Total votes: 192
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
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