Total votes: 22
Sorry about the gaps where I don't speak but I was planning to both edit and copy and paste a pdf in here, but decided against including a PDF and stuck with not editing due to me being a busy person, I may edit and reupload later, if I do a link to the new video will be in the comments and future videos will be better planned out. https://youtu.be/eumnD1-x3ek
Con is against homophobia which means they should lose a conduct point, but this is choose winner and pro forfeited
Forfeited bvvhjjj
Con dropped all of pro's arguments
Plagiarism plus forfeit
Forfeited MF
Pro forfeited the fuck out of this debate
Con was the only side to have arguments so wins arguments.
However con's link appears broken so source points to pro
Pro argues ham is healthy and no rebuttals were offered until the final round when it was too late to count
Con forfeited a round and only one side was able to give rebuttals.
Pro's arguments was more absurd which is the criteria. It literally made no sense where as con was comprehensible
Full forfeit
This debate came down to resolution analysis. I find simultaneously that Pro's analysis of the resolution to be more correct and I think common sense, would agree with pro's interpretation as well. Con argued that his analysis of the resolution should be accepted, because it was more fair to both parties and more clear. Pro offered no rebuttals and admits to poorly wording the debate and not getting the one he was expecting. I would urge pro to make the topic more clear, next time he attempts the topic and I would encourage him to defend his interpretation of the resolution instead of letting his opponent walk all over him, in that regard.
However, I think even if we accepted pro's analysis of the resolution he would still lose the debate. While con did concede some dangers existed he also argued the medical benefits in terms of treatment for seizures and ms spascity for example. Pro seems to agree with con when this is brought up. I think in the final round pro also made an appeal to authority "I know more about the topic than my opponent". Maybe you do, perhaps you are completely right and your opponent is completely wrong. My advice is to make the best case you can for your argument not attempt to make any case for yourself. Arguments to con because pro let him define the debate and con's arguments towards his interpretation, not only faced no opposition but were actually conceded to by pro. Source points to con because his claims used citations and pro made claims that absolutely need citation but failed to provide them. I would argue since pro is insinuating he is a doctor or pharmacist than he really has no excuse not to know how citations work and to know how important they are.
pro argues that because god created man from himself that means he is man. A terrible argument but con refuses to contest it, so argument points go to pro. I would deduct conduct points from pro, if this was a 7 point debate for accepting the same debate repeatedly instead of letting con debate an array of opponents like he obviously intended, but con did not set up the debate in a way that would let me punish pro.
instigator forfeits
The debate is about resolving the question of if any evidence exists that is consistent with the criteria given by pro in the description of the debate. con correctly points out that he is arguing that evidence exists and not whether the holocaust has sufficient enough evidence to be proven true. Pro does ask for irrefutable evidence, but it is too high and unfair of a burden, since every piece of evidence for everything is refutable, so I am ignoring this trap. Con gave evidence that met the criteria listed such as scientific evidence of hair analysis. I would urge pro in the future to stick with the topic. If you wanted to debate that the holocaust has insufficient evidence to support concluding it is real, debate that. This debate is about if a single piece of evidence exists and it does. However con did forfeit some rounds so loses conduct points
Forfeited by instigator
Instigator forfeited
pro essentially argues in a rhetorical way that killing animals is unethical. He isn't arguing that vegetarianism/veganism is healthier but seems to be arguing it is unethical to kill and enslave animals. This point goes unaddressed, despite pro extending his argument and giving con another chance. Con doesn't seem to make much of an argument other than implying that some people cannot safely be on a vegan/vegetarian diet. Both sides failed to address the arguments of each other. Con does make an argument that BOP is fully on pro and pro never offers a rebuttal for this, even though I think BOP is shared in this type of debate, I will give this point to con. Here is the issue though, since neither side addressed the arguments of the other side, it is up to me figure out the impacts of each successful argument. Weighing the arguments, requires me to have to determine if I should value, human health over animal lives. I refuse to do this, I can't reliably make that judgement without using either a speciesism bias or using a bias which values animal life too much. Arguments tied. Both debaters failed. However con argues for a conduct point in the last round, while pro fails to argue for any points and I will award con for conduct due to him giving me the analysis in the final round to justify it.
Pro forfeited and did so in an honorable way
Forfeit is is worse conduct for instigator than challenger so vote is based on worst conduct