Kritikal

This is a very easy vote with a flowed through concession that: "the scriptures dont ordain same sex marriage."

Next round con says: "Right, your conclusion of no scripture to ordain it, that is correct."

I stop reading the debate here as this is a clean concession that has been recognized by Con.

Also, please sign post because it is very hard to go back and forth to weigh arguments if you do not do any sort of sign posting, especially with long debates.

I think that it is entirely possible to win for Neg to win here, but I need an entire shell with standards and that gives me a reason to prefer contextual definitions. Without this I will say that both are right, so I should prefer broadness since if any version of the resolution is true Aff has proven it regardless of the coexisting counter interp. With two separate interpretations in the round, even if Neg is right they still do not directly disprove Aff's point.

This debate kind of feels like a mess. On one hand Neg says that pro does not meet BoP when the case has inconsistencies but does not really point these out effectively. Pro is right saying the response needs to be better than this in R2, it just does not actually poke any holes in the case. Where I vote con is on the arguments made in R3 dropped after two FFs, and thus the arguments are clean on the flow. Although, I will say that I do not think the arguments made really clashed at all, but for the sake of the ballot that does not matter since they were dropped. At worst I just vote neg on presumption, because technically consistency was never proved and the case might be flawed.

FFs are also a conduct issue, so I will give another point there.

Neg's interp is never disproven as the debate is only one round, and it is clearly true that there are some places where the resolution as defined by Neg's interp would fail. This mitigates any impacts pro may have on scope, and ultimately creates an easy ballot for Con.

Full Forfeit by Neg.

A full forfeit by Neg.

Neg reads a turn saying it is easier to house train cats. This is also supported by a reliable biomedical source.

Then on 2-6 Neg says that it is speculative.

Protection is effectively conceded for Con when pro says:“Regardless, cats can be just as protective as dogs. You have not shown evidence of Dogs being more protective”

The debate essentially is over here when all of Negs offense goes dropped.

But even looking at the defensive arguments from Aff’s R2 it is clear that Neg was able to perform a comprehensive line by line, and that the defense itself is simply conjecture. Due to this Neg offense outweigh's Pro's.

As a side note Pro should also signpost and separate out contentions as this makes it much easier on judges and opponents to evaluate clash.

Both teams agreed to reschedule the debate in R2, an argument seems to be made in R3 from Pro but I do not think that it should factor into the actual decision since both parties agreed to reschedule.

Presumption goes neg. I really do not see the point that pro was trying to make. There are progressive styles of debate, but even with this, one must link into the resolution and provide some level of analysis. This simply is not given here. Really this round just feels more like Pro was trolling, and this along with the FF also merits a conduct point.

Full FF from Neg

Neg FFed in R2 thus conceding the case.

full forfeiture

With effectively only one round this debate is really simple. Pro shows that in many areas macrophages can be replaced, but con only needs to show that they can not be replaced in one area in order to win.

I can just immediately vote on the specialized cell point for this reason.

Then Con also tells me that there are profound effects, and this claim is never responded to as it is the last speech. I am also going to believe this claim over pro's due to the sources presented by con which lend credibility.

Finally there is the entire argument with BoP and sources. While purely logical arguments are find in my mind, especially for a scientific debate sources seem important to make ones point so this is yet another possible place to vote for Con purely on presumption.

The forfeited rounds are unfortunate, so this is definitely still a low point win.

It was an FF

First, Pro does not meet BoP because there is next to no analysis of the presented contradictions.
Plagarism is ovbious, and a clear example of cheating.
Con is able to answer 8 of the contradictions, and it would be unreasonable to ask him to answer everything that was copy pasted.
Then Pro FFs after being called out.

There is no possible ballot for Pro.

In R1, Con is able to directly answer both arguments put forth by Pro.

Pro’s R2 response on C1 is inadequate, because as Con points out, all convergent series are complete.

On C2 both sides are somewhat lacking in R2, but again I go Con. Solipsism is probably irrelevant, so essentially that leaves me with one side telling me objects move in an instant, and the other side telling me the opposite with no real argument from either side. Because of this, I have to default to the arguments made in R1, and I end up giving this to Con.

R3 from Pro turns this into a very close debate, especially with C1 on convergence.

Con answers solipsism, but not this, so I end up awarding this point to Pro. I am not entirely sure that the point made here is correct, but Con should respond to it in the final round at least or I will award that point to Pro without fail.

At the end of the debate, this leaves Pro access to the arrow paradox, which proves the resolution true.

Sourcing is not close, Con uses several reliable sources while Pro does not use any.

On a side note: “how is light and electrical signals transferred without movement” is definitely a new argument in the final round. I will not deduct a conduct point because this was probably done more out of inexperience than intentional malice. So that is just something to watch out for, but good debate to both parties.

Pro forfeited

I can't really vote on this because of the fact everyone FFed. However, I almolst do want to vote down the instigator for the resolution. "Being book smart can be more beneficial in college." Beneficial as compared to what? Unfortunately, I can not do this as this would be giving Pro who FFed every single round a free win.

This round quite simply comes down to the meaning of Financial freedom. If financial freedom means having enough money to do as you desire then Neg will obviously win because that is possible as neg points out, and therefore there is financial freedom. On the other hand, if financial freedom means being free from money then Pro will win because you can never really be free from money.

Neg disputes this fact saying “Pro denies that if you no longer have to pay a bill, you are free of it. In fact, even if you have to pay off a loan.” The reason this response falls short for me is that it in no way proves the entire premise that you will always be financially bound to something wrong, and instead gives specific examples. As Pro points out, even if you are living on private or public land out in the woods, you are still dependent on money to at least some extent, which is just one example.

Neg provides this definition of ‘afford the kind of life we (or you) desire for ourselves and our families’ for what it means to be financially free, but then In R2 Pro said not to debate the definitions, and gives a warrant on logic and truth.

Here the response from Neg seems to be lacking. In R2 he restates that financial freedom is just being free from debt — but there is no substantive warrant with this. Then Con brings up the word general to say that the resolution is absolute, but Pro responds saying that it means not to consider rare exceptions. Neg could have definitely won here, but unfortunately his R3 does not extend this, and simply consists of ‘Money is necessary’. This means I have to flow through Pros rebuttal. So ultimately I think I have to accept the fact that it is more important to debate Pros' version of what it means to be financially free.

This means that going into R4 Pro has access to their definition, and because Negs entire argument is dependent on that definition he has access to nothing.

The final argument by Neg talks about how financial freedom is the money you have left over, and then restates the definition. It would have been very easy to win on this had Neg said anything in r3 responding to Pros point that general does not create an absolute resolution, or even just why we need to use an actual definition in the first place to have a good debate over Pros point that definitions are harmful.

Pro proves throughout the debate that you can never really be free of currency, and that this is what financial freedom means (this was up in the air until R3 when Neg drops case). This is the reason that I vote for pro, on top of the fact that I do not really see any other area that I can vote Neg on as the definition was lost.