Total votes: 107
Forfeit,
Getting my stats up
Improving my stats
Concession
Forfeit, I'm now 3 for 3 when I say easy win in comments, let's go!
Over half forfeit
Neither side convinced me
*I agree with everything presented*
Concession
I’m the yeet master 64
Forfeit
Yeet
Half FF, neither side convinced me
Ragnar, Your reasoning is utterly insane
yeet
Concession
FF
FF
Forfeit
FF
I feel as if RM was the better rapper
I feel as if sigmaphil was the better debator here
Forfiet
Countering the GreatGameLords vote because his CVB wasn't removed
Forfeit
Pro laughs at his opponent
"I instantly win HA HA."
That is poor conduct,nether sides arguments convinced me
forfeit
WAAAAAAAA RM WAAAAAA
Can I get a full forfeit in the chat
Concession
donatio
Forfeit
CONCESSION BOIIIIIIIII
donatio,
suck my wiggidy dick
what....the.....fuck
I have grouped Pros arguments
1.Black Lives Matter doesn’t address main black issues
I have grouped Cons arguments
1.BLM’s true purpose is as he explains:”it's a pro black movement. We aren't saying that black lives are more meaningful than everyone else's, we are saying black lives are just as meaningful as everyone else's. The BLM movement isn't about separation, segregation or disengagement. The BLM movement is about a positive resolution.”
Both sides made strong claims with facts and evidence. The deciding factor will be the rebuttals.
Case 1: Black issues in communities-King claims-”"dropping out of high school" and "growing up without a father" are stereotypes and simply irrelevant. Has nothing to do with BLM..”
Where Pro responds-”Black Lives Matter only cares BLACK LIVES LOST BY COP ACTION,NOT OTHER BLACK LIVES.” Pro is able to back it up with facts and sources like-”The issue of white fathers leaving their parents is unaddressed because it happens the least out of Blacks,Hispanics and whites. As of today,the rate of black fathers leaving their kids is 48.5%,those of Hispanics 26.3% and those of whites 18.3%. (US Census Bureau, “Living Arrangements of Children Under 18”: Tables –CH-2, CH-3, CH-4. 1960 – Present. U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2012.)”and “The above link show studies conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute which shows nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2002 failed to complete their education. Just 57% of African Americans and 60% of Latinos graduated in 2002, compared with 78% of whites and 84% of Asians. Now,this is just for only one state. One can only imagine about the rest of the country. People don't talk about whites on this issue,because of "white privilege". They don't because whites don't drop out of schools at the abysmal rate as blacks.”
Next round rebuttals were the same shit.Con responds-”Can't be helped. Parental issues has nothing to do with BLM. I think your white privilege card declined.”
Doesn’t address the facts nor backs up claims of white privilege. Another problem with Con is that he tries to paint Pro as using his “white privilege” but only uses on incident to back up his claim.
Pro responds:”I posted a study conducted by Harvard University and Urban Institute that showed nearly half of the black students drop out whereas only 7 to 8% of whites do so. Is that personal choice or white privilege? If it is white privilege,explain how. Oh,sorry,sorry,as you said in the comments,it's because the sky is blue. I get it. My bad.” Facts and Logic
Con also cherry-picked situations, such as the two cases and what-if situations.
Arguments-Pro
Sources-Tie
S&P-Tie
Conduct-Pro wins, Con used poor conduct
" Have fun continuing to suck Trump's dick. "
""you're a racist cunt"
" Stop acting like you've never ever cussed in your life, bitch"
"fuck you bitch"
Con forfeited half the rounds
Neither side arguments convinced me.
Omar makes 3 claims on Boat
1.Border Fence
2.Gay Marriage and Civil Unions
3.Prostitution
For The Border Wall, Omar claims Boat is using moral arguments that stem from religion.Boat responds that he gets his morals from accepted social norms saying:”I also think illegals should not be able to cut in front of other LEGAL immigrants who are waiting for a very long time in line to come to the U.S. There is nothing religious about this, it is simply fair.” as well as:”Morality or moral sense is also built into our DNA and shaped by future experiences.”These are very clear social norms so point CON
For Gay Marriage, Pro claims Con gets his arguments from Christianity which is against Homosexuality.Con is able to distinct his religious beliefs and his political beliefs. This is definite proof of separating religion from politics. He very clearly stated:”Religiously, I am against it. Politically, I don't think the government should be in the business of private stuff.” Point CON
Finally for Prostitution, Pro also claims that Con gets also states that since Prostitution is already illegal and a accepted social norm. So like the Border Wall, point Con
Arguments-Con
The Rest-Tied
So I guess I'll rank them by round. First to 3 wins!
So Round 1 definitely PRO. All songs made by The Rolling Stones is great.
Round 2:Both songs sucked but CON's was a little better
Round 3:Landslide is great
Round 4:oohhhhh, this is a tough one. TIE
Round 5:Lukas Grahan is pretty good, so point CON
Well damm,2-2. Well it is a music battle so I guess TIE
Con made a argument
Con has good arguments like Gravity,Time,Seasons,Lunar Eclipse and Other planets.
Pro responds with Biblical verses which is not evidence nor rebuttals to any of Con's points.
Arguments-Con
Sources:Tie
S&P:Tie
Conduct:Pro frequently mentions Con's arguments as "UNGODLY SATANIC" and"DECEIVING"
Arguments-Pro was the only one to make one
Sources-Con used none while Pro used one
S&P-Tie
Conduct- Con forfeited
Arguments was the only one to present one.
sources-Pro used one, while con did not
spelling and grammar-tie
conduct- Con forfeited
Very tough battle but I think Omar wins in the end because of forfeits
Forfeit...... and troll
The resolutionThe resolution is that 5g internet is a death grid.
Pro goes to great lengths to show and explain how deadly 5g internet is due to the radio patterns.
Con points out that there doesn’t seem to have been a deadly outbreak in NYC where it has already been set up.
Con also points out the lack of cited evidence, reliance on YouTube videos rather than evidential sources, and the lack of any demonstrable fatalities.
Con argues that while there is the possibility, even the scientific data presented is not clear cut.
Pros remaining arguments are primarily just rehashes of the original points, or dismissing cons arguments and concerns.
There is very little, if any actually argument or evidence presented by pro: it mainly amounts to a number of unsubstantiated claims and accusations that are not tied together with justification, science or a cohesive argument.
Con on the other hand throws a large amount of doubt on this claim
Arguments to con.
Sources: pro relies heavily on YouTube videos, and blog posts - and provides no conclusive or concrete first hand data to the mix. The two groups “Ehsense” appears to be a largely advocacy organization rather than scientific, as does “ehtrust” which also appears to be run by a potentially discredited scientist according to Wikipedia’s. This grossly eroded pros warrant as a result.
Cons source however - is a citation of objective reality - effectively how can it be a death grid if it appears it’s already running without issue - using proof that it is actually installed without any apparent issues to demonstrate the resolution is false.
This clearly shows pros sources harm his point, and cons sources greatly establish his.
Sources to con.