Total votes: 12
CON forfeited over half the rounds, warranting a FF.
Argument: PRO throughout the debate consistently relies on the argument that minimum wage is "racist" and prevents people from getting good jobs. This is an assertion made with little to no evidence and was consistently proven wrong by CON. Also rightly proven is the fact that many practices were started with racist intentions, but are not necessarily racist in modern nature. Therefore, my vote goes to CON.
Sources: CON provided much more credible and relevant sources.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Tie.
Full Forfeit
PRO fails to explain that movement between 2 places is impossible. While they do state that " I look at the light that comes out of them, I never feel the objects, I feel the signals of electricity that occur, the idea that there is a movement between each instant is contradictory." Which is ironic, since they essentially concede that electricity is able to move, deeming movement a existing state.
CON does reasonably defend his position with sources and explanations. I have awarded PRO conduct due to the fact that CON presents a argument/question "how does electricity and light transferred without movement?" in the final round, which is typically deemed poor conduct.
A weakness on both sides would be the lack of utilization of the characters they had available, instead sticking to 300-500 character arguments. I would work on length and robustness, but for a first debate, this was relatively decent. Props to both debaters.
I wasn't going to vote, but RM is missing the point of the debate.
PRO mentioned in his description:
Whoever makes the funniest arguments wins
So thus, no matter the logic involved, whichever one was funnier is the winner.
Since PRO had the funnier arguments, they win.
This debate was ultimately flawed in its execution and rule set, the inclusion of both the term 'definitely' and the definition of God ("The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God of the bible.")
Contention 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument
In R1, PRO brings up the Kalam Argument, which states:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence, (ii) The universe began to exist, and (iii) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
In rebuttal of the first point (Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence), CON brings up retro causality and quantum entanglement, in which the effects can affect the causes. PRO argues that it is just a hypothetical concept and not visible with evidence, and further states that it's impossible by Black's Bilking Argument, which CON correctly catches as a mistake between macroscopic retro causality and microscopic retro causality. PRO then makes an incorrect assumption about the term, so this argument is given to CON
Since the BOP for PRO was to make sure no contentions were arguable...
P1: Definitely implies there is no contention
P2: There is a contention
C: The resolution is false.
GGs Bones
Debate was forfeited by Con
The CoC states that a debater who forfeits over half of their rounds falls under a "Full Forfeit" and any case they make should be disregarded.
The BOP was on PRO, and he forfeited a one round debate, so the win automatically goes to CON.
Forfeiture
You're just doing a short debate with a limit of 150 characters for only 1 round each.
If you do this again, I would recommend making it unrated, because this type of debate lacks effort, and is just unfair.
PRO actually showed up