David

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

Con wins conduct as pro forfeited 2/3 rounds.

Arguments/rap goes to con also. The way I judge these debates is by awarding 1 point per round and adding them up. Since probwins 2 rounds by default he wins

Pro had the full BOP and he full forfeited. All points to con

Con wins this debate hands down. RM utterly destroyed his opponent here. See comments for a full analysis of the debate.

Both debaters agreed to a tie

Con concedes

Pro forfeited

Forfeit by pro

Pro forfeited

Pro forfeited every round. Full points to con

con forfeited

Forfeit by pro.

Conduct to con for the forfeit. See comments for argument analysis. It’ll be a few hits to be patient.

Conduct goes to con because of the forfeit.

Pro has a tall burden of proof that he simply never meets. He never gives us an objective rubrics in which to judge who the “smartest” person in history was. In round 2 it’s easy to see that he doesn’t understand the burden. Con doesn’t need a counter example, a point that he argued quite well.

Conduct goes to con. "Oh come off it you soddy pillock" is not acceptable. Sources go to con as they were the only ones who used it. I'll analyse the arguments later.