Total votes: 180
Ff. Can we stop with that please.
I am not sure if I should consider this 50% F a FF especially since how lackluster it is.
Pro's title is not possible. "Which religion is the truth?" is just not a discussion question with 2 distinctive sides. Pro's BoP is impossible to uphold.
Oh come on that’s underwhelming
Conceession
Out of all Pro's arguments, there are at least 1 argument for justifying that a person could be theist. Pro did not prove that it wasn't an argument about theism. Out of all these arguments, there must be a best one. The existence of such hands Pro the win because the topic is proven true the instant 1 argument satisfying the criteria is presented.
All Pro needed to do was to give an argument for someone to not to be agnostic. That is it. He did it and here we are.
Pro forfeited everything after R1, making him vulnerable to Con's attacks because he failed to defend it. That is all about it.
Pro made no point while Con pointed out that Pro made no point. Also, forfeiture is forfeiture.
The word "forfeiture" or "forfeit" is being used way too often on this site, that said.
To be fair, if I was Pro, I would have argued from a tautological standpoint. But no. In my point of view, Pro's argument wasn't convincing, because he argued from the consequences of child rape, etc. using statistics. Obviously the consequences are not included within the abusive acts alone, so the topic wasn't proven at all. Were the "by itself" phrase removed, Pro would have gained the 3 points of argumentation.
Con on the other hand, questioned empirically without giving sources, it just seems not enough. Sources to Pro.
Conduct to Con for forfeiture.
FF. Also, I would imagine billionaires should have better hobbies than debating on a small website. Also also, I think nobody actually need a billion dollars adjusted to 2022 levels of inflation, and billionaires often require the exploitation of workers and the poorer individuals.
By the topic terms, it is basically clear that if there is proven 1 case of negative emotion unrelated to the separation of God, Con wins. Overall, Con has a stronger argument by proving there to be a lack of connection between negativity and God in any terms, also bringing up that "negative emotions" also indeed do have a purpose that should not be just outright removed. Not only that, Pro appeared to use several points without sufficient backing, including one where he just says that it is his own interpretation, instead of treating all of them like proven facts.
All Pro's R1 and R2 arguments are based on pure rationalization but not critical methods, and this method would be essentially proposing that everything has been caused by a green alien. Don't know why this thing happened? The green little alien did it, don't ask why. That is what Pro's argument sounds like. He has not proven in its core why God exists, and by that, I deem this a non-solid proof.
Instead, Con cited scientific sources on emotions and definitions related to God to show that there is no reason God would be involved, which Pro failed to respond for either of the latter two rounds. Overall, Con wins.
Pro just wasted his opportunity to hit anything in this debate, regardless of any gender participated in any of this.
Concession + forfeit. Vote to Pro.
Abhaysingh puts forth a few argument criticizing the present state of homeworks in India as he is a student. The thing is: He never argued against the entirety, the construct, the concept of homeworks, he just argued against the present execution. Not only that, he says in many places that "homework should..." and similar phrases, which suggests that homeworks are argued to be something that can be improved if not abolished. Abhaysingh's argument was indeed well-constructed (and much easier to read), it just didn't do what it is meant to do: prove that homeworks should be abolished.
Zing_book on the other hand, picks up these flaws in the argument and points out that Pro's suggestions can indeed be used as improvements to the concept of homeworks. He gives constructive arguments based on common sense and collection of sources(such as Youtube and BBC), such as it improves time management skills, presentation skills, etc; and points out that conditions Pro has mentioned is specific to India and could be different in other places and time. Pro never proved that India is a good set to consider the topic which likely encompasses much wider. Con states this and renders Pro's prior arguments defenseless.
Not only that, Abhaysingh only uses empirical/anectodal evidence to prove his point, while only using an Indian TV source without saying why it is bad(at least the source didn't say, and the weigh it brings isn't a lot because it is a subpoint to a not-well-rounded argument). On the other hand, Pro uses many sources such as BBC and Youtube, which is not much, but more than Pro's efforts.
Pro's arguments were VERY legible and clear, whereas Con's is a bit harder to decipher for not separating paragraphs, missing punctuations at some locations, and some grammar issues such as "There are other downsides of homework are apparent to everyone".
Both parties forfeited one round while behaving fairly civil in the rounds they did not forfeit.
Verdict: Args and Sources to Con, S&G to Pro, Conduct ties. Con wins in my opinion.
4feiting is bad.
I don't even know what the topic is trying to present, but I am pretty clear that Pro entirely failed to properly embrace it because all he did was asking one single question, then claim the question went unanswered as an actual point when Pro made no connection between that point and what the topic is. There is nothing arguing of "dishonesty" in that statement.
IDK but I am pretty sure that "proof of dishonesty on a platform" is in the topic and unmentioned in Pro's arguments. Con successfully acknowledges that such an argument was not made as a result the topic is never proven. Con wins.
Please stop forfeiting.
One sentence ain't much, but it is better than no work.
Although I am far from a "good" voter as for example Whiteflame and Barney, I generally view the voting position as a voluntary judge seat, rather than a whole senate. Those that "liked" voting just got into that seat and voted, and when there are multiple people voting, it is just several people sitting on that seat in succession inspecting the same thing. It is like an inspection job. The barrier of entry is not that high(well if you haven't completed 2 debates we can't say you are alive on this site), it is just that this job is neither popular enough to become a whole senate of neo-arguing nor unpopular enough that most debates are voteless and obsolete in consideration.
Just when I was skimming through the debate, the instigator conceded...after posting his own arguments. I...eh, there is not much I can do. Con for arguments. I am not sure how good a maneuver is with both concessional comments and actual rebuttals in R2, so the conduct point is not enough for me to award to Pro.
Concession. Also this topic is a truism.
Upon entering this debate I find this debate hard to decipher due to this apparently being a continuation of another debate on another site that is not available to the public anymore in an editable fashion, especially since no linkage has been given from this site to that place. I will be judging purely the confinements within this debate and the description will be treated as the R1 argument because it is the same thing.
In R1, Con opens up with that a forced multiculturalism has damaged British local culture, and why this bias matters. It appears that before R1, Pro believes that there is no "best" culture for any country or group of individuals, just like players can just switch teams and coaches. Pro in R1, on the other hand, believes that this outrage is simply useless due to the British although having a less exclusive culture are still living in constructive fashion and can keep living. Pro uses this point throughout the entire R1 as a rebuttal for everything due to none Con has stated has actually costed people lives aggressively.
Con pushes further on that white people having less importance in their home countries is a bad thing. Why? Con believes that they are the rightful representatives of these nations, not the immigrated people, and they deserve to have this piece of land more than else. Con believes that this is a normal act for a group prioritizing themselves rightfully. Pro, on the other hand, just further pushes on the doubt that this "multiculturalism" damages anything at all due to people still living.
This conversation continues for some time, with Con bringing up more examples, such as defending one's own rights, and natural reflexes, and Pro bringing up more defenses on why it does not matter.
The victor here is clear: Con. The reason is very simple: the BoP is not yet determined, as a result, the Pro side automatically would have to defend the topic, which Pro fails to do, as all Pro did was attempting to push the state of the debate arguments back to the equilibrium, disproving what Con said, while not exactly trying to prove why White people having less importance in the West is a good thing. Due to this BoP and Con actually bringing up constructive points(such as that White people defending their own importance is justified and natural), Con has generally acted a better role as what Con is supposed to do, while Pro not so much.
I would have thought the amount of FF's would decrease, but who would have thought?
The next debate: "Should homes be banned?"
Just kidding. FF win though.
Con wrote no arguments that weighed amount to anything despite the chance to do so.
*sigh* this is the opposite of productive.
Analyzing arguments, Pro's R1, to say the least, managed to cover itself. Pro defined "hero" and then exhibited many actions Stalin did that makes him a hero according to his own definition. Con's R1, on the other hand, did not. He defined hero as "Someone who does something good" while not acknowledging anything good Stalin had done, in fact not even refuting everything "good" as brought up by Pro. Again, just because someone had done one bad act does not permanently strip him of the title of hero, or that it isn't dependent on that.
In R2, Pro falsified Con's R1 source by showing that they are false, whilst adding on even more points regarding that Stalin was heroic according to his definition(and according to the opponent's too, since he did show that Stalin did good things), for example, by defeating the Nazi in WW2. Con, on the other hand, stated the unproven statement that Stalin and Hitler were pushing the same agenda and so Stalin must be as bad as Hitler. This is reductio ad hitlerium, and did not negate Stalin of that he did something good in fact.
In R3, Pro just backed up his R2 while Con restated---not backed up---his R1 argument. Then, in R4, Pro had disproven even more of Con's arguments, giving a source on that Stalin killed fewer than so was claimed. It was then that Con said that the burden of proof is not on him thus he didn't need to do anything. However, as things are going, Pro wins on both the arguments and the sources as he did a better job proving that Stalin can be considered a hero. R5 has no new constructive arguments so the things stay as it is and overall I would say Pro won this debate.
It is simple. Pro gave everything, arguments, sources, of those you can justify.
On the other hand, Con didn't even justify his only argument: He should win because he is black. In fact we don't even know if he is actually black.
Again, having a 2-round debate with each one short arguments is insufficent in deciding anything, and I didn't see anything get decided. 10 thousand characters yet none of them was used to determine what "found" is. Nobody gave a source on what auroville is(No, I don't know what it is). The only source was from Con, which defined what "communism" is, and it is better than nothing, I guess. I just have no clue of what this debate came to be.
I will award the S&G to Con because although both sides have legible writing, Pro literally misspelt "communism" in the title.
I will award the Conduct to Pro because the 2nd round of Pro is just a rebuttal(if you can call it that) and backs up his 1st round argument. Con pretty much gave most of his arguments in R2, where Pro cannot effectively respond(if you can call it that, again). Con stated Auroville was communist but not why in R1, and only told us why in R2. From how normal debates are structured and judged(if it even applies), this is technically bad conduct.
Pro did nothing and Con gave one reason. That is it. Con wins, and there is nothing more to say.
Sorry for being late at voting.
Conduct-wise, Pro forfeited more. Con gets it.
Legibility-wise, Con gets it due to that Pro's arguments are clumped together and are extremely hard to read whereas Con's are well organized.
Argument-wise, pro's arguments were really weak, such as that IQ is proportional to success, etc, which the sources are debunked by Con immediately showing there is not in fact a direct causation in correlation. Pro also brought up riddles, which are of nearly no impact due to that basically no questions on an IQ test are strictly riddles. Again, intelligence cannot be measured in a single dimension, and the IQ test fails to capture the entirety of intelligence. Con wins in the end.
ffffffffffff
However, I should point out that Con assumed the topic statement as a truism with little proof, which is circular reasoning at most. Arguments are not used in order to prove a statement is a truism.
Concession
forfeit forfeit
F f f f f f
Pro's stance and his position is a tautological falsism: He says that he is arguing for that Capitalism is bad partly due to that it harms the values of Capitalism, which cannot be true at all if what all of us understand about Capitalism is true.
Also, FF.
Both FFs and both abandoned their debate, but at least Pro did something.
Con did something, pro did nothing.
Bones wins this debate by a landslide.
First off, Pro gives evidence suggesting that humans are changing the climate, massive amounts of them. All Con did was to dismiss it as an appeal to authority, and a baseless theory about Marx creating Communism, which, isn’t mentioned or given by anything as of my knowledge now. The appeal to authority fallacy declaration isn’t valid either, as Con used zero effort to prove that those sources are not reliable. Pro held those points to the end and Con claimed that his baseless argument was irrefutable, despite that it has been refuted.
Conduct to Pro because Con clearly isn’t taking this debate seriously. Seriously. How non-serious do you have to be to declare a baseless argument as “irrefutable” and give absolutely nothing in the last round when losing?
S&g to Pro due to Con not capitalizing correctly and missing periods in some sentences, that just adds on to his non-serious atmosphere of debating, which isn’t a good thing.
Nobody said anything that amounts to any value at all, so no points for anyone.
As much as Pro is a full forfeiter, I really don't want to give Con the argument points, because his entire argument is a reductio ad absurdum.
Con did not put effort in giving evidence of what exactly foreknowledge is, nor did he try to disprove the factuality of Pro's evidence. If this was not an FF, Pro would have won using those arguments.
Voted for the wrong person last time.
Anyways, forfeiting is wrong.
No strong arguments, but Con forfeited less so...
dual ff ..
Pro made an argument, Con didn't.
I shall vote.
First, arguments. The rules obviously exclude Fauxlaw from being a valid competitor so his existence would be considered forfeiture...right? Pro and Con argued semantically of whether if "Fauxlaw" is "fauxlaw". Look closely, Pro has a well-constructed argument regarding the English language, and that capitalizing the "F" in "Fauxlaw" at the start of the sentence doesn't refrain from it referring to the user "fauxlaw". This results in that fauxlaw not being able to win this debate regardless of what he said, and Con's only defense is that "Fauxlaw" isn't "fauxlaw", which is an argument already refuted by Pro.
There is no need to elaborate on anything else. Fauxlaw loses because he violated a rule which results in loss.
Nobody knows what "yil" is and what it does and why Joe Biden has two of them left. Every argument regarding "years" would be irrelevant. The fact there is an existent source supporting the Pro position, however how unreliable, would mean Pro has the only valid argument in the debate. Since Con did not define "yil" as years or as anything at all, his arguments would therefore be disconnected from the skeletons of the debate itself and thus has no weight.
I looked at dictionaries and it does not mention anything remotely related to "years". The closest I have got is that "yil" is something that Joe Biden has 2 of, which is circular reasoning. Nobody's arguments were convincing at all but Pro at least has some real arguments that contributes to the topic statements compared to Con's none.
As for S&G, Pro failed to capitalize first letters in many places, and Con presented himself in a more professional manner.
Then for Conduct, Pro failed to treat this seriously whereas Con succeeds in doing so. Pro did not bring any constructive arguments, not even people on YouTube saying related stuff that is more reliable as a source than linking why F1 needs to change its rules(and no, Joe Biden will probably not drive a racing car any point later in life anymore, even if he has more than 2 years.).
Forfeiture by Pro. Con has successfully made a case of physical death being impossible for consciousness to keep existing in you and has withstood Pro. Pro made what seems like reductio ad absurdum and changed definitions and was still successfully handled by Con.
Con wins on Arguments and sources. Source-wise Con argues existing definition and science. Pro has no sources that argue that his interpretation is the correct one. Con wins the whole thing in the end.
Pro's Arguments outweigh Con's arguments. Con immediately started with an argument that basically said that there are side effect to this drug, but to common sense, a medicine would work if the benefits outweigh the side effects, which is exactly what Pro argues in the next round with more sourcing than Con. One round arguments for both and Con did not even attempt to refute Pro's R2 arguments despite having the chance of doing so.
Legibility is the same, readable for both.
The structure was violated by both as both forfeited, however due to that Con conceding and forfeiting less, Conduct goes to Con.
dual ff ..