Total votes: 9
Pro's main point is that dress code cause distraction, and that this is bad because it harms education. Pro further backs this point up by showing how eduation is the sole purpose of school. However, Con is able to turn this point and show how preventing distraction is equvilent to sexualizing children. Pro does not adress this in round three, so this point has been dropped. Aditionally, Con also pointed out that dress codes were distracting. There was not too much actual clash here, so the points on distraction are essentially a wash. This just leaves me with the sexulization and double standard point from Con, so I have to vote on that.
Concession warrants a loss.
Good job to both debaters, this was a close round argued well by both sides.
Full RFD on docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1giU3afgddKHZQ35QkVRGz1nxDKoZpCtOziRdeujJYP4/edit?usp=sharing
RFD:
Pro loses impacts on the third ascribed pillar (It lets content that is bad get away with being bad). Con is able to show that the algorithm sufficiently solves. Con wins the points on feedback. The point that youtube is being hypocritical was not refuted, but it also wasn’t flowed through. I do still have some of the impacts on time wasting potentially open for Pro, but I am reluctant to award these because Con shows how the algorithm can solve by not recommending this content. So I am going to weigh probability here, and assume that bad/abusive content slipping through is a rare occurrence that is usually solved by the algorithm, and that the benefits of negative feedback will outweigh this. This is why I award the argument points to Con.
full concession
In R3 pro looses a conduct point. I also do not flow new arguments in final speeches, so the only offensive ground that minecraft is a 1 time purchase, it is customizable, and "driven by your desires." Also I honestly feel like the second two are the same position, so winning both of these would still only give access to one impact.
Con turns the second two advantages listed by Pro by showing roblox is more customizable. Con is still winning on this in R2 with the points on creators, and then Pros R3 can clearly not respond to the previous points on this issue. "While Minecraft doesn't have built in mod creator, you are able to take the communities mods and use them for your own creations." This is basically a concession on this because it is admitting that it is easier to mod on roblox.
Pros first argument was about minecraft being a 1 time purchase. Con's point on a free model being less corrupt are good in R1. Con's point on the free model is in a qoute in R2 from pro, but no actual response is given to this point. This means Pro drops the only offensive ground left, and bringing up offense in the last round is unfair, so I will not count new points.
This means because Pro has no offensive ground, and because Con turned the customization point, Con wins on arguments.
Pro looses a point on conduct for the ff.
The only offensive ground on creativity flows to Pro, so I have to vote Pro based on the fact that creativity will make chess more popular, allow for creative attacks, and make defense easier. Historical precedent is a wash, and the point of classicists is a wash. f2/f7 flows to Pro defensive ground. The current balance of the queen flows to Con’s defensive ground.
Full RFD on google docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gfIQicXFu5APzTDr89xA7qUVroF7-IocnY8tM4sEPO0/edit?usp=sharing
I will vote Con both on FF, and on inherency. Pro gives many arguments that do apply to why video debate would be better, and Con fails to counter these sufficiently, so I will give these arguments all to Pro. That being said, none of this really matters. The resolution says: DebateArt would be better in video form rather than in text form. Use of the future tense here does imply a change, so if Can prove that it is already possible to do video debates he wins on inherency. This is what he does, and in doing so wins the debate. I also give Con all other points because they were never refuted as Pro only engaged in r1.
Pro presented the only arguments, and as such these are more convincing. I am not giving sources because in order to consider sources as a voting issue one side needs to either present very bad, or outstanding sources. Pro's sources are fairly average, and Con doesn't give any sources, so there was no serious violation on Cons part. I am not going to give spelling to anyone because Pro's spelling was not egregious, and I can't punish Con for any spelling errors either as there were no speeches made by Con. I am not going to give conduct to either side because they both FFed over half of their speeches, and although I wish double loss was a thing, it is not, so I have to leave this blank. Yes the argument could be made that 1 speech is better than none, but at the end of the day I do not think that there is a substantial difference between skipping 3 or 4 rounds.
Full RFD on google docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QT_ch5ra4Lpj5RPbGIcvGW5aml9BTlmjuonIGJTRafE/edit?usp=sharing
RFD
Ultimately, in this debate I am voting Pro because Pro wins in theory and proves that they only have to prove that corruption is present within interactions on social media. Pro proves that speed is lost, and claims that this is corruption which Con fails to refute. This means Pro proves the resolution is true under the theory of the round because there is at least some corruption present.