funny idea, post the same argument but read leftist accelerationism in the first round. Unregulated economy collapses capitalism leading to socialism which is good.

Notes for Con
1. Don't just post walls of text and lists of laws. A source should supplement your argument, not be your argument. That, and a list of laws doesn't mean anything if you don't defend each law as having a reason we need it.
2. You have to answer claims of customer boycotts and customer sovereignty for price controls. These are easily disproved, but you need to do that work. That, and answer the "US is better than other nations and would never turn into those savages". I phrase it like that to show how goofy it is and how easy the answer is.
3. A formal "I don't have to win all four of these regulations, just one, to prove Con" would go a long way. I don't know if it mattered in this round as I think you fail to deal with the big pieces of defense Pro has.

Very good round, I vote Con, here's why:

1. I buy that delusion and disillusion are the same. Con bringing this difference up in the last speech is too late for me to fairly count it and bad faith engagement with a non-native English speaker who clarified a mistake. I hate the concept of conduct points, but this is one of the few rounds that makes me consider its value, however, it isn't in this round.

2. I buy that Pro defined delusional (I'm going to use this, but it is interchangeable with dillusional) from the first speech as anyone who believes a lie. Con's attempt to shift the definition in the last speech is too late and I don't weigh it.

3. I buy that the definition of trans is any of the three points (surgery, hormones, desire) and not all of the three points. The grammatical examples that Con gives and the fact that Pro didn't answer with a defintional clarification from Round 2 makes me buy Con's use of only one at a time.

4. For all of the historical examples of Native Americans and this one trans man from Spain in the 16th century or 17th century, they're all delusional. This is never answered except through the creation of a new definition that I don't buy.

5. I buy the resolution doesn't define a time and that Pro must define that all technologies that could be possible would still make trans people delusional. The resolution, textually, doesn't define a time. Pro says that their case implies the present, but Con is right that they get to make a wide array of arguments.

6. I also buy that future tech could allow trans people to become fully the other gender, making them not delusional.

7. I buy that, simply wanting to be more like a woman is not delusional, but this isn't feeling like a woman, so it doesn't meet the definition anyways.

8. I buy that wanting to do gender transition surgery for fun does not make you delusional but makes you trans under the definitions as I've accepted them from the beginning.

9. I buy that all means that one example of a non-delusional trans person counts as a Con vote.

In conclusion, even if all the historical versions are delusional, and therefore reaffirm Pro's case, the possibility of future tech that allows for non-delusional trans people and the possibility of someone who wants gender transition surgery without the desire to be a "real" person of the other gender means that Pro does not meet the burden of all.

Notes for Pro
1. Clarify that "and" in the definition of trans means all three simultaneously earlier than the third round. You're using to answer arguments that Con made in Round 1, so you should be saying it in Round 2.
2. The "does future tech count" debate is lazy on both sides. You're saying we shouldn't assume and Con is saying that we should take the resolution and description at face value. You should be impacting out what happens to debates if the Con can shift time frames on fact/value debates. Namely, no debate to find truth ever can be winnable by Pro because they can't account for the future with full certainty. This makes the debate impossible, and should be rejected for a more fair debate. If you say that, Con is in a lot harder position.
3. You use sex and gender interchangeably, and while Con didn't engage in good faith on this point, the basis of queer/gender theory is that gender is the social construction of sex and sex is physical genitalia. If you have this debate again against someone who understands transgenderism, they'll press you on that.

Notes for Con
1. It's really bad ethos to be doing so much debate and language work on a non-native English speaker. It worked for you in this round, but if you had pulled this shit on me (I'm a native English speaker, so I wouldn't ever have this ground, buy hypothetically), I would immediately say that you deserve to be voted down for challenging my definition that was correct by your own admission and is your attempt to make the space inaccessible for non-native English speakers.
2. On the time debate, it's very lazy and you only win because you are right that the resolution doesn't have an explicit timeframe. You should impact out the idea of "assumptions" and say this allows the Pro to shift the debate infinitely making it impossible to be Con. This makes it more cut and dry.
3. Why didn't you get into the meat of the gender/sex split? I feel like have that substance is good to heg your bets in case you are debating someone who is a lot better at the resolutional proof debate.

If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out!

I vote Con, here's why:

1. I buy that the cause of global warming is an irrelevant question.

2. I buy that plants are a carbon sink and absorb more than they produce.

3. I buy that human activity is the major cause of carbon production.

4. I buy that the current path of global warming solutions is inexpensive and we would have to create alternative energy regardless of global warming.

5. I buy that the melting of glaciers is real and creates multiple feedback loops that cause displacement of people through rising sea levels. There is no risk of a cooling event because water vapor makes the issue worse.

6. I buy that the rapid acceleration of the climate from man-made carbon is a unique issue compared to previous global warming.

7. I buy that previous catastrophe is irrelevant as it is tectonic.

8. I buy that rapid environmental change is bad and that sharks and roaches prove you don't need change at all.

9. I buy that CO2 makes the planet greener, however, this doesn't impact the question of climate change.

In conclusion, humans are producing carbon that is causing the plant to warm. This melts glaciers and causes all the bad things. Even if I buy that CO2 makes the planet greener, this doesn't answer glacier melting or alternative sources of greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, etc.) Argumentation about alternative sources of energy and the issues that come from solutions to climate change are answered by Con sufficiently when they say that it is inevitable and not unique to climate change. Anyways, the conversation is about if climate change is over exaggerated, and I don't know how I weigh those in the question anyways.

Notes for Pro
1. Answer the glacier argument. Gives them the debate.
2. I saw this debate once today as it is, how do you not know that the politics thing is an irrelevant question?
3. Care about the debate. Maybe reading that you seem to not be trying three times will make you take on less debates and engage in more good-faith debates.

Notes for Con
1. Answer the greener argument, you didn't answer this.
2. Con asked the question why the planet isn't 3x hotter because of CO2, but since it was a question and I don't know if he was saying that disproves the science or what, I didn't weigh it. You still should handle this.
3. You won that the cause of global warming is irrelevant, why didn't you do a bunch of work on methane or something? Very easy ballot that way.

If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out!

Pro conceded. I was scared to even get invested in the rap battle originally, lol.

I vote Pro, here's why:

1. I buy that IF Christianity traumatizes children, this doesn't benefit society. The debate, however, isn't about morality but social health.

2. I buy that crime rates go down under Christianity.

3. I buy that marriages are stronger under Christianity.

4. I buy that the sense of community goes up under Christianity.

5. I buy that criminalizing masturbation, which is the pragmatic act of lust, is bad as it creates the equivalent of thought crimes.

6. Since I buy that the creation of thought crimes, is bad, I buy that this proves that Christianity is outdated.

7. I buy that porn is freedom AND disgusting.

8. I buy there is no evidence of bullying to children, but the good and bad things of Christianity affects children.

9. I buy that punishing gays and atheists is not freedom.

In conclusion, social health is measured through the traumatization of children. This is a flawed definition, but it is the only one I'm given by Con. With that, I buy that Christianity doesn't directly bully children, so I have to evaluate how each issue affects children. This work isn't done for me, so I have to sort it myself. Children can be targets of crime. Divorced houses probably uniquely hurt children. Children need community like any person. Children can be punished for being gay or atheist, and this is bad. Children also lose access to porn, which means they lose access to freedom. (As a sidenote, I don't personally agree with what I'm typing totally, but I'm voting on a debate, not typing my thoughts.) Since all the issues affect children, here's how I rank their importance. Divorce, sense of community, freedom/porn access, identity affirmation, crime. Since Pro has the two largest factors, I give them the ballot.

Notes for Pro
1. Answer this punishing gays and atheists warrant, as it is damning.
2. Extend your case. If I didn't extend it for you since it was unanswered, you would surely lose.
3. Give me some weighing. Why is crime more or less important than freedom to access pornography?
4. Answer the argument they made that traumatization of children is the metric for social health, because a much lazier judge would use that to ignore all your points and not do the work I did.

Notes for Con
1. If you are liblarping or being outrageous intentionally, I like it. However, you can make that competitive and do it as either better argumentation in general or a kritik that forces us to question how we engage with the "outrageous". I would be honored if you wanted help turning your unique style of engagement into a competitive strategy.
2. Assuming that this isn't some kind of performance, You need to answer the specific warrants of the Pro. You answer crime, but you just call masturbation crime and don't answer that things like murder go down.
3. You need to weigh freedom and bigotry against the Pro and tell me why yours matter to social health more than Pro's case.

I'm upset to vote on this debate because the "winner" is really not trying, however, the other side isn't answering key arguments. I vote Con, here's why:

1. I buy that the resolution is about legality. To be completely honest, Pro is talking about harm, and how that can happen outside of the legal system, but I have this quote from Pro "For those that didn't quite get it, the topic is about what is right in the eyes of the law." meaning the existence of harm is not the question of the topic. If you want the topic to be about harm, or you think all harm is illegal, you need to do that work much more.

2. I buy that, even if sleeping with HIV is harmful and SHOULD be criminal, it is NOT criminal. Pro brought up that there are other examples of illegality, but I would like even one of these numerous examples that could prove their point.

3. I buy the BOP is that Pro must prove that consensual sex between adults can be illegal.

In conclusion, Pro doesn't meet the BOP. I have no evidence that it is illegal, only with this murder claim, however Con correctly identifies that morality is not legality and that there is no intent. Second-degree murder requires the intent to kill someone, you mean manslaughter, though I don't evaluate that because it wans't brought up in round. This BOP overrides the topic, even if the topic allowed for a question of morality, though I don't evaluate that it does based on Pro's comments early on in the round and a lack of clarity about what the role of harm is in regard to legality.

Notes for Pro
1. Answer the BOP or meet your BOP.
2. There is literal legal laws on the books that make it illegal to sleep with someone without telling them you have an STD. Literally post one of those laws instead of trying to link them to murder. Also, the elderly/mentally disabled can't consent in some situations because they are unable and you should cite those laws.
3. I don't get the moral/prevent harm versus legality distinction but not distinction claim you're making. I have no clue how preventing harm ties into legality after reading the first or second Pro speech, leaving me feeling lost.

Notes for Con
1. You'll read this twice from me today, but you need to give a shit about the debates you're in.
2. You need to wrestle with the harm/legality... thing that Pro is going for. You ask what the debate is buy you should be creating a framework that a judge could use, especially since the Pro is really messy, otherwise I'm required to sort through theirs, and it might not turn out in your favor.
3. Read a disad to the claim that it should be criminal. "Calling consensual activity illegal is the basis of racist and homophobic ideals that the state should oppress people." This means that you get to not only call them irrelevant to the debate, but prove that if they were relevant, they're still wrong.

If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!

I vote that the forfeit can't meet the BOP.

Good round. I vote Con for everything besides conduct, here's why:

1. I buy that the debate is about all warming, not just man-made.

2. I buy that CO2 creates global warming because of how it absorbs and reflects infrared light and historical links.

3. I buy that plants don't exist or are heavily damaged post-warming.

4. I buy that all of carbon in icebergs makes this an urgent issue.

5. I buy that all one article of the scientists is an exaggeration.

6. I buy that claims about political action do not interrogate the risks/impacts of climate change.

7. I buy that natural disasters are getting much worse from warming.

8. I buy that glaciers haven't been melting at a constant rate and current trends of warming are making it uniquely worse except for the one glacier that Pro cites.

9. I buy that green energy is rational and that quality of life and transportation is completely destroyed post-warming.

10. I buy that costs do not interrogate the risks of warming.

11. I buy that the Permian Triassic extinction was solely from warming and killed 95% of the planet.

12. I buy that scientists being wrong about details doesn't mean they are wrong about concepts.

13. I buy that climate change is an impact magnifier and can cause anything, with plagues and food shortages being the example in the Con argumentation.

14. I buy ocean acidification is real and a negative feedback loop.

In conclusion, I have an easy place to vote that the debate could be about all warnings and the Permian Triassic warming killed 95% of the planet. Even if I don't buy that, I'll go over the other arguments just to give myself a reason to sit in this Starbucks a little longer. I buy that CO2 does cause warming, so it's real. With that, I buy there's no plants, worse and more natural disasters, and causes extinction through diseases and food shortages. I buy that ocean acidification is a negative feed back loop, as are glaciers, which exacerbate these issues. Pro only has two pieces of offense, the responses are dumb, which doesn't answer that green energy is good and that this doesn't interrogate the risks. The second is that this one article was wrong about some details and that's an exaggeration, but this isn't enough to overide all of Con's points and doesn't answer that details don't make the concept wrong.

I give the source and grammar point to Con because I was asked to before the last speech and Pro didn't contest it.

I don't grant the conduct point because Con said it was up to the judge, and while I don't think Con was rude, justly telling Pro that hard science fact statements are different than social sciences or hypothetical action debates and the forfeit was "bad conduct", however I just never vote on anything besides argumentation unless I'm told to. Giving me the choice lets me be lazy and push less buttons. (This is a joke, I have genuine reasons I don't vote on those, and I'm willing to defend them publicly if anyone cares to ask.)

Notes for Pro
1. Care about debates. Judging more of your debates and debating you myself has made me realize that you either don't care or you overwork yourself. Don't accept more than a couple debates at a time if you can't contribute to them, both for the debates sake, but for the usefulness of this site to foster debate.
2. You need to do more work connecting the political responses to warming as the exaggeration of warming. I don't get the connection and Con calls it out as non-existent.
3. You need to answer literally any of the arguments Con makes. I give them every argument but this one example of one journal that was an exaggeration, but Con has defense on that an offense with every other issue.

Notes for Con
1. On the conduct point, if you're going to make claims, then make bold claims. Truth comes out when we bash to extremes against one another, so go as hard for you should win as possible, and then let the judge sort that out.
2. I know that the political responses don't respond to the question of impacts, but you should still answer it. Electric cars, even if propaganda are good because X, Y, and Z.
3. There are a million impacts to climate change, so as a strategy to help get you a win in a debate where Pro gives a shit, start throwing out much smaller impacts and say that you proved a bunch of small impacts and Pro only disproved one big one. Some of these can include migration, solastalgia, animal extinctions/genocides (animals are beings that feel pain and deserve moral consideration), political lashout, etc.

Good round, if either side has questions or comments, feel free to message, question, or comment me!

I vote Pro on a forfeit.

Good round, I vote Pro, here's why:

1. I buy that we can use examples of individuals to buy group behavior because, even if correlation is not causation, this doesn't answer how Hitler was able to shape an entire party. This means that I buy every individual bad act of feminists as shaping the ideology.

2. I buy that feminists are calling for dystopian camps and genocides.

3. I buy that feminists want to ban words.

4. I buy that feminists demonize men by disparaging Father's Day.

5. I buy that feminists lack traditional values.

6. I buy both of Con's definitions because, even though Pro rightly proves they are not sourced, there is no counter definition, so I prefer a bad definition over no definition.

7. Because the definition of toxic feminity is only something that can hurt women, I buy that it can only hurt women and that goal of feminism is to rectify this problem.

8. I buy that feminism doesn't advocate for equality because of all the previous examples.

9. I buy that ideologies can be perverted by individuals and we should look at the pragmatics of an ideology, and not it's definition.

10. I buy that the BOP is "Pro is claiming that feminism promotes nad actively encourages bad behavior to men"

In conclusion, this is one of the hardest debates to weigh because both sides give me pieces of floating offense. Pro has left me with every example of bad individuals and movements that are bad, how they corrupt movements, and how this pragmatic analysis is better than ideology. Con leaves me with the misandry/feminism divide and how feminism only hopes to seek to to rectify toxic feminity. The debate is, "Feminism has promoted toxic femininity and has only made the division between men and women wider over the past years." The reason this is hard is that I think Pro fails to prove the resolution because of the definition of toxic feminity being impossible for feminism to create. Pro, however, does meet the BOP set out by Con. I am left with an internal dilemma I don't know how to rectify on face, which is, does the resolution or the BOP matter more. After a bathroom break, getting a drink, and listening to the song "Kokopelli Face Tattoo" by Andrew Jackson Jihad, I've come to the conclusion that the BOP matters more because it establishes how we access the resolution. This means that Pro has proven that feminism is antagonistic to men.

Notes for Pro
1. You have to wrestle with the definition debate. Even if it isn't warranted, without a counter-definition to put up against it, there's will always win so there is some interpretation to view the round through.
2. Your argument about the pragmatics of ideology over the definition of ideology is unclear, and I feel like I'm putting a lot of pieces together for you.
3. Stick to the resolution. A lot of your points simply don't matter. Ending freedom of speech and traditional values does not prove that feminism recreates toxic femininity or that feminism is widening the gap between the sexes. If feminism said we should kill all racial minorities, that would be horrible, but it doesn't prove the resolution, so doesn't help your case.

Notes for Con
1. Instead of creating a BOP that feels divorced from the resolution, you should force the Pro to affirm the resolution, especially when they are going for their rant against the woke feminists over winning the resolution.
2. You have to deal with this Nazis were good until Hitler came around. I don't know if this is true, but you should be casting doubt on either it as a true narrative or on it's relation to feminism. That, or you need to say looking at ideology in the abstract, devoid of it's pragmatic application is good, though that may be a steeper hill to win.
3. My brother/sister/sibling in Christ, Pro said feminists don't respect traditional values and you let that slide? Traditional values of what? The selling of women and relegating them as subhuman in the home? More generally, answer the individual warrants of Pro. The camp story is satire, freedom of speech is bad if it includes hate speech like bossy, Father's Day is a harmful social construct, etc.

As always, if yall have any questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!

Good round, I vote Pro, here's why:

1. On strength, I buy that even if they are both in the same "category", I know that Darkseid, which can equally trade blows with Hellbat, can handle at least 5.97 sextillion metric tons and Thor can do 100 tons. He has also defeated Hulk, the ice giants, and Destroyer, but none of this is contextualized. All these characters could only life 5 lbs for all I know, especially for the last two. At the very least, I have no warrant that they compare to 5.97 sextillion metric tons.

2. On durability, I buy that the wings can be destroyed on the Hellbat suit and that Thor can easily be damaged my much weaker beings than Darkseid. I don't weigh the Loki example because it's in the last speech when it could have been in the second to last after the Hela and Thanos examples were given, but even if I did, I have no numerical strength to weigh this against 5.97 sextillion metric tons. I also buy that the source this originally came from is flawed, and therefore question the validity of anything Con says.

3. On speed, I buy Hellbat is 2400x faster. This was brought up in the first speech, so I'm not gonna evaluate something about the speed of perception since Pro didn't get a chance to answer it. You also didn't answer the AI warrant, so doing Pro a little work since Con didn't do the work earlier in the debate, It's probably already answered.

4. On the metabolism argument, I buy that Hellbat could at least defeat Thor once in time since he was able to go to Apokalips and defeat Darkseid.

In conclusion, Hellbat is stronger, faster, and more durable. Easy win.

Notes for Pro
1. The metabolism argument was mishandled in two ways.
A. Don't admit that Thor can resurrect and then outlast Hellbat. This literally is saying there is a possible out for Con to win the round semantically. Define fight as a single defeat definitively.
B. The final bat suit is probably not Hellbat and would be unfair, though this didn't come up.

Notes for Con
1. You are not answering warrants. For example, on strength, you don't answer 5.97 sextillion metric tons. You let Pro control the debate when they control the facts.
2. PRO GAVE YOU AN OUT!!! Pro said that Thor could outlast if it counts his resurrections! Why didn't your next speech talk about that specifically, instead of extending the generic outlast argument that was answered by the Darkseid fight?

Good round, if you have questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!

Good round, I vote Con, here's why:

1. I buy that should is distinct from can. Not only did Pro admit it later on in a speech, but with no definition for obligation, expediency, and propriety that shows how these require the ability, this doesn't directly answer Con's claim that should questions the desirability of a world while can questions the possibility of a world.

2. I also buy Con's argument that the resolution implies that they can for the sake of the debate, making the question of can irrelevant.

3. I buy that people already don't trust or respect the mods, meaning there's no risk to breaking more rules.

4. Lastly, even without evidence, I buy there is at least a small risk that Sir.Lancelot can save the site.

In conclusion, the question is if the world is more desirable with Sir.Lancelot as president, not if there is an objectively true way for them to become president. The resolution also assumes that they can be president. With this, there is a small risk (literally any amount) that Sir.Lancelot can save the site as president, while the mods are already hated, so the world doesn't get worse if they do become president.

Notes for Pro
1. I think this can/should argumentation is fundamentally false, so it's hard to win it. You should be focusing on Sir.Lancelots flaws as a person instead, getting into substance. For example, they overstretch themselves and therefore have to forfeit a lot of debates. The same lackluster performance would rear its head as president.
2. On the definition debate, if you want to go for it, you need to be doing more work to show me how obligation, propriety, and expediency are tied to the ability while also answering Con's direct warrant that it's about a desirable world as opposed to a possible world.
3. Lastly, you need to answer all the reasons Sir.Lancelot could fix the site. Most obvious answer to me is "double-bind, either Sir.Lancelot will do these things anyways for the good of the site OR they're using these things to buy their way in, meaning they are tools that could be lies or show less than good/honest intentions". Answering these means there is no offense for pro or even risk of offense.

Notes for Con
1. You should add an impact to the can v. should debate. This would look like "if we don't assume that I am eligible for the sake of the debate, then the debate is fundamentally unwinnable for Con. Fundamentally unwinnable debates should be rejected on face, otherwise, especially in a rated system, debaters will try to bait people into debates that will boost their rank while collapsing the website."
2. Extend the reasons Sir.Lancelot would be a good president each round.

If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!

Really good debate, I vote Pro and here's why:

1. I buy that Scarif was unexpected by the Empire, but Endor was.

2. I buy that Scarif is a imperial stronghold and has a more mobile/responsive terrestrial force compared to Endor, which was a temporary/new installation that didn't have operational training on the planet.

3. I buy the massive vehicles used on Endor are a liability.

4. I buy that Endor took longer because the Empire was butchering the response.

5. I'm not going to go into all the individual dropped points of Pros case about the dozen or so places the entire mission would fail, but they all flow Pro.

6. I buy that Chirrut was a useful asset, but Endor had a full jedi knight.

7. I buy that the soldiers on Scarif are highly trained and outstrip Andor.

8. I buy that the events of all the main characters on Scarif are riskier than Lando, though relying on Lando poses a risk to the Endor mission. The risk is slightly mitigated, however, by the ease at which you can fly into the DS2 and destroy it.

9. I buy that the events between Vader, Luke, and Palpatine were inevitable, however, Luke's death would not end the Rebellion.

10. I buy the Executor was a flawed ship design.

11. I buy that the entire Endor mission hinged on Han and Leia succeeding in shutting down the shields.

In conclusion, I evaluate the risk of Scarif, and it is extremely high. The list of points that Pro gives is damning because each of the dozen-plus is a game over. All of Con's points showing the ease of the Scarif mission are not contextualized to these individual points. Even if I look at the generalizations, the imperial stronghold and mobilized terrestrial forces incredibly heightened the risk. The only thing I have is it's an initial surprise, but they were found out, and therefore, went through the entire events of a battle. In regard to Endor, I buy that the entire mission hinged on Han and Leia, which highly ups the risk, but compared to a dozen plus places the risk is that high for Sharif, it doesn't compare. On top of that, the Empires butchered response, lack of operational training, ease at destroying the DS2, and a full jedi knight all greatly alleviate the risk of a surprise.

Notes for Pro
1. You extend all your points in the final speech, but even if you group them together, extend it every round.
2. Make sure you answer the Han and Leia warrant as that is the greatest hole in your case, right now.
3. To be 100% honest, I don't understand how the events of Vader, Luke, and Palpatine all fit into the greater case about the Endor mission, so if you could do that work for me better, that may help.

Notes for Con
1. You need to deal with these individual points that Pro brings up. Even a generalized "each of these aren't a kill switch to the mission, simply a larger hurdle writ large" at least lets me cast doubt on the fact that there are a dozen plus places where there is a highly likely chance the mission would fail.
2. You need to do a lot more defense about how hard the battle actually was on Endor, as your letting Pro control that the Empire was bumbling idiots.
3. As someone who's judged 2 or 3 of your debates, you seem like your too busy to do a good job. Your lack of line by line work in the first round and your last speech give off that impression, so if you have too much in your life or your 10+ active debates are too much, don't over commit.

As always, if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to comment, question, or message me.

I'm voting on a forfeit.

I vote Con, here's why:

1. I don't think the Bible is true because there is no true historical testament of Jesus.

2. Ways 1-3 are all universal rules, and so should apply to God. Them not applying to God means they are wrong.

3. Way 4 is disproven because there's no evidence of design.

4. Way 5 is disproven because things don't have a preconceived purpose.

In conclusion, since Pro doesn't prove the Bible or a single reason for God to exist, I have no reason to vote Pro.

Notes for Pro
1. You need to be present in the debate.
2. Maybe look at Kirkeegard or other philosophers who say reason isn't a way you can evaluate God.

Notes for Con
I feel bad because I don't really have any. You did good.

If yall have any questions, feel free to message, comment, or question me!

Good debate, I vote Con and here's why

1. I buy that since there isn't one example of discouragement leading to physical violence, it probably doesn't.

2. I buy that morality is determined by consensus since Pro doesn't give an alternative to Con's method. This means that making people uncomfortable is bad.

3. In regard to the police example, Pro doesn't answer Con's argument that we can make people to prevent more uncomfort through the argument that the police have to stop those committing crimes. Essentially, utilitarianism.

4. I buy that Pro doesn't have to intrude to discourage homosexuality because he can ask if they are gay and they can not tell him because the information is private.

5. I buy that the core of the question is if there is something wrong with discouraging homosexuality in Pro's house, or more accurately, at least some instances.

6. I buy that freedom of speech is bad if it hurts people.

7. I buy that it makes people uncomfortable to ask them to leave or discourage their activity of homosexuality in the house, which is bad.

8. I buy that Pro has to discourage homosexuality to control his house.

In conclusion, making people uncomfortable is wrong, so I am to avoid that at all costs. Since it makes people uncomfortable to be discouraged from homosexual activity and to be asked to leave, we shouldn't do it. Pro never tells me it makes them uncomfortable to not have control over their house, so I at most extreme, want them to not have control of their house so they can't make anyone uncomfortable, and at least extreme, don't care if they have control of their house.

Good round, if yall have any questions, feel free to message, comment, or question me!

Before I get into a decision, argument analysis, and weighing, this debate is hard because both sides are winning arguments, but neither side is contextualizing how they work against one another.

I vote Pro and here's why:

1. I buy Winter has less annoying and potentially deadly bugs.

2. I buy that Winter is more expensive and annoying to deal with as Summers are usually mild and less harsh than Winters.

3. I buy that Winter has more time sensitive activities because of the holidays and that the going out and doing things of Summer put negative pressure on people.

4. I buy plants and fruit grow better in Summer.

5. I buy wild animals have more access to food and are happier in Summer.

6. I buy that driving is easier in Summer.

7. I buy that allergies are less likely in Winter.

8. I buy that you can be more fashionable in Winter.

9. I buy that gloomy days and long nights are more available in Winter.

In conclusion, no debater told me how any of these nine points weigh against one another except for Con in the last speech, but I feel like this could have been in the first speech as it wasn't a direct answer to anything and it would be unfair to weigh that when Pro doesn't have a chance to answer it. Therefore, I just rank the nine points in the order of personal importance. I'll list them in order with a W or S for who won the point (Winter and Summer). Bugs W, Driving S, Holidays W, Expensive S, Gloomy days and long nights W, Plants and fruit S, Fashionable W, Allergies W, Animals happiness S. Since it's literally a W in every odd spot and S in every even spot, the W's are one ahead on every question.

Notes for Pro
1. Weigh why some arguments are more important than others, and the debate becomes undeniably yours.
2. You need to answer the points you dropped from Con, like driving.

Notes for Con
1. Weigh why some arguments are more important than others, and the debate becomes undeniably yours. You did this in the last speech, but I need it earlier for it to feel fair to evaluate.
2. You need to answer the points you dropped from Pro, like bugs.

They agree to tie.

Reason for decision in the comments because it's too long. That has happened more than once now, so I really hope people are actually reading them, lol.

RFD (Reason for decision) in the comments, it was too long for the box.

I vote pro.

Pro case is completely dropped by the end of the debate, so I buy that they are better for industry and fashion because they are made for the purpose.

I buy Pro's argument that synthetic diamonds can be made one of a kind because this is never answered by Con. I also buy that price is not tied to value, so being cheaper is good and doesn't affect its value.

I buy that the diamonds are formed through a different process, so the chemical makeup doesn't determine authenticity, and Con's argument that natural diamonds are better at being natural.

The history question is hard for me to answer because I have to ask if Con is making arguments in the last round that they could have fairly been expected to make earlier in the debate so that Pro could have had a chance to answer, as well as if I should weigh it regardless. At best, I buy his arguments, but their only defense, so I just ignore the point, and at worst, I don't grant him access and say the history of diamonds can be applied. I lean towards the latter because an emotional appeal was brought up, Pro called that the appeal of racism and forced labor, Con said that is the fault of humanity, Pro said that if other social constructs can be put on it then history can as well, and then Con said that not all diamonds have that history and that that history isn't exclusive to the diamonds. Those could have reasonably been brought up in Round 2 after Pro first mentioned systemic racism and labor where Pro would have had a fair shot to answer it. I also don't weigh it because this doesn't answer the argument that some natural diamonds are part of that history, and directly ties to the diamond, lowering its "betterness".

I buy that diamonds look the same after the cut, but natural diamonds look better at being natural.

As a conclusion note before comments, I see that synthetic diamonds are better at industry, fashion, cost, and avoiding flawed history and current social issues. I buy that natural diamonds are better at being and looking natural. In order of importance for me, since no debater did this work for me, I weigh avoiding the history as most important, followed by industry, cost, fashion, and looking natural in that order, giving Con only the bottom-ranked position, making my ballot easily go Pro.

Notes for Pro
1. Extend the aff every round through each point. In close rounds, that kind of ethos and visual description of every point you're definitely winning can carry a lot of weight.
2. Better is vague, so you have to need to be telling why the points you are winning are more important than any points that Con might be winning. For example "Industry is the most important because it allows us to mass produce x equipment, which is crucial to saving lives. Saving lives is better than anything else on a prior level." Then, as long as you win the industry, I give you the ballot if Con doesn't question it.
3. Don't bring up all these neutral points in the first round. Either try to spin them into ways synthetic is better or keep these arguments as a defense if Con tries to prove these. Neutrality is not offense and preemptive defense is a waste of time/characters.

Notes for Con
1. You need to rebut the aff. You spot too much offense through their industrial and fashion points that are conceded throughout the entire debate.
2. You're going for "natural diamonds are better at being natural", but I don't know why that's what I should vote on when you're not doing one of two key things you need to do for me to feel comfortable voting here.
A. You need to weigh natural against everything else. A bit of framework to describe natural as the most important aspect could win you the debate. I recommend you look at deep ecology literature or anti-capitalist literature since you said the corporate process corrupts beauty. Both of these provide frameworks that could give you the way to tip the scale so natural is the most important thing on balance. There may be other frameworks, those are just the first two that come to mind.
B. You need to define better in a way that makes the natural debate the most/only important, that way if you win the definition and your point, you win the debate.
3. Your answers to the history point are good, but come way too late in the debate. I know the cross-application happens in speech 3, but you could bring it up in speech 4 to have a direct answer that I would have no hesitation evaluating.

Good round, and if either side has questions or comments, feel free to message, comment, or question me!

I vote Pro.

First, the conduct point. Usually, I don't do anything but convincing arguments because I feel those shouldn't be measured except through the debate itself (I'll get more in on that on the notes), however, Con using slurs like "retarded" and calling all Muslims liars and "retarded" is egregious. Don't do that.

Second, the Pro case is completely dropped. The only part that is contested is the definition of authoritarianism and Pro didn't answer it, however, Con didn't utilize their won definition despite the fact they had a really good setup. Con said subjection to power doesn't require enforcement. This means that any state where people follow the law is authoritarian, however, there is no weighing this against the first definition and Pro extends theirs in the final speech, so I feel comfortable giving the definition debate to Pro by the smallest margin.

Third, on Con's case, I buy three arguments that work to prove these aren't true.
1. The historical example of Islam allowing disrespect in courts shows that modern authoritarianism in Saudi Arabia isn't unique to Islam.
2. Moses' condemnation of the killing of the boy proves this act wasn't justified.
3. All states engage in the exclusion of "the other", so this is not authoritarian.
The only argument Con is close to winning is that expression of disbelief is punished, even if it is blasphemy, but Pro extends the third argument I mentioned, showing how Western nations do this by not allowing Holocaust denial, communism, or hate speech.

Notes for Pro
1. I don't know how prevalent this is on the website, but personally, I support "theory arguments" or arguments about why the opponent should lose the round for in-round unfairness or abuse. Verbal attacks against Islam such as calling them "retarded" or liars cause them to leave the site or not express their faith in good-faith (pun not intended) debate. this makes the site useless as an educational and fun tool, as well as harmful to individuals. If you lay that all out in a speech, I feel confident saying that that is an argument and giving you the primary win on that point.
2. Don't drop the definition debate, because if Con had gone for it and said any state that doesn't have majority dissent is authoritarian, you would have lost. That's not the "true" definition, but I'll buy a blatant lie if the other person doesn't answer it.
3. How you extended the Pro case in the final round, do that every round. Judges who don't care won't be upset you did it and will just take it as "won" without reading it, while judges who do care (like me), won't have to count it as "dropped", which could cost you the debate in a much closer round.

Notes for Con
1. Don't be offensive. It's not strategic and is mean. Like, come on, if you think other ideas aren't worth engaging with, go to a circle-jerk 4chan or Reddit thread, not a place where people want to engage in conversation.
2. You could've won the definition debate on Pro's case and won the round. Whenever you make an argument, it should be strategic and have a winning strategy attached to it that you can go for.
3. You have to make arguments on Pro's case proper. Even if I gave you all your arguments about how much Islam kills people outside of the religion, BOP is on both sides, meaning I weigh that against Pro's case, not in a vacuum. Going through each of the six rights and finding Quran examples where it's disproved or challenging the assumption that it is a liberty, for example, "Right to property is authoritarian because it concentrates wealth".

As always, good job to both sides, and if yall have any questions, feel free to shoot me a question, comment, or message!

Con wins because Con shows that God hates divorce and loves justice and righteousness. Personally, Pro was winning the debate until Con brought up bible verses because Pro had the only model of what the Bible said on the issue. Even though righteousness and justification aren't explicit, I think it is implicitly there, and saying it is not explicit isn't enough from Con to disprove that. Pro, you had a really good out. Con demanded a Bible translation but didn't provide one himself. If you had not essentially forfeited the last speech and said I can't weigh any Bible verses without a translation, it would have been an easy ballot for you. I would also give you conduct and sources for that reason was this a multi-pointed debate. If yall have any questions, please feel free to message, comment, or question me!

I vote Con.

On the definitions, they are uncontested, so I use these metrics to evaluate the round. Pro needs to define "final exams" as a term of art for final paper tests in academic classes that are X% or more of the class to win any offense.

On the question of things like driving, like, this is where I end up pulling the trigger and voting, but I would love Con to do more work. If we can't test people who drive, then there are really bad drivers, and this causes more accidents and deaths. This gives me something to weigh against the Pro a lot easier. Pro should answer this at all.

On sickness, I buy Cons defense that reforms to testing solve as opposed to abolition outright. Pro needs to be present for the first speech, or the Con gets golden uncontested answers to your case, especially in a two round debate.

Checking info being a myth, I have a couple comments.
1. Even if this is true, this is not impacted to driving tests, and only answers academic tests.
2. Neg said it didn't have to be for the entire class, which is a golden answer I buy.

No finals in Sweden, I buy Cons golden answer that they do have one, which destroys any ability to even imagine a world of the Pro, so I don't even know what I would be voting for.

Lastly, Con tells me to vote Con on conduct for the forfeit, but I don't for two reasons
1. Life is hard, I don't know what Pro has going on and
2. You should have had this in your first speech for Pro to have a chance to answer it, otherwise, it feels too new in the last speech for me to vote on.

Great debate, if either debater has questions, please send me a question, message, or comment!

Both sides forfeited, but Con forfeited earlier in the debate, making pulling the trigger on Pro much easier.

Both teams forfeited, however, Pro continued the debate longer than the neg. Forfeiting earlier in the round is enough of a difference for me to vote Pro.