Earth

FF, and Type1's R1 was trollish and had little in evidence.

FF RM also had better rounds.

Just why? Please stop spamming

FF? Tied, as both voters have requested

Only people with bad taste like chicken wings with bones

kfc kfc nac pac

Forfeit nac

This was a very well done debate and both parties had solid rounds. The debate was about whether or not Americans should have to pass a citizenship/civics test to be able to vote in Presidential and Senate Elections.

Arguments: Imabench contends that a lot of American voters are alarmingly ignorant about basic science and American civics/history and a simply citizenship test can weed out these voters in said elections, until they get their act together. RM, in his second round, says that such a test flies in the face of established American values and that using citizen tests in such a matter is akin to the literacy tests that America used to have that were shown to be illegal. RM drops Imabench's argument that the test should be limited to Presidential and Senate elections. Imabench responds by saying that uninformed voters are likely to vote in bad or poor politicians. RM would later drop any arguments relating to the Literacy Test bit or whether or not voting tests go against American values. I simply don't feel that RM truly addressed Imabench's arguments. Imabench proven that said citizenship tests, when used properly are not unconstitutional or illegal or run counter to American values RM says that the 15th amendment states that literacy tests are illegal/unconstitutional, but Imabench, earlier in the debate said that the Supreme Court ruled that Literacy Tests could be legal and constitutionally kosher if the tests were applied equally and without malice. As such, Imabench did a better job fulfilling his BoP. Arguments go to Imabench

Sources, Conduct and S/G: tied.

FF, Con also had a solid round,

Forfeit by Pro

FF words words words

Sad. A real shame.

Con simply stated his case better, and Pro did not. Most of Con's case is in quotes, but Pro was also rude and basically forfeited one of his rounds.

Pro has forfeited.

Arguments: This goes to Con, as he had more thought out arguments and shown that MSG was never proven to have averse effects on people.

Sources: Con.

Conduct: Pro had a very interesting vocabulary and Con remained professional.

Neither Con nor Pro had particularly convincing arguments and both spent the debate on semantics, however Pro did not fulfill his BoP, so Con wins. I think Pro would have been better off had he defined "smartest" in the introduction, but he did not. Pro has forfeited, as thus loses conduct.