Total votes: 180
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
What? What?
你说的对，但是《原神》是由米哈游自主研发的一款全新开放世界冒险游戏。游戏发生在一个被称作「提瓦特」的幻想世界，在这里，被神选中的人将被授予「神之眼」，导引元素之力。你将扮演一位名为「旅行者」的神秘角色，在自由的旅行中邂逅性格各异、能力独特的同伴们，和他们一起击败强敌，找回失散的亲人——同时，逐步发掘「原神」的真相。
Pro opened up with a preset that I think could be described with the term "laughable". Just look at it. "Abortion is the termination of of pregnancy. Immoral describes an action that violates the natural law, which is instituted by God." By this definition, all cases of birth would also be abortions since, well, the pregnancy is terminated because it ended.
Both sides did not agree on it possibly but also did not touch on the definition again, achieving nothing.
"Con" actually argued for the Pro position then left, making it concession AND FF.
If either side put as much effort into the rounds as in the description itself. Jeez, even I never type descriptions that long.
The debate essentially comes down to Con using himself as an example while also admitting that Con is not representative of the human population, which means Con effectively had done nothing while Pro made general arguments.
Con actually gave an argument, wow.
Troll vote so Intel_06 can boost his vote count
Troll vote so Intel_06 can get his medal on the profile
Troll debate so Intel_06 can up his vote count
Troll debate so Intel_06 can boost his vote count.
Wait, Tesla makes cars? I thought he was an alternating current maniac?
An FF is an FF no matter what you say about it.
Pro's reasons are personal, subjective and emotion-driven. Con has given approximately half of a reason that is irrelevant to the topic. So neither did anything productive. Tie.
Such unfruitful debates deserve to be deleted by Barney.
Pro not defining what "death" is, thus losing the chance at nitpicking the defintion. In this case, merely apoptosis is enough to disprove Pro's position, which Con quickly was able to.
Also, forfeiture.
Pro did not prove "Mama mia" correct, and Con did virtually nothing. Args tied.
As for the other points, Con cited 0 sources, made several grammatical mistakes giving me the impression that Con did not care at all. Also, Con did not care at all, as seen in his lack of efforts with all his "arguments" being one-liners, that is, if they had practical meaning in the first place.
Pro, on the other hand, at least tried, even if he attempted to prove the negative of a negative instead of a positive. Then as how unclear the title is, I give it a pass. The contender wins.
Pro offered actual arguments while Con offered nothing but a single claim without backing. Who won, it is become clear.
Pro uses Ad hominem, Con uses tu quoque as rebuttal with even more ad hominem. Nothing is achieved. Grass is not defined, what counts as "touching" is not defined, a massive disappointment of a debate. LOL
Seriously, if you are gonna make a troll debate, make the argument resemble the title. This argument seems like something, is something, but is nothing when you think about it.
66.7% F, that counts as a loss for Con, duh.
No arguments, but Pro FF, so CON wins.
The args are pretty self-explanatory. Con brought up a lack of evidence, which fits the role of Con in essence. On the contrary, Pro did not provide evidence, instead he provided a lack of counterevidence, which although "disproves" Con if the attempt succeeds, does not fully fit the consensus of what "Pro's role" is.
Not to mention, "Novice followed you to your apartment"(Rationalmadman, 2023). Since an apartment is not a house, this is blatant concession.
For sources, well, Con provided some aforethought commentary on the lack of positive evidence, and Pro provided none.
This update sucks.
"Ham Is yummy true but it can cause diseases and chicken nuggies and sfdhijahdfiu" (Con R2) is grammatically incoherent. Given the fact that both players only wrote 1 sentence per round argument, the error of 1 sentence weighs a ton here.
The others... Well, let's say, both players under-cultivated the 10,000 character limit.
Neither side argued for the positions indicated by the topic, which includes “not not”.
Very Wholesome indeed.
Pro provides borderline NO reasoning regarding his site, while Con did provide reasoning to believe the topic is wrong. Arg to Con.
For conduct points, as Pro often resulted in insults, this point goes to Con also.
Pro forfeited 2/3 rounds, which is too much.
"However, they teach you 90% of the time. this repetetive teaching"
Pro concedes that school teaches something, which is a point. Vote goes to CON.
40% forfeit.
Also, Pro forfeited right after Con mentioned the existence of Two-spirit, essentially conceding that there are 2 genders. That is all that matters.
But seriously, trans-female and trans-male aren't genders, they are just states of being, being male and female in another way, as opposed to being new genders.
Wrong, school is not working, because you learn, you don't make money. Flipping burgers is working, Typing design plans in a company warehouse is working. Studying in school earns you nothing, besides the scholarship, which is beside the point of schooling the direction.
Or maybe school is working if you are applied an internship from a vocational school. Who cares.
Either, FF, the vote goes to the side that didn't forfeit.
All Pro has to do was to justify the interpretation that as long a profitable and sustainable specimen of a job(for example, a banker or a CEO) exists the topic is real, and give such example. Pro did nothing, which makes me(and perhaps more) disappointed slightly, yea.
Me giving personal arguments while not affecting the turnout of the voting distribution should amount to nothing, yeah, the debate itself is set in stone. Nobody can help Pro write his part, except maybe if I open this topic in the far future, where people forgets how fallacious their logic could be...yea.
Pro seems to be arrogant to the degree they don't want to waste their time against what they thought was a bad debater. While this may be an acceptable method of dealing with stuff in life, it is not when I am considering who won this discourse.
Dissapointing.
.
.
ff.
Literal concession with bad faith.
50% F
...
None of the claims in this debate were being fully supported. No claim made requires only logic and all made require external evidence which was never given.
This includes:
"WHO PLAYS FORTNITE IT BAD AND ALL OTHER GAMES BETTER,"
"Fortnite is ranked 2nd place to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in its selected category, Battle Royale."
"FORTNITE MAY BE RANKED GUD, BUT IT TOTALLY WORSE THAN AMOGUS"
"Among Us is too laggy and you can only play on one device. Fortnite is currently the winner."
Not even CON used any embed links to prove why Fortnite is not a game as bad as it seems, yet the last sentence in R2 refererences it.
If anything, I would give Con the win because Pro typed in all caps and have made quite a few spelling and grammatical errors.
Pro's opinion would be that: Pro is not normal, Pro doesn't wake up on the floor, therefore waking up on the floor is normal.
Con's opinion would be that: Con is not normal, Con doesn't wake up on the floor, therefore waking up on the floor is not normal.
Con's stance technically contradicts itself or at least is a non-sequitur, because as little evidence as a non-normal person not waking up on the floor is to the claim that waking up on the floor is not non-normal(therefore normal), the same evidence in the same form only swapped with another individual does not amount to anything proving that waking up on the floor is not normal. On the other hand, Pro's argument is logically coherent at least even though it wasn't a very strong argument given the upper bound is 10,000 textual characters.
Unless I am partially blind, the topic statement would only be true if on average women do earn the same as men(or more), across all occupations, women and men considered alike. The Wage Gap as a concept also needs to be stated by a feminist movement as a myth, as a requirement in Pro's attempt at definition. This was not fulfilled by Pro, which fails to uphold his own BoP in reference to the confinements set up by Pro the instigator himself.
Pro CONCEDED that under some circumstances and interpretations, women may be seen statistically as earning less, and the latter part of the Pro R1 argument is saying why "Although the wage gap exists, Women are not seen as less competent individuals in society" as paraphased, although I am unsure if Pro will deny or not. Pro's argument also requires external evidence(for example, "You may think that the gender pay gap is determined through a complex set of equations which considers the following"), which Pro fails to provide any, not links nor any directional redirections to help us find it.
This makes Con win on Args. Conduct against Con for forfeiture.
Despite that Pro made an ineffective argument, Con made nothing, therfore the victory belongs to Pro.
Con wins by the margin the size of Grand Canyon with one key example: That almost 25% of US citizens are free of debt despite having a system of currency, namely the US Dollar.
Pro opens up with defining the debt and its range within "All debts", in other words, to Pro, unless no debt exists, the resolution seems false. Con presents dictionary evidence suggesting why or how people don't use it this way, and Pro never toppled this definition since and kept using his own definition(using the justification of that just because he thinks so), entering a conversation where the two competitors are talking to a glass wall.
The point where Pro starts losing is when he thinks he has solidified the correctness of his own definition when that wasn't actually the case. In that case, the default definition goes to whatever Con defined it as. Con's single example regarding about 25% of debt-free Americans living in America wins this debate by default.
“Consistently" was in the topic, yet all Pro has handed to us readers was 1 single instance of Mall not using a source, which simply is far from enough to dismantle the topic. Pro gave no arguments, so the BoP defaults to CON.
As for conduct, Con for Pro forfeiture.
Concession + Forfeit for Pro.
*sigh* FF.