Total votes: 36
POOPOOPOOFART FARTRPOOOPOOOOOPOOOFART FFFPOO FART
FFFFF
Both sides bring up good points, CON states that christianity, however by POE proves, as seen b4 potions seen lots of light, positive negative benefit!
full forfeit
I'm not letting this end in a tie. Pro dropped several of con's refutations and his own points were weak. His logic was inherently flawed which was easily pointed out by con.
wtf why did he concede.
Mall didn't even rebute Ragnar's points.
Plus he was awfully rude.
legit did the same exact thing with siri. 1 was bear 2 was seld
. f
Concession.
following orders
Mall forfeits. Ragnar presents proof and mall doesn't do anything and ignores it
a forfeit and pro didn't even bring up valid arguments.
"This is not meant to be a personal attack on my opponent, though it may come across that way. But his arguments were not good at all. I trust the voters to use their discretion and decide who the winner is wisely."
There's multiple more examples in this debate where CON blatantly states that PRO's arguments were terrible and not good. You can't just state "this is not meant to be a personal attack".
Here, let me provide examples. You are a bank manager and a robber comes in. The robber says "Sorry dude, this ain't a robbery, even though it seems like it is." Then, he proceeds to rob you and take your money. Absurd ain't it?
SHINEI! KAKYOIN!
MUDA MUDA MUDA MUDA!
MUUUDDAA
FLOOR GANG OUHG
fallalfeelel
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
ff
Ultimately a full forfeit
ff
ff
ff
ff
A good start in R1, but ultimately a full forfeit
A good start in R1, but ultimately a full forfeiture.
Concession
Full Forfeit
Full Forfeit.
Concession and Forfeit
Full forfeit
See PressF4Respect
PRO did not provide sources.
PRO provided 1 sentence arguments that CON refuted easily.
Con didn't provide any arguments and had terrible conduct.
Wonderful debate by both sides. You were both pretty convincing.
ARGUMENTS:
Pro provided evidence that China lied. He also said that Chinese people unknowingly spread the virus throughout the globe. But, if they unknowingly spread it, why should they be held accountable? Pro brings up points that China downplays the virus. Con, on the other hand, tries to disprove PRO's argument. He brings up nice questions such as " If nations sanction China anyway, will China be more likely to improve openness in future?". He challenges PRO's argument by diving into the legal zone. As of now, there are no legal charges that can be placed on China. What surprised me most was that PRO decided to focus more on the People's side of the fault, then the government. I don't think the people were at fault here for eating bats, I think it was the governments fault. Most of Con's arguments remained strong at the end. For those reasons, I'm voting CON for arguments.
SOURCES:
CON mostly used wikipedia as a source while PRO used reputable new sources.
CONDUCT:
PRO forfeits R4
Concession
Nice debate!
The definitions presented are both ok. 2006's definition stated that a sandwich was 2 pieces of bread, which proves his entire argument. But, Con's argument provided the definition of "sliced bread". I take sliced bread to be completely sliced. Therefore User_2006 wins arguments.
Sources: (same as fauxlaw)
Forfeit...
Wonderful debate by both PRO and CON. I hope my RFD will give considerable feedback to both debaters.
ARGUMENTS:
Pro gave considerable evidence that stated that China could've prevented the virus in the early stages, which was true. He also gives some examples of punishments that China could receive. Most of his arguments seemed pretty reasonable, although I disagree with some. Con gives an entertaining and humorous take on the topic, and his arguments were nice to read. Con gives evidence that China would retaliate, and I agree. But, I view the definition of the word "should" as an ethical word. So, from my POV, I think that the "should" factor in this debate gives the argument points in favor of PRO.
Everything else was wonderful, and I enjoyed this debate.
This is to prevent an inappropriate win by CON.