Total votes: 1,434
The timing of that forfeiture means every point raised by con was dropped; therein, reducing the debate to a foregone conclusion.
Concession.
Concession.
A single on topic assertion, beats the nothing offered by pro.
Conduct for forfeitures.
Arguments I am leaving tied. Pros case fails to prove it was justified at the time, but with con missing too much it was not his arguments which carried it.
A bit of a narrow window con slides into, but he catches that the resolution deals not merely with vague possibility, but active suspicion. With his good counter evidence of white people who helped attain equal rights for everyone as clearly not racist by their actions, and pro giving no reason they should be suspected of being racists; and finially no forthcoming other arguments; con takes the win.
I don't like this debate. A vote against con could be justified due to the repeated forfeitures... That said, con won.
Arguments... So weird, and both were in an organization format I hate.
Pro brings up hypothetical examples of things he deems evil, con counters with definitions of evil as some type of real force in the universe (that would have been fun), before switching gears to the possibility that nothing outside our minds exists. Pro rather than challenging this (there's a half dozen simple counters I can think of off the top of my head), just asks con if he's nothing...
Further, pro refused to provide real examples, even when implicitly asked to do so. I am left with the examples pro made only existing inside his mind, rather than having a verifiable existence outside of it.
Very cool topic, and insightful R1; but unfortunately still an FF.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture.
forfeiture.
Concession
Pro pretty much wins on sources. The debate over who was pro, would have gone much better for con had he argued in favor of Charlie Parker, or even against Kenny G, but in the spirit of fairness he left that open... I suggest adding a rule to these that the instigator gets to pick whichever side of the topic they prefer; whereas if they wish to be con, such a statement in the description would also serve (then their opposition could phrase the resolution appropriately).
So pro had a bunch of sources that say Charlie is amazing, and Kenny can't hold a beat. Con argued against this that opinions are all subjective, but those seemed to be opinions with authority on the topic, so it's intuitively not a valid complaint. This combined with missing the final round, left too much of pro's case unchallenged or ineffectually challenged.
Also, please bold opponent quotes, or use other formatting to ease the reading of these.
Honestly, at least this isn’t the usual spam most of these turn into…
So did Mall read RM’s mind? Of course not. However, the argumentation is what must be cited on (such as it is).
Pretty much Mall flip flops on if he’ll engage, leading to confusion as to his side of the debate; which ultimately denies him BoP.
Pro on the other hand talks up the brilliance of Mall, using his mind reading powers to make a win win scenario for himself. RM by accepting the bet, suggests that Mall is indeed a mind reader.
Had Mall just denied that the mind reading was in the explicit form of telepathy, he might have had a chance. As is, RM takes the win.
Forfeiture.
Single round debate, combined with the massive amount of greater effort put in by con, reduced this to a foregone conclusion.
In spite of forfeiting most of the debate, con came back with a case that Christian values from the bible remain in Christian dominant nations. Which pro tried to argue an absolute, when the absolute was actually against him with how the resolution was phrased. That modern Christianity is not exactly the same as it was back then is obvious, but the resolution implies none of modern Christianity stems from biblical teachings, and with good sources con was able to show it is indeed a biblical teaching not to murder people.
Forfeiture
Ok, I feel for pro on this one. I've been left scratching my head at what some opponents write, and give up on deciphering the meaning... That said, the argument from not understanding the opponents argument, is not a winning one; unless well reasoned, it actually leaves the opposing case dropped.
Con argued and was unchallenged that they are a "status group and not a (social) class." Pro could have easily countered that in meaning they are not mutually exclusive, rather they are synonymous with each other in common usage; but he did not.
Con forfeited, but his points were unchallenged; and he was the one who made good points supported by evidence.
Con argued from language that murder is the specific act of killing when when it's illegal to do so. Which turns any consideration of a pro victory into a paradox, since legal use of lethal force ceases to be murder or it ceases to be legal. This pre-refuted pro's points such as the question about what makes a murderer different from an executioner (one is illegal, the other is not).
Of course, pro could make a case for how some murderers should not be punished due to the circumstances, but that is not what this debate was about.
Arguments:
Con did a two fold case. First BoP, and second that implicitly that innocent people are not magically the worst of the worst depraved criminals (at least not without some reason to suggest so).
Counter to this, the entire pro case is: "rape cause ?"
Sources:
Source spam without analysis is not something I reward. This feels like just an advertisement for a bad YouTube channel.
Legibility:
The absence of legibility, is in it of itself failure in legibility. Literally posting only two words in one round, and none in the other, harms this. Even a nicely formatted "Forfeited" is far superior to this.
Conduct:
Con missed one round. In a two round debate this could cost him the debate, but I choose to evaluate the arguments and grade them for their merits.
Pro immediately goes for the coup de grâce using this very topic, and con replied asserting things exist but without clear examples of them...
Pro gives a number of examples of lack of citations, to which con eventually falls back on saying says other things should count as sources too... Which is ironic, since had he just pulled a dictionary he might have won this.
If evidence shouldn't be needed, is not the topic at hand. So within the scope of this debate, pro has easily shown a topic where con lacks sources.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture
Pro missed the second half of the debate.
Forfeiture
Pretty straight forward debate over definitions.
I will say that con missed a glaring weakness in the pro case, in that pro listed things which are eroding the democracy in a debate declaring there was never any democracy to erode…
So pro does well in showing that the US is fairly undemocratic on the aggregate level. With a huge population, the impact of my one voter is negligible, and elected officials try to rid elections with such BS as gerrymandering, plus there’s non-elected officials in certain key roles
Con is able to show that the elected officials are indeed elected by the people, and the minority which cannot vote does not undermine if something is a democracy via one of the definitions offered by pro. That elected officials place non-elected officials into key roles, is still fitting with democracy via the self evident detail that elected officials are /elected/.
were the debate over the strength of the democracy, cons case would not hold up, but elected representatives sucking doesn’t invalidate that they are elected making everything stem from democracy itself.
While non sequitur, against a full forfeiture it easily wins.
Edited to remove sources. Conduct and arguments are unchanged.
...
Pro gave himself a high BoP in needing to prove that animals are in fact people. Not merely that they ought to be granted rights and regarded as similar to people, but in plain English that they already are people.
Pro is successful in showing that the meat industry is bad. However, as con is apt to point out, without showing that people are being farmed for food, BoP is unable to be met.
While you can compare apples to oranges, that doesn't cause them to equal each other.
...
Pro is effective in using repeated pathos appeals along the lines of /imagine the same was done to your children!/, but con is fast to point out the disjunction of this when applied to the topic being a definitional fallacy. And further if farming is bad is non-sequitur to this topic unless people are being farmed.
Pro comes back declaring "Black people, Jewish people, etc." are the same as animals (I wouldn't phrase it like this, but con already caught the horrible implications of this comparison, and pro actively chose to double down on it). He further claims that con claims "it is ethical to torture, farm, and kill animals." Which is obviously a non-sequitur poisoning of the well (that con argues it is not the same, does not mean the debate changes topics to be about if it is right or wrong).
Human rights:
Going to use the first instance of a definition for that "HUMAN RIGHTS- humans are the only species capable of conceiving, demanding, upholding civil rights and as such, enjoy a superior and unique claim to those rights we perceive as self-evident." Pro basically accuses con of being in favor of eating the disabled for this (literally on the next paragraph he follows up with an accusation that con's logic is in favor of farming "elderly, the sick, and infants," so I think I'm at the point of not listing any more of these pathological insults) rather than showing the farm animals which rise to the level of thought as the average person (AKA, the average human being).
Personhood:
Con argues we should use English. Pro asserts that "Animals are persons because they are entities that have a moral right to their own self-determination" yet instead of showing this, he falls back to R1 Google searches for the definitions of key words, without actually showing the animals in question are capable of self-determination even to a comparable level to humans.
Abortion:
Pro for some strange reason keeps bringing up abortion. This is way too far off topic to be seriously considered.
Conduct: con.
I wouldn't assign this, except pro requested the point be given to him for con making arguments in R1. Which by itself is just weird, but when combined with obvious gaslighting at the start of R2 by pro (claiming that con accused him of conceding the debate; when no such words were written) undermines his case in a way that takes the reader out of the debate distracting from the topic at hand. It gets worse as noted above (such as claiming that con is in favor of murdering and eating defenseless human beings).
Sources: Tie, leaving toward con.
Initially voted this in con's favor, but in re-review both sides indeed put in their due diligence. That some of pro's own sources were proven to favor con, greatly hurt his case, but without deeper review on more of them it does not net the points.
Original reasoning: Pro brings up sources which proclaim personhood equals human being, cherry picks around that obvious problem, and then declares that con was really the one cherry picking for pointing out what pro's source says (the defense is good when applied to different webpages within any site, but not literally the same page on the same site). So for better leveraging of pro's own sources, con is able to claim this.
Legibility:
Both sides were fine on this front.
Con successfully navigated the logic puzzle. Which is to say, that I as a voter, am convinced he would succeed at selling pro something if he tried (not that he has to try, merely that he be able to succeed at it).
Before con can even respond in R1, there are two immediate problems:
1. Gish Galloped quotations from the supreme leader. A nation having one cool dude, does not imply much of anything. Everyone here probably knows at least a few cool dudes in whatever country they reside.
2. "Do I even need to mention what happens in the poorest?" Neat factoid, but it's wondering far off topic. It's further inviting comparisons of NK to better oppressive regimes.
Understanding the values of the average debater, makes this statement problematic: "Even children who have no parents and no one to take care of them, in North Korea they are cared for by the state. They get free house, job, healthcare, education all provided by the Socialist state." It was otherwise the first paragraph that shined as having anything good to say about NK (which should be the center point).
Ok, WTF is a 3D model doing in the Youtube videos which is supposed to be showing free housing? What is that a city for ants?! How can the people live there, if they cannot fit inside the buildings? It will need to be at least three times as big!
Jokes aside, pro eventually shows some positives about NK. Which even if dubious, do attain minimal BoP; leaving the debate in con's hands to challenge.
...
Con hits hard starting with good evidence against the economy, education (except for those awesome reeducation camps... countries without those are a bunch of simps!). ,
FYI: con your source washingtonpost.com/ is literally just that. I doubt it will be caught in the debate, but it's something to take care with for future debates.
Con praised NK for their action hero firing ICBMs on national television, making it rise to the amazing level of being a "clown fiesta."
Pro complains that NK has to grow food rather than just defend itself against a tougher country... What consistent standard is NK supposed to be better by, if it's getting bullied by the USA? ... Getting into a video praising cool guy in charge, again doesn't suggest NK is better (I doubt con will bother to show a Beyoncé video to prove NK doesn't even win by that standard of best music videos, but at a certain point such common knowledge that other counties have music too can be taken for granted). Pro gets into more music videos...
Con replies with paraphrasing M.C. Hammer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo
Forfeiture.
Also I saw red vent! I swear he killed green!
Fun little bit of comedy from both. Ultimately con made me laugh more with the USA is genderqueer and NK is just a lesbian. In contrast, pros best joke was that accepting gays is wrong according to “logic,” which reminded me of Pete Holmes’ take in Batman, but did not rise to such quality levels.
Pro insists some chance of survival would be better than none, but con is able to counter the increased cost to airlines and how damned long it would take even an expert to get the thing on during the emergency when the plane is in a nose dive and there isn't that much time (in addition to other problems like the other related gear needed for skydiving; or how it would be distributed, and the risk of having to wear those the whole time).
Pro attempts to leverage that it could be some new type of parachute which hasn't been invented yet, but this doesn't make the thing seem feasible or cost effective.
It's a neat thought, but too impractical and not thought through.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture, and no real argument in R1. Something about 👼🏻 Is just an assertion without value.
Forfeiture without a coherent argument first, leaving BoP unable to be met.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Duel forfeiture.
Concession.
Duel forfeiture.
While technically a duel full forfeiture, pro's opening was well detailed and well researched enough that I'll give him credit for it in spite his absence thereafter.
Okay seriously, WTF, pro actually closes out his final round by randomly making the bizarre declaring atheism is bad in part for not raping 7 year olds... This is such a huge an distraction from arguments (and insult at all non-pedophiles), that I'm penalizing conduct.
A = Atheism
I = Islam
Pro says that A believes some silly things about how the universe was formed.
Con says that I believes in murdering everyone who has a different belief (even foreshadows pro's counter case with talk of how they consider it not real killing since it's non-believers). Con fortifies this with the various translations (which pro denies exist) and interpretations, leaving I on shaky ground.
Without A shown to do something equal or worse, or I perfectly defended to dismiss all doubts about the murders, this is a landslide.
Con further leverages pro's own interpretation of I, for it being opposed to 1500 years advancement in knowledge, which pro doesn't seem to understand why that is an issue.
Forfeiture.
I should note that not evaluating arguments in a case like this, does not mean still voting on them. Not that I think it can impact the outcome, as con's case being wholly uncontested reduces the debate to a forgone conclusion.
Forfeiture.