Total votes: 171
Pro attempted to get an easy win by hiding the resolution of the debate. As a reader and a debater, we would expect the title and description of the debate to be an accurate description of what each side will be arguing. It is reasonable to conclude that this debate should be viewed as a rap battle and a troll debate. Full points to con.
full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Concession
Full forfeit
Con conceded the debate.
Full forfeit
Pro conceded
Con forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds
Conduct
Con repeatedly insulted Pro and called him Satanic. Here are a few examples:
Satanic Dr. Franklin, What is truly sad in your Satanic position...
After laughing at your minion of Satan pathetic
BUT, because of you being a minion of Satan, you are using your latest Satan Decoder Ring to erroneously rewrite that these millions of Christians were wrong in reading said passages as literally directly shown! This is laughter at its finest, and at your expense upon Judgment Day!
Dr. Franklin, I want you to burn this very simple syllogism into your feeble Satanic brain when I address your stupidity and ignorance of the Christian faith, understood Satan incarnate?!
This conduct was excessive, frequent, and repeatedly distracted me from the arguments that con was presenting. In contrast, Pro held himself up very well and overall had better conduct.
Suggestion for both of you: Please write your arguments in a word document and use better formatting. Wall of text and walls of quotes are difficult to read. I had a very difficult time in following your arguments. In the future, I recommend doing something like this:
C1: The Bible says....
C2: It also says...
Conclusion
You don't need to fully quote each other to respond to the arguments. Ragnar made a nice guide that I recommend you read: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
That being said, I have to leave arguments as a tie. There were too many walls of text, too many unneeded quoting, too many unneeded bold and underlined text that made the arguments impossible to follow. Thus arguments are tied.
Full forfeit
Pro is the only one to make an argument
forfeiture
Troll be gone
Pro forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds
Tip to con: Please define your terms in the preface of the debate. The debate was a bit difficult to judge. The resolution was a bit awkward and I think con would have won it had he worded the resolution as "DST should be abolished" rather than whether or not it is relevant. It would also help to have definitions in round 1 and not round 2. Pro's definition of "relevant" goes unchallenged and thus is the definition I'm forced to go with when judging this debate.
The definition of 'relevant" is "B2 connected with what is happening or being discussed" The resolution clearly states whether or not it is relevant, not whether it is anachronistic. Even then you still need to define what anachronistic means. They are not synonyms. The general definition for anachronistic is "belonging to a period other than that being portrayed." That being said, Pro won this debate by proving that many countries still use this system and rely on it for meetings, finances, and oversea videos.
Con gives 3 solid reasons why DST is not relevant: (2) DST and Exercise; (2) Criminal Activity; (3) Disrupted Cardiac Rythm. These claims are completely dropped by Pro and would have been enough to cost him the debate if the resolution and terms went undefined. Con, however, pretty much conceded the debate
Con gets s/g due to pro's word salad. I had to read Pro's arguments several times in order to understand what he was saying. Example: "So far I see 0 reasons why it's not still relevant today, if anything I see many reasons why it's wrong that it is still relevant today (admitting that it is)." Huh? I am still trying to fully comprehend this sentence. Another example "DST is relevant, even to this debate but more so to the world even if it is wrong to have." This wording choice is awkward. It is obvious that I am not the only one who could not understand the argument as Con asked him to clarify the meaning in round 2. In contrast, Con's formatting was better and more readable.
Tip to con: Define your terms in the debate's preface. This should have been worded as "DST should be abolished" or "DST does more harm than good."
Con forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds. Conduct to Pro.
Concession
Concession
Con forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds
I want to begin by thanking bsh1 and speedrace for inviting me to judge this debate. My philosophy when judging these types of debates is to award points per round. Whoever has the most points at the end of the debate is the winner. With that, let's begin.
ROUND 1
It's quite fascinating that both debaters chose to submit a song called "ocean." That being said, I really loved both of these songs! They had beautiful beats and an interesting chord progression. That being said, I like the lyrics to bsh's "ocean" a bit better and liked the strings in the piece. I'm giving R1 to bsh.
ROUND 2
Both had nice beats and lyrics. However, I kinda got bored with "Nevada" as it kinda repeated the same motif and lyrics over and over again. I felt the piece was overall stagnant with the chord progressions. I also don't quite understand why the song is called "Nevada." "Free" had much better lyrics and a more compelling melodic line. I give this round to bsh.
ROUND 3
I didn't really care for bsh's submission here. I didn't like the lyrics and didn't really care for the speech at the beginning. The song was a bit too long for me and kinda zoned out before the full 5:30. As for "Running Away," the lyrics were better and I liked the overall melody. This round goes to speedrace
ROUND 4
Outside of classical music, lyricless music is always a hit or miss for me. In this case, this was a miss. For a song 5 minutes in length, I got bored rather quickly with there being no lyrics. I liked bsh's "The Little Things" a lot. I liked the lyrics and liked the round. This round goes to bsh
ROUND 5
"Put me back together" was a great song. I love the color red and like the background with the video. The song's lyrics was quite compelling and at times moving. I also really liked "Ride of Die." I liked the melody and the lyrics, however I don't like the music video behind it. That being said, bsh edges out slightly for that reason.
CONCLUSION
Thank you guys for this debate. Both of you guys just gave me great music to add to my library. The winner of this debate is bsh.
Concession
Pro forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds
Full forfeit
Forfeited is a pretty compelling argument, but con's r1 argument blows this out of the water.
Am not! lol
Ful forfeit
More than half the rounds were forfeited
Conduct to Con as Pro blatantly plagiarized from Type1's debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/692
Arguments: We must look at the debate resolution as one would typically read and understand the resolution. As such, I accept Con's understanding that this debate asks us to weigh the two species together and look at the two species on balance and as a whole.
A big problem in Pro's argument is that he never defines what "smarter" means. Con takes advantage of this and a comparative form of smart. I'll list the definition he provided here:
1. Exhibiting social ability or cleverness.
2. (informal) Exhibiting intellectual knowledge, such as that found in books.
This definition is not challenged by Pro. Therefore this is the definition I must accept when weighing this debate. Con further negates the resolution by showing key areas in which humans are significantly smarter than chimps (socially, cleverness, and literary intelligence). Pro never challenges this and instead provides three poor sources (more on this later). Con successfully challenges his argument by showing that they don't meet the definition of 'smart' that Pro failed to challenge. Thus I'm forced to vote Con.
<Sources>
Let's now look at sources. When comparing two things one needs to provide solid evidence for their assertions. Pro's R1 provided no sources or evidence for their assertions. I follow the principle "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" thus I completely dismiss Pro's R1.
When weighing sources, Pro's Natural News source is bad. Con challenges this source as being "has been famously, publicly sanctioned for societal harms such as advocating violence against scientists and accusing vaccinators of child abuse does." He further proves this point in R2 by providing evidence that Natural News sensationalizes and falsely reported the study. This alone, however, is not poor conduct.
Con provides a lot of sources and evidence for his claims. First, having a definition of "smart" and "smarter" helps us to weigh the context of this debate. For example, the PLOS One journal entry is peer-reviewed with a reputable backing. Thus sources go to Con.
Pretty much a concession. This is why it's important to look at which side you are arguing for.
Full forfeit
What was missing in this debate was evidence. Pro began by providing a definition of what a Jew is and explained how someone can be a Jew by descent and believe in Christianity. Con's reply was to show that race is an illusion. This is a big claim and without a good source to back it up, I'm left to agree with Pro's definition of Jew. Arguments to pro because con could not offer a counter to the definition and failed to show how it is impossible to identify as both a Jew and a Christian.
Troll be gone
Concession
Full forfeit
Ful forfeit
Full forfeit
Counter vote bomb
Unapologetic vote bob.
Unapologetic vote bomb
Concession
Pro forfeited honorably so I will give him a conduct point.
full forfeit
Full forfeit