CaptainSceptic

Pro: rather than argue for, sets up a pre-emptive defense. A dangerous opening that may cost them... however, in the end, it does not.

Con manipulates the stats. Claiming by deduction 60% of women view reproduction as a priority for marriage. A made-up stat by Con. Tsk Tsk. We are through Round 1 with no real arguments.

In Round 2 Pro starts to split the concept of marriage and reproduction (a round too late I think?). Pro spots Cons stats manipulation…. Nice catch. Pro then flips the BOP. Why can’t they marry?

Con makes some statements of fact without support or reference.

“The government helps maintain the population by offering marriage licenses as an incentive for couples to produce and raise children. “

-and-

"If this is true, the marriage incentives become an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer."

But Con just said that the incentives are for reproduction. Con is not making sense here.

Con scrambles for some references that show heterosexual couples raise better kids in gender centric roles., then argues through citations that gay parents leed to gay children, then as a complete red herring tries to tie HIV and early death rates to the debate…. Losing credibility here.
Pro says, fewer divorce rates (round three is the first time divorce got brought up. A huge problem in this debate. Pro says love is the primary source behind marriage, not procreation. Pro also says properly that Con did not prove why gay marriage should not be allowed. New arguments in the final round by Pro. tsk tsk.

Con tries to play semantics about the term allowed. The title is Gay marriage should be allowed. Semantics games won’t work for Con in their last gasps of air trying to salvage a victory in this final statement. However, Con was put in an unfair position here. Pro should not have launched new arguments in the final round. Con did a good job casting doubt on the divorce stats. Con also highlights the misuse of Pros religious-based arguments.
Con reminds the readers that there is a burden of proof on both sides, and questions did Pro meet it. Well, Con did not meet theirs,,, Did Pro?

Argument: PRO. I say in the balance of the discussion Pro met the very basic BOP because they successfully challenged the assumption that marriage is for reproduction. Notwithstanding the fact that Con clearly manipulated stats and made up a very false statement of fact without source.
Conduct: CON: Pro brought up arguments in the final round, and deviated from the secular agreement. While making up stats and statements are not cool in this judge's eye, it is a debate tactic, and not egregious for conduct detriment.

Sources: TIE: I would have slightly voted Con (because of the religious nature to a Pro source) here, but con made statements without attribution, and Pro was already penalized for the nonsecular references, so I give it a tie.

S&G. unremarkable.

I think Con needs to work on being less confrontational in their narrative. That being said Con brought up great points. The translation and decoding required is a form of intelligence. Con did not properly prove that intelligence or being intelligent is an antonym for stupid, however, it would be safe to say that unproved contention would not be in widespread dispute.

This is very simple to judge, as the debate is either yes or no.

The claim is "Public prayer is currently outlawed in the United States"

The arguments were very off point. Pro tried to argue that the constitution and case law expressly prohibits public prayer, yet in Pros own narrative, the prohibition is not about praying in public. It is about mandating prayer in school. Specifically Pro states "I contend that public prayer in public school "

Con does well to highlight that prayer in a public setting, in on itself is not illegal. And whilst the fact pattern that Con opened with is hearsay, it was effective and believable. Pro does nothing to show that the conduct exhibited by Con was illegal.

In short, Pro did not show prayer in public is illegal as set in the debate definition. Con showed an example were prayer in public was legal.

All other aspects are unremarkable

Pro did not effectively differentiate the noun food, to the verb eat. It appears as if there was a semantical effort, however, ingestion, nutrition, eating were not defined in a convincing manner. The Philidelphia experiment was an interesting attempt at an alternative explanation... however it was thin and lacked any developed foundation. Therefore vote to Con.

Sources, S&G, and Conduct are unremarkable.

I have a long RFD if anyone wants to read it. I think this summary is more than effective enough.

Pro argued that science could not have occurred without the philosophical foundations of Christianity. Pro tried to make a causal relationship between them. Yet throughout their arguments, the phrase "plausible": came up many times. There were a few examples where Pro tried to minimize arguments, by creating an exception circle. Pro argued that some Christians are open-minded and some not. Wars and conflicts that are attributed to Christianity are in fact political. Overall there was an inconsistency in the argument., and apologetic or exception reasoning.

Con did a great job of tearing down the causal relationship argument of Christianity and Science. I accepted Cons logic. and feel they won that part of the debate.

But herein lies the problem. Con did not demonstrate the negative aspects or harm caused by Christianity in any sort of detail. There were passing references to the Thirty Year War, and inquisitions. However not enough to establish any causal proof that Christianity did harm. Pro acknowledged some problems with violence and Christianity,

For the above reasons, I find the arguments a tie. Con took apart Pro's arguments well, however, they did not present their own

I disagree with the other judge about sources. The sources for Con are accessible. For Pro, many of them are not. It is march harder to judge a debate when you don’t have access to the reference materials. I give the sources point to Con for accessibility reasons. I could not verify a majority of Pros source-based arguments.

S&G and Conduct are unremarkable.

It makes a valid point. accepting a debate and willing to debate is certainly a sign of intelligence. If pro used their character limit better then it would not come off as a complaint.

Con made great arguments about the semantics of GOAT vs goat, "the" etc. However Pro was very correct in saying that those arguments had no foundation as the description of the debate was clear.

However... Through all the back and forth, Con forced Pro to make a concession. Pro stated in round 5

'I cannot prove Pele is the greatest of all time."
"But what i can do is "suggest" he is the greatest of all time"

The debate title is "Pele is truly the goat"

Pro conceded that he could not love the merits of the debate. Therefore I view this as a concession. Con wins.

Pro wins conduct because the debate was clear about the purpose. Con should not have argued the semantics of GOAT/goat.

Pro did not make an argument differentiating the true benefits of 2 over 1. Pro pointed out some grievances with 1 over 2, but did not compare and contrast. Pro just sat in rebuttal mode, and through their rebuttals. Pro also agreed with Con on two occasions in round 2. It is not a full concession, however it is demonstrative of the persuasiveness of Cons arguments.

Con used sound logic in pre-emotively negating the quality of graphics challenges, and that led directly to some of the concessions.

The narrative was not as organized as it could have been. Overall Con has it.

Technically under this site's rules, this is a full forfeit.

"Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"

Singularity only argued one round.
----------------------------------

PRO: Rules allow it, and the site expressly gives this a viable option. Effectively pushes the burden to Con to prove the rules are wrong. I will say this is a very weak opening for a two-round debate. It does not survive on its own.

CON: Starts by stating the fact that you are able to do something does not make it right. This is not even logic. This is disturbing. Pro stated that the site gave the choice as an option. Society goes not give people an express option to rape 13 year olds.

CON then tries to argue that debate can only be initiated from a Pro position because the common vernacular is pro vs con, not con vs pro. This argument is very weak. Con then says that people who instigate as a Con are cowards. I will remind the house that Con in this debate has instigated debate as Con. Con then tries to justify their position by stating that the issue is with the judges and their level of sophistication. However, Con never supports that position.

PRO then does a good job addressing the points made by Con. However PRO really nailed it at the end. Linguistically it is all semantics, and forcing the instigation to be only Pro does nothing more than modifying the way the resolution is drafted and has no other value. A fantastic final piece of logic and statement.

2/3 rounds forfeited. That's a full Forfeit per the guidelines. "Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit.

Concession and Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit.

Concession
However - Good sportsmanship award to Pro.

Full comments on https://pastebin.com/q1rYFUjH

TLDR: CON wins, mores because PRO lost. Pro just got too personal, too pedantic, did not provide any sort of diverse or real evidence as to what personhood is, what fertilization is etc. He argued this is about science, yet he provided virtually none. His entire argument sat with one survey, and he destroyed his own position 4 times by referencing the uncertainty around the definition of personhood, or when it occurs.

Conduct was poor on both sides. Very annoying to read.