Total votes: 120
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.
Both Pro and Con agree that Tech N9ne is a very good rapper. The disagreement though, is in the second part of the resolution: That he is the best that ever will be. Con states that it is impossible to know since one cannot look into the future. Pro does not bother to respond to this. As such, I give arguments to Con.
Pro was the only one to include a source, so he gets points for that one.
Pro also wins conduct points. Con called Pro a "sneaky little b*****d".
Throughout the debate, Pro doesn't just state that Vinnie Paz is good, he makes a lengthly argument about WHY he is good. In comparison, Con just provides examples of rappers he believes to be better, but he DOESN'T explain why they are better than Vinnie Paz. Because of this, I give arguments to Pro.
Neither side made a significant amount of S&G errors and both sides provided sources.
Both sides had equal conduct.
In Round 1, Pro argues that ducks enslave people. Con rebuts by stating that there is not evidence to prove that. Con also states that ducks will only attacked when provoked, however, he does not provide an animal more dangerous.
In Round 2, Pro argues that ducks are poisonous and "spoopy", and that they attack him randomly. Con states that there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a venomous duck, and that Pro's point about them being "spoopy" is a point in his favor. Con completes his rebuttal by stating that Pro has no evidence to support his statement the ducks have been attacking him.
In Round 3, basically nothing happens.
In Round 4, Pro states that ducks can be very vast, and that they can very quiet and angry, along with stating they could sneak in his house at night and slit his throat. Con rebuts this by stating that ducks make noise when they are angry and thus cannot be stealthy. Con also states that ducks are not intelligent enough to sneak into a house at night and target specific vessels.
ARGUMENTS: Con had stronger arguments for why a duck is not dangerous, but he did not specifically provide another animal that could be more dangerous. However, Con appears to make the argument that humans are more dangerous, although never specified. All in all, I say Con wins in the arguments category.
SOURCES: Both sides provided reliable sources, so it is tied in this category.
SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: Pro made an abundance of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors throughout the debate. Con's arguments were cleanly laid out, with no errors. As such, Con wins in this category.
CONDUCT: Pro threatened to summon the Duck god to attack Con. Con responded by calling Pro a crackhead. With that in mind, it is a tie in this category.
CONCLUSION: Con wins this debate overall.
This debate should end in a tie. Nobody made any arguments. Although pro not showing up was bad conduct, con also had bad conduct by not stating his case. He could've at least made a very bare-bones argument, but he didn't.
Forfeits. Forfeits everywhere.
Forfeit.......