Total votes: 2
</ Conduct \>
Both members showed an equitable amount of professionalism towards one another, preserving an aura of intellectualism and civility. No overt cases of ‘Ad Hominem’ or emotional flares were seen, yet there were a series of vague expressions made by Pro which could be parsed as personal attacks. However, I chose to observe these as a passionate overture rather than make a petty allocation of points.
</ Spelling i Grammar \>
As expected, both opponents made sublime and clear use of language and wording, avoiding any patterns of sloppiness or inattentiveness. There were some casual lapses made in this trend, yet easily passed over. I also wanted to express my admiration for not only the eloquence of the language used, but its use in a manner that did not compromise how simple and easily read it was.
</ Summation \>
The instigator created this debate with the condition that both proponents shared the burden of proof, as the topic was a resolution. This topic was resolved as ‘Perpetrators of Minor Crimes Should not be Arrested’. No further form or terms were issued. Given this, Con reached into the discussion in the most rational and literal sense. Pro opened discourse with more drawn out opening, bringing to light their core themes, those being concerns with moral justification, recurrent crime, systematic racism, overcrowded prisons i <3> stigmatization. <1> Con urgently identified a ‘Kritik’, and addressed this with a clear definition of ‘Minor Crimes’, <4> the distinguishment between arrest and incarceration, describing the distortion of a source, and clearly refuting Pro’s points. However, what argument Con did make only meagerly exercised the BOP in comparison to Pro, and Pro was quick to take account of this upon round two. Pro denies the presence of a ‘Kritik’ and continues to build upon their case, <2> but fatally contradicts himself on his accepted definition of ‘Minor Crimes’ within this argument. Pro and Con continue to contest the claims made by their counterpart, with the ‘Kritik’ i the shared definitions becoming an increasingly emergent issue until the conclusion of the discussion.
</ Naglasci \>
<1> Pro makes substantial use of an ontological ‘Kritik’ surrounding his ethical and loosely related theme of penal heath care i systematic racism. O veci predmet, nearly all of Pro’s argument stemmed from the inclusion of the ‘Entire’ judicial system, extending outside of arrest to both conviction i incarceration. This is a clear ‘Kritik’ that focuses on other societal institutions in order to validate the resolution. Veoma znacajno, this is in violation of Pro’s established rules.
<2> Pro contradicts his accepted definition of ‘Minor Crimes’, first stating that he agrees with the convention parameters, then later calling these same parameters ‘Ludicrous’ once defined bt CON.
<3> Con makes flawed implication that the stigmatization criminals face is somehow the product of law enforcement rather than the independently developed opinion of the public, and cites the damaging consequences on the ‘Victim’s’ livelihood. Na moje najbolje od poznavanje, there is no law expressly refusing former criminals employment.
<4> Con identifies and refutes a violation of the established laws, as Pro has conflated two entirely different subjects on the grounds of causation.
</ Argumenti \>
I had severe reservations concerning where Pro clearly placed the blame for the stigma surrounding criminals. Rather than placing society at fault, or even the criminals themselves for breaking the law, Pro would rather subjectively accuse our legal institutions. Not only this, but Pro places quite a bit of emphasis upon a debatable precedent that systematic racism is rampant with the modern courtroom and police corps. Pro also establishes two very extreme cases of arrest and sentencing as the norm, and builds his case respectively.
</ Sources \>
Both parties made adequate use of sources. While there were some divergences from the source material, I chose not to lean one way or the other due to the imprecise nature of both the resolution and the reasoning comprising Pro’s contention.
Full forfeiture by Pro. However, even though Con more or less saw the debate through, neither side presented an argument. Because of this, sources were not used by either party, and spelling and grammar is therefore non applicable. Con was polite and displayed overall etiquette because he honored his commitment to the discussion.