Total votes: 171
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.
All hail our Conifers overlords!
Disclaimer: Pro asked me to vote on this debate.
Conduct
Con's conduct in this debate was deplorable. First, I found him to be intentionally lazy. He missed two rounds of arguments and in the last debate lied about Pro sending harassing details for a "cheap win." For this reason alone, all 7 points are going to pro per the rules "Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss."
I'll still analyze the arguments
Arguments
In debates any argument that one fails to respond to is considered dropped. Because con missed two rounds, he effectively conceded and dropped the arguments. Pro's framework around plurality, historical precedence, freedom of choice, and freedom of association. Furthermore, he showed that marriage has socio-economic benefits. These arguments go unchallenged by con. Con's main framework was that legalizing polygamy would create more polygamy. So what? Con really doesn't say why that's a bad thing. I find it also poor conduct that con decided to just quote a bunch of articles rather than attempting to summarize them and using those sources in his own words.
The only way to vote here is to vote pro.
Conduct: Pro forfeited one round and thus loses conduct. I'd also ding him for conduct points as he did not take the debate seriously. I was totally unimpressed with his arguments. It's clear that con had put in effort to the debate, something that pro did not.
Arguments
Con argues in the opening round that omnipotence does not necessarily mean that God can do absolutely everything. The definition that con provided was that God cannot do that which is illogical and that which is contrary to his nature.
Pro's arguments doesn't seem to follow logically through the debate. His only two contentions are irrelevant. Pro is essentially arguing a Kritkit that is irrelevant. I don't see con as moving the goalpost because they clearly defined God's omnipotence as that which is logically possible - i.e. maximally great.
Con wins this debate hands down.
full forfeit
Full forfeit
Pro gets the conduct point for the forfeit. I'm voting con because Pro had the entire BOP and I was unswayed by his arguments. This was a back and forth semantic debate that I honestly had a hard time following and didn't see resolved. Pro's main argument is that God is the ultimate reality, having always existed, and thus is truth. The main counterpoint is that "God is in line with truth, which itself isn't God."
One of the biggest issues I saw with the debate is that the words 'truth' and 'being true' isn't defined until round 2. The definition of truth is "(being) in accordance with fact or reality." and truth is defined as "in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.
Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life..."
Pro doesn't challenge this definition and so these are the definitions I am going with in judging this debate. Pro loses the argument by trying to define God as true and not challenging these definitions. To win this debate, pro really needed to challenge the actual definitions of the words and explain why his definition is better.
These debates are extremely difficult to judge. I preferred pro to con’s rap. I am going to analyze the debate more in the comment section when I get a chance. Good job to both of you. It was very close.
This was the worst troll debate in the history of bad troll debates. It's obvious Pro set up the resolution and definitions as a trap in hopes for an easy win. This is proven in round 2 when Pro said: "Or you could just man up and admit that you were had by an alluring and unexpected resolution." and "You were already made a joke of by having to defend the idea that the Japanese don't observe sunsets or that Californians somehow miss out on sunrises, plus I think you end up making the case that longitudinal coordinates don't exist, or something equally stupid, and this further makes a joke of you." Conduct thus goes to con.
Now onto arguments. I didn't find pro's twist of the definitions to be all that compelling. Pro's entire argument rests on the idea that people on the eastern hemisphere observe sunsets and people on the western hemisphere observe sunrises. I'm not convinced at all by this semantics.
Con jumps in on round 1 and argues east and west are relative terms and the hemispheres are social construct but blunders when he states "All that aside, Pro will find that 'actually' the sun sets on the west just as much as it rises on [the west] and sets in the east just as much as rises on it."
The resolution is "on the earth the sun actually rises in the west and sets in the east."
The resolution states nothing about whether or not the inverse can be true or not. Con thus drops and concedes a major part of the resolution.
One of the biggest holes in pro's construct of the debate is that he fails to define the word in. Con should have immediately pounced on this word and define it as "expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else."
If con would have argued that from an observer in Tokyo the sun appears to rise in the East, then he would have had a solid case. Because con fails to do this, he loses the argument.
Full forfeit
full forfeit
Full forfeit
Since this was a troll debate I’m voting based on who was funnier. Pro definitely took the debate more tollishly than con. That being said I’m awarding con the conduct point for the forfeit and for taking the debate seriously.
Full forfeit
Forfeit forfeit
Full forfeit
What they said
Full forfeit
Full forfeit. Pro is just here to spam
Full forfeit