Total votes: 127
Only one side argued
Only one side made an argument
Join DebateCraft.com
Fffffffffffffffffffffff
only one argument was made and it was by pro
Full forfeiture
Full forfeit, almost didn’t vote bc of the instigator’s cringe pfp
Foregone conclusion.
Foregone conclusion.
Full forfeit
Nope. I just posted the most recent thing with this vote. But the opponent fully forfeited, so I rule this as a tie.
full forfeit
full forfeit
F. F.
Only one side made an argument
Despite the fact that neither side made an argument, I think I’ll give it to Pro since the burden was on Con to pick a topic.
Full forfeit. Con wins arguments and sources easily.
Neither side made an argument.
No, I don't care that Con showed up for Round 2.
Yes, I see the forfeits, but neither side made an argument.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit.
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