Barney

Con took this swiftly with the ratio of harm in terms of actual deaths (this being from all knives, to which butter knives specifically would likely prove to be a negligible fraction). Whereas pro seems to argue butter knives hypothetical could do that if people believe in them enough...

Conduct: Con waited until the final round to add a key point about lead poisoning, at which point they could not be responded. His victory and case did not depend on this, I am making this slight penalty against their overwhelming victory mostly as a wake up call against this in future.

Concession.

Concession.

See comment section:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2221/comment-links/29158

Con managed a syllogism with Socrates at only 65 characters. Pro's challenge fell short of dismissing that.

Honestly, any number will be pretty arbitrary.

Concession.

Seldiora deserves employment, even while no employer has a moral obligation.

Pro offers three proofs, and soundly supports them. Con does not challenge those, but challenges the resolution with a counter proof. That is a fine tactic as I've said before:

"Con has a duty to attempt to disprove (or cast strong doubt upon) the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or refuting all the evidence provided by pro."

However, in math it gets tricky, because depending on the type of math employed it may be true or false. This means it is usually true, but occasionally false (as con puts it: "it might not be the same interpretation in every circumstance").

Arguments: Pro
In real numbers, they equal. I think I would leave this tied had material from con's final round come earlier allowing it to be addressed. This is a key thing because it's a math debate, and this is where con finally walks us through some numbers.

Sources: Overwhelmingly Pro
Con's R1 is (save for three lines) a wiki page which is not directly linked, and the cutoff between it and his material is unmarked. He points to this, but has a hard time putting any of it into his own words. This had a detrimental effect on his arguments.
Pro on the other hand used sources to support his case, but still explained his numbers to be not dependant upon the appeal to authority.
Plus, were we to just go with sources instead of making arguments, pro would win anyway from using trustable math websites (a better appeal to authority).

Conduct: Leaning pro...
I am choosing to leave this tied, but con, please be careful in future regarding making your own case rather than a quick copy/paste from a source (had the source not been mentioned, I'd likely make it a 7-point loss).

The instigator tried to write a truism, as I warned in the comments, these are meaningless.

The contender ran a multi-point Kritik, first that rules may be overridden to maintain the spirit of debate, then an inverse semantic...
https://tiny.cc/Kritik

Then of course, cited evidence of white supremacy existing. For which Department of Homeland Security source was particularly effective, and nothing about the point was challenged.

Con's case on the other hand was that pro conceded by bringing the debate out of the mindless truism area. I do however give con credit for catching that the goalposts had indeed been moved (getting more advanced on fallacies, that something is the form of the fallacy does not mean it is assured to be fallacious: e.g., Trump is the president, so while quoting him is an appeal to authority, he may be a valid authority on the topic). Sticking with what's been proven meaningless, is non-ideal; in such cases, a reason why that would be a debatable topic under those limits needs to be shown (that it's debatable, does not mean it needs to be fair, just debatable).

I hate giving 7-points, as it feels like a votebomb, even when it isn't.

So con swiftly demonstrated harm to future generations caused by incest, and pointed to the lack of any harm caused by gay marriage. Therefore to support one does not mean you should support the other, and implicitly it is not necessary to support the other (I liked the pen/gun and popper/landmine analogy).

Pro on the other hand insisted that not all children from incest have birth defects, and that it's technically possible to support both groups on the same grounds.

ARG: con for the above.

SOURCES: Con's sources were vastly better than the absence of sources. The one pointing to a 42% birth defect rate among incest was particularly good, and proved the basis for his argument.

S&G: ALL CAPS FOR SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS. Seriously pro, you've been told about this repeatedly.

CONDUCT: Pro implicitly accused con of "fussing, whining, screaming or crying." And pretty directly that con is mentally "SLOW" for disagreeing with pro. Insulting the other debater for taking the requested stance, is unsportsmanlike. It would be akin to playing chess, and calling the other player a genocidal racist for killing so many blacks (or vice versa).

First off, con had 6 of the 7 days to post his argument before he was banned (and was given notice it was coming and extensions). This leaves forfeiting the third round an active choice.

Note: The definition of "SYSTEMIC racism" is a little flawed, as leadership and/or systems within any institution can commit it. However, it should still function just fine for this debate.

PRO's CONSTRUCTIVE:
1 Contention: BLM’s Misguided Agenda
Pro does a detailed if fairly standard opening. As was "BLM has had no agenda to reduce black-on-black violence, meaning no solvency."
A highlight was property damage committed against blacks by BLM protests, which con challenges citing that a white guy looted a mall and blamed BLM. Pro calls back to the amount of damages, leaving the white looter inflating the numbers unchallenged (I actually got curious enough to read the whole article, and it would have been very easy to flip as he did not loot or vandalise anything).

2. Contention: BLM’s Ideology
A highlight was the way people of any heritage may raise themselves from poor to middle class.
Con wisely accepts the Marxism angle, and talks about how it better represents them than some people, and they stand up for the poor. Pro defends that capitalism has decreased worldwide poverty by a massive amount in in just a few decades, and asks con to demonstrate how Marxism has improved poor black communities.
Con challenges the claim that they attack Christian values (not sure why that was in there anyway). Marxism ties in, the value of the family unit, the harm of unwed mothers... While I see that both debaters want to explore this, it's honestly it's not holding my attention the way the destroyed infrastructure did.

CON'S CONSTRUCTIVE:
Con opens with a complaint that pro did not list the good BLM does... That is kinda not how a debate like this usually goes, as con's constructive should be providing the benefits to be weighed by voters against pro's harms. Con seems to be attempting a discourse Kritik, that pro was wrong to say unkind things about BLM in this comparative debate.

Con asserts without evidence that it has uplifted the poor, and says they were responsible for #MeToo via the butterfly effect.

Sources:
This leans pretty far in pro's favor. We end up with sources like Fortune describing the protests (tied to BLM) trying to destroy wealth in Chicago with millions of damages in that one city, vs someone unlikeable being caught wandering a mall during a riot. Even taking the mall source as it was presented, that's one out of a few thousand, without showing a general trend of the looting actually being white youtubers. Con's R2 broken links, sealed the deal, reducing many of his important claims there to just assertions.

Conduct: Forfeiture and structure violations.

S&G: Con's lack of headings hurt the organization of his case, but not by enough to cost this.

Still a BoP failure, but massive improvement from pro to be able to spot a red herring by name. Pro clarified in the description that this is just for one part of coupling between men and women, so gay sex is dropped from consideration. The problem comes that pro drops things like three-ways, and implies he only means the moment where the sperm reaches the egg, as opposed to all the variance of things (chiefly sexual intercourse) which lead to it.

Con does well in questioning if it's a design, or an "undesigned thing that accidentally has similarities."

Con's best point IMO is "Pro's case for sex having a uniform end-goal of pregnancy, as opposed to orgasmic pleasure. In fact, Pro would undoubtely concede that Prostitution has money as a goal and not orgasm as a goal for one or more of the parties so..." which pro has attempted to pre-refute, but it boils down to hand-waving assertions that those are defective uses of it (which does not deny that they are still sexual intercourse), which the structure or design seems perfectly compatible with.

It honestly seems like pro's case is not that it is, but that he believes it should be. Which was not in the resolution.

---

So some advice:
As pro said "This is why the context of the description is laid out the way it is. It's so that we're not running all over the place. When you don't have a foundation, you get lost, confused and find it too difficult to ascertain facts." A key thing missing from this was definitions (ideally in the description... also that description needs space between paragraphs, as is, it's a damned wall of text).

The scope statement could also be improved. Right now it's buried. However defining the scope should not be taken to far, as that risks a truism which would make the debate a non-moderated troll debate.

Concession.

Still going to give a little review (yes, this is always allowed).

Con made three key arguments.
1. The first is where I feel the true spirit of the debate lay, and his penny farthings (and similar examples) was strong. Pro may have been able to defend from this, but a little more focus on the lack of extreme penny farthing racing, would have likely sealed it as most Motorsports would almost definitely go extinct (even if not all, leaving it an on balance the resolution is false thing).
2. Can't know the future. This had some strong merit.
3. Heat death of the universe... I hate to say it, but next time a scope statement in the description would avoid certain semantic arguments. That said, I do believe a reasonable scope was implied by nature of the resolution's the comparative statement (said extinction being related to the replacement).

While I would have been curious for pro's defenses, and I think he still stood a chance (even if not a great one), con indeed seemed right to simplify pro's case to an appeal to tradition (there are possible defenses, but such a fundamental problem is really hard to overcome, shaking general confidence in the case).

After an extra round delay, con did offer a decent challenge to the Genesis bit as being Isaac instead of God. Pro does not have the best defense, but he shows that it is written to be displeasing to Isaac, and was worth writing down. Con could have made progress, but no more mention of Isaac or Genesis.

Deuteronomy was worse, commanding murder and specifically not to intermarry. Intuitively, ancient nations regarded each other as different races (much like people today, but the mild differences were the focus instead of easier to spot ones). Con needed to show something to suggest they were the same race, to rule out racial motivations for the genocide.

While other points came up, with those pro had done exactly as was asked in the challenge, so there's not much point in going deeper.

Pro did well in showing that on the surface they indeed have similarities, in that they both involve money and sex. Con on the other hand contrasted them to show they are more dissimilar in that one is the taxed production of goods and the other an unregulated service, which pro dropped. Pro instead got caught up in how con could dislike the goods one more than the service, which missed the point of ways they were more different than alike.

The pro case could have been greatly strengthened with focus on the exploitation angle.
The con case could have been greatly strengthened with focus on the legal battles or on the slippery slope of saying they are alike risks saying anything that is alike one is like the other, such as painters.

Conduct for forfeiture.

It seems that before accepting the challenge, con stated what they believe the resolution meant in the comment section:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2214/comment_links/28723

Which is basically a Rules Kritik:
https://tiny.cc/Kritik

Con's interpretation is: "the debate is on how white people are the most racist group of people"
With pro's constant complaints about how this debate isn't about white Americans, or recent things, or much of anything else from the resolution... Yeah, there's some actual benefit of insight to be gained by looking at the debate through con's proposed lense.

With all that in mind, it does not dismiss the original resolution, So I'm going to weight this debate with duel BoP: Pro has to prove the resolution as written, con has to prove the alternative. The primary is still the original. Mainly, I'm not dismissing con's case as a mere whataboutism. Embarrassingly, pro lends the greatest support for this by insisting they meant for the debate to be about: "Whites are definitely the most racist group of people on the planet and history backs up all claims"

Conduct:
R1, before con could post anything, pro rants and raves about con not answering imaginary questions. This sets the tone from them going forward, with accusations of lying and such.

S&G:
Pro chose to harm legibility by writing the majority of their replies in all bold. Pro on the other hand was organized and did not intentionally make their case unreadable.

Sources:
After some misfiring of posting stuff in the comments, con excelled at this. Using the FBI data to undermine the gist of pro's claims was a good highlight, which pro decided to drop. Pro of course has a greater number of sources, but immediately harmed credibility by insisting that the average white American today is a hundreds of year old immortal man who likely never stepped foot in the Americas (King Leopold II).
Under the second resolution, con's sources prove the crimes against humanity. Pro tries to dismiss them insisting that China being more racist would not make them more racist (weird...).

Arguments:
Pro gets side tracked never trying to uphold the resolution, and even repeatedly insisting the debate is not about the resolution he wrote. Apparently "the modern age" has absolutely nothing to do with "recent" times which this debate necessitates. Frequently going over a hundred years ago, and not even within the Americas, this causes a massive BoP failure.
Con on the other hand first highlighted the problem, then moved on to their own case to show concentration camps for non-criminals on the basis of race. On the primary resolution they showed twice as many whites killed by police than blacks (which I know statistics well enough to understand why it's still a troubling figure, but it was pro's job to challenge than rather than just drop the point).

A good start, but ultimately full forfeiture.

Con full forfeited
░░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ Bob is building an army.
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ ☻/ This tank is against forfeits
Il███████████████████]. /▌
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤.. / \

Forfeiture.

Got to say, it's nice to see pro's skill develop.

Ok obviously pro gets sources. .edu and .gov get extra credit from me, but in general he did a great job highlighting the long term damages from this pandemic to which we can only guesstimate.

Arguments must go to con. He mitigated the effectiveness of everything pro had, by pointing out when the decade ended.
I also give credit to con for bringing up a counter example of something influential. While Trump getting impeached was clearly not as influential, it played out within the time period of the decade in question. Compared to the virus starting to be reported on NYE... Pro might have been able to take the debate, by focusing on the start date and how far it had already spread undetected; but it wasn't done adequately to overtake both the blunder and the counter example of an influential event.

Had the debate been on 2011-2020 the virus would win. There was not enough from pro to push for this, especially when the mistake was his (I personally suggest pointing out such blunders before accepting, but it's not a conduct hit that sportsmanship could be exceptional, the point is only as a penalty for enough badness)
Had the debate been on 2020-2029, based on what I've seen, the virus would most likely win as there is a low probability of any event being more influential (could happen... just unlikely).

First off, this debate left me literally dizzy from going in pointless circles so much.

Not doing point numbering due to the Gish Gallop like nature of this debate; instead I’m just taking highlights from each round.

R1:
I can basically assume pro meets his BoP on 2 out of 3 claims, as Con opens with a statement to immediately limit his attack the affirmative pseudoscience claim. To which we have the OED definition “A spurious or pretended science; a branch of knowledge or a system of beliefs mistakenly regarded as based on scientific method or having the status of scientific truth.”

R2:
Pro nitpicks grammar, seeming to miss the point (it’s a bad stance to lead with). Complains of the lack of sources. Then asks that readers re-read some of his claims which touched on pseudoscience. He does better here pointing out that he had sources which referred to it as pseudoscience within the scientific community.

Pro goes on to talk at length about Catherine Bell and a TV show.

Con on the other hand reaffirms his stance and adds a good detail of contrasting it to counterfeit money. He does a strong conclusion using pro’s 19 sources against him in that if there was good evidence, surely pro would have found it?

R3:
A ton of nitpicking before getting back on topic… Ah, a positive review for Catherine Bell’s TV show; it sounds like they pretend to be scientists on TV? Ok, a good note of Monty Python demonstrating the scientific method against witches (for this type of thing, I seriously suggest a link to the video). And ending with an original poem written by pro.

Con basically repeats that pro has BoP to show that witchcraft rises to the level of a pseudoscience, and that he cannot prove the negative (his definitions actually imply this, with “magical arts” instead of “magical sciences,” suggesting that he indeed could prove that it falls below the threshold).

R4:
Pro clarifies why he believes it is a prescience, in that hundreds of years ago people attempted to use it in a similar manner (even without similar results) to things we would use various sciences for today.
Con explains why faith healing does not claim to do the rigorous study and questioning of itself as seen with science. He reminds us “pseudoscience is a spurious or fake science rather than activity which conforms to the scientific method,” which has been implicit throughout his earlier arguments. And of course concludes with pointing back to his R1, and finally complimenting pro’s quality of writing.

---

Arguments:
Con leveraged BoP against one of the claims. Pro came closer to conceding that witchcraft is compatible with the scientific method, than showing it is a pseudoscience (he repeatedly insisted it attempts to duplicate the scientific method). Con on the other hand stuck to his points that it logically is not a pseudoscience, even if a TV witch uses it as a science to change the world.

Sources:
I agree with con that sources are not absolutely necessary. That said, pro still put the work into his research, and gets credit for that (even if so much focus on that TV show tempted me to wholly ignore sources). I will also note that con easily could have sources witches acting very non-scientific, which would have greatly sped this up.
Let’s see, to cite one: Pro was very creative in using the absence of alien DNA to suggest that witchcraft is indeed superstition, a point not merely dropped, but outright conceded by con.

Conduct:
Leaving this tied. I will note there is a certain degree of irony with pro telling us how to vote, rather than letting things like the imbalance of sources speak for themselves.

S&G:
Also tied. There’s no benefit in obsessing over every typo, when people were still fully understandable without any major distractions from that.

For a debate like this, unless the statements are qualified as absolutes, there needs to be some flexibility... That said this is pretty straight forward: Pro tries to prove that we would be more close to invincible than rigid, and con that we would be less invincible and more rigid.

Getting to the highlights...
Pro tries to argue that a chainsaw while still cutting us in half, would not directly damage our cells... This is halfway a concession, as we would be massively harmed. I care a lot less for points like nukes and suffocation points, as the resolution is not about true godlike immortality but merely being physically impervious.
Con argues we would be made comparatively rigid, using a very good example of teenagers vs middle aged people. Pro does try to argue that this does not count as truly rigid, and further that various metals can be bent so are not absolutely rigid... Nothing about being rigid actually calls for it to be absolute, from his or her own definition "deficient in or devoid of flexibility" key words "deficient in ... flexibility." So us having a hard time moving, even if having a plant like ability to slowly do it over hours and have the benefit of legs, is still pretty rigid.

Mutual >50% forfeit.

In short, con's Kritik falls flat. That said, while it was non-sequitur to the resolution and argument it tried to challenge, it fell flat without pro in fact challenging it when there was opportunity... So arguments remain tied.

Pro offered an episode, with ample evidence of it being high quality (I'm a jerk, so I'll snicker at people crying about it... still, I can appreciate that they see something special in it), and producing some good in the world by encouraging fans to do better regarding biases.
Con offers the counter that it wasn't the worst episode. This introduces no point of comparison for another episode to do better (even at being the worst via supporting suicide).

The ratings graph was a great source, particularly as it immediately opened the door for con to find another episode better on some metric; which made the cheap tactic even worse.

And I am outright surprised con is not winning this due to pro's >50% forfeitures, which automatically earn negative conduct without need for argument analysis.

Nothing from Grumpy Cat to compare to the pictures of Lil Bub, thus making arguments a forgone conclusion.

Sources for photos evidence which was the only evidence and supported con's BoP.

Conduct for forfeiture.

Overkill. Way too much overkill!

Pro argues believing in one is akin to believing in the other, making six different contentions for metrics of this (key thing being all knowing deity rewarding and punishing mankind) which were all dropped by con. Con tries to shift the burden onto pro proving that Santa actually exists (I admittedly missed how this would prove one is not like the other)...

I would give pro sources for NORAD, but that only came up in the final round after con had no opportunity to respond. As is, the comparison between Santa Clause is Coming To Town and multiple passages from the bible, strongly support it such that con had zero response.

S&G: I'm actually leaving tied. Pro does better on this due to con's continued abuse of all caps, but frustration is more understandable in this case (con you should seriously use a low character limit if you're going to keep arguing in this style).

Full Forfeit.

Con points out many types of sex never result in pregnancy. Pretty much game over.

Pro tried to move the goalpost and commit special pleading about when ready for some smaller percentage of the sexual experience, instead of the open ended sex he chose when creating the debate. Trying this, is akin to had con succeed in showing why VTP does not always equate to pregnancy, and con tried to move the goalpost to 'when when water breaks, be ready to parent.'

S&G:
Formatting from pro was awful enough I began skipping to con's rebuttals which made sense of it. Randomly bolding paragraphs, is the equivalent of when in the middle of a polite conversation SUDDENLY YELLING IN THEIR FACE FOR NO APPARENT REASON.

Sources:
Lean toward con, but leaving tied as I'm not sure what con was trying to do in the comment section with regards to them. ... Plus when I have no reason to open any source, I am not really engaging in the weighing of them.

Thanks for the disclaimer on the second line of the debate.

This debate was mostly assertion vs assertion. Pro conterminously asserts that if sex does not result in pregnancy, it is a malfunction; which intuitively makes it sound non-uniform. Plus he concedes "Excluding outlier cases of deformity."
Con wisely counters by pointing out the similarities between condom sex and sex utilizing tools, which does a good job making it seem non-uniform. He proceeds to use this to lead into the declaration "what makes it special is actually the variation in foreplay, tempo during and the aftermath."

Con later goes into a simple point about lack of a proven designer; as lack of uniformity was called into doubt by pro himself once he brought the word "unique" into the debate, I really don't see much point in delving into the semantics of the word design.

Conduct:
Forfeiture.
Otherwise pro wasted R1, and while at a glance it looks like con wasted the final round, when reading everything it worked to very concisely wrap up the debate with a call back reminder to key points and BoP.

R1:
Both sides wasted it.

R2:
Pro points to the description, which con apparently mistook for rhetoric. I do not agree with the claim that it was an ambush, as much as it was weird without some exploratory questions.
Pro makes an argument that he is pro life.

R3:
Pro reminds con that he should "prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies"
Con reaffirms that he is indeed pro-life.

R4:
Pro wisely points out that there are different levels of being pro life, but never asks con which he would be classified within. He seems to argue that it was con's job to list the inconsistencies of his belief.
Con reminds pro that he gave no limiting criteria, which should have given pro the opportunity to argue some inconsistency, to which he refused.

Arguments: Con
See above. No challenge to con's status as absolutely pro life in all cases was made (as much as he might have taken a conduct hit had he made special pleading to walk back his position on certain not thinking he's pro life in common sense abortion cases).
Pro, next time if you want questions answered in R1 (or at any other point), ask them!

Sources: Leaning con, but tied.
The dictionary was well used, but I don't find the margin to be excessive enough to warrant 2 points (as a % it's great, but alone low magnitude).

S&G: tied.
Pro, please get control of your caps lock. Also please use the quotation tool when quoting multiple lines of someones case.
Both of you, please get control of the bolding tool. Bold a key word here and there for emphasis, not whole paragraphs.

50% forfiture.

BoP failure.

Pro wasted the first two rounds doing nothing, then engages in special pleading that he dislikes that people judge religion. He does assert "miracles, divine revelation and supernatural events" without actually citing any for a non-theist to be illogical when judging.

Con on the other hand, weaponizes structure of belief itself, "It is only beyond logic to the one who believes it even exists to begin with." and "unless you truly believe in and worship the being, you have every logical reason to judge it." Not the strongest case, but with no reason it would be illogical demonstrated, he doesn't have the duty to do more.

"If you were to follow the psychological events that lead a child to question what they're taught or even invent ideas of their own, you'd come to find that every single word, logical transition between thoughts and all of that are solely from life events teaching them to think that way. What they are without those events is merely a speechless (non-linguistic) ball of emotions that cannot think at all..."

So pro built a case that each person is indoctrinated into language and culture in general, and con did not try to challenge the contentions. Con did assert that it does not occur every single second, but that does not bridge the gap into dismissing that it occurs in all cases.

Forfeiture for conduct.

I got to say, a line like this should never be in the final round: "He has called me nonreligious and not capable of defining God- that's because I simply didn’t yet."

Anyway, con showed that by pro's own definitions, it would be a contradiction for God to then have faith in the unknown (when nothing is unknown to God); not to mention, con leveraged the perspective on God being unknowable. Pro's points on the other hand, felt like he was doing proselytism in the form of Argumentum ad tl;dr, instead of trying to prove the resolution in question.

This debate would have been much improved with a detailed description to clarify what pro was trying to prove, and the limits to who is allowed to accept it which he seemed to weight on inside the debate after con had already accepted.

Con asked pro to show it, and pro showed many (1 Peter 2:9-10, 2 Corinthians 6:14, Acts 17:26, Deuteronomy 7:1-4). That it could be translated differently, does not invalidate this. That other parts of the bible show a better message, does not invalidate this.

Pretty much a forgone conclusion, so I will not be going into a review on sources and all that.

Arguments:
The thing is pro has burden of proof, which means no amount of dismantling the negative case could ever leave the debate more than a tie.

Whereas con showed different forms of sex. Even if the hot tubing lesbians were discounted, that leaves a world of variance between regular human sex in a hot tub and praying mantis sex. Which was never disproven.

S&G:
Con's choice of all caps for several paragraphs in a row hurt my eyes, harming legibility and distracting me from the debate.

Sources:
I assume this favors con, but without having had any reason to open any links, I only see the appeal to quantity.

Con aborted this debate.

Forfeiture.

This is weird, because in reflection I agree with pro that Steve /can/ defeat Anderson Silva. The content of the debate did not quite reflect this. Inside the debate it was treated as Steve is guaranteed to win. Con even insisted a tie would favor con, and pro acknowledged this with outright quotations but did not challenge it... Something being a tie means it would be close, which would usually mean things could go to either side.

The problem is that pro tried to treat it as basically a truism that Steve would obliterate Anderson Silva. He supported this pretty well with Steve apparently destroying walls of diamond instantly without any need for tools, and if things are in his backpack carry basically unlimited weight (con's defense on that of Steve's inability to otherwise actually lift things was a pretty good showcase of his weird limits). When Steve's punching not being so good against even skeletons was raised by con, pro tried special pleading about how those skeletons must be awesome to Steve's level; which I don't see any proof of as opposed to Steve just not being that amazing at punching non-inanimate objects. In contrast Anderson Silva's fighting skill was shown to be superior on every level, including punching faster and from angles that Steve would not be able to defend against; particularly if Steve were knocked down, which seemed very likely based on the in debate analysis, even if opponents he is used to fighting have failed to do so.

This is a foregone conclusion, as only con was interested in debating.

From the description: "This debate is more for the individuals with a so called pro Life position unless you wish to play opposition advocate." Therefore, con's level of allegiance to whatever cause does not make him a bad faith debater. He even offered pro a path to victory by pointing out the resolution would be affirmed if pro was able to prove any amount of variance in his level of belief.

Let's see, con explains in the first round with sources (his old profile was strong evidence to his placement on the metric in question, and with it's existence being denied, it made the pro case laughable) that he's pro-choice. Pro repeatedly asks him about that and denies he wrote that, and then refuses to debate insisting that con does not fit some unknown criteria. This conduct poisoned the debate.

NOTICE:
Pro's R3 round may be viewed at: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4494/post-links/187318

Con has requested: "When you vote, please indicate that you've seen his R3."

Concession.

Pro showed that the two are indeed likened to each other in terms of belief and their reward and punishment systems. Con tried a one tail attack, consisting of a single line (until the final round, which to me is a big no-no), which without a solidified comparison does not even try to create differences to negate pro's case.

S&G for formatting issues which confused pro's words with con's. This was magnified by it being more of this than con had in his own case.

Not giving sources, as they were only brought up in the final round when a response was no longer possible.

Pro was too open ended, and may as well have argued that con would use language in general.

By the content inside the debate rounds (as opposed to treating the resolution as a truism), pro bet the farm the con would use three certain modes of argument, which was proven by con to not be true arguments in themselves, so besides the point on this debate. Con opted to use off topic arguments, which were outside the prediction (thus weirdly on topic for this debate).

Pro tried to argue that con followed his prediction by bringing Aristotle into the debate along with con making claims of BoP, which were both patently untrue (even in the final round, con called pro's BoP besides the point in the win/loss conditions). I assume this to be a tactic to try to make con attack his credibility (one of the three modes he insisted con would use), but he does a much better job at that himself on this.

I do not notice con making any emotional appeals. Which had he done, would push this closer to pro's favor for some degree of accuracy.

Con of course does use logic, but con defends this as an unavoidable mode of argument rather than a specific argument utilizing it. Pro tried to defend this as if they are the same, but such is stretching the goalposts it too far. The description is clear that there must be "a specified thing" not any general type of thing.

I write this as someone who regularly predicts arguments within debates, to pre-refute them. This is a fun idea for a debate, but con showed a clear path through it (and I don't notice pro arguing that con would use off topic arguments).

Full Forfeit.

Forfeiture.

Full forfeiture. Pro had two whole rounds to respond to con or extend his R1 contentions, to which he did neither.

Forfeiture.

Full forfeit.

Full forfeiture.

Did not advance beyond a definition game, but con was able to show that by pro's own offered definition if water consists of water it is wet. Once that is in place, everything else feels like special pleading.