AustinL0926

PRO puts CON in a double bind. Either he is a piece of shit (in which case he loses due to the resolution being true) or he is not a piece of shit (in which case he loses due to rule 1 and 2).

CON failed to argue against either situation, nor did he Kritik the topic or rules as being unfair, so PRO easily gets the win. He claims that PRO hasn't proved either situation, but that's what a double bind is for - no matter what is true, one side wins under both interpretations.

I wasn't super thrilled with either of the poems here, but PRO's was clearly inferior.

A large portion of poetry is rhythm, flow, and word choice - not just rhyme. PRO's poem did not include any of the former three qualities, nor any deeper meaning.

CON's poem was decent. I like that there was an actual storyline described, as well as excellent flow and rhythm. At the same time, I do question the wisdom of using rap verses as a poem, but I'll accept it.

NOTE: I am referring to Skipper as CON, and Lancelot as PRO.

So this debate pretty much all comes down to what counts as an "origin story."

If, as CON claims, it counts as only the original creation of something, then he easily wins, because the McDonald brothers clearly weren't greedy - they were just running a normal, reasonably high-quality restaurant.

If, as PRO claims, it also includes the popularization of something, then he definitely wins, because the buyer of the franchise was greedy and tried to buy the brothers out using unethical tactics.

I buy PRO's interpretation, simply because first, it makes sense. An origin story is basically an entire backstory, which includes how something became popular. Second, CON mostly fails to contest this, or give me a reason why I shouldn't accept this. As such, the framework is upheld, and so is the topic statement, giving PRO argument points. Conduct to CON for forfeiture.

Full forfeit

PRO plagiarized an argument from Chat-GPT, which ought to count as worse conduct than merely forfeiting.

Full forfeit

Counter vote bomb

Full forfeit. CON also likely plagiarized his argument from Chat-GPT - I ran it through a text detector, and it showed a 99.75% of being AI-Generated. -_-

Neither side addressed the resolution (technically, since there is no such thing as a "borger," it cannot solve world hunger regardless). However, since this is a troll debate, it's judged by whoever made funnier jokes.

PRO had some pretty funny lines (I liked "COWS LOVE BURGERS"), while CON just went for an unoriginal "L + ratio." So PRO wins this debate.

Also, for future reference to both debaters, try to avoid using foreign languages - it makes the moderators' jobs harder if they have to review the debate.

RfD in comments

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

This RfD is a bit short, I'm not making it as detailed as it could be because it doesn't really affect things anyway - I'm just doing it to provide feedback.

PRO's main points are that Nicolino had a better defensive style, superior energy conservation, more experience, and a sturdier frame.
CON's main points are that Floyd has a strong style against other defensive fighters, has a better grasp of the sport, and has also proven himself to be one of the best boxers in a competitive era.

Along the way, PRO adds a few more points (like Floyd's calcium deficiency), while CON adds some important ones as well, such as Floyd having better training.

Both sides agree that Floyd and Nicolino are more defensive fighters, so they lack the ability to score a knockout punch, meaning the fight will likely go to the judges. Although PRO had some convincing points about Nicolino's superior physique, as well as conservation of energy, he also dropped CON's points about Floyd's stamina (due to better training) as well as Floyd's ability to score points with the judges. In addition, the fundamental problem is that PRO failed to really show how Nicolino would win, and the BoP is entirely on him, so he can't do better than a tied argument.

I was leaning towards CON on arguments for this reason, but he also dropped a lot of important points, such as Floyd's calcium deficiency (PRO did a good job exploiting the time-frame mentioned in the title), as well as Nicolino's defense. Also, CON's second-round forfeiture really hurt him - he was basically stuck playing catch-up for the rest of the debate.

So, arguments are tied.

Conduct is to PRO, since CON forfeited.

Overall, this was a great debate by both sides. I think that the BoP being entirely on PRO, however, was just too much of a disadvantage to overcome. CON's forfeiture helped PRO, but since fundamentally I never saw a clear way for Nicolino to win, it didn't really affect arguments.

PRO fulfilled his BoP by showing four different Bible verses where it it shown God is a person.

CON fails to object to this, either by challenging the interpretation or the meaning of the verses in question. Therefore, PRO's points go ignored, which means they are upheld by default - meaning he wins.

Full forfeit.

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Arguments: R1PRO and R3CON are the main argument rounds, so I will focus on those.

In R1PRO, PRO's main argument revolves around proving that abortion is morally wrong, because it kills a developing human, and the majority of abortions are made because of bad decisions.

In R3CON, CON's main argument seeks to prove that the total detriment to society due to banning abortions outweighs the wrongness of an abortion. He cites extensively from sources in order to prove his points, namely that people will perform unsafe abortions anyway - and that abortion access benefits society in numerous ways.

I weighed these arguments and decided that overall, CON's argument was more convincing because he outweighed PRO's arguments in terms of societal benefit (the standard on which laws are passed), and his arguments were also more relevant to the resolution; PRO focused on theoretical moral aspects, while CON focused on impacts in the real world.

Sources: Tied - CON used sources more extensively, but not enough to justify the point.

S/G: Tied

Conduct: According to the Voting Policy, "the disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty UNLESS there is reason to withhold it."

Although CON forfeited, PRO's conduct was worse. He first attempted to impose an arbitrary, never-agreed upon rule that forfeitures somehow caused the loss of a debate, and this was the only thing he said for the rest of the debate. This behavior is inherently against the spirit of debate - instead of trying to actually rebut CON's arguments (which he had two rounds to do), he tried to get an auto-win on a non-existent technicality.

Full forfeit, also to counter ENDLESSBACKFLIP's vote bomb

Args: The main problem with CON's case, as PRO pointed out, is that this debate is about who won, not who was objectively correct.

R1: PRO shows how Craig made several well-substantiated arguments for the existence of God, while Hitchens dropped most of his arguments.
R1: CON, weirdly, asserts that "theism has always been an impossible position to argue." He then argues against Craig's arguments using contentions that were never mentioned in the actual debate.

R2: PRO points out the problems with CON's case, and extends R1.
R2: CON continues to make personal arguments against Craig, and moves the goalposts by claiming that because "Craig even admits he is unable to prove beyond certainty the existence of a god," he loses an ON-BALANCE debate.

R3: PRO extends most of his points again.
R3: CON extends most of his (rebutted) points.

Sources: Both sides used sources adequately.

S/G: Acceptable from both sides.

Conduct: I was going to award this to CON, due to several unnecessarily disparaging arguments from PRO. However, upon rereading the debate, I noticed that CON also stated some outright falsehoods, such as "Nothing that Craig says in this discussion is evidence of a creator," despite an entire R1 from PRO dedicated to this.

Therefore, I have left it tied.

Args: PRO made several well-substantiated arguments, which CON failed to counter - "your arguments kinda suck" is not a rebuttal. CON's case was a combination of word salad, as well as repeating the same unsourced rebuttals over and over.

Sources: PRO used several reliable sources, CON used none.

S/G: CON's legibility was absolutely atrocious, and it was a challenge to wade through it.

Conduct: various snarky comments from CON, including challenging PRO's reading ability when the opposite was true.

Arguments: The BoP was on PRO to show that vaccines cause autism. Even if his ludicrous argument that vaccination is rape was upheld, he still failed to prove that rape causes autism. CON correctly noted the BoP, which was all he needed to do.

Sources: CON used several sources for definitions, while PRO used none.

S/G: Acceptable from both sides.

Conduct: AFAIK, troll arguments are annoying, but not poor conduct.

This debate was a truism, and more or less a foregone conclusion if PRO argued reasonably - which he did.

Arguments: PRO made the salient point that rights are only conferred on beings with consciousness and self-awareness. CON counters with a weak appeal to emotion, and uses the concept of environmental rights to support his contention. PRO shows that environmental rights are an extension of citizens' rights to enjoy nature - a questionable argument, but one that CON drops. CON then claims that inanimate objects have rights - however, this is never sufficiently proven. The source he gives even lists it as a claim, rather than an accepted statement. Overall, PRO had stronger contentions and better addressed his opponent's arguments.

Sources: PRO used none, CON used one.

S/G: Acceptable from both sides (IDK German grammar so I can't judge, but it worked out fine in Google Translate)

Conduct: Acceptable from both sides.

Although the BoP is arguably on PRO, as a voter, I have a duty to vote based on what happened in the debate, not on my own subjective interpretation of it. Any attempt to justify otherwise would be fluffery.

PRO at least put an argument to support his point, while CON full forfeited. Therefore, PRO wins.

Arguments: Con demonstrated how Pro's argument seemed to defeat itself, even admitting to the wage gap existing. The rest of Pro's argument, such as the causes of the wage gap, were irrelevant to the resolution.

Sources: Neither side used sources.

S/G: Both sides had good readability.

Conduct: Obviously goes to Pro, considering Con's forfeiture.