Total votes: 190
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
Pro forfeited 3 times and thus effectively concedes the debate.
Both sides forfeited, but pro never upheld his BOP
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Counter vote bomb
As disgusted as I am to award a point to pro, con full forfeited so loses the debate. Makes me wanna vomit.
I will consider this almost a full forfeiture on behalf of con. Con did not provide a single argument and seemed to not understand what this debate was about. Pro provided several arguments from scripture to prove that the Bible can support fatalism. For example:
Ephesians 1:4-13
Romans 8:28-30 9:10-23
Colossians 1:12-23
1 Peter 1:2
2 Thessalonians 2:12-17
What this debate was sorely lacking was clarity. I feel Pro needs to make clear what the topic is actually about.
full forfeit
RM is a total master of twisting the title of the debate and hammering home an easy win.
Full forfeit
Obvious lol
Déclarer forfait
@RM - sure I suppose I could counter bomb it
@pro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM
Full forfeit
While I was quite impressed with Pro’s arguments “forfeit” I found Con”s argument “Extend” to be slightly better
Forfeit from con
full forfeit plus just a bunch of incoherent ramblings from pro.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbZ4jBemhGekEIx2FN0WMj8bbvvtyKlyPCFL-w-huis/edit?usp=sharing
Two forfeits plus nothing but ad homs from con. All dropped arguments are considered concessions by me. Since con forfeited two rounds he essentially dropped pro's entire arguments and conceded them. Rule one of the debate is no forfeits. Victory to pro.
Forfeit and concession
This is mostly a forfeit debate from both sides. Con, however, had the entire burden of proof in this debate. The only thing that con argues is Unmarried cohabitation relationships are built on sex and Sexual foundation is unhealthy. Con cites no sources nor does he give any reason for this. Pro points this out in the next round and shows that con needed to provide evidence for that. Because con failed to meet his burden, pro wins.
Full forfeit
WisdomofAges, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Seriously though...what the heck was this debate even supposed to be about? Some definitions would be nice. It would have been nice to be able to understand what the resolution is about and what valid/invalid means in the context of the debate. It would also have been nice to have an idea of what "killing in the name of God" actually entails. Please actually define your terms clearly in the debate.
To make matters worse - this is a 1 round debate with no chance for rebuttals/defense. Further con's language style and formatting was so incomprehensible that I had to read it 10 times just to get a basic idea of what the heck he's saying. I also had to read pro's argument a few times to comprehend what he is saying, but at least it's somewhat comprehensible.
In the end I see absolutely no real argumentation between the two. I see no clear resolution, no clear burden, and no clear arguments. For this I have to leave the vote a tie.
This debate was a lot of fun to read.
Methodology: Because these debates are subjective and impossible to objectively measure, I decide to score each round a point by who wins the round. The person who gets the most points wins the debate.
Round 1: Bsh is the winner of this round. I felt bsh's rap flowed a bit better. I also particularly liked this line: "You just an altar boy no priest would fuck." Ouch!
Round 2: I think pro won this round. Favorite line:
How many times has Virt had to defend your feeder?(Mouth)
Bitch lasagna
With a side of drama
Round 3: Bsh wins this round. Favorite lines:
You neutered and spayed--more spayed like a bitch
You talk about Grindr, like a virgin can talk, your manhood a glitch
Round 4: I think pro wins this round. His Grindr comeback was pretty good:
I'm an Orthodox Christian, I go abstinence
I pray to lord and I look for leadership form the covenance
Everything you gonna say is old news
So what's the score?
2-2 the debate is a tie!
Good job guys
pro forfeited
This was a good debate. Last semester I took a class on introduction to electronic music. With the knowledge from that class, I found an appreciation for electronic music
METHODOLOGY
Because this debate is subjective in nature the way I decided to score this debate is by awarding each side a point per round and add up the points in the end. With that in mind let's begin
ROUND 1
Pro's song: I like the introduction and I like how it builds and builds with the beats and instruments. I like how it starts small and gets larger. By 0:50 I liked the pulse of the song. I also like around 1:35 where the song starts slowing down in tempo and adds in the piano part. By 2:40 the song kinda surprised me. I wasn't expecting it go go where it did.
As a classical music lover, I honestly didn't care for con's song. I like how it incorporates some classical themes, but I didn't like the talking. I didn't get the music video. I also didn't like the showy woman with a violin over her breasts. But at the 2:18 mark is where it kinda caused me to change my opinion of the song. I started to like the intro to the violin and I kinda liked the beat, but then it went back to the talking and didn't really enjoy that.
Overall this round goes to pro.
ROUND 2
I like pro's choice of music here. The music starts slow and I love the piano part in the beginning. Around the :26 mark is where it gets really interesting. I really loved the intro to the orchestra sounds. I loved the tempo and the pulse of this song. I absolutely loved the ending. The ending piano part was really nice. I kinda got some video game/music soundtrack vibes!
I also really like con's song here! I loved the lyrics and Madison Love's voice was really good! I was surprised with it. I never heard of Madison Love before and so I will definitely be looking for more of her music. Ultimately I didn't really care for the drop.
This round was super super close and it was a total tossup. They're both really good. I went back to listen to pro's song to better compare it. In the end, I found pro's song easier to listen to. Upon re-listening to pro's song, I have to award this round to him.
So far the score is 2-0
ROUND 3
Pro's choice was quite interesting and was definitely a huge contrast to round 2. I didn't really care for this piece tbh. For the most part of the song, it felt repetitive and started to get annoying. However, around the 1:55 mark is where my opinion of the song started to change. I liked the melody and liked the synthesizer part. The ending of the song was great! 3:37 is where things started to get calm and started to drift out. Was not expecting that.
I liked con's song better. Once again, I liked the lyrics and I liked her voice. I found this song to be easier to listen to than pro's. I also found it to be less boring. I went back to listen to the original version of the song and I actually like the remix better.
Con's song wins hands down!
Score is now 2-1
ROUND 4
Pro's song choice was great. I liked the piano part and I like how it built up. I was not expecting the lyrics and was not expecting the voice part!! I liked the lyrics and I liked the melody of the song. The piano part around the 2:00 mark was nice! I also like the lyrics that come back in. I liked the overall message of the lyrics and enjoyed the music really much!
Con's choice was good to! I got a middle-eastern vibe in the beginning. The lyric message here felt kinda. dark compared to pro's song. "The human race is fucked." This is a statement that is unfortunately so true. I didn't like the cannablistic lyrics and found it overall dark.
Pro wins this round.
The score is 3-1. Pro has won the debate.
ROUND 5
Even though pro won by this point, it's not over till it's over.
Pro's choice was rather boring to me. It felt kinda repetitive and didn't do anything interesting and didn't do anything I was not expecting.
Con's choice was really good! Again I liked the lyrics and enjoyed the song. I like the harmony between Gomez and lub. I think con wins this round.
CONCLUSION
The score is 3-2. Good debate and good battle!
Observation 1: This debate pro needs to prove 2 things: God exists, and that humans depend on Him to live. Pro does not have to argue which God is real, just that a God exists and depends on him to live.
Observation 2: By accepting the debate, one necessarily accepts the rules and definitions provided. If one does not agree with those rules or definitions, they need to work that out prior to accepting the debate.
Pro's main argument was that the sun meets his definition of God and humans depend on the sun to live, ergo God exists. Con's main rebuttal was that the sun is a created object and thus is not God. However even if we grant that, con makes a huge blunder by arguing that God exists, only it is not the sun:
"Yep, and my response is, there something much greater than the sun-- superhuman too - more deserving of worship than the Sun. In fact, the sun depends on IT for it's existence."
Con needs to show that God does not exist OR that humans do not depend on Him to live. He fails to meet this burden. By arguing that the sun is not God but God is God, he concedes the resolution.