Total votes: 8
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4807-rfd-for-debate
Concession
Because I felt like it.
It's not disputed that Bran leads six kingdoms at the end of season 8 episode 6. Con argues that episode 6 refers to season 1, episode 6. Yet, this debate has a publication date of 5-17-19 and season 8 episode 6 aired two days later. I view it as within the purview of voters to interpret the meanings of resolutions. Given the timing, the most reasonable interpretation is that the resolution is referring to season 8, episode 6 rather than season 1, episode 6. Anyone who has been keeping up with game of thrones - which is the likely audience here - would likely share this interpretation. Nonetheless, even though I wasn't convinced by Con's semantic argument, I must acknowledge that Pro dropped Con's key rebuttal. While Bran was chosen to be king of the six kingdoms, Con argues that these six kingdoms compose perhaps half of Westeros. Pro has no rebuttal to this. I had hoped Pro had argued something along the lines that the population of the northern regions were likely negligible or that, as a Stark and prior lord of winterfell, Bran had so much influence over the North that his position was one of leadership notwithstanding the official leadership of Sansa, but these arguments weren't made. So, all I have is Con's map that he gave me with his link from the Wiki. And, absent any argument from Pro, I must accept the argument from Con. Geographically, Bran does not lead Westeros at the end of season 8, episode 6. It appears that he leads perhaps half, or somewhat less than half of Westeros.
"Right to leave"; Pro's argument in support of this right is strong, but Pro's connection of this to the resolution is weak. Pro's argument that migration within a community should be permitted is strong, but Pro's case for a human community is weak.
Con's hyper-technical is/ought approach to the resolution is not convincing. The resolution isn't ambiguous. Viewing this most charitably, it appears to be an attack on the lack of an objective, logical basis for morals. Con didn't attack the weaknesses of Pro's case. Con didn't make much of a case of his own.
These problems are largely pointed out by Pro within the following round. Con double's down on his is/ought argument, but I must reject this argument for the reasons Pro provided; It's unappealing due to being too technical and overly semantic. Con follows by making accusations of bad faith debating, none of which are true. Con finishes off with more accusations and sticking to the is/ought line of reasoning. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to have been a substantive debate on this topic.
https://imgflip.com/i/2ykzu7
The instigator's position is a truism. There is no serious debate in mathematics as to whether or not 0.999r = 1. The reason people have a difficult time grasping how 0.999r = 1 has to do with difficulty grasping an infinite series. We are accustomed to the finite and the infinite is something that simply isn't part of our everyday experience, and this is where Pro's position is weakest. Pro merely posits that 1/3 = 0.333r and that 2/3 = 0.666r. This is a bare assertion, but is later supported rather weakly. This assertion is attacked by Con with his rounding argument. However, Con's attack fails because Pro correctly pointed out that no rounding was being supposed. Con's other attack with the 2.9999(r)7 also fails because Pro correctly pointed out that this was a change in terms (i.e. off topic, and this is true - The topic is 0.9999(r).