Total votes: 21
FF+plagiarism=autoloss. Simple math.
Pro forfeited most of the debate.
Conduct to con.
FF by pro. Also, Con's arguments about the unique traits of dogs were well-founded and went very clearly unaddressed by pro.
Pro consistently clashed with con while con's arguments were largely aimless.
Examples:
1. Pro clashed with con on the book of enoch.
2. Pro proved that no person of any particular fame visited Antarctica apart from John Kerry. Con did not refute this.
3. Con concedes that his memory is unreliable as it relates to the book of enoch rather than challenging pro's assertions.
S&G: much of con's writing was lacking in proper syntax and general coherence. for example
"I should have made your role more. You on alien side i am on demon side.If you want to dismiss both and hoaxes and i argue that these are demon encounter then we will go ahead with the debate."
Sources: Con's sources added little substance to the debate while pro's sources added many facts to the debate.
I'm awarding arguments for this debate to pro for the following reasons.
1. con does not sufficiently answer pro's argument that carbon dating is a more reliable method of dating fossils than examining tissue.
2. pro effectively dismantles con's proposed Young Earth model as it relates to a global flood. particularly as it relates to population growth. IE: the human population should not have been able to rebound from a near extinction-level event as quickly as it would have had to for the flood to have happened.
3. Con does not sufficiently answer pro's argument that there were numerous civilizations and buildings that existed before and after the flood with no sign of having been completely submerged by water and having the population wiped out.
These three reasons are in my opinion sufficient to award arguments to pro.
I'm awarding the convincing arguments for this round to pro for the following reasons.
1. Con Does not address the scientific implications of a past-eternal universe as it relates to thermodynamics or unsolvable paradoxes.
2. Con's argument that abstractions exist in a concrete sense because of electric activity in the brain is unconvincing when pro points out that the electric neural "code" that represents an abstraction is not the same as that abstraction actually existing in a concrete sense.
3. Pro was on shaky ground with the argument about time being necessary for a personal agent to choose to create the universe. But instead of pressing the attack and breaking down a major argument, con forfeits the last round leaving pro's argument standing.
4. pro's Modus Tollens approach to the issue of a timeless being was powerful and as I said before, con started to make progress against the argument but stopped short leaving this powerful argument standing.
Full forfeit by con.
In my subjective opinion, Lunatic provided a better performance. particularly with his cover of "High Hopes."
Throughout the debate, con seems to misunderstand pro's point that a MGB is a logical necessity as defined by modal logic. Therefore, a MGB must necessarily exist in every possible world. Despite this, con spends much of the debate arguing that pro needs to prove that "one of" the realities wherein a MGB exists is the reality we live in. That was already established by pro in premises 3, 5, and 6 of the modal ontological argument.
Con refusing to answer pro's arguments in round 1 and insulting the intelligence of anyone who buys his argument merits losing the conduct points.
As con pointed out, pro did not establish a causal relationship between religiosity and intelligence which the resolution, as worded requires. While pro did have a strong first post, his forfeiture of the last two posts and not addressing con's response is enough to cause him to lose the debate.
One way that con could strengthen his argument would be to add more positive arguments in favor of his position. He could argue for example that the vast majority of the most brilliant minds in human history have believed in some form of God. Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Charles Darwin, Copernicus, St.Thomas Aquinas, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein. Just to name a few.
concession.
con's argument on the military applications of an ar-15 is a strong argument that was never refuted by pro.
pro's argument about the accuracy of semi-automatic weapons fell flat to con's rebuttals.
Pro dropped the vast majority of con's points.
First, pro argued the wrong side of the resolution, then contradicted himself in his next post.
Second, pro dropped many of con's arguments.
Conduct points go to con because of pro's forfeiture of the last two rounds.
Full Forteit.
full forfeit.
arguments goes to pro because con dropped all of pro's arguments via his forfeitures. Pro providing several sources to back up his claims. Con didn't have any. Conduct goes to pro because of con's forfeits.
Convincing arguments goes to pro because con failed to respond to any of pro's rebuttals effectively conceding the debate.
Conduct goes to pro because Con forfeited most rounds.
arguments go to con because pro failed to defend the resolution and instead argued that veganism SHOULD be a crime rather than that it IS a crime.
conduct goes to con because pro forfeited multiple rounds.
Convincing arguments goes to con because many of Pro's arguments ( the bible) are irrelevant to determining the legality of a state. Moreover, Pro's argument on human rights violations and Israel being an apartheid state was soundly refuted by con by pointing out that Palestinian citizens of Israel have every right that a Jewish Israeli has.
Reliable sources goes to con because pro mostly offered partisan news sources as evidence while con provided sources ranging from libraries of Jewish history to the federal government.
Conduct goes to con because of pro's blatant plagiarism in his first post.
Con conceded the debate.
Pro provided a source to back up every single one of his points from places like Stanford, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Con provided sources but his sourcing was less complete.