Total votes: 100
This felt like a chat more than a debate. Neither side made an argument.
I will award conduct to Pro for Con's forfeits.
R1P: Pro has a great opener. The big point that stood out to me was the domination in fights that went the distance; doubling your opponent's strikes against a champion (Texiera) in his prime is impressive. Of course, the list of names he defeated is impressive.
The ending of careers, impressive fighting style, and success after a weight jump are all nice points that add to the case.
R1C: Con goes for some level semantics to define greatness as domination within one's weight class. I think it's a fair definition since the styles for fighters in each weight class are different. However, it's a massive blunder since Pro had just pointed out how Jones remained dominant despite moving up to a heavier weight class. If dominance in one class is impressive, how much more impressive is dominance while moving up and down?
His other main argument was Khabib was merciful, arguing that he could afford to step off the gas a little bit because he was more dominant.
R2P: On Con's first point, pro successfully demonstrates that the quality of opponents Jones had to face was far better- thus, Jones's undefeated record was more impressive than Khabib's.
On Con's other point, Pro counters with the idea that a more intimidating reputation is more deserving. I think this point is very subjective.
From there, Con forfeits every round. I don't know where Con had a chance, but he never argued against Jones' quality of opponents, fighting style, or the idea that intimidation is more important than mercy.
I think the big clincher here is that even if I grant everything to Con here, he has no way around the fact that Jones has a more impressive list of names taken. Therefore, as Pro argued, Jones's dominance will always be more impressive than Khabib's dominance.
Con’s arguments were like the shelves in a communist country: Empty.
Full forfeit
USA! USA! USA!
🗣️ 🔥 🗣️🔥🗣️🔥what the fuck is a kilometer ?!!!!!!!
Their profile pictures are the same, so even. Con wins by default.
The contender didn’t even show up for two rounds, and when he did, he had little to offer. The instigator offered a stack of decent rhymes at least.
FF: One side made no arguments… I would give the other side a FF as well and call it a draw, but given the fact that he at least did something in Rd1 (unlike his opponent), I’m willing to forgive his forfeits.
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)