Lemming

Arguably people can help in other ways that are not recorded,

Statistics can be mistaken, or refer to 'particular time or place,

Arguably there are examples of people who help when there is an accident,
Thus some people may be good, but not 'saints,

Taxes go towards helping people,

What about neutral people.

Still, only Undefeatable made any arguments,
And their arguments 'did have sense to them,
Set an idea of what type of action is good,
Criticized people not taking so called minimum 'good action.

Actually there 'was compassion in the Iliad,
I don't know how 'much,
But I 'do remember one piece,
Priam tearfully supplicates Achilles, begging for Hector’s body. He asks Achilles to think of his own father, Peleus, and the love between them. Achilles weeps for his father and for Patroclus. He accepts the ransom and agrees to give the corpse back.

Jesus 'does have a lot of that consideration for others though,
In his teaching,
And such can make for a functional society.

Seeing on how notoraot isn't there for the rest of the debate though,
Intelligence_06's argument noting that other religions hold their own cultures and societies together as well.
Never get's refuted,
Might have bee hard to refute such an argument,
But notoraot was gone.
Thus loses out in conduct and argument.
Intelligence_06 also uses a source for China,

See comments #47 and #48
Basically though, I think the question of harm to the natives was a tie,
And thought it a pivot point in the debate.

Both sides make decent arguements about Gif or any prefrence being preffered,
That there were decent arguements on both sides,
'Doesn't mean that Con made the better arguements though,
But rather that both argued well, and that depending on one's view, either prefferring Gif or 'Any could be correct.
So I score arguements a tie,
Both used sources, a tie,
Pro accepted Con's method of arguing any rather than Jif, so conduct a tie,

Jif Peanut Butter and Gift,
Both parties made points on why, either consideration wasn't vital.
Tie

The difference between initialisms and acronyms, escapes me,
Though I suppose initialisms tend to be harder to pronounce as an acronym,
It 'seems more a convienence, than a hard rule.
Both made examples of words,
Tie.

While Con has a point about society if wrong, ought be corrected
I'd say Pro has a point about society being less rigerous than science,
Though language has rules, is kind of sciency I suppose.
But, Pro himself used historical early examples of ought, for G pronounciation,
So that one get's the feel that Pro thought language 'ought follow earlier convention.
Tie

Con has a point about the founder's prefrence and intention,
And Pro about societal prefrence.
Tie

Con's point about G's Jee pronounciation,
Pro counters with societal prefrence,
Which makes sense to me, certain accents are 'correct in certain countries,
Tie

Concession by Pro,
Does that mean I give 'all points to Con, just arguments, or arguments then leave everything neutral?
Well Con's getting most points in end anyway.

I'd say Pro divided his round 1 between suggesting that the soundness of teenagers voting be 'tested,
Rather than Pro arguing 'just for the right to vote.

Pro 'could have doubled down on his, right to vote by a test,
Arguing that self control, knowledge could have been tested in teens and adults,
While pointing out that many adults lack self control, knowledge, are easily lead.

Pro could have used Con's sources to further his own argument, such as one that read,
"In one new study, teens and adults played a game in which points were rewarded for correctly answering questions while researchers monitored their subjects’ brain activity. When lots of points were at stake, teens spent more time contemplating their answers than the adults did, and brain scans revealed more activity in regions involved with decision making for the teens. In other words, teens’ sensitivity to rewards can lead to better decisions."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/teenage-brains-are-like-soft-impressionable-play-doh-78650963/

Con includes many sources with his arguments, to back his claims, points.
Also nice music, but no points for the music,

Con makes the point of how guardians are responsible for their charges actions,
Which Pro might have argued against, as minors can separate from their guardians at an age younger than 18,
That minors go to juvie, rather than their guardians, and other arguments,
Point is that Con's point was still arguable for Pro.

Con has a strong argument in the susceptibility to pressure and hormones in teens, which 'is backed by data, and well argued by Con, but I think Pro could have argued against it,
By making examples of adults susceptibility, and argued for the right of individuals to determine their own actions, if they are shown able.

Spelling and grammar equal, conduct equal.

Better, needs an if we value X, and circumstance.
Perhaps.

Still, per the debate,
I assume One Value, is the human player being able to easier surpass obstacles in game,
Which can be obstacles such as water, combat, darkness, so on.
As Con says, water breathing is always available, but then again, water isn't.
As Pro says, claws are always available, but then again, with weapons, 'need isn't.

Mentioned in the debate, are advantages,
Con mentioning 3, compared to 2, but Pro mentions higher sneak in Khajit.
So 3 to 3, Tie, I'd see it.
Though one could argue that ability is not the same as stats, as Pro does,
But it's not clear to me why stats matter less than abilities.
I suppose Pro might have a point about frequency of available uses in Skyrim, but that would require the debate be 'restricted to Skyrim, which the lore given, was not.

2nd Value is aesthetics, which is mentioned by Pro, but not Con,
So in lack of mention, to Pro.

3rd is history and success in lore,
Which while Pro argue Khajit are not so bad as their reputation,
Con is able to give historical example of military success,
Pro argues luck of circumstance, but really genetics and culture are also luck of circumstance,
If some powerful Mane had existed, perhaps Khajit would have done better.
So I give 3rd point to Con.

Arguments Tie, as was explained above.
Sources, Tie, Both used sources.
Spelling, Grammar Tie, Both understandable.
Conduct, Tie, Both polite.

Pro for all the points, due to opponent forfeit.

Pro's case 'does sound plausible to me, though I found it a bit hard to follow, that's more 'my issue than how or what Pro said.
Technical details and a lack of familiarity on my part.

Plausible though, isn't certain.

And who knows, maybe someone explored a bat cave while the bats were hibernating.
Suspicious, guarded, groups or individuals, not same as confession.
Still, I assume debate made for the purpose of arguing that there ought be or should have been further investigation.

Though, maybe it's better for diplomacy that it's not, different question.
Anyway, there's my vote.

Concession.

Well, first off, Con says Vote Pro in round 3, by which I'm assuming he's conceding the debate.

Con's first argument, was in his disagreement of definition. There 'are communities and societies without police or military. Though Con didn't continue on the attack of definition. And there 'are problems with such an argument I suppose, it's hardly 'common in history, and even rarer in modern society, to have no military or policing method.
Con's second argument of education, 'could have been pursued along the lines of a culture/society/state, in not losing it's values. Make an argument of soul over body, so to speak.
Con's third argument of police and military being counterproductive, was well addressed by Pro in his rebuttal and other arguments. Keeping with Pro's theme of monopoly on violence in this modern world, the institutions become invaluable, and more important being they some thing the state 'must pay close attention to, in order to avoid the situations mentioned by Con.

Pro I'd say, made a steady showing throughout debate, of managing to state, keep, and convince his opponent of his argument and definitions.
Monopoly on Violence 'is a pretty old concept, age old as stick or stone.
There 'is some vagueness on agencies, I think though. Education/Propaganda, for instance, being vital in holding control 'over police and military.
Police and military, being vital over holding control over Education/Propaganda.

No notable differences in sources, spelling, grammar, or conduct.

Sorry vote is a bit rambling, I ought to sleep.

The core of the debate going by the descriptions, is Pro is arguing that 12 year olds should not have less rights than 13 year olds, as he equivocates the ages to be the same level of maturity.
Pro has a point about 12 year olds deserving 'respect, but this is not the same as equal rights.
As Con remarks during the debate, generalization is 'necessary to regulate developing humans.
Con additionally noted that trauma can occur, depending on what developing humans are exposed to.
Pro made a decent point regarding 11 year olds and 12 year olds being treated similarly, that 'could have expounded upon with examples such as 17 year olds being able to enter the military with waivers, but as he did not and Cons earlier argument of generalization standing. Point was not impactful in debate.
People often make these types of arguments, mocking the absurdity of a single day's worth of development in blocking an individuals ability by 'law to various activities. But it's a strong point in Con's argument, the necessity of generalization, that it's too bad wasn't expanded upon.
Personally, I place the arguments in Con's favor, due to his points of development, generalization, possible harm.
I'd say Pro's largest weak points were that he was scattered over a large number of points, but did not make great headway in 'digging into them, as well as some of his arguments diverting from the debates description of 'rights/government actions, and into the personal realm.

Pro sources were of institutional nature, Cons source an opinion source.

Spelling and grammar, equal enough.

Personally I thought Con was a bit abrasive and overbearing in this debate, but perhaps I think that due to what I assume his opponents age is. In any case, it wasn't behavior rude enough to ding Con on points.

Personal opinion of mine, age matters as a attribute, it's one of 'many sure.
But matters in generalizations, and as an attribute that signifies 'much in humans.
Development, experience.

Personal opinion of mine, I 'think Pro viewed debate as 13 year olds should not be rude to 12 year olds 'purely because of their age. Which is a fair point, but his description implies an argument against the 'system, and how society has thresholds, ceremony, as people develop in age.

Full Forfeit.

Pro simply couldn't put enough argument/proof about mankind 'needing to colonize Mars by 2040, and as Con pointed out and Pro failed to answer thoroughly
The tech for such an enterprise is not up to snuff.
The finance for such an enterprise 'very costly.
What Pro needs is an argument for colonization by 2040 being 'vital. But unless the Earth was to explode or be hit by a giant asteroid in 2040, he simply doesn't have the 'necessity of it down.

Pro argument claim it doesn't deter, though Con's argument disagrees with this claim.
Pro claims innocents suffer, but Con notes there are mechanisms to attempt preventation of this. This not feel like 'full rebuttal by Con to me though, as Pro source shows innocents 'have suffered.
Pro claim and scholar source of eliminated witnesses not rebutted by Con. But looking back at Con source 'claim "three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer." Difficult to say.
Pro argument of financial cost partially rebutted by Con, as Pro argument not claim that execution too costly to implement, just very costly. I would have liked if Con could have argued for change in finance methods as well as the imperative of justice.
Pro makes argument that execution is murder retribution, not justice, Con make philosophical argument that execution is not murder.

Difficulty saying one side did better, I think 'maybe Pro do better arguments but not certain, so say tie, Pro did make larger use of sources that tied into argument, so I place Pro point there. Spelling, Grammar, Conduct equal.

Con 'gave an argument, while Pro did not.
Con provided 'some pictures as sources.
Spelling and grammar didn't factor into debate really.
Con has better conduct by reason of participation.