Barney

Forfeiture.

Concession.

Arguments:
First got to say that con had an inherent edge here from use of headings and subsections. He was able to cite back to previous replies (such as when pro denied their very existence), and as a voter I was then easily able to find them. This caused presented arguments therein to have greater impact than they otherwise would have. ... I did dislike some of the headings selections later, because by putting things into quotation marks it instinctively looks like it stemmed from something one of the debaters said.

Many arguments were presented. At one moment I thought pro was going to win by showing some data from biologists, but then con turned those numbers around with details on the poor technique, and under 5% of the population being in the n when it was implied to be N (sample vs whole population).

At the end of the day, pro kept using life and personhood interchangeably, which muddled his own arguments, denying himself BoP. Things got really ugly with focus on insults, instead of in upholding the resolution.

Sources:
First got to say that the effort spent voicing a disdain for wiki, would have been better spent quote mining that page for some of the information therein which was damaging to pro's case. Tactically what was done is trying to lower the confidence in what was presented, which missed the bigger opportunity in turning it into a concession (pro was later able to temporarily do this to one of con's sources, but a successful defense was raised).

Regarding if https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/when-does-personhood-begin exists within con's case or not, I can easily view it. Denying the verifiable presence of something, is far worse than merely insulting the authorship. Doing something this cheap and obvious, poisons your own well instead of your opponents (which was the intended target).

In the first round I thought this would go to con, but pro brought in more sources and put up a good fight here.

I should add that if going the direction of assassinating the credibility of a source, it's really best to be done before trying to cite that same source yourself.

Forfeiture.

C1:
Deductively, the one who works out frequently is raising their temperature, then sweating to cool it back down to maintain equilibrium. This gives Zelda the edge of average temperature. I do think the color scheme was decently argued, I was just not convinced about the degree (if you'll pardon of the pun) of difference it would make.

C2:
This gets into some really subjective territory, such as if cheating makes someone more or less attractive... Looking at the offered photos, neither is attractive by human standards, but in my opinion Peach is more unattractive.

If ever doing this again, I suggest more pictures, and less game-play details. Also if using videos, tell us which time segment to watch.

I have a platelet donation to get to, so not enough time to properly grade things. I will however offer a little non-scored feedback.
Scientific writing has conclusions which are muddied under doubt. We could cure aids, and the description of the cure would probably only claim it shows a connection to the decreased detection of the virus.

There will always be a sliver a doubt about causality. A study on increased death rates connected to being shot, will still speak of correlations. The confidence interval correlation coefficient will be telling, but only to educated individuals.

Also generally debates should stand by themselves. Getting even one real vote for this debate with its length and complexity is hard, when trying to get a potential voter to read the other debate (while not being unduly influenced by it), is hard. If doing this type of thing again, I would copy some key statements of dispute, but make it clear that reading the other debate is not needed to understand this one.

This debate is on the subject of if the videos contain "any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified"

I'd be open to a middle ground area of /should have been immediately identified/ or even /identified shortly thereafter./ But pro attempts to move the goalposts to the near truism of them being hypothetically identifiable thus somehow already identified; which con easily defends this as it's been years without a positive identification.

Of course if pro was merely trying to say not alien visitors, he's wholly right on that, but nothing in the clarified resolution implies that to be the agreed intent of the debate.

Forfeiture.

Full forfeiture.

Technically a FF as this was only a 2-round debate.

Beyond that, con defends the presence of many things other than debates on this website; which is completely dropped with full opportunity for rebuttals.

Concession. Normally this would earn conduct, but con offered pathetic insults in the final round due to his poorly veiled hatred of the democrats.

Full forfeiture.

Next time when someone forfeits and an argument is already prepared, there is no reason not to share it.

Concession.

Credit to pro for making a valid comparison instead of a whataboutism (Obama's response to a similar virus, as opposed to the usual Red Herrings we see on discussions of Trump).

MONEY !

A lot of problems on this debate could have been avoided with definitions in the description.

So yes, an increasing number of cars are becoming robots. However cars in general are not. The example of the wipers fails largely because that is by no means a complex function, and as con countered, it was not carried out autonomously. Right now it feels like the pro case was almost trying to argue that robot = machine, when there's a reason for the separate word.

Full forfeit.

tl;rd: "abortion does not deny a fetus’ right to life – it merely deprives it of the non-consensual use of another’s body"

Credit to con for being eloquent (as much as I would advise copying formatting from pro). However, half forfeiture in a winner selection debate warrants an automatic loss due to conduct.

This can extend to arguments as well, as con chose to drop the Misconceptions, Defenses, and Violinist.

1. Voters hate rigged primaries
Pro opens up with the 1952 case of the democratic party throwing out democracy, and the negative results they received in the actual election. It’s a good history lesson, explaining where the superdelegate system comes from.

2. Clinton
Interesting case that attempts to impeach Bill lead to Hillary being a front runner.
Pro later uses a hilariously bad example of her insulting half of all Trump supporters (Side note: not seeing it mentioned, but this is tied closely to the Kermit the Frog is Hitler thing…), and a stream of insults to show that Clinton ran a more ugly campaign than Trump.

3. Obama
With talk of mudslinging, I missed how negative campaigning by the other side resulted in his presidency.

4. Trump
Pro demonstrates major mudslinging from the other side (note: I still don’t think he was serious when he started). Key point in this being raising top of mind awareness for the Trump brand.
Con counters that Trump is the epitome of negative campaigning.
Pro gets a little off track with the defense of broken promises angle (the issue as it pertains to this debate is not kept or not, it’s negative to begin with or not). His current accomplishments are nice, but again seeming to drift off topic.
Con deflects: “he consistently used negative rhetoric throughout his presidential campaign, and it can't be denied no matter how much you try to deny it.” Which when compared to the Clinton campaign, doesn’t imply that Trump was not the cleaner campaign (even if our memories suggest otherwise, there’s nothing in this debate to support that notion).

5. Reagan
Con brings up Reagan's campaign, and claims against his or her own evidence that Reagan gave drugs to American children.

6. Biden
Con asserts that Biden is trying to destroy the black community with drug opposition and that his children are convicted drug addicts.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. The main analysis is over in R2, due to con choosing to drop almost everything because of a dislike for making warranted arguments instead of empty assertions. With this insistence, “his (entire) case has fell apart because he won't be able to dispute documented facts.”
I am of course not convinced Trump ran a clean campaign, but the various pieces of evidence support that the democratic party loses when it tries to fight dirty.

Sources:
Pro supported his statements, even ones that would otherwise seem doubtful (Clinton being the front runner due to the previous impeachment), whereas con was outright opposed to truth.

Concession. And forfeiture.

Additionally, "Animals have had moral value in almost every culture and religion throughout human history" the almost is a big clue that there is another side. Some football fans think dog fighting isn't a crime for example, so there's even subcultures today which deny the truth of the resolution.

As fun as con's K was, the description clearly stipulated what the debate is about "greatest player of all time," and was posted within the Sports section.

A little nit-pickiness is fine, such as were pro to have backed down and claimed him being a great player should count as "a GOAT" instead of "the GOAT" when challenged. However, con's tactic outright called for dropping pro's entire case.

Conception > Birth:
Pro shows that human life begins at conception. Con counters that technical life void of consciousness is not special, and certainly not overriding of the personal sovereignty of people (implying that women are people, which is a built in assumption to which I see no problem).

Made up "refutations":
I won't lie, I hate invented quotations the other side is supposed to have said.

Conclusion:
Pro makes the immediate choice to drop all arguments in R2, and then doesn't show up in R3 (in spite of previously complaining of con's near-tardiness).

There were of course various other clauses offered by con, but again, pro made the informed decision to drop them all.

Generally awful people, but full forfeit.

Obviously it taking pro until R3 to offer sources, set him pretty far behind. R1 goes to con by a wide margin, as pro has the BoP, but fails to even adequately introduce the topic. The debate headed in a bad direction as con was able to catch pro distorting the bible, such as claiming it was not mature animals when the bible specifically used mating pairs. With too many dropped points, there's no reason within this debate to treat the story in question as more than a fairy tail which directly contradicts the historical record of this planet.

Question debates are always weird. Con provided an answer, it went unchallenged, so he wins.

Conduct for forfeiture.

Interesting contest debate, but I think con landed the better insults against Trump due to puns.

Conduct for forfeiture.

Full forfeiture.

I should note that con did a very good job dealing with the appeal to tradition that one inspired the other.

Ff. .

Concession. Good opening by pro, and a very well researched counter case by con

Con made a strong case, starting with Trump's unreliability proves him saying he wants to reinvest WHO funding in the moon means he likely does not. This and all other points went wholly unchallenged.

Conduct for fortitude.
Sources are too overwhelming to need to be weighted individually (and no, linking oromagi's profile does not bridge this gap).

Con made a strong a three tiered argument that he does not actually want things clarified. Con countered that he is a village idiot, which does not imply he wants anything clarified.

Conduct for fortitude.

Sources are too overwhelming to need to be weighted individually.

ff .

ff .

ff .

ff .

As creepy as con's case was (the involvement of a human brain, sounds like mad science! 🤣), it was unchallenged due to forfeiture.

Pro offered zero case. Con offered an in depth one with sources. Basically a troll debate anyway.

Full forfeiture.

The only real subject this debate came down to was the age of the guy. Pro asserts he's a child, con proves (with sources) he is middle aged. Conduct for forfeiture.

Full forfeiture.

Forfeiture for conduct, and actual math usage (vs a mere assertion) for arguments.

Dual full forfeiture.

1. Falkirk
His not switching sides is well supported by such things as the roll of arms. The counter evidence includes that very roll of arms, undermining itself.
A claim that a certain historian should be blamed instead, doesn’t get off the ground since the movie would still be committing the same crime even if they heard it from someone else.
The invasion of one of his holdings immediately after the battle is weirdly contested in meaning (maybe not his birthplace), but agreed to as one of his holdings (if fighting for England, were they mad he did not fight well enough?)…

2. Gave them Wallace
Pro shows this is unsupported, and con seems to drop it.
Con later picks it up by claiming we don’t really know… Not something that goes anywhere.

3. “Braveheart”
Pro shows that the title belonged to Bruce, and the movie falsely gave it to Wallace.
Con counters that it should really be Edward II who was defamed… this is neither here nor there; a mere Red Herring (yup, you can defame a hundred individuals, and still be guilty of defaming each one of them).

4. Gary Mcallister
I am unsure what this has to do with the debate…
Con goes to some effort to defend that this was not a “non sequitur.”

5. Reputation not diminished
This was a smart bit from con, pointing out that The Bruce became better known. Which to harm someone’s reputation, yes, you are indeed spreading the name around (kind of like that newspaper in Spider-Man, it makes him more famous by defaming him). I can however consider this a benefit for the weighting.

6. fiction genre
This was introduced by con only in the final round after pro could not respond. Final Round Blitzkriegs are pretty much discounted from arguments by any real judge.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro basically takes this by a landslide. The closest con gets is that the movie made him more famous, but that doesn’t change that it clearly defamed him.

Sources:
Looks like both sides did really well on supporting their cases with research.

S&G:
While not penalizing it, I highly suggest con learn how to use headings from pro. Pro’s points were much less difficult to follow.

Conduct:
Something to be very careful of in writing is when to quote things “infiltrator” is quoted as a prior claim, but was not present in the debate until after pro could not respond.
Dropping every point that was called “non sequitur” for a whole round before bringing it up after pro could not respond, was a bit of a low blow.
Insults like “i can only imagine my opponent was thrashing like a crocodile” seal this point.
Comparatively, pro was polite even at the end, with “thx Nevets” serving as his second to last line.

Full forfeit.

'flying cars are so scarce it is made into a joke ... So, in 20 years, there will be "flying cars", which are just private planes.'
This summarizes the key problem of the instigators case, it is even at a glance self-contradictory. Further trying to play with definitions, the base definitions should be in the description, otherwise it becomes a bad case of trying to move the goalposts. However, if playing with them for fun, clips from Back To The Future in which everyone is using flying cars by 2015, would have been a good path to take (it should not have been pro who first mentioned this movie).

I am not overly concerned with the BoP, nor on the preciseness of "will be." If there was greater contest between the two debaters I would probably fall back to those issues for tie breaking. Still they are good notes from the contender to the instigator to improve his future setups.

The highlight of pro's case is that more cars are being built and not that many are being destroyed, more drivers due to increasing population, giving the 1.2 billion increasing to at least 1.45 billion.

Sources are overwhelming. Highlight being evidence to those numbers. Comparatively, con offered a single one trying to argue that some cars should not count as cars, but even then it would not bridge the gap.

Con brought up the example of worker owned companies, insisting that not all workers are supervisors. Pro counters that they technically supervise themselves or the broom, which helps the greater supervisors... The other example was stock holders, with pro insisting their money helps the managers; which doesn't really bridge the gap into them being managers. With no other definitions in place, to me this falls in favor of common English; and generally not everyone is special and important (even if still useful). Indirect contributions to management, is not greater management itself.

Gist:
While I technically agree with con, pro better supports his case.

1. Murder
Clear logic that abortion prevents a life from coming into existence, pre-killing it so to speak. For this pro builds a syllogism of the same result as a murder (outlining that murder is a crime was not needed, but indeed took place).
To challenge this, con argues that the fetus is not currently “considered living” until born.
Pro strengthens his point with a coma analogy, to which con’s standard might not consider said victim to be living.

2. Sex is strictly for procreation
Pro insists “they should be ready to be having children, as that's what sex is meant for.” Then immediately stabbed himself in the foot by bringing up rape in the same paragraph, while insisting the same rules for the same reasons should be applied.
Con counters the rape angle with PTSD but leaves the greater point untouched.

3. Miscarriage
Con argues pro’s standard would reclassify miscarriages to suicide… No, just no.

4. Prison
Con argues it would be wrong to put women (including teenagers) in prison with cold blooded murderers. This immediately did not take off, since pro’s argument is they already are.
A better part of this was the capacity problem. As they would equal nearly a quarter of the current prison population (or a fifth of the new population), causing the need for more facilities to be built which con implies to be infeasible. … I should favor this one more, as it’s literally an attack angle I suggest on proposal debates (“If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources.” https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgEoU2M4k7PvJZzvbwrjw8nOomkYqnBpDaLR4igvMe0/edit#heading=h.9a7ds54fkkcp), but it feels disconnected somehow; probably to do with not actually defending the women who would be classified as first degree murderers, who if guilty to that level would deserve prison more than all but the most heinous of violent criminals.
Pro ends this one on a bit of a weak note, saying he would want it on their criminal record as murder, but not have it be punished as murder. The resolution calls for illegal, so the precise level of punishment is a side issue.

5. covid-19 and the death penalty
Well that came out of left field… We should not have a death penalty because the population is decreasing… I see where it’s trying to connect, but I don’t buy it.

6. ejaculation
Con introduces the notion that maybe male masturbation should also be reclassed as murder. Well technically the link could be made to condom use (or even abstinence) via denied opportunities at life, this angle doesn’t line up to the arguments.
Pro needlessly defends with a weird nuclear reactor analogy (if ever using this one again, please at least make the egg the power plant, as it’s the one that does most of the work).

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.
I’m very much pro-choice, but pro takes the debate. Pro showed harm from abortion, and while his proposal had the flaw exposed of further victimizing those unwilling to have sex, it’s common knowledge that is a tiny minority of cases (it could have been turned into a strong point, but was not in this debate…).

Sources:
Only one side used any, but they were not well integrated and did not bolster the points related to them enough to influence the argument (I can take basic numbers at face value; when I have no reason to open any of the links, it’s probably going to remain tied).

S&G:
No penalty here (minor things, but nothing obtuse). I do however suggest breaking things apart into more paragraphs, with clear section headings.

Hospitals keep people alive. However, as con points out, this is an indirect cause (I'd say tertiary); with the true cause being poor education (leading to too many pregnancies). Pro uses sources which support this, all but conceding the debate.

Pretty straight forward. Pro agrees it's more harmful at a young age, and con makes an argument that lowering the drinking age will cause increased availability to those even younger (effectively, right now 18 year olds can get it easily, but with the change 15 year olds will be given it just as easily as current 18 year olds).

Con further used respectable sources to both show the harm from underage drinking, and that the drinking age is an effective deterrent. I would have left this tied had pro used a source for the gang claim (a competing harm).

Effectively a single round debate.

"11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."

It was pretty hard for pro to recover from quoting a ban on eating pork. Trying to argue one breed of pig would be fine, rubs against the tradition, and needed more information (perhaps a quote from a rabbi okaying it?). An implied problem is if it would be allowed, would the Torah still call it swine? ... Another path to victory, would have been citing some special circumstance (as an example, Muslims are allowed to eat pork if hungry).

Trying to redefine cud, was an area con excelled on the defense, since we have thousands of years of one definition. It's a case where maybe translations should be updated to say grass instead of cud, but both debaters agreed on the intended meaning.

Conduct for forfeiture.

Sources lean slightly to con, but not by enough to merit the points.

FORWARD (commentary, not really part of the vote):
I’m a former combat medic who took my job very seriously (I got in trouble for reading too many medical journals… that’s the army for you).
Vaccinations are a safety measure, which is not without risk. They are safer than not getting them, about like wearing a seat belt in a car. This means that in general terms they are safe, that is not how argumentation went inside this debate.
Anti-vaxxers (probably not ones like DrSpy) are as a group dangerous to people who cannot receive vaccines. I did not spot this obvious argument.

VOTE:
1. Vaccines are safe
A host of them being safe for autism, challenged by them occasionally having other risks such as was seen with the swine influenza vaccine in 1976-1977.
Pro counters that “to imply that something that has an element of danger is not safe makes no sense.” And further claims https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15562126 does not exist (this exemplifies why you don’t jump to cussing people out, when the actual error with the source should have been explained).
Seizures were also mentioned, which pro seems to defend that the vaccinations cause a fever, and it’s a fever that causes the seizures.

2. Anti-vaxxers are dangerous
“probable carriers of disease” with an appeal to the children, vs they might object for religious reasons. Plus a reminder they are not dangerous to anyone vaccinated.
While a case could have been made they’re dangerous to themselves, I do not see it.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.
I generally agree with con as to the flawed R1; even while I’ll still call it good research.
P2 was pretty much tied, and P1 favors con. Nearly the opposite of how I expected this to go.

Sources:
I was going to give this to pro, but the denial of the existence of sources, greatly harmed pro’s credibility in this area.

Conduct:
when one side opens the debate with insults “Let see if you try to manipualte the facts like that dishonest asshole” [sic], it does not bode well. R2 had more short paragraphs along the same: “the worst thin, is this anti-vaxxer lies. Completely making shit to try to win” [sic]. I thought that would do it, but adding a made up bit: “My opponent says they are a clairvoyant.”
Whereas con front loads praise for pro’s effort “While Pro does a good job in…” This alone would never be enough for the point, but it must be listed for the comparison.