Total votes: 129
Wins by conduct alone because of forfeiture
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfiet
Tied debate
Forfeiture
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Tied forfeit
Forfeiture
Full forfeit
Forfeit but conduct
Another easy vote. Pro wins.
S/G: I award this to Pro. Their sentences made sense and were easy to ready grammatically and structurally. Con on the other hand had run-on sentences everywhere. There were many fragments as well like in the body of the argument.
Conduct: I am giving this to Pro since Con basically plagiarized what they said in another debate into here.
Sources: I am going to give this to Pro because they provided a source unlike Con. The source is the Civil Rights Act, which specially makes racial discrimination illegal, which helps Pro’s case
Arguments: This one goes to Pro as well. The S/G by Con really makes it hard to understand their argument. My understanding is that Con makes an argument that Jim Crow was a law and therefore it should be legal. However, this is refuted by Pro because he shows the Civil Rights Act banned the discrimination perpetrated by Jim Crow Laws. Pro has fulfilled their obligation also by highlighting the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Pro wins.
Another easy vote in my opinion. Con wins.
S/G: I award this to Con. Their sentences made sense and were easy to ready grammatically and structurally. Pro on the other hand had run-on sentences (like the last couple of sentences). There are numerous sentence fragments and comma errors that make it difficult to understand their argument.
Conduct: This is a tie as both sides were respectful to each other and there was no cursing or inappropriateness.
Sources: I am going to give this to Con because they provided a source unlike Pro. The source is the text of the first amendment, which explains the government cannot ban religion. This helps support their argument that Christianity shouldn’t be banned for solvency reasons.
Arguments: This one goes to Con as well. The S/G by Pro really makes it hard to understand their argument. My understanding is that Pro makes an argument over legality and illegality. Specifically,
“Whatever laws that are passed by the United States government should in fact be legal.
That's just simply what it would mean.”
However, this argument is contradictory to their position in the debate as Con points out. Con is the one that rightfully points out the Constitution prohibits banning of religion, and so it shouldn’t be banned.
Con wins.
I didn’t think plagiarizing was a thing on this site. But Con plagiarized himself from another debate. This is another straightforward decision with a victory for Con. My RFD is very similar to the previous one because of this.
S/G: I award this to Pro. Their sentences made sense and were easy to ready grammatically and structurally. Co on the other hand had run-on sentences (like the very first sentence). Second “sentence” has a sentence fragment as well just as another example.
Conduct: I am giving the points to Pro because Con basically plagiarized his own argument from another debate. Basically a verbatim copy paste.
Sources: I am going to give this to Pro because they provided a source unlike Con. The source is an official government website from the US Trade Representative, highlighting the benefits provided by Mexico in terms of trade. This gives a clear reason why the US shouldn’t nuke Mexico
Arguments: This one goes to Pro as well. The S/G by Pro really makes it hard to understand their argument. My understanding is that Pro makes an argument for defense and preservation of lives in the United States. However, this argument only helps the Pro side of the argument. Defense/sovereignty is an argument Con would bring up. Pro supports his position with the innocence defense and the precedent argument, both of which are compelling and coherent unlike Con’s arguments.
Pro wins.
This is a pretty straightforward decision in my opinion.
S/G: I award this to Con. Their sentences made sense and were easy to ready grammatically and structurally. Pro on the other hand had run-on sentences (like the very first sentence). Second “sentence” has a sentence fragment as well just as another example.
Conduct: This is a tie as both sides were respectful to each other and there was no cursing or inappropriateness.
Sources: I am going to give this to Con because they provided a source unlike Pro. The source is an official government website that demonstrates bilateral relations and cooperation, which undermines any notion that the US should attack India.
Arguments: This one goes to Con as well. The S/G by Pro really makes it hard to understand their argument. My understanding is that Pro makes an argument for defense and preservation of lives in the United States. However, this argument only makes sense if India were to attack the US, which Pro doesn’t talk about at all. Con rightfully points out that India is not in any war, which means the defense argument doesn’t apply. Plus he mentions the benefits of not nuking India with his source, thus fulfilling is burden.
Con wins.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture.
Full forgeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
#FreeWylted
No arguments by either side and mutual tie
Full forfeit
#FreeWylted
Full forfeit
Wow. I’m speechless
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Con in my view sufficiently proved why text debates can still be used for a video format, and Pro did not counter this at all. Arguments to Con. Neither side used sources so it’s tied. Both sides were understandable so S/G tied. Pro forfeited his last round so Conduct to Con.
Concession by pro
Practically a forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Concession
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit