Total votes: 26
I vote for pro for the following reasons.
Pro actually attempted a debate. They provided sources and arguments to support their stance.
Con did not. Con provided zero sources and did not provide much in the way of an argument.
Pro has forfeited the debate without presenting any arguments or evidence. This shows a lack of respect for the topic and the opponent. Con, on the other hand, has made a serious effort to engage with the issue. Forfeiting a debate that one initiates is unprofessional and unacceptable. Pro deserves an F, not only for failing to participate in the debate but also for using hateful language and being unprofessional. I urge Pro to reconsider their misguided opinions. Con deserves an A for being respectful and courteous, unlike Pro, and for trying to take the debate seriously. I praise Con for his professional conduct.
I vote for Pro in the debate about God's existence for the following reasons. First, Pro tried to present an argument with some sources, while Con did not participate and forfeited the debate. Second, although Pro's argument is flawed and based on misunderstandings of science and logic, I appreciate that they tried to engage with the topic and the audience. Third, I would award Pro more points for conduct and sources if this were a multi-criteria vote. Therefore, Pro deserves the win by default, even though they did not prove God exists.
Con wins the debate because, unlike Pro, Con gave a stronger argument by pointing out that the topic is not well clarified. Pro gives little to no argument and even forfeits at one point. Con also provided a source. Pro, in contrast, has no sources. Lastly, Con presented better conduct by actually participating in the debate.
The topic would have been interesting. However, pro forfeited the debate.
Con effectively proved that a college degree is unnecessary for a good Job. Pro Did make a good point that having a college degree will make you seem more favorable. Con counter this by defining a good Job as being able to provide for your basic needs and that a college degree is not required to have a good job. Even giving Bill Gates credit for his success despite lacking a degree. Pro also forfeited in the last round. Everything else was a tie.
Pro forfeited.
I can't give Pro or Con a better argument vote because the topic was about it not being justifiable to kill an animal because they don't lack any traits between different species. Neither side proved or disproved the case. Pro argued that no sentient being wants to die or feel pain, and to infect such a fate on an animal was cruel and lacked empathy. This had nothing to do with the topic. Pro also failed to connect this assertion with connection to the basis of the debate. As the Pro, they were supposed to support the issue and stay on point, but the Pro failed in this regard.
Con, while they did do an excellent job at rebutting Pro's unsupported claims about no Sentient wanting to die or feel pain since they provided sources about suicide and feeling pleasure from pain. They did not make an argument that proved that the topic was wrong besides claiming to follow subjective morality. I, therefore, cannot give them the better argument vote either.
However, Con provided some sources to rebuttal some of the Pro's arguments so I will award Con the source's vote. I will also offer Con better conduct since Pro seemed slightly hostile in response to Con's rebuttal, even calling them stupid at one point, which is immature.
Overall, I think the debate was an exciting topic with potential. But both Con and Pro squandered it by going off-topic.
I think That both Pro and Con made good arguments. Con argued that Abortion was a matter of human anatomy and not Morality and made a decent argument by pointing out that lacking the right to your own body due to pregnancy is a lack of ownership of your autonomy. Which Pro conceded to. However, Con made the mistake of claiming that Abortion was entirely devoid of moral discussion.
Which leads to why my vote goes to Pro. While Pro made several claims about the law, such as claiming Abortion is murder without sources. They effectively demonstrate how morality plays a factor in Abortion by pointing Abortion that unborn children should have a right to their bodies just as much as their mothers do. And while their claims of the fetus being Sentient are not supported, it is biologically true that since fetuses do have cells, they are technically living, and destroying said fetus is to destroy life on a technical basis. This overrides Con's denial of morality being a valid argument against Abortion since the logic makes sense.
Everything else was a tie. But once again, despite my vote ultimately going with Pro. Con did an excellent job in this debate as well.
Not much of a debate. I'm afraid I have to disagree with the claim of the topic and the Pro personally. But the fact is that They at least made an argument. Con forfeited the first round, only provided half of a dispute, and refused to participate further. Pro gets my vote by default since Con did not do much to counter their points.
Pro provided more evidence and had a more reasonable argument as they used statistics from around the world with multiple medical institutions to substrate their claims. Con on the other hand provided fewer sources and did not provide much in the way of counter-arguments other than claiming that the Pro's statistics were incorrect which they failed to establish. Pro also had better conduct since Con forfeited multiple times.
Pro made a strong argument at the beginning but did not make a good ending argument while Con did the opposite. since Neither used links nor made persuasive arguments. However since Con forfeited 80% of the debate, my vote goes to Pro on the better argument. However, neither get a vote on sources since none provided anything in that regard. Pro also gets a better conduct vote because Con did not debate until the end and gave no room for the debate to develop while Pro at least offered a starting argument. Overall both sides could have done better in this debate but in my view, Pro wins due to Con's continued forfeit's.
Con presented a stronger argument, highlighting the economic challenges of raising a child born from rape and asserting that forcing women to bear such children constitutes forced servitude. Pro failed to counter these points and, in fact, reinforced much of the debate.
Con effectively demonstrated the contradictory nature of the Quran, while Pro's rebuttals mainly attributed these issues to translation misunderstandings and did not adequately address the contradictions presented by Con. As both parties used the same material, neither can be awarded better sources, and there were no differences in legibility to warrant a vote in that regard. Con maintained a professional demeanor throughout, whereas Pro became contemptuous and disrespectful towards Con towards the end.
The debate was unprofessional, as Pro claimed that clinical abortion is homicide, a legal assertion. This means Pro should have argued from a legal standpoint to prove that clinical abortion is homicidal. Instead, they simply used the biological consideration of a fetus being alive without addressing any legal complexities on the subject of abortion. Con provided more sources and had a better format but still failed to address the actual legal rebuttals one would expect in a discussion on a legal topic such as abortion. Therefore they neither made a more convincing argument nor provided more reliable sources as neither Pro nor Con were on topic when it came to the Primus of the debate.
Pro and Con present compelling arguments, but I lean towards Pro's case for two reasons: 1) Ukraine is a sovereign entity, and 2) the invasion violates UN law, as evidenced by Pro's sources. Con's primary rebuttal is that Russia did not attack without warning. However, I personally disagree since Russia initially denied plans to attack Ukraine while gradually increasing its military presence along Ukraine's borders. Furthermore, Putin later enacted a law making it illegal to call the conflict a war under the guise of preventing false information. Even if Russia did issue a warning, the war was illegally planned and executed, violating the established norms of international law. Pro offers a better legal argument by utilizing the UN's legal interpretations of the war, which is supported by the fact that Russia is not only economically sanctioned heavily for the war but Putin himself has recently been declared a war criminal by the international criminal court. Con only claims that the agreements that they admit Russia violated have no legal bindings which are not proven to be accurate despite their claims.
The debate is undoubtedly intriguing, with both sides presenting compelling points. However, neither argument is sufficiently developed to be more convincing than the other, and neither Con nor Pro utilizes any sources. The framework could be improved for both parties, but neither side displayed rudeness or greater professionalism than the other. If the debate had extended beyond two rounds or if Pro and Con had used sources to substantiate their statements, a decision could be made. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I cannot support either the pro or con argument, as the pro side makes false legal statements about the Constitution. They falsely claim that women have the right to an abortion and privacy in the 14th Amendment, which is untrue. In reality, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship through birth within the United States' jurisdiction. Neither the 14th Amendment nor the US Constitution mentions abortion. Therefore, the pro argument is based on false premises and cannot be supported.
Con argues against the legality of abortion by inaccurately citing the Bible and claiming that the Constitution's authors based its laws on biblical beliefs. This is incorrect, as doing so would violate the First Amendment, which establishes a separation of church and state. Consequently, Con's argument against legal abortion cannot be supported due to a misunderstanding of the Constitution and religious bias.
Pro presents a well-structured and detailed argument, exploring various areas where indoctrination occurs, either intentionally or unintentionally, through appeals to authority or emotions. Pro also explains in depth how an individual's culture and social background can have indoctrinating influences, all of which appear to be well-researched and supported. In contrast, Con offers no such arguments, has poor formatting compared to Pro, and provides no counter-evidence to Pro's research. As Con fails to present a stronger argument or discredit Pro beyond hearsay, my vote goes to Pro.
The Pro's stance presents objective claims on a subject that the Con highlights as ultimately subjective. The Con provided sources, while the Pro offered no evidence and demanded proof from the Con to disprove their position without substantiating their own claims. Moreover, the Con demonstrated better conduct than the Pro, who appeared hostile throughout the debate.
Due to poor conduct, lack of evidence, and an unconvincing argument by the Pro, the Con should be declared the winner.
Although what the pro said was far from historically accurate in their arguments. Con made very little to no counter-arguments and even seem to support Pro's argument. Ultimately Pro wins due to participating in the debate while Con forfeited.
debate is non-existent.
Although I think the pro's arguments are flawed and as the con pointed out pro's position in the argument was not clear. The con loses the debate since they refused to participate in the debate by forfeiting too much.
Pro conceded most of the debate by forfeiting and listed no sources to prove Evolution is wrong and only provided the definition of Evolution which does not prove anything in the debate. While Con could have made better arguments they not only forfeited less but correctly pointed out that Pro's stance on evolution was unclear despite believing it to be wrong.
Both Pro and Con should learn to make better arguments that preferably have sources.
Con presented well-structured arguments with evidence highlighting contradictions, while Pro merely reiterated unrelated Scripture, failing to address Con's points effectively.