Total votes: 106
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.......