Athias

I award my vote to CON.

According to PRO's stipulations, we as Judges are to consider the set of arguments that convincingly demonstrates which of the Economic Systems--i.e. The Command Economy or The Market Economy--produces the superior and more fitting system, economically speaking, for the countries, Cuba and Vietnam. PRO's case is centered on what he alleges a command economy produces: (1) Higher Life Expectancy as a result of universal healthcare, (2) Lower Rates of Inequality, (3) Affordable Pricing for Basic Needs and Services, (4) High Literacy Rates as a Result of Free Education, (5) Low Poverty Rates, (6) Easier Transportation, and (7) a GDP of 6%. PRO also supplements this with alleging that Command Economies produce Safety, Security, and Stability. PRO's contention against the Market Economy as far as its fit for Cuba and Vietnam is that both countries are designed for command economies and that the transition to Market Economies would not only be lengthy time wise, but also disastrous/catastrophic. PRO supplements his contention further by alleging that the Market Economy would produce: (1) Monopolization, (2) Environmental Catastrophes, (3) Low Demand for Essential Services, (4) Wealth and Equality Gap, (5) Unemployment & Poverty, (6) Industry Collapse, and (7) More Crime & Less Accountability.

CON's case centers on a juxtaposition between what Cuba and Vietnam represent, i.e. Cuba's being a mixed economy which trends more toward State control and regulation, where as Vietnam is a mixed economy which trends more toward free-market principles. CON alleges that Vietnam has benefited from its trending toward market-based principles through increased economic growth, increased efficiency and innovation, increased consumer choice, and increased competition. CON supplements this point by extending this list to include stronger democracies, less bureaucracy and intervention, increased foreign investment, increased employment attraction, better conditions for citizens, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, better environmental quality, higher literacy rates, lower poverty rates, lower inequality, better education quality, more entrepreneurship, greater corporate accountability, better economic prosperity, more resilient economies, and better ability to adapt in a crisis. CON's contention against the command economy which he argues is exemplified by particular trends in Cuba is paltry growth, little-to-no motivation resulting in decreased efficiency and innovation, and decreased competition resulting in decreased consumer choice.

I'd be remiss if I did not mention the following: I dismissed CON's "Kritik" because PRO stipulated that the debate would focus on which system was superior in the context of Economics. By that very same token, I dismissed PRO's attempt to associate market economies with increased crime.

Ultimately, CON's arguments were superior because he provided tangible references in his analysis, i.e. the very countries PRO cited. CON demonstrated that Vietnam's economic growth as a result of its market-based approach, as opposed to central planning, would indicate that a Market Economy would suit Vietnam just well. CON also adeptly juxtaposes this with Cuba's meager economic growth, even ranking 104th in the prosperity index, which he argued to be a product of Cuba's trending toward central planning. PRO does a good in Round Two by pointing out that despite Vietnam's growth, inequality has only worsened--resulting in basic services being unaffordable. However, PRO imputes a bit of a contradiction. PRO has argued that the command economy in Vietnam has resulted in Foreign Investment, while also arguing that this Foreign Investment as part and parcel is unsustainable because of Vietnam's Economy being overdependent on them. The very source to which PRO alludes does not recommend reversing this policy, but instead mitigating this vulnerability by shoring up domestic investment by private enterprises. CON also does well to point out that the negative impacts PRO alleges are associated with the Market Economy has not been shown to be exclusive to just the Market Economy. One such example would be monopolization--i.e. the command economy is the epitome of monopolization, as CON pointed out in Round Two. PRO also did not demonstrate how the supply of essential services at affordable prices was exclusive to just the command economy. CON adeptly rebutted every point on which PRO had premised his argument, so I award my favor to CON as far as arguments are concerned.

Both PRO and CON sourced their arguments well. Both were legible. And both PRO and CON were respectful of each other as well as the process of this debate. I would also like to add that this was a very enjoyable read. I would like to applaud both Sir.Lancelot's and AustinL0926's diligence and meticulousness (especially in their clear outline of their respective points.) Well done to the both of you.

I'm voting a tie on this one. To be honest, neither of you sounded like the rappers whose personas you were assuming, especially considering that Eminem's and Big L's flows are heavily contingent on the meters they apply (e.g. Eminem is famous for using iambic pentameter and anapestic tetrameter.) Although, to be fair, the both of you really did pick it up in the third round. In truth, I liked RationalMadman's lyrics better overall. I particularly liked this one:

"You always wanna go slow, no homo bro but flow-wise I rip a hole in your powerpuff girl shit, I'm Mojojojo,
You assumed I'd be a no-show, boo hoo Buttercup, go floss your teeth or I'll Blossom the only plaque you lived to show, oh no what a low-blow. So, hoe?
I'm gon' burst your Bubbles like the Popo at yo' do' to inform yo' Mom that at twenty fo' you had to go, bro,"

But Sir.Lancelot's disses were more topical and relevant:

"You’re a pariah after getting dumped by Mariah. Bet Nick’s warming her up all quick and easy.
Meanwhile, you’re stiff and queasy."

And this may be the unfortunate consequence of RationalMadman's not being old enough to remember Big L (I don't know how old you are in actuality) or Big L's prominence and public exposure being dwarfed by Eminem's. So I presume that there was a lot more guesswork on RationalMadman's part as far as conceiving insults which would land more effectively. If this were purely a lyrical contest, RationalMadman would've won with a wide margin, not to mention, RationalMadman was more consistent with the selection of his instrumentals. But because this is a battle of Big L and Eminem, it's not just "how you rhyme," but also, "what you rhyme." And Sir. Lancelot won that sub-contest by a wide margin. So in light of all that, I vote a tie.

1. Arguments from both sides were identically bad. Neither provide descriptions of the terms they employ; neither argument resolves anything; they just mutually contradict each other.
2. Neither side used sources.
3. Spelling/grammar was fine for both participants.
4. Conduct was fine as far as both parties were concerned.

I vote a tie.

Con Forfeited half of a two-round debate, and presented his argument in the very end, where Pro can't address. While Con did make a good point about Pro's acknowledging a gap, Con does not do his due diligence in tying this back to the resolution which states that "the" wage gap, in accordance to feminist description, is not real. In other words, it would have been up to Con to demonstrate the reason an "average gap" undermines Pro's affirmation. Merely stating that Pro acknowledges "a gap" does not suffice.

As for reliable sources, neither Pro nor Con used any, and their spelling grammar was sufficient.

Conduct is obviously awarded to Pro because he participated in all of the rounds, whereas Con presented his argument at the very end.

My vote goes to Pro.

Full forfeit by CON.

Reason for Decision will be re-posted in the comments section.

RationalMadman by default wins this argument given the contender's description. The proposition over which they argue is "Moral Codes Cannot Exist In and Of Themselves Without God." So Con's responsibility is to argue its negation, which would be "Moral Codes Can Exist in and of Themselves Without God." While Con did acknowledge his folly, his arguments nonetheless informed Pro's position. And Pro wasn't shy to agree with Con's arguments immediately. I will award however conduct to Con because despite his mistake he remained calm and polite. Pro, while maintaining some decorum, took a few jabs (i.e. "Blind User") and admitted to the possibility of his trolling the subject. Spelling and Grammar was virtually the same for the both of them, as well as references to sources.