Total votes: 1,434
Forfeiture
Conduct for needless insults.
Arguments… I actually really appreciate cons case of cause and effect; but when pro dismisses it as the human mind is the ultimate cause, he does not defend that the human mind is formed based on experience outside our control making it not the cause of itself. Thus with that defense in place, pro is able to hold the initiative.
Got to say that I am really lost as to the bit of pros case about random monoculars actively making any choices, just because we observe them. Choice implies a will, for which pros own arguments call upon a mind as the source. Still, he comes ahead l.
Sources should reply be used when challenging official stuff. Con could have taken the definition battle, had he just said who he was quoting.
Nice R1 from pro but ultimately an FF.
Con wisely calls out the definition for special pleading. Additionally it’s an absurd definition, which reduced self defense and everyone involved in convicting and executing a mass murderer as murderers themselves.
Flipping pros own appeal to authority was well executed (pun intended, murderer!). While I see defenses which could be done on that front, they were not.
Forfeiture
Concessions
This is a fine example of a foregone conclusion.
Pro makes a well researched case, with plenty of professionally cited sources, and con offers literally one single sentence reply with no reason why his counterplan would be better or even mutually exclusive.
Pro attempts to twist definitions into meaninglessness (by his definition, kicking someone in the balls is outright genocide), which con does not directly challenge but rather makes a counterpoint that at least half of all abortions are to save the mother... Pro wholly drops this, in spite of the source only supporting rare instances.
Brother!!!
Forfeiture.
Forfiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Communism is garbage. At R1 I fully expected my vote would go to con, with so many of pro's points being kinda BS (everything is theft, NK is ideal...)
That said, pro was able to show that applesauce is better for the people by utilitarian standards (to include that morally we ought to not give special status based on blood relation). Con's replies boil down to applesauce being a taboo word; yet failed to show that in the form suggested it wouldn't be better (indeed with countries we instinctively favor being more applesauce than capitalist).
One of the smarter things pro did was not going for absolute governments oversight but rather just a few vital areas, as seen with saying cars are outside the scope of consideration.
I'd have been more likely to buy con's lawyering, had it not waited so long. A key flaw in the execution is that I have no difficulty with the substitutions (e.g., applesauce above), so with pro's case not being reduced to word salad with confusing and/or contradictory definitions it holds.
Sources:
They lean to con for the effort put into research. None of them clicked with me to tip anything but with arguments to pro I am more liberally mitigating said victory.
Legibility:
Con had two full rounds all bolded, and one most nearly all bolded. A little bit of bold text can help, but acting like it is all special and super important means none of it is, and of course this distracts from reading his points.
Conduct:
Pro used a tactic of not answering anything from con in the final two rounds. While this carried the day, it was disrespectful... That said, con's kritik against the debate setup was also problematic; but it seems a fair point mitigation against the side whose tactic of questionable sportsmanship was successful.
Forfeiture
AI writing and plagiarism. This got better towards the end,
https://celitia.com/period-equity-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters/
Additionally, con gave his sources and understood the problems of government programs. When referencing a study that says x% of whatever, a citation should always be given.
Con also nailed things with a good kritik of the topic which pro inspired, via pads should be the free item (if arguing this again, I suggest FHP in general, instead of any specific one. Additionally, arguing for a free option should be clearly done with the premium options still available to purchase... Hell have single ply sandpaper TP available, almost everyone will still buy good TP).
Forfeiture
Pro was swiftly able to show a much greater magnitude of damage. Con countered with intended harm but refused to support said intent, and had no real defense when pro raised the intent of many of the riots to destroy government buildings.
A better tactic for con would have been to focus on the net benefit of the BLM riots, to outweigh their harm.
Forfeiture.
Legibility: Too many missing or incorrect punctuation marks, and missing capitalization.
Conduct: Pro forfeiture a round, and needlessly went into ad hominem attacks (insulting con's intellect for not agreeing with him).
Arguments:
Pro implies a syllogism of if you like to stroke dicks, you're a homosexual man; therefore those who stroke at least one, are homosexual men. This is very simplistic but a mildly entertaining bit of humor.
Con pulls a definition, and declares that you must be attracted to other people in order to be gay (which was not within the definition). Pro counters this with the act of stroking a dick is implying sexual attraction to it. Con insists you must be attracted to people plural. ... This continues back and forth, without any evolution.
Regarding the accusation of strawmanning I don't buy it. Pro repeated the same weak argument he had been making, without twisting anything about con's which is needed for the fallacy to occur. Pro defended that merely calling something a strawman is not in itself a sensible argument related to the resolution.
While pro could have done a much better job (for example, show monogamous people as still being sexually attracted to each other, to prove that attraction to one person can define sexual preferences), I understand his (weak) case.
Con likewise could have done much better (show that most people are classified as straight in spite jacking off, so even if doing a gay activity they are at most bi), with his case resting on a single definition which leaves it ambiguous along with calling pro's case a strawman of his own case.
Pro was not pro and therefore, should not use the voting facilities for real pro.
Forfeiture
Neither side sufficiently advances a hypothesis.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Pro opens with laying out a case against common fallacious arguments.
They use Islamic scripture to show that by any standard she was a child (even playing with dolls in front of her husband).
Con effectively concedes the debate with their first line:
"While what it is true that the Prophet did have a relationship with a child, (Aisha), it must be noted that while he is a pedophile by modern standards, he most likely was not a pedophile when it comes to ancient Saudi Arabian legalities."
Pro had already addressed that ancient legalities do not change the nature of pedophila, nor did con give any reason why they would.
Con gave greater variety, whereas pro reused the same band twice.
Were I in a romantic song battle, certainly Michael Bublé is the best; but I would not expect to win for using him repeatedly.
Con, in rounds two and three all you needed to do was type “extend”
Instead you made homophobic comments followed by confessing aggressive homosexual desires toward pro. This is two thirds of the debate on that, overshadowing and distracting from everything else.
Con showed that pro would be better off if he went and touched some grass, whereas pro merely ordered con and/or the audience to go touch grass. This is a no brained.
Technically it doesn’t, since it’s intelligence which determines the measurable IQ…
But pro had a single sentence assertion against a properly warranted case. So foregone conclusion.
Interesting debate. Neither side sufficiently supported their case with evidence for their standard to be favored, so leaving it a tie.
Even without the forfeiture, con would have owned this!
BoP failure, which is well caught by con.
Pro’s case for Judas, fails to show that he is tortured according to the Bible; merely that someone regrets him being born. Even if we take him for granted, showing hell in the Bible is still needed to show the contradiction in character of God.
Forfeiture less.
I appreciate that con used a Batman movie for easier contrast.
Within the confines of this debate, I am left with the impression that DK was about The Joker, and had a shortage on character development (I loved their take on Joker; but no analysis was given to state why it was a good thing that he was a force of nature instead of a traditional character with relatable motives); in contrast GK was about Batman making mistakes and learning. Further, I got a real sense of a plot from GK with Batman injuring someone and regretting it.
Too many dangling questions were left by pro. Why was Heat not a better superhero movie if it’s what DK was based on? And why would a movie be the best merely for being live action and containing any one certain actor?
Video links would have gone a long way. The flip for example, if shown becomes a great moment, if just talked about it depends on the audience voting their bias.
Essentially BoP failure. I agree with pro’s sentiment that a ban would be a form of increased enforcement, which is best carried out at the federal level. However, they treated it as a truism falling short of proving this. A little elaboration on why it must be done at the federal level, and/or why ban is just a level of control would have given them the win.
Con for their part, did a weak semantic kritik by proposing an outright ban instead of mere increased regulation. An assertion that this falls to pros side was the right tactic but lacked the support needed to turn it into a warranted argument.
An example of why this needs support is had con proposed complete gun anarchy, that too is technically a level of gun control; yet con would have sources in support of their side. Not much is needed in the way of sources but a little when the other side is using them to enhance their points.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4751/comments/56141
And
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4751/comments/56181
Forfeiture
Pro argued only silly people believe women can drive, which con exploited by agreeing that people should embrace the “silly” belief that women can drive.
Pro’s BoP is that women cannot drive, con’s is that they can. One may agree with an opposing argument, to use against the previous conclusion.