Total votes: 62
Less fowfeits.
Full forfeit by Pro.
My vote goes to Con.
Round 1: Pro
Round 2: Tie
Round 3: Con
Round 4: Con
Round 5: Con
So whoever has best songs in voter's eyes is a victor.
Round 1 is for Pro.
Pro presents a song which for the first two minutes just caused me headache.
But somehow, after two minutes it gets really good and you even feel like dancing to it.
Con presents a solid song which is good from start to finish, but it is still outweighed by Pro's song even when we include that first two minutes of Pro's song are bad, because Pro's song rises to greatness later.
Round 2 is a tie.
This one simply felt like both songs were unmoving. I had to force myself to listen to both in hopes they get good by the end, but neither did.
Round 3 goes to Con.
Pro says his song is not repetitive, which is just one of the issues I find with it. The song seems to be playing 3 or 4 different things one after another and I simply cant bring myself to enjoy the fact that it abandons rythm in favor of some musical chaos.
Con's song was much more enjoyable, and far outweighs that song.
Round 4 goes to Con.
Con seem to have figured out the mistake from round 2, so he didnt post another song like from round 2. But Pro's song is almost same in quality from round 2 and 3. It fails to build mood. It never takes you on the path of excitement. While Con's song wasnt exactly great, it at least caused some joy while listening it.
Round 5 goes to Con
This was a very slight win, but Con's song has female voice and singing, where Pro's song doesnt. Con's song brings more joy while listening to it and I am far more likely to be willing to dance to it, which is an important quality in a song.
Based on that, I give round 5 to Con.
Overall, Pro's best rounds were 1 and 5, where Con's best rounds were 3 and 5 and 4.
I can say that Pro's song from round 1 is about as good as Con's song from round 3.
Pro only gave 2 good songs, and Con gave 3, and Pro's both best songs lose to Con's best song given in round 5.
When I read the debate for the first time, I was left with impression that both debaters are saying different things about same sources.
After looking at the debate in more detail, I can give one example why this debate is a tie:
"Con's third study.
Con says that long term study shows no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity or mortality, and that it shows how GAC (surgery variant) is not effective in treating gender anxiety.
Pro responds by saying that the study doesnt talk about gender anxiety.
Con responds by saying that study shows psychiatric morbidity and mortality.
Pro says that all Con's studies say how GAC is efficient, and that third study measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating.
Con says that Pro has resigned answering to the third study, so they accept the conclusion "no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity" following GAC.
Con adds that on the basis of these studies alone, it is evident that the longest, most comprehensive and population rich studies all find that GAC is not a treatment with long term success in alleviating gender dysphoria."
So as a voter, I am not really left with conclusion which favors either side.
Both make claims about sources, and the claims contradict to the point where its impossible to judge who is right.
In this case, Pro says that this source and all other Con's sources actually says how GAC is effective. Con says that source says(shows) how GAC is not effective.
As a voter, I cannot weigh what source says, unless I go look at it myself, which would be wrong.
So I am leaving it as a tie, as the claims about what every source says contradict each other, and I have no way of judging that.
Sources are tie. Both sides provided sources.
Legibility was okay. I managed to keep track of individual arguments as they developed through rounds.
Conduct I am leaving as a tie.
Good debate.
Pro is a good debater, but he made mistakes which simply made it difficult for him to win this.
Pro opens up with a classical argument of unborn being denied of life and experience.
Con counters that by saying that abortion means no loss and no suffering experienced.
Pro counters that suffering in the world is outweighed by desire to live, and that life is precious to people.
Con counters by saying that abortion doesnt erase existence but sends unborn to heaven.
Pro states that unborn is human, and implies it is equal to a born baby.
Con opens up with facts about abortion indeed being a healthcare for the woman.
Pro counters by saying its not healthcare for the baby, but the death for the baby.
Con counters by saying that there are pregnancies where woman would die, so abortion is obviously healthcare for the woman in those cases.
Con points out that something doesnt stop being healthcare just because it harms someone else.
Pro claims that we wouldnt kill people with disabilities, so we shouldnt kill unborn either.
Con counters by saying that world is not kind to disabled people, and abortion would prevent suffering.
Pro claims that unborn is killed against its will.
Con asks pro to prove his claim about unborns being killed against their will.
Con explains that unborn has no will, and therefore, has no will which could oppose to abortion.
Con claims that women would be forced to give birth against their will.
Now, this debate was spinned a lot around one single claim:
"I know that when these babies die, they will go to heaven"
This claim was completely unneccessary, as not only it doesnt help Pro's case, but is an argument against his position.
Con built position that its better for baby to go to heaven than to be born and have good chance of going to hell.
Pro tried to counter by saying God banned murder, thus banned abortions.
Pro provided verses which explain that life begins at conception.
Con provided challenge for this claim, apparently God himself doing abortions.
Con provided additional challenge, apparently that definition of murder in the Bible is circular.
Pro counters by saying that God has right to commit murder, where we dont.
Con counters this further by saying that definition of murder in the Bible has nothing to do with definition of murder in this debate.
Pro says that Ten Commandments determine whats morally wrong.
Con counters that abortion was never shown to be murder.
Pro said that people should be Christians so that baby doesnt go to hell.
But this claim doesnt make me think people will actually be Christians if they dont abort, or that baby will certainly go to heaven if being born.
Con points out again that great majority of people arent Christians, and even Christians cant be 100% successful in raising children properly.
Pro conceded that non-Christians go to hell and that there are much more non-Christians in the world than non-Christians, and that due to that, baby will likely go to hell if not aborted and surely go to heaven if aborted.
I get the clear feeling that abortion is not "morally wrong" in many cases where parents arent Christian,
but I also get the feeling that abortion is morally good in those cases.
There is nothing which makes me think its better for baby to go to hell than heaven,
And the point of no suffering being experienced by the unborn didnt get any challenge either.
I end with conclusion that abortion is healthcare for the woman in some cases where woman will die
And in all cases most beneficial for the unborn.
I can see the point of plants and animals with human DNA being killed not being treated as murder, and therefore challenging the claim of what Bible actually considers murder and what not.
The last round argument of animals being eaten and suffering should have come sooner, but regardless, its a win for Con.
Sources were present on both sides, even tho Con presented much more, where Pro only presented Bible verse.
Conduct was good on both sides.
As for being easy to read, it was easy enough to read both sides of the debate.
Con was the only one to make an argument.
I can kinda see the point that with eternal life, abortions arent really abortions in a sense of destruction of life, but then again Pro talks of second death indicating that there is an end to life for some, but doesnt explain if fetuses are included or excluded from this particular claim.
The only challenge which I find to abortions caused by God in the Bible is that they are not actual deaths of fetus, but that fetus just goes to sleep and will awake again.
And the claim of fetuses being people went mostly unchallenged, which leaves me wondering if fetuses will be awakened or not by God after abortion.
Plenty of unknowns in this debate.
The arguments were equally non-existent.
Given that I am the only voter left, I leave it as it is.
Tie was agreed upon.
Pro forfeited
Well, this was a fun one.
"According to a working calculator 1+1=2"
This went unchallenged by Pro.
"They'd agree an incorrect calculation would get an incorrect number."
This went unchallenged by Con.
With both sides not touching each other's case, I have no way to vote either way.
I can believe that working calculators say that 2+2=4.
I can also believe that every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383, because they agree that when you add numbers incorrectly you get that number.
I am not going to give conduct points, because it does seem like topic was only established after that one forfeiture.
Legibility and sources were somewhat equal on both sides.
Well, at least one side didnt completely forfeit.
Forfeit 3/4
Con forfeited 50% of debate. Win goes to Pro.
Better get at least 10 votes on this.
Both were funny. I never understand what these debates are about.
Eh, what? Well, Pro says that he has IQ of 300. Then says he is dumb.
Con challenges the claim by saying that someone with 300 IQ wouldnt make dumb arguments.
Con provides a source. Since Pro didnt provide source, sources go to Con. With burden of proof on Pro and Pro's arguments negated, Con wins the arguments.
I dont think I need to explain my vote much. Con didnt present any argument. No reasons, no case, no structure. Pro actually presented reasons.
1. Most widely spoken
This stands as obvious fact. It was undisputed by Pro. However, the importance of being most widely spoken was disputed.
2. Fastest
3. Most efficient
4. Easiest to learn
Points 2-4
I really feel there was lots of struggle on both sides. On one hand, it was not "English vs one language.". It was english vs lots of other languages. On the other hand, English doesnt come up on top in all classes, but also beats all other languages in some classes. English may not be easiest to learn, but esperanto doesnt have many speakers.
5. Most native speakers
This stands undisputed by Con.
6. Important works
I would say that yes, many important works are written in English, but some are written in other languages too.
Guys, I am gonna leave it as a tie. There were plenty of good points on both sides. I am not really sure how to compare properly since the definitions were too broad.
Only one side gave an argument.
Pro gives the definition. Says that humans have similar DNA to animals.
Con gives much more definitions. Refutes the argument of similarity by saying that similar does not mean same.
In round 2, Pro repeats the similarity argument, but without refuting Con's refutation of similar not being same.
Pro concedes the definitions.
Pro makes a claim that toddlers have similar intelligence to animals. I accept that argument. However, the topic does not deal with toddlers specifically, but with all humans.
Pro states that we arent different enough from animals to be classified as something different.
Pro states that we evolved from monkeys.
Con says that there are multiple points where we stopped being animals.
Con brings up many differences which make humans different from animals, such as religion, reasoning, innovation, morality, technology...
I give win to Con. There are lots of differences between humans and animals, and similarities dont negate so many differences.
Only Con made an argument. Pro just stated what the topic was.
Burden of proof was on Pro.
I am not seeing any arguments made by Pro to support his position.
"You are silly" wouldnt be accepted as an argument anywhere, with or without Con providing an argument.
Con says we should be silly, implying that being silly is the true way in this case.
Pro forfeited everything.
Here goes my vote.
Population
Pro says that there is overpopulation. Con says that Earth can support these people. Pro counters with many issues, such as:
"The existence of pollution.
The eradication of natural resources, in materials and organisms."
Population argument goes to Pro.
Honor
Pro makes a claim that care needs to be created for one's own reputation through consequences.
Con counters that by saying that reputation can be built in better ways, and that dueling might not create reputation at all. Pro counters by bringing example of person slandering someone's reputation. Con repeats that there are other ways to save honor. Pro counters by saying that duels are usually done to save honor, that duels make individuals care more for honor. Pro brings up example of Trump, which I think is a nice example.
Honor argument goes to Pro.
Freedom
Pro points out that duels are done with consent of people. They are not forced. Pro points out that many harmful things are allowed, even when they kill people, because it is freedom.
Con counters by saying that you have freedom in your life, but it shouldn't be getting to the point of recklessness where people are dying left are right.
Pro counters by saying that people have a choice to risk their life for something meaningful or for something reckless. Repeats that there is consent in dueling.
Con counters by saying that freedom should be limited if it causes harm. States that we should ban harmful things.
Pro counters by saying that freedom is more important than life.
Con counters by providing quotes which mainly point out that dueling is an overreaction, and that wise people wouldnt do it.
Pro counters by saying that people have understanding of the game.
Con counters and concludes that this freedom comes at high cost and that people should be prevented from doing stupid things.
Freedom argument goes to Con.
Immaturity
Con states that risking life for honor is immature. Pro counters by saying that if people are ready to risk life for honor, then honor means something.
Pro says that duels will eradicate reckless people.
Con counters by saying that children will die due to recklessness.
Pro counters by saying duels lower the amount of aggressive people. Mentions the example of Trump's immaturity caused by lack of dueling in society.
Pro says that dueling is a way of society to evolve by consensually getting rid of aggressive people.
Immaturity argument goes to Pro.
Children
Con states that children would be influenced by dueling and would do it themselves.
Pro counters by saying that children would learn honor.
Con counters by saying that children would die.
Pro counters by saying that government wouldnt allow children to duel and that such duels didnt happen.
Con insists that they would happen, that children copy adults.
Pro says that its not wrong to teach children honor, that it would help children.
Children argument is a tie.
Consent for whom?
Con points out that people would be pressured in some cases, and that consent wouldnt always exist.
Pro counters by saying that society already allows dangerous things that people can be pressured into, and that people can decline dueling.
Con says that people can be forced into dueling with death threats.
Pro points out that if person declines dueling, they cannot simply be murdered as it would be illegal.
Consent for whom? argument goes to Pro.
Sports - Alternative
Con points out that there is alternative in sports. Pro counters by saying there is nothing to fear in sports, therefore it cannot be serious.
Con counters by saying that you could lose something you worked hard for.
Pro counters by saying that dueling ties honor to something of value, mentions the example of criminals and sentences being valuable.
Con counters by saying you can lose pride in sports.
Pro counters by saying sports dont risk enough.
Con brought up population being low.
Pro countered by saying that human race wont go extinct due to dueling.
Sports - Alternative argument goes to Pro.
It seems that Pro won on many grounds, and that dueling does seem beneficial to society by solving overpopulation, pollution, preserving honor and dignity, upholding consent. So I am giving win to Pro.
Pro conceded in comments.
This went from good to bad really quickly.
Pro Round 1
"after the battle you'll see her atoms unravel
she's overshadowed by my shadow castin' a shadow
she can rock a mic but the rock (Roc) is smashed into gravel
I'll bend this bitch over and whoop her ass with a paddle"
Very strong opening. Good rhyme, good flow, good lyricism, somewhat lacking diss but since its the opening, diss isnt necessary.
"I'll incinerate her skin away and then I bake and dinner plate her
integrate her into savory dishes made for exquisite tastes
when spittin' K's the innovator, a haters minced and ate
then gets saved in the refrigerator and finished later
brace your pen cause' I grace a pen with amazing splendor
make your pen cheat on you, cavin' in to your main contender
never say that K isn't clever, makin' her wetter
caught her rap folder and mine layin' together"
Good lyricism, flow and rhyme. Diss is solid.
Con round 1
"You spit 'bout the white man and the string-pullers on the label,
But you're here for black-on-black crime, guess your rappin' was a fable"
Good rhyme, lyricism, flow, but also very good diss.
"Aint a single lady listenin' thinkin' damn Rino's desirable,
Even the easy one's don't want a bitch who'll kiss and tell, rat no one admires at all,
You're underground 'cause you're stuck spittin' 'bout how you hate life, you're small,
I was underground but I stood up tall,
I'm the one no label would hire at all, you had offers, turned 'em down and still act appaled,
If I had all the opportunities you did, stupid, I'd be big as Em,
You're too busy bitchin' at the man in a diss than tryna refine your style to finally be that gem,
I pity you Rino, just another example of toxic men that can't handle the hand life tossed to 'em,
All the whining 'bout everybody every album aint even masculine,
So, when you got somethin' to diss me for 'cept my V, then maybe you'll have a chance to win"
Good rhyme, lyricism and flow. Solid diss.
Pro round 2
"I'll smack the cunt out of this whore
and rape her pussy with a sword
then rape her butt hole with her own vocal cords
I've gone postal towards toast records"
Somewhat weak rhyming and diss. Good flow. Not so good lyricism.
"fish like to gather underneath Piers Morgan for shelter
I'm sorry but pussies use a similar tactic
A confusing mass forms a sphere around my brain
Now I'm rapping like Lancelot without rhyming"
This is where it starts being bad. No rhyming, no flow, somewhat good lyricism, diss is working against pro in this one.
"I'm going to wipe out your filthy skank cunt
and smoke an utmost dank blunt
maybe once I do I'll be able to make up
some actual lyrics, but for now they suck"
Okay, saying that your own lyrics suck is a bit too much. You are criticizing yourself instead of your opponent.
Con round 2
Forfeited
Pro round 3
Skipped
Con round 3
"I'll show you claws with the meow to your neck, Rino the rat is shiverin',
You act like an entitled pharaoh so I'll leave you in a pyramid and got a case to put the liver in,
Think you funny, nigga, you're a clown with black skin tryna act so white it's belittlin'"
Strong finisher, with perfect flow, rhyme, and lyricism. Somewhat solid diss.
Overall, I am giving win to Con despite that he forfeited one round. Pro attacked himself, basically. While the first round was strong on both sides, the second round from Pro simply doesnt match up to third round from Con.
Round 1
Pro
Lyricism: 4
Flow: 2
Diss: 3
Rhyme: 3
Total points: 12
Con
Lyricism: 4
Flow:4
Diss:3
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 13
Winner: Con
Round 2
Pro
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 2
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 11
Con
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 4
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 3
Total points: 14
Winner: Con
Round 3
Pro
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 4
Diss:4
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 13
Con
Lyricism: 4
Flow: 4
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 4
Total points: 16
Winner: Con
Round 4
Pro
Lyricism: 4
Flow: 4
Diss: 4
Rhyme: 2
Total points: 14
Con
Lyricism: 3
Flow: 3
Diss: 3
Rhyme: 4
Total points: 13
Winner: Pro
Con won 3 out of 4 rounds and scored in total 3 points more in flow and 4 points more in rhyme. Lyricism is equal and Pro had 1 point more in diss.
Con's best round was round 3. Con's round 3 is the best overall round. Pro's best round was round 4.
"You called for me to unleash my wrath.
Now it’s gonna be a fucking bloodbath.
And I’m mopping the floor with you."
Very strong opening from Pro. Sends strong message right at the start, and is one reason why Pro got Lyricism 4 in round 1.
"You try rated rap battles 'cause you liked my idea and I challenged you and you knew the last win wasn't real 'cause Bella held back a vote, you're easy to provoke and just can't hide it,
You run around trying to get under everyone's skin, but under yours is only trauma and overcompensation, my bad I already discussed my dick,
I got my debate count by genuinely efficient moves, you do troll debates for votes to undermine the system I protested and instead of fight it you gave up instantly and decided to act in bad faith and override it"
Very good flow in this one. Lyricism too. However, rhyming is kinda not sensed at all.
"“OMG Barney, you're such a manly man!! 😍😍😍”
“You are the most impressive debater ever! Let me put you on a pedestal so I get your autograph!”
When it comes to bootlicking, this little piggy gives VP Weasel a run for his money.
Always thought he could attract more flies with honey.
Imagine tryna act alpha but doing all that fangirling over Barney and blamonkey."
Very strong diss, although flow didnt continue well after.
"Was bouta vote for you in the Election.
Until you unfriended me over some petty-ass bullshit.
So fuck you. I don’t owe you jack.
How bout you quit smoking that crack."
Probably the strongest diss in entire battle. This is where Pro started having good flow.
"Whiteflame responds to me with care when he aint even mentioned,
Road to hell's paved with you standin' up to the baddest in the land, what good intentions,
I call the shots, Chief mod gets to bendin', I'm the shotcaller you wish you backed, that wilted cunt's got a shrivelled clit, ditched the site to ressurect me, even to my worst enemies, I'm trendin',
Do you see this syllable mastery? Think you can outclass me? I'll smack your face in with a wrench till your jawbone's bendin',"
This is where Con scores perfect in all areas.
"Must hurt that The People chose an anti-semitic racist as President just so they didn't get stuck with you.
Couldn’t even woo them with your charm and charisma, everyone was better off when you left.
Only a small demographic wanted you back.
Stepping to me was a Death Sentence. Warned you it would be a fucking bloodbath, looks like I've had the last laugh.
Don’t you dare wage war on those that vote for me or you’ll quickly regret it."
Strong diss, flow and lyricism. However, surprising lack of rhyme. Still, Pro's strongest round.
Pro was struggling a lot with flow and rhyme. At many places, there is no rhyme at all. At others, the rhyme didnt exactly work out.
In the first two rounds, Pro's flow is basically non-existent. Flow changes in the middle of the round, and doesnt fit with the previous flow. It feels out of place.
Pro scored better in diss. Slightly better than Con.
The lyricism, when we ignore the flow, was great on both sides.
Con had consistently good flow and lyricism in first three rounds. He only seemed to lose flow in round 4.
Overall, Con scored more points and won 3/4 rounds, which is why I am giving win to Con.
Con forfeited over 40% of debate.
"It's possible that few may achieve it..."
It seems that both Pro and Con agree on this point.
Now, I am not sure if this debate is about:
"All men can achieve it"
"Most men can achieve it"
"Half of men can achieve it"
"Some men can achieve it"
Because only the last one gives win to Pro. Since the topic is unclear about which of these is being discussed, I cannot make a vote properly. Therefore, I leave it as a tie in order to not make a voting mistake.
"That is why I am surrendering."
They both suck. Literally couldnt bother to read past round 1.
Pro conceded
"Frequent sex has proven to cause depression, is unhygienic, and at least with traditional standards is seen as shameful."
I mean, this argument alone proves the topic correct. However, Pro forfeited 2 rounds, which is 2/4 of debate and Con forfeited 1 round. So I am not sure what to do with this. I will leave it as tie.
The topic was "American men cutting dick".
Pro talked about circumcision. Since circumcision is not the only thing included in dick cutting, it follows that Pro didnt satisfy the burden of proof there.
However, the right to mutilate bodies does seem like an argument that works, about as good as the argument about the right to suicide. It was funny that someone actually advocates about the right to suicide. Based on being funny, I give it a tie.
Morality and meaning need to be better defined. I dont know what Pro means by "meaning". Plus, Pro forfeited. I would say that writing long text without proper spacing can lose you debates, since it makes it much harder for voters to read arguments.
Con's case:
P1) Children cant consent
P2) Aisha was a child
C) Aisha could not have consented
P1) Marriage without consent isnt normal
P2) Aisha's marriage was without consent
C) Aisha's marriage was not normal
This entire case falls apart, since Con didnt explain how is consent determined, therefore destroying the premise that Aisha was a child who is unable to give consent. Con says consent is determined by brain development, then he says brain fully develops at age 25. Clearly, the age of consent cannot be 25, otherwise every second person would be in prison.
Pro, on the other hand, gives clear case about how consent is determined. High intelligence, menstruation and ability to give birth means the person is no longer a child and is able to consent to marriage. Thats how it works in nature. Pro gives proper way to to determine ability of a person to give consent. Further, Pro points out that Aisha was considered very smart, consented to marriage and was happy about it for her whole life. She never changed her mind. Pro points out that some children are smarter than adults.
This pretty much negates the argument of marriage being forced, unconsensual or physically harmful. It also negates the argument of grooming, which I find a bit irrelevant to the topic anyway. If we know that Aisha was highly intelligent, able to give birth, able to consent, and consented to marriage, then grooming doesnt apply.
Regarding trauma, Pro gives plenty of evidence that there was no trauma for Aisha, that she loved being in that marriage. We cant just assume that there was trauma, when all historical records point to opposite. Con presents evidence from other cases, but such evidence simply doesnt apply to this topic since this case has clear evidence of Aisha being 1) happy, 2) being different, since she matured much faster.
So I think Pro wins this. The last two rounds got a bit dirty. Pro probably shouldnt have used so many insults in conclusion, but I dont think it harms their case. A conduct point would be lost if it was 4 point system.
I am not sure what this debate is about, but this is funny:
"What are you? A fridge? Perhaps a furry?"
Pro started funny, but then forfeited a lot and it wasnt funny anymore.
Con obviously lost this debate in the final round if we consider definitions in it, because
1) Con fails to define what is a woman throughout this entire debate. Saying "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" does not tell us what a woman is. It is the same as saying "woman is a woman". Its not even a definition, because no definition should use word it tries to define as a definition of the word it tries to define.
2) Con's refutation of Pro's definition is based upon assuming that some person is a woman, and then using that assumption as refutation to definition. First, assumptions dont refute definitions. Second, if you are unable to define a woman, then you cannot know if someone who cant have children is a woman.
3) Con fails to understand the topic.
The topic is:
All trans women =/= real women.
So any arguments of "most of them are real women" dont apply to all of them, even if those arguments were true.
4) This topic was about definitions, and Con's unclear definitions about characteristics are useless in disproving the topic because a definition of women must include all transwomen. Con's definition didnt do that.
5) Pro explained the absurdity of Con's definition where Con says that identifying as something means being something. Con retreats from such definition, and fails to give any other definition.
6) Con uses emotional arguments, such as "doesnt mean that such person should be called a man". Con seems to not understand that "not woman =/= a man".
The only reason why I am not giving Pro the win here is because Pro didnt define women and transwomen consistently from the start, and burden of proof is on Pro, not on Con. Pro seems to come up with a different definition in each round, giving up on previous definitions. Now, the definition given in the last round does win the arguments. Reproduction by giving birth does determine what a woman is. Transwomen are not capable of giving birth, therefore they lack that which real women have. Yet this definition only came up in last round. Last round is supposed to be for conclusions, not for new definitions. So I decided not to accept it and leave arguments as tie, along with everything else.
Sadly, Con missed the entire whole debate.
By the choice of Pro to miss 2/5 of debate.
By the choice of Pro to miss 2/5 of debate.
While the topic is almost like truism, Pro missed 2/3 of debate.
By the choice of Pro to miss 40% of the debate.
By the choice of one side to forfeit every round.
I said I will vote, so here it goes. I am leaving everything as a tie.
My comment on this debate is:
A debate about objective morality shouldnt turn into a debate about dolphins attacking sharks, chess rules, math, laws, obedience...
I think we can all agree that none of those are examples of objective morality as defined in the description.