Total votes: 166
Justification is null in this debate so long as I don't vote Con.
Question if anyone reads this: will the large margin by which Pro will win mean that this debate will give him more points?
Con forfeited 3/5 rounds, which is more than half by my calculations.
https://www.debateart.com/rules
Full forfeit, and there's no way Con could have won anyways.
I don't believe rap battles are moderated. Here's how I feel like divvying the points based on who I thought had the best un-rap.
1 round, and you forfeit? Seriously?
Only Pro made arguments or used sources, ergo, arguments and sources to Pro.
Technically everything Con said was grammatically correct, so tied.
RM shouldn't have overloaded himself, but that doesn't directly correlate to conduct. I don't appreciate that RM neglected a debate like this, but instead does Rap Battles. Furthermore, he never really did anything, so it's basically a forfeit. Conduct to Pro.
Full forfeit/waive Very similar to Sparrow and Type1's "Capitalism is becoming anachronistic" debate.
Full Forfeit
It's a double strike.
KO
KO
Total two-way knockout.
An unverifiable claim by Pro. Argument to Con
No sources, tie.
Con uses "it's" where "its" is correct. Grammar and spelling to Pro.
Forfeit is a result of being banned. Counting it against him would be voting based on events outside of the debate, which would be unfair. Tied.
Pro believe that guns can be peacefully confiscated but as Con points out, criminals aren't going to be totally affected. Most firearms used in crime are unregistered, so it would be impossible to confiscate from criminals.
Cons argument that gun violence and crime overall have risen in places with gun bans is excellent proof that a ban won't work. Here, Con also gets sources.
Forfeit of three out of four rounds. Arguments go to Pro.
Equal sources, as far as I can tell.
Pro often left off proper capitalization and punctuation, as well as adding unnecessary spaces. Grammar to Con
Forfeit appeared to be a result of accidental neglect, not poor conduct. Conduct is tied.
Pro never showed up. Con's arguments, sources, grammar, and conduct are better than a blank page (and better than most debaters).
Con provided a good point, Pro provided a good point, then Con refutes with the same point as before.
Equal conduct because Pro was able to admit when he lost.
No sources were used.
Con's forfeit may have been accidental, but I'll view it as being a sore loser. I didn't see any rebuttals that Pro didn't cover, but obviously, Con missed some by forfeit.
Pro was derisive of other members. Those members admittedly were not conducting themselves in the best way either, but descending to their level is just as bad.