Total votes: 52
Dang Nabbit, I'm not too old to vote!
The following are Pro's and Con's argument reviews:
Con's first constructive argument of police brutality was refuted. Pro deconstructs it most likely by mentioning the restrictions officers have and pointing out Con's inadequate evidence.
Pro half-way concedes on Con's second main argument. He provides some examples to counteract Con's about the racial biases in sentencing, but then agrees with Con's point about how Black and Latino people are more likely to be sentenced than white people but attempts to counter by arguing the crime rate proportions of Black and Latino communities vs white.
Con's third argument about stereotypes is only partially refuted by Pro. He acknowledges that black communities face more rumors of violence but says certain individuals are exempt. This doesn't actually disprove my claim about innocent black people more likely to be profiled which is why I simply can't give the point to Pro here.
Con's fourth argument about how systemic racism affects people of color doesn't get refuted at all. Pro tries to undermine the significance by claiming it affects everyone equally, but this simply just isn't the case due to research I have done nor does this address the main argument.
It's important to know that Con is not talking about White Supremacy. He does make references to racism, but this version doesn't necessarily imply superiority, this version of it is more based on fear and it's so suppressed, that it's subconscious.
It is my opinion that Con wins with more convincing arguments.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Pro is saying God is guilty of murder through miscarriages. Con refutes this plus Pro forfeits.
Full forfeiture
Forfeiture.
In R1, Bones states the burden of proof within this debate is shared. Bones refers to a study saying 96% of biologists believe that life begins at fertilization. It has been shown that this is not true (see in my comments). Con states that policies that inflict structural violence ought not be implemented and making abortion illegal would inflict structural violence. In R2, Pro argues that abortion bans do work. Con gives some more sources arguing that bans don't work. Pro's main issue here is that they haven't argued that the number of abortions prevented outweighs the structural harm mentioned by Con. In R3, Pro moves this debate into, if the unborn should have rights at all, without adequately defending against the harms and lack of shown benefits to his proposal.
Con closes with Pro having violated Rule 2 which is "No new arguments are to be made in the final round.” My opinion of the debate is that Con has more convincing arguments and better conduct.
No debate established on either side.
Full forfeit by Pro, but no real arguments established.
Forfeiture and conceding that the JAN 6th killing of ASHLI BABBITT was lawful.
Full Forfeit
Concession and forfeit by Pro.
Double Forfeit
Like K_Michael said: "by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases." DA Voting Policy
The debate is Does God exist ? Which religion is the truth ? Pro has BOP but just provides feelings. Pro capitalizes a number of words for no reason and leaves out a word. Spelling and Grammar to Con. CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit
Full forfeit by Con.
The definition of wokeness by the Cambridge English dictionary is that it is a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality. Pro has failed to define Wokeness.
Pro just used 1 example from 1 religion(Christianity) to support his view. Con gave numerous counterexamples for this religion's view that supported wokeness.
Therefore, Con wins.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
No reasonable arugument from Pro.
Full Forfeit
Forfeiture.
Con forfeited 2nd round.
Con Forfeited
What a worthless subject for a debate. The vote should be tied.
Forfeiture.
See reason in Comments.
Concession
Forfeiture.
Con has better arguments.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeiture.
Pro's aim is to establish that the Creationist position is cognitively viable and not precluded by the application of empirical or scientific method, despite what academic and popular consensus will otherwise claim. Pro essentially uses the argument that the Bible says so and that is why Creationism is valid. The Bible says the Earth is approximately 6000 years old. Con responds with It's time to actually show you facts, data and the known things that scientists analysed and used to conclude that Biblical Creationism is not nearly as valid a theory of explanation of life as it is today, as evolution. Con states C-14 dates show that the last glaciation started to subside around twenty thousand years ago. But the young-earth creationists at ICR and elsewhere insist that, if an ice age occurred, it must have come and gone far less than ten thousand years ago, sometime after Noah's flood. Therefore, the only way creationists can hang on to their chronology is to poke all the holes they can into radiocarbon dating. However, as we have seen, it has survived their most ardent attacks. This proves Con's premise.
Full Forfeit
Pro's grammar: "I don't got time for that. "
Since PRO, forfeited a one round debate, the win automatically goes to CON
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Pro Forfeited. Do I get points for voting?