Total votes: 180
Argument: Pro states that Con might mess up for some reason, which is baseless. Then, he had pointed out a mistake that Con failed to correct when it is outside of the parameter for "mistakes". This argument is thus weak. Con justified that his final drafts are of no mistakes and thus proving his point with reliable base. Pro also failed to recognize any mistake Con made.
Sources and SG: Con. Con used various checking softwares to ensure his S&G is correct and readable. Pro justified not.
Con is the only one that provided flavored reasoning. As the terms of debating, Con thus wins.
50% forfeit. Bad.
Konzession
Konzession
Konzession
Rfd in the comments boys
Arguments: Con. Con is the only one that made acceptable and complete arguments. Pro did only make the documents speak for itself with no logic within it, so it counts not as an actual argument. Just copy-pasting document links does not make it valid unless you explain it. Con did it more than Pro.
Con also wrote complete arguments in 100 characters, which would mean Con fulfilled his BoP. Pro did not.
Sources: Con. Con used sources for most things that makes whatever he writes TRUE whereas Pro's sources are irrelevant: The first source of Pro merely presents the norm but ignores that this is no normal debate. The second is not an argument at all. On the other hand, Con presented relevant definitions and explanations that are relevant to and only to his brief arguments, which I consider sufficient.
S&G: Con. Con used complete words throughout whereas Pro used abbreviations which are a little less readable.
Conduct: Tie. Both persons did a good job trying to prove their sides.
Konzession.
Both FFs, but Pro at least offered an elaborate argument.
Sources: Pro. Pro is the only one who used sufficient sources. Con used none for anything.
Args: Pro. Con dropped most of Pro's points and at the later two rounds he just gave up proving that White supremacy does not exist. Con, meanwhile used various approaches for the topic, such as governmental reports, News, etc. Con moved the goalpost from just saying white supremacy exists to all Whites are privileged, which is not what the topic means at the start.
S&G: Pro. CAPITALIZING PARAGRAPHS FOR NO REASON IS NOT FUNNY. Format is very disorganized compared to Pro.
Conduct: Pro. Con is not constructive in any way in the later two rounds. His attitude of being angry of the opponent using a reason within his invisible barriers is not that of a civil debate.
Konsession.
Again, Seldiora is arguing as if it is basically a truism that he WILL defeat Oromagi, which is disproven.
1. No matter how good at rapping Seldiora is, he cannot predict the future. There is a chance(even if slim) that he will be banned and/or hit by a mining truck before he can post his first-round verse, no offense. Oromagi perfectly pointed out that it is NOT a truism that his opponent will defeat him because no one can predict the future.
2. Con pointed out that he might not even accept such a rap battle. There is an old saying that says "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take", and the same goes otherwise, if you don't try, you will not lose any. If Oro doesn't even bother to try to do so, then of course he will not lose.
Overall I give the arguments point to Oromagi, the absolute mad legend he is, no offense to Pro.
concession
░░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ Bob is building an army.
▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ ☻/ This tank & Bob are against Forfeits
Il███████████████████]. /▌ Copy and Paste this all over
◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤.. / \ DART votes if you are with us
Full Forfeit. barely a coherent debate. It is one-sided.
P1: PRO states why 3-day weekends will benefit humans' lives using studies.
C1: CON states, although people might be happier, people will need to work longer shifts, which defeats its own purpose.
P2: PRO ditched sources and claimed that work shifts could change and 10H shifts aren't fixed.
C2: CON then refutes saying that if we have 2 day weekends, not only that humanity will be more productive, people will be more willing to be productive.
R3: PRO forfeits, CON claims victory.
Arguments: Overall CON has the better argument. More productive, more work done. Working 8H shifts for 5 days is still indeed better than working 10H shifts. PRO sort of moved the goalpost saying that work no longer needs to be fixed whatsoever, while CON sufficiently countered saying that in order to make human society sufficiently productive, people must work longer shifts if so.
Sources: Tie. Both parties only used one round of sources.
S&g: Tie. Good job.
Conduct: CON wins it as PRO forfeits the final round.
PRO is the only one who provided any argument. CON did an FF which loses conduct. Overall PRO wins regardless of what he has if his opponent did nothing at all.
Concession.
Press, in my eyes, has won.
Mall did not define what "God" really is and any exploitation on the definition could pass through. Pro has stated that God exists as a concept in the bible, as a result, he exists.
Con then stated that Pro must prove that he physically exists, a requirement never stated before. It is safe to say it is fallacious and it is not enough to disprove Pro's argument. This goes on for the next few rounds and Pro has never really been disproven.
Con countered Pro's points successfully.
1p: Pro demonstrated how influential Covid-19 is using sources. That argument was OK as it demonstrated how influential it is, but it could be better as it did not demonstrate how it is the most influential.
1c: Con pointed out that officially the last decade is 2001-2010 instead of 2010-2020, so Covid-19 did not even start before 2011 and thus should not be classified as the most influential event in the last decade.
2p: Pro then appeared to move the goalpost saying that any group of 10 consecutive years is a decade, such as 2015-2024, 1911-1920, etc. However, even if the decade's bounds are 2011-2020 or 2010-2019, he did not prove that it was the MOST influential.
2c: Con then brought a more influential event within the last decade.
3p: Pro then attempted to move the goalpost one more time by stating the ORIGIN of the virus which happened in Dec.2019. However, according to my research and theirs, Covid-19 did not spread in such times. The major part is not in 2019 and Pro has stated "spread" in the title, which negates his r3 argument from being true.
3c: Con then pointed the mistake out and concluded.
Argument points: Con. Pro did not do his job as he failed to prove his BoP. He did not sufficiently prove that Covid-19 is the most influential event in 2010-2019. Con did what he is meant to do here as he pointed out the inaccuracies of Pro and disproved Pro. Look above.
Sources: I am giving it to Pro. He did much more research within his side. Con just provided single sources that are sufficient, even though they are not as sufficient as Pro's thorough research regarding the topic.
S&G: Good job guys.
Conduct: Lean-con, because Pro commited a fallacy pointed out by Con, though the use of a single fallacy wouldn't really affect the total conduct.
Overall I think Con takes the W. People can respectfully disagree if they really do.
Pro forfeited more.
Arguments: PRO had the high ground stating that a child is always indoctrinated into something, but CON refuted that indoctrinated cannot happen everywhere, which does not sufficiently refute pro since PRO proved that all subjects are subjects to indoctrination one time or another. CON droned on the same thing and does not bring new arguments whatsoever in any rounds.
Conduct: I give to PRO. Con has wasted at least two rounds waiving. The first is reasonable, but the entire R2 "argument" from Con is just asking something that does not attempt to defeat PRO's position, and this question is unrelated to the topic itself. CON may have moved the goalpost because he knew PRO had disproved it.
PRO provided arguments that represent the correct context of the phrase "The best", especially when it is used comparatively to other episodes of My Little Pony. CON is arguing as if said episode is the perfect creation, the almighty God of things, and then disprove it, when in fact, CON's job is to disprove that said episode is only the best comparatively to others. CON's argument, at this point, can be either illustrated as semantic exploitation or the wrong interpretation of the topic. Nothing personal to Crocodile but I think PRO won arguments.
PRO used arguments, reviews, reaction clips to demonstrate why said episode is the best. However, CON used a very controversial and non-contextly theory and "proof" without using a single source to prove that it is, indeed, correct. PRO won sources.
S&G: Both sides coherent, Good job.
Conduct: PRO has forfeited more. Points to CON.
This debate is rather conventional until round 3, where both sides made completely new approaches to the issue. Crocodile argues that since Merit is, in fact, a resource, it could not be more valuable than resources itself. While PRO stated that merit is what makes resources valuable, CON counters it by stating that Resources makes merit possible, and that still doesn't negate merit being a resource. Overall I find CON's argument more convincing.
CON forfeited, which loses conduct.
Anybody can report this vote if they don't find my vote just. However, I consider my vote sufficient.
Full Forfeit.
Arg: PRO uses faith which has a lack of reliable facts to support it, One example is "He is God because he said so and he is", and so on and so on. CON, being the master debater he is already, had used viable logic that is literal facts, while PRO used things that cannot be possibly proven.
Source: PRO is the only one who used an actual source.
Conduct: PRO Forfeited
Concession.
Arg and Sources: CON is the only one that uses them
S & G: CON actually use English. PRO used foreign languages would mean it would be hard to understand on an English website.
Conduct: PRO forfeited. CON gets the point.
Full Forfeiture