Total votes: 88
It is illogical to vote pro
Ff. 10 characters.
Concession
Full forfeit
concession
concession (let's all go the lobbbbbbbyyyyyy)
Con said Pro was correct.
Con makes arguments, but also insults their opponent.
Forfeit fcl
Con makes arguments. Pro didn’t make any in rounds 2-3, and Round 1 was just providing a link saying everything in the Bible is true. Con responded by listing some statements in the Bible they he asserts are false; Pro did not respond.
In round one they stated the merits of their powerups. Pro went with the propeller mushroom because it could be used for an escape, or for landing devastating uppercuts. Con went with the Invincibility Leaf because of its ability to make the user invincible, and defeat any enemy the user touches. Con also makes the point that the propeller mushroom does not make you immune to bullets.
Based on these merits, I'd give the edge to Con, as I think being invincible renders the need for flight useless, although Con did mention you could fly with the leaf as a bonus.
Pro needed to find a new angle in Round 2, and they attempted that with the argument that a propeller-powered punch would be satisfying. It's a weak argument given that it stretches the definition of "best," and Con points that out in Round 2. Con reiterates the lack of invincibility with the propeller mushroom, which has yet to be addressed by Pro at this point.
In Round 3, Pro's next angle is a hypothetical situation, doing anything they can to avoid rebutting their opponent. Con disputes Pro's scenario, but I don't think it matters given that they pointed out it's outside of the scope of the debate, to which I will agree, given that the main objective of a combat situation is to survive.
Round 4: Pro goes for an argument based on how the Invincibility Leaf is acquired, but Con shuts it down by pointing out method of obtainment is irrelevant, and that this debate is about which powerup is better once obtained.
I give this debate to Con. Con had the advantage to begin with by the merit of their pick (Invincibility Leaf grants a similar flight ability to Propeller Mushroom, and adds death touch and invincibility to boot), but Pro ultimately lost this debate because they couldn't find a stronger angle to rebut Con, instead trying to use semantics and irrelevant arguments outside of the scope of the debate to move the goalposts, which told me they didn't have a concrete rebuttal.
I concur with 7000's thoughts on the idea that a rap is a bit different from a poem. While rap can be considered a type of poetry, I think it's obvious this debate was started with a certain style intended, which Con did not use.
Putting that aside, I still prefer the contents of Pro's poem. I thought the poem about the cat was nice and reflective, and it shared a story of personal growth while learning from a creature normally thought of as less than us.
No arguments were made by either side.
Con asked the questions, and Pro answered them. There's not really much else to say.
The questions were answered. I don't even have to check the accuracy of the answers (or the answers themselves)- it seems that Pro's goal was simply to answer Con's questions.
Full forfeiture
No arguments were made. If your opponent fully forfeits, at least make SOME argument to capitalize on it.
concession
Con really hit Pro w da "NUH UH"
Forefeit...
Forfeit. All rounds, in fact.
Concession from Con.
Forfeit, 2/3 rounds by Con. I consider that akin to a concession, as Con did not attempt to respond to Pro's counter-counterarguments.
Forfeiture...
I believe Con's argument against Pro's position is that situations, where an expecting mother cannot afford a child, justify abortion outside of situations where the mother's life is threatened. Pro did not respond.
FF, 2/3 rounds
Truly a Debateart.com moment. I don't entirely blame them though.
I liked Pro's poems more for the most part. The big thing for me is that Pro made me laugh at times while Con's style was kinda awkward with the "yos" aside from Round 3.
Full forfeit
Only pro made and argument, and con conceded. For conduct, both sides forfeited many rounds, but con was polite while pro was not.
Neither side made an argument, but at least Pro showed up to say something.
Veggietales BANNED in America?! (NOT CLICKBAIT) (REAL) (EMOTIONAL)
A full forfeit.
A complete forfeit.
Full forfeit. Sad. I had high hopes for FuCkYoU as a debater.
This is clearly a troll debate. Con was funnier to me than Pro, so Con wins. Get off the stage, Pro. Your jokes suck.
INTRODUCTION:
Pro creates the debate with the goal of letting Con pick the topic and then debating it. Con selected "North Korea is the best country in the world" as the topic, so the two now have to debate in one round only.
For the resolution that Con selected, he chose the position of "Con," leaving Pro with "Pro." So to win this debate, Pro must prove North Korea is the best county in the world, and Con must find an example of a better country. Since the selection of the topic happened in Round 1, they must prove their positions starting and ending with Round 2.
EVALUATION:
Round 1 (Pro): Skipped because of the reasons mentioned in the introduction.
Round 1 (Con): ''
Round 2 (Pro): Pro appears to be unhappy with Con's selection of topic and does not make an argument. Instead, he insults Con with reference to an earlier comment made by a spectator to this debate.
Round 2 (Con): Con argues that North Korea is not the best country in the world because it is 117th in GDP per capita and is among the worst 16 countries when it comes to human rights in the world.
While he does not bring forth a single example of a country better than North Korea, it can be implied by Con's argument that any country above North Korea in the GDP per capita ranking or not in the worst 16 countries when it comes to human rights is better than North Korea.
CONCLUSION:
This debate is in a "select winner" style of vote, so the only category that matters is Arguments. There are no points to be awarded for S&G, Conduct, or Citation.
Given that Pro made no argument, there is no way for Pro win this debate. However, if Con failed to meet the burden of proof the debate would go to a tiebreaker based on whether or not each side made any arguments at all. If there are no arguments made by either side, the debate is a tie.
Con made an argument that implies the existence of multiple countries superior to North Korea. If my assumption about this implication is correct, Con has fulfilled their BOP and is the winner of this debate. If my assumption is incorrect, the debate will go to the aforementioned tiebreaker.
Since Con made an argument, the tiebreaker, if needed, would go to Con and Con would be the winner of this debate.
Since both scenarios regarding whether or not Con fulfilled their BOP would result in a Con victory, Con is the winner of this debate.
Press FF to vote for debates.
Concession.
Normally in forfeits/concession I give conduct to the non-forfeiting party but Con stuck around, so Conduct is tied.
Arguments to Pro for Con’s concession, and Sources as well since only Pro gave sources.
No arguments 🗿No conduct 🗿and probably no Elo because this guy forfeits all of his debates 🗿
Well I was not expecting that.