Total votes: 18
Pro provided several reasons that Wyoming is greater, including: Freedom, virtuosity, geography, economy, infrastructure, quality of life, tourism, natural resources, and innovation.
Con provided only one argument that Vermont is greater: quality of life.
Regardless of who was right regarding which state has a better quality of life, pro wins because con dropped literally every other point.
Con and pro seemed to have different ideas of what "good" meant. Despite this, after R2, pro did not seem to object to con's new definition, so I must assume that pro agreed with con's new definition.
Arguments:
Con dropped many of pro's rebuttals including: Trump's Honesty, the lack of need for Trump to be kind, Trump's stance on demographics.
Con claimed Trump is not a good leader. His evidence is that many people have resigned under his leadership. People leaving does not automatically make someone a bad leader. Pro points this out. Pro failed to prove Trump is intelligent or that he does not need to be intelligent, but at this point, according to con's rule ("This means I only need to outline four that the President doesn’t meet to win the resolution."), pro failing to represent only one point is not enough for con to win the debate. Con rebuts pro's claims regarding NK well. Con disregards pro's graphic behind a paywall rather than addressing the points provided in the debate by pro. Con also claims that because Trump eventually gave up on something, he is not tough. This is an unsubstantiated opinion.
It was a close one, but due to con dropping several of pro's rebuttals, the rebuttals stand. Since it seems con only successfully rebutted one of pro's 3 claims in R1 (NK, but not Middle Class or Toughness), pro seems to win this debate.
Sources: Both used reputable sources.
S&G: No major errors
Conduct: Con forfeited.
FF. Pro might've been able to win this if it wasn't for the FF. Oh well.
Full forfeit.
Question for anyone to PM me the answer: How did the BoP make this impossible for con?
Pro gets all points as per the rules of this debate given in the description that was created by con.
"Rules: NO FORFEITING ..... "
"Violation of these rules will result in full points awarded to the opponent of the rule breaker."
Con forfeited R3.
I don't know if I've ever seen a 4-point system debate be what I believe to be a tie, but if there ever was one, it is this one.
Sources: Con and Pro both used a variety of wonderful sources, ranging from History.com to JSTOR
S&G: No major errors
Conduct: Both very polite
Arguments: The majority of this debate was about specific discrepancies in the Bible. This debate was not about what is and is not correct in the Bible, but about the impossibility of the existence of the Christian God (Resolution: The Christian God does not exist). The most relevant bit here is when pro provides the All-Knowing vs. All-Powerful argument, but con does a great job of explaining how that is possible. Pro just repeats what he said earlier, not really refuting con. Both pro and con could have taken their argument their one step further to prove their point, but neither did so. For that reason, it is a tie.
Pro provides no evidence suggesting that white people have been OFFICIALLY labeled as domestic terrorists, although he provides evidence saying there are white people who do crimes. Unfortunately for pro, that is not the resolution. Con points this out, and pro never counteracts that. Con gets the argument points.
Pro also seemed to just hate white people and he was extremely toxic. Conduct to con.
FF
FF
Both forfeited one round.
Con provides an actual, fact-based argument (regarding Ragnar's right to vote).
Pro simply talks about a quote by Charles Dickens calling the law an a**. It isn't really a quality argument. I struggle to find any relevance of this to the debate.
Pro participated in the debate.
Pro provided sources whereas con did not.
Both spelled just fine.
Both forfeited some rounds.
FF
Pro's arguments at least existed. FF
Pro provided the following argument:
"An omniscient being cannot exist. If God is omniscient, is he aware that there are things which he does not know?"
Con refuted this saying:
"This question is self-contradicting, illogical and thus not a sound argument." Con explains that an omniscient being knows all things, therefore there is nothing it cannot know, therefore it knows there is nothing it does not know.
Pro said:
"An omnipotent being cannot exist. If God is omnipotent, could he create a stone which he himself could not lift?"
Con refuted this with an explanation of "X is A" versus "X is not A" and also saying, " If one is not able to prove that something is possible, it just means one can’t prove it—it still may be possible."
Pro argues the Christian God is not omnibenevolent, but this is irrelevant.
Con points out pro must disprove all possibilities of God to exist in order to win the debate ("The God Described In The Bible Cannot Exist") and pro basically just says that isn't true when it clearly is.
Neither had sources that were particularly better than the other.
Both had very good S&G.
Both forfeited at least one round.
The instigator participated in the debate. The contender never said a word.