Total votes: 31
Fulliousious Forfeitiouluous
What does concession mean?
Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more (Kio, Kio)
I got the horses in the back
Horse tack is attached
Hat is matte black
Got the boots that's black to match
Ridin' on a horse, ha
You can whip your Porsche
I been in the valley
You ain't been up off that porch, now
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Ridin' on a tractor
Lean all in my bladder
Cheated on my baby
You can go and ask her
My life is a movie
Bull ridin' and boobies
Cowboy hat from Gucci
Wrangler on my booty
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
This was an interesting topic, and debate. Let's do an overview of what happened.
So Pro started off this debate, with compelling arguments about empathy and being human. Pro even states how there's a limit to what we can do (first we must take care of our selves). I find that this cements Pro's case ever further, and it provides a clearer definition to Pro's view.
Con then followed, providing three philosophical arguments (metaethics, ontology, and epistemology). All three were backed up with quotes from reliable sources.
Pro then goes. Pro states how Con's formatting is off, and then proceeds to argue against Con's text, and supports his own.
Con then shapes his text into a similar fashion, with supports of his own text, and arguing of Pro's text.
At this point forward, the debate kind of falls apart. Both sides are pointing out the flaws in the other sides text indirectly, instead of arguing directly. A lot of repetition and back and forth here.
So here's my final say. Pro made arguments about emotion and empathy, and how it's basically doing the right thing. Con makes arguments relating to philosophical claims and theories. In terms of arguments, I felt like Con had the better case, however, Pro does a great job with clash, nullifying the arguments.
I acknowledge that new arguments weren't supposed to be in Round 2 and 3, however, I expected a more in depth analysis or extension of previous arguments. I also fell like the clash could have been improved, as it sounded like a back and forth conversation. Maybe try providing new evidence to support previous claims (if that's allowed)? But a debate with only one round of actual arguments but four rounds of actual debate is something I would never do.
So I concede that it was a tie.
End.
ROUND ONE INSTIGATOR
Looks at historical records, and population size.
Also mentions how Egyptian society contradicts the flood.
Analysis past events like the Ice Ages, and how it also contradicts the flood.
Brings up an interesting point about genetics.
ROUND TWO CONTENDER
Defines a model under the assumption that God is real. Using that religious model, a 'Young Earth' is put into place. A 'Young Earth' is troubling to this debate for many reasons (and I have SO much to say about this, but I'm judging not debating), however, Pro agrees to this definition, so all is agreed upon.
Argument made on rock folding, water, gaps, fossils, burial, and erosion. However, a closer examination of the sources used finds that the sources are very religiously biased, with little to no actual scientific evidence provided. They are mostly disproved here (https://biologos.org/articles/flood-geology-and-the-grand-canyon-what-does-the-evidence-really-say).
Provides detailed and accurate numbers to explain the feasibility of the Ark.
Provides detailed information explaining concerns about water related problems.
No clash present.
ROUND TWO INVESTIGATOR
Spends entire text clashing with every argument Con had. Uses numbers and the Bible. Sufficiently done.
My new favourite word: Addendum
ROUND TWO CONTENDER
Argues that the pyramids cannot be dated. Actually they can.
States accurate numbers relating to the construction of the pyramids, like the population at that time.
Gives more information supporting a 'Young Earth', and disproving Pro's historical dating information. This is False. Again, using very biased sources.
ROUND THREE INSTIGATOR
Changes model to agree with Con.
Clashes with Con's argument on population rebound, however, poorly done. More elaboration is needed.
Clashes with Con's argument on historical dating techniques.
Clashes with Con's argument on genetics.
The clash should have been expanded, providing a broader look at Con's arguments.
ROUND THREE CONTENDER
Clashes with Pro's arguments on historical dating techniques. Provides a full in depth analysis, and clashes with every point Pro made. Very well done. Talks about carbon taking, fossils, acid, radiation, and more. Expands by explaining animal fossils in depth. However, once again, used very biased sources, and information from highly religious figures. No concrete facts are presented.
Par example - Dr. Andew Snelling, one of the figures Con mentioned. Upon further investigator of him, he is a highly religious person, and devoted his life to proving the Flood. His education is a PhD in geology, with no experience is history, or archaeology.
Sufficiently supports previous claims about feasibility of the Ark. However again, uses biased figures.
ROUND FOUR
Omitted.
Both sides focused on summarizing the debate, instead of the actual context. It would be unfair to judge this round in terms of actual arguments present.
END
Arguments - Con did provide more compelling arguments, however, used biased/incorrect information to back up those claims
Sources - Pro used scientifically accurate sources, while Con used biased ones.
S&G - No major errors
Conduct - No major errors
Con forfeited half of the debate, so win goes to Pro.
However, I feel like if Con hadn't fortified, Con would have won, so only one point to Pro.
Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more (Kio, Kio)
I got the horses in the back
Horse tack is attached
Hat is matte black
Got the boots that's black to match
Ridin' on a horse, ha
You can whip your Porsche
I been in the valley
You ain't been up off that porch, now
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Ridin' on a tractor
Lean all in my bladder
Cheated on my baby
You can go and ask her
My life is a movie
Bull ridin' and boobies
Cowboy hat from Gucci
Wrangler on my booty
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
Pro failed to meet the necessary requirements for Pro's BOP, therfore, Con wins.
This was an ... interesting ... debate.
Let's review the rounds.
ROUND ONE
Con - Con provides a few scattered arguments, all of which can't be supported by actual fact. In addition, COn's sources did not add any factual value to the debate.
Pro - Pro spends his entire text clashing with Pro, and provides no new information. That is acceptable since Con didn't define a BoF. Pro also reworded the resolution in favour for Pro.
ROUND TWO
Con - Con poorly clashes with Pro, and replaces valuable text space with links instead. Links are for reference and context only, and are not suitable to substitute for an entire argument. Con's links Con doesn't properly challenge Pro's refraining of the topic.
Pro - Again, uses his entire text to clash with Con. Sufficiently does so.
ROUND THREE
Followed literally the exact same format as the last two rounds.
OVERVIEW
Arguments - Pro ; Pro used more factual and sensical arguments. Con used biased and wet concrete arguments
Sources - Pro ; Both sides had sources, but Pro's sources were reliable, and added value tot he debate. Con's did not.
S&G - Pro ; No explanation needed
Conduct - Tie ; No explanation needed
"Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more (Kio, Kio)
I got the horses in the back
Horse tack is attached
Hat is matte black
Got the boots that's black to match
Ridin' on a horse, ha
You can whip your Porsche
I been in the valley
You ain't been up off that porch, now
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Ridin' on a tractor
Lean all in my bladder
Cheated on my baby
You can go and ask her
My life is a movie
Bull ridin' and boobies
Cowboy hat from Gucci
Wrangler on my booty
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more"
Great job both of you. This was quite an interesting debate to read. Let's get into the scores.
Better arguments. That is the main focus I will be answering here.
Pro, I think you kind of screwed yourself up in the opening, but making the definition a little too broad. However, Con did not challenge your definition directly, but instead tried to work around it. My advice for Con, if you see an unfair definition, don't be afraid to challenge it directly.
Pro, you also based some of your text on the literal definition of "doctor" and stuff like that. However, I fell like that this is actually going off-topic for this debate. The dictionary can't be wrong. It's a fact, so there is no point in debating it. You should have expanded on your own opinion.
Pro, you also brought up the point about how doctors follow the Scientific Method. However, I find that Con doesn't argue directly with this, but instead tries to work around it, if you know what I mean. Like I said before, don't be afraid to challenge Pro's model.
Pro, I find that your only main argument was your opinion. True, there were subcategories, but they weren't labeled, and I felt like they were all the same thing. However, Con has multiple theories, and interesting ones too, talking about stuff like how the career paths are different and more.
Con, try to keep your formatting the same. Some sections were bolded, others were underlined, and some were a mix. It was a little bit hard to differentiate different parts. However, a small error.
Con, try not to recycle some of your information. If you stated an argument, then don't state it again. That just takes up valuable space take could potentially be used for more text.
All and all, I think that Con takes this debate in terms of arguments. The rest should be self explanatory. Well done!
full forfeit
Now switch the first letter of each word to get:
full forfeit
Mind blowing.
Concession
This Math is really confusing my brain, and I feel like oromagi and Madman have covered the Math part really well, way better than I could have every tried. But here's my opinion on the non-Math things...
Neither of you guys had a format, or a full speech, even though you were given 5000 characters to do so. With a 5000 character limit, I would except solid arguments with a clear format and organized clash, but that wasn't present here.
Pro however contradicts himself using himself in the first round, which I find quite odd. He tries to disprove his own case, but ends up cancelling his case out. Con takes notice of this.
Due to that reason, and the other voters reasons, Con wins.
What does "concession" actually mean in terms of debate? Is it different that a "forfeit"?
Well played Con. I was expecting this debate to be a back and forth conversation, but you kinda turned it into a quite enjoyable debate to watch. THis line was my favourite...
"your rules are absurd why should i have to explain why i voted a certain way?"
Yes
Pro did have a stronger speech, but he forfeited his round, leaving out major counter arguments and sources.
Also Patmos kinda touches on some areas similar to my thought.
Concession
With only one piece of text, I have to go with Con on this one.
Pro,
Some people don't believe in God.
You allocated 8500 character for this debate, yet used less than half of that. You went under the assumption that creationism can be explained by Science/is true. If you had defined this debate a little better, or provided a little more evidence to why creationism can be explained by Science, then that would be a lot better.
Your second round text was also quite deflated in word count. I felt like you should of kept your momentum going.
Con,
I liked your first round's text. Perhaps you could of spent some more time on that. There is a 8500 character limit after all...
You did however forfeit your last round...
sigmaphil covers the rest.
Πλήρης απώλεια
Great job both of you. Ragnar beat me to this already and said like everything I was going to say, but I have a few things to add...
1. Oromagi was a little bit more organized in his delivery. Trent was listing facts, but Oromagi has sub points to those facts.
2. Oromagi argued with Trent in a general sense, but Trent argued with Oromagi directly, and I think a direct argument is better in this case.
3. None of you guys really said why those benefits matter. Sure, one state may have a better system than the other state, but why does that matter? Both of you kinda skimmed on why stuff matters, but most of the part were just listing facts with no context. I have no knowledge of this topic, and without the why part in the debate, I feel like the arguments were kind of plain, and unrealatable.
So in the end for me, I'm going to go with a tie.
Good job both of you though.
Are we all going to say "Forfeit" in different ways? Well in that case...
Τίμημα
In this debate, we see Pro having supported his claims through actual science and facts, while Paul only supports his claims through non-concrete data. Enough eye witnesses is not a valid source of proof, as it could be easily explained otherwise.
Also Con said this:
"To mock big foot is to mock jesus"
Wut?
It is hard to win when you forfeited almost every round...
Investigator:
Word count - 225
Contender:
Word count - 2520
Pro did not refute most of Con's arguments, while Con refuted everything Pro said.
"I’ll let you win this if it boosts your ego."
More convincing arguments - Tied
Neither of you guys really state facts or logical statements. It was mainly opinion based
More reliable sources - Pro
One source is better than nothing
Betarr spelin ad gramerr - Tied
Really no spelling mistakes or grammar issues here
Better conduct - Tied
No insults were thrown, so nothing to mark here
Overview:
There wasn't much to go off, but this one one quote:
"I do not forfeit this round."
Amazing. You deserve the win man.
Contender forfeited rounds
Dr.Franklin
Accurate facts, well organized, easy and interesting text
GeneralGrant
...