Mps1213

Since Pro had the burden of proof and almost seemed to intentionally try to not back any of his claims up, he has to lose the debate. If he would’ve provided sources for any of his claims or at least even evidence for them it would be different.

Obvious full win for Pro, con forfeited every round but one.

Messed up my first vote had to delete and edit it.

Reasoning is below

This debate was a very hard one for me to judge. Savant, in my opinion, had the better written and sound arguments. However, he did not finish any of his arguments deeply enough for me. For example he says something to the effect of “dolphins are smarter than newborns but killing newborns is more immoral.” As fair of a point that is, he doesn’t explain why it is more immoral. He also says that humans carry inherent moral value, which again is something he never proves. The main points of his arguments were never proven by him. They were simply stated and left there. If someone is in a debate and says “the earth is a sphere” but does nothing to prove it, he shouldn’t win the debate, even if he is 100% correct in his statement. Especially if his entire argument for the debate rests on that statement. I’m just not a fan of statements with no evidence or proof to back them up, in any argument.
Lancelot fell victim to the same problem many times. For example “ It is reasonable to assume that the child will also suffer under these circumstances.”
It is safe to assume that, but why? There is so much evidence to support this claim but it was never clearly stated. This seemed to be a major pillar of his argument as well, but it just wasn’t proven enough for me to give him the vote solely based off of that.
The reason I give pro the win, isn’t because I agree with him, but because I do think he performed better in the debate, but the only vote I was able to responsibly afford him was the legibility. In a debate like this, that isn’t inherently scientific the proof must be pretty substantial in my opinion. When I have debates about drugs it’s much more simple, you’re either right or wrong, and the evidence can show which side you’re on rather easily. In these social sciences debates, the evidence and points are more complex and range over a wider spectrum of issues. All of those issues like the inherent moral value of humans, must be explained adequately to make it a winning argument.
I will say that I think Lancelot had the better, more realistic points, but I have to hold him to the standard I held Savant which is why that first point is a tie.
The second point is a tie because they both provided adequate sources for the arguments those sources were handling. However the arguments they made that really needed sources, sadly didn’t have them, in my opinion. Or at least not powerful, explicitly clear ones.
And of course conduct was a tie.
Hope my vote is clear enough.

Even though rational madman and I do not get along, and he has said he is quitting this website like 750 times and still keeps coming back, he obviously won this debate. It's funny how his opponent was stern about not wanting someone forfeit and only made one unthought out argument then forfeited the rest. He made a very good argument as to why value has to be earned and isn't just given, and why sex doesn't really have an effect on that value. Even though it could be argued that women who have sex with many different men lose value to some people, it is hard to argue they lose value as a whole. That would be a hard thing to prove.

The Quran is obviously not the word of god. No book is because god doesn’t exist. However pro had such horrible arguments, con had equally as bad arguments. The only reason con get a vote is because his argument was at least coherent and readable, even though it’s wrong.

I don’t think pro provided any sound evidence for the probably existence of god. All of it came down to basic logical fallacies and not having a deep understanding of physics. He says in the description no opinion based evidence can be brought forth, however in his first argument he finished with an opinion not backed up by anything other than a definition of cause of effect. He doesn’t know the potential causes of the Big Bang or he wouldn’t be going to a supernatural creator.

There was nothing convincing coming from pro, just a lot of misunderstandings and over simplification that didn’t hold any weight with me. Although his responses were well written. I don’t think he provided evidence that the universe is designed to begin with, by anything other than the laws of physics which was a big part of his debate.

Grammar was a tie, sources were a tie, conduct was a tie.

Easy to understand why, I almost believe that Barney set up this other account to keep his 100% win rate. Either way he clearly won the debate, even though he was having it with a ghost.