Total votes: 106
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.
Tie Fighter but without the fight. Just a tie.
Concession. Solid debate though.
Tie as requested.
Conduct, sources, and arguments to con for the forfeit from pro.
A complete concession.
Reason for Vote Decision (over 9000 characters): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V0cVZeIqcksDFgmoxtkoIMYhiO1D0BOr_ORLU5_d4To/edit?usp=sharing
Arguments to PRO, since they were the only one to make argument.
Sources to PRO, since they were the only side to provide sources.
Conduct to CON, for PRO's semantics trap.
S&G is tied.
No side actually made an argument so that is tied. No sources so that is tied. Conduct to Con for a full forfeit from Pro. Spelling and Grammar cannot be judged since Pro didn’t show up and Con made no mistakes.
Full forfeit, so conduct and arguments to Con. Since sources applicable here; they will go to Con as well. Spelling and Grammar cannot be compared and therefore will be tied. Still, I kinda wanna see what this debate could’ve been. If I have time, I might actually judge a fully fledged debate.
While Pro did make an argument, he did forfeit 2/3 rounds, while Con kept making arguments. Therefore arguments go to Con. For the same reason, Conduct will also go to Con. Spelling and grammar will be tied since I saw no errors from either side. As for sources, Con was the only one to provide any, so Sources to Con.
Arguments to Pro for full forfeit. Conduct to Pro for full forfeit. Sources has been given to Pro on top of that because he did provide sources for his argument. Spelling and Grammar is tied because one can’t judge on that without seeing what Con would’ve posted.
pro concedes
Only pro presented an argument
Pro stated that they are the same because they're not real. Con stated that Jesus is real.
Con the rebutted his opponent. Pro forfeited.
Supa posed the overall better performance. With better disses, flow, and rhymes. Supa is a clear winner. I will give Bsh1 some credit here too; he hyped himself way better and had better metaphors.
Con was the only one to make an argument. Pro just linked us to a Youtube video.
Con also forfeited more than half of the debate.
Full forfeit.
Soooooooooooooooooo I guess it's a tie
So freaking close. I've read it with the music open in another tab so many times, and at the end of the day, I was pretty satisfied from the efforts of both contestants. By a slim margin I will give my vote to SupaDudz.
Team Spoon AKA Con AKA RationalMadman was the only one to make an argument, so he wins arguments. He also wins conduct since his opponent wasted his time and forfeited every round.
Pro forfeited most of the rounds. Conduct to Con.
Pro stated that boxing would teach self-defense. Con states the costs to run such a program would be a waste of taxpayer money. Pro did not bother to respond. Arguments to Con.
In Round 2, Pro forfeited the debate.
Argument to Con. Pro stated that sock should be two words. Con stated that it should not be. Unlike Pro, however, Con actually stated why sock should remain one word.
The debate has been called a tie by both parties.
Another forfeit.
Forfeit happens.
Con states that more guns does not mean less crime and that gun control does work. Con then gives sources. Pro states the exact opposite, and then gives his own sources. At the core of this debate, both sides made they're arguments, and they both gave their own statistics. This debate comes down to who's statistics were actually correct. To determine this, one must look at the sources both sides provided. Con used well-known left-wing outlets for sources, along with a college study. Pro used pro-gun sources, and a government crime report. With both sides providing biased sources, it comes down to their unbiased sources. Pro's unbiased source was the government crime report and Con's unbiased source was a Stanford University study. However, in general, a government report is more reliable than a college study. This means that Pro has better sources, and thus, a better argument.
Pro was the only side to meet the burden of proof. Con just agreed with Pro.
Due to the subjective nature of this debate, it comes down the personal opinion of the voter. I think Pro has better taste than Con. Although Pro's was not all that great in my opinion (I'm not a huge fan of rap), it was far better than Con's taste (science rap?! really?!). I give arguments to Pro.
Both sides used sources and neither side had any noticeable S&G errors.
Con forfeited most of the debate, so I will give conduct to Pro.