BearMan

Full Forfeit

Pro uses "right" as a noun, rather than the verb form that the grammar of the resolution (and Con), suggest. Since Pro uses the wrong definition and Con uses the right ones, Con wins the debate.

Full forfeit

Resolution:

First, the resolution clearly means "All men should sit down to pee." It doesn't mean some men, it means ALL men.

Second, negating the resolution "Men should sit down to pee" doesn't mean that you are advocating that "All men should stand up to pee." Nowhere in the rules is this specified, thus, Pro saying this provides no weight for me.

Pro had a massive BOP that he failed to fulfill. He has not provided any good reasons that ALL men should sit down to take a leak.

Arguments:

Health > CON:

This by far was the most powerful argument for this debate. PRO first brings up that men are healthier when sitting down to pee. This argument is quickly dismissed by CON, in which they prove that the PRO's own source clearly says older men with conditions can sit down to pee. CON points out that Pro has not fulfilled his BOP by only proving that older men with health conditions should sit down. Furthermore, CON provides a study that proves that men have no health benefits from sitting down to urinate.

PRO tries to use his faulty source again to prove that men should pee sitting down reduces the risk of infection, but this is still quickly dismissed by CON, who exposed the fact that the reduction of risk only applies to men with prostate problems.

CON never addresses PRO's argument that a lot of prostate problems go undiagnosed, but PRO never provides any sources for this.

Sanitation > TIE:

PRO brings up a very valid point of sanitation. He accurately proves that standing up is less sanitary and spreads more pee around the toilet (his use of the invisible pee cloud is false though). CON tries to dismiss this by saying that nobody eats dinner in the bathroom, but this provides no weight as sanitation anywhere is still extremely important. (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sanitation)/

CON then brings up that sitting down can also lead to infections and sanitary problems as well. He accurately proves that sitting down also has its risks. PRO fails to address this point.

Transgender > CON:

What was this argument's purpose? PRO provides no sources that transgender people will feel less awkward with men peeing sitting down. PRO only provides one absurd situation in which this would happen.

Conduct:

PRO regularly used curse words and inappropriate language even for a casual debate. He also used derogatory language, which CON pointed out. Even though CON forfeited, PRO's large use of inappropriate language negates that, thus this is tied. Both debaters engaged in inappropriate conduct.

Note: I delete this twice because I made mistakes in both votes. Sorry.

Args:

1. Health and Safety of Cigarettes and Smoking (PRO)

Con concedes this point. Anything related to this is now PRO's.

2. Environment (CON)

CON states that we don't ban things just for environmental purposes, this includes cars and factories. While this is correct, PRO has already stated that he would mainly ban it for health and safety reasons. CON also claims placing regulations to prevent environmental concerns, which is better than banning entirely. This seals the deal.

3. Judicial Problems (CON)

PRO never addresses this point, and drops it. This is by far the nail in the coffin for PRO, as if the legislature decides that the criminalization of smoking is against the constitution, it isn't even plausible for it to be implemented.

Conduct: CON has forfeited one round resulting in a conduct point for PRO.

The debate really went down to: Is Mall back on trial? The answer is yes, PRO fulfills his BOP while CON does not.

Read it. They did about the same. Conduct to con for PRO's forfeits.

Full Forfeit

The key thing here is if the topic of RationalMadman's ban was arguable, and it was for PRO. The moderators had a reason to ban him, and seldiora could've easily argued those points.

Concession.

Said I wasn't going to vote, but it was a concession.

Concession. Con offered better arguments anyway.

CON narrowly wins this even as he forfeited. PRO's ideas of combining the two, like CON pointed out make no sense whatsoever. He suggests putting a point system, which doesn't really do anything as Virtue ethics see things as absolute good or absolute bad. It is literally impossible to combine the two. And CON has also pointed out that even if it did work, It would barely achieve anything in real life, thus not fitting within "outcomes".

It would be very hard for PRO to win this even if he really tried. I suggest that PRO stops doing these types of debates.

Concession

Conduct to CON for PRO repeatedly switching arguments.

In this debate, all CON has to prove is that one atheist or agnostic has been converted to theism. CON proves this by using an example of himself. PRO never disproves this and therefore does not fulfill his Burden of Proof. Therefore CON takes the win.

It is made clear who won.
R1-P1:
PRO lists possible benefits to sharing knowledge: catching crime, and solving big problems.
R1-C1:
CON brings up how the human mind does not have memory to store that much information, thus somehow overloading the brain, which is obviously detrimental. CON also brings up how it is detrimental to world security, a very valid point. Then CON brings up traumatic experiences also a valid point. I don't believe that any of the other points were going to benefit CON as much as these, it is lucky that CON spread his attention to these contentions in the later rounds.
R2-P2:
All of PRO's rebuttals to CON's memory argument are based off the special pleading fallacy, thus making it invalid. PRO attempts to refute the traumatic experiences point, and mainly ignores the world security. His refute towards traumatic experiences is that feelings aren't knowledge, which is false. His other refute against world security is that just because people know something doesn't mean that there are going to do it. That may be true in some cases, but because there is still murder, genocide, and robbery in this world, we know for a fact that there are exceptions.

At this point, all of PRO's refutes that he tries to make are invalid. It is a lost cause for PRO as his rebuttal is not solid enough, leading to an argument by CON

CON concedes, but the decision is not mine.

Full Forfeit

Pro concession.

Obvious win by CON. Why?

PRO states that debate B is part of debate A, but PRO never states that debate A is part of debate B. Therefore CON does not need to prove that seldiora will lose or tie debate B because, CON can win debate A without even winning debate B. The resolution of this debate is not that PRO will lose both, rather, that CON can win or tie debate A.

Having two debates has its benefits, but even so, PRO cannot prove that he can CERTAINLY win this debate. Essentially, PRO never proves why he can certainly win, and CON proves that PRO cannot certainly win. PRO uses his advantage wrong, and does not consider that B is not A, which means, that A can win and B has the ability to lose.

Good debate.

PRO's introduction was basically saying that omnipotence is impossible, because you can't achieve something without achieving it. He provides several examples, which don't serve as strong evidence, but are strong enough to support his claim. CON initially tries to counter this claim by stating that omnipotence is beyond our scope of science, which is a very weak argument in nature. Then CON refutes PRO's argument by replying to most, if not all of PRO's examples. CON uses Schrodinger's Cat as an example of a thing in two states of nature. The problem with CON's arguments, is that CON needs to prove that everything that PRO states can be done realistically with an omnipotent being. CON could've easily said that omnipotence is not a thing that is greatly studied by humans, therefore omnipotence doesn't have to be in the realistic realm of things. But somehow, he went with a brute-force method of only refuting the examples. Therefore ARGUMENT GOES TO PRO.

CON forfeited that is bad conduct.

Pro forfeited. Everything else was ok.

PRO analyzes his rap clearly, he provides evidence how oromagi would most likely lose to him in a rap battle. Yet PRO fails to maintain that CON will ever accept the rap battle or CERTAINLY LOSE the rap battle. The takeaway from this is that PRO never actually proves the resolution, while CON proves his side of the BOP.

PRO did not prove that Orogami was the best debater on the site, he focused his argument on the user oromagi. CON points this out, and uses it to negate the entirety of pro's arguments. Moreover, PRO's arguments buffing oromagi were weak in their own right. This debate is clearly biased towards con, as PRO must prove that oromagi is better than everyone on this site, which he did not.

In conclusion: PRO did not prove the resolution, that Orogami is the best debater on the site, he proved an other user was the best debater. CON, on the other hand disproved the resolution, as well as PRO's argument. Therefore, CON gets the point.

Full Forfeit.

Full Forfeit

PRO concession is comments. Good debate.

Forfeiture

Concession.

Full Forfeit.