Total votes: 7
Even with Cons repeated forfeiture, Pro was ill equipped to properly respond to Cons rebuttals. Con uncovered the incomplete logic in Pro's proposal by pointing out how taxing alcohol and porn would literally cause the companies who sell and distribute those things to go out of business which would leave Pro's proposed mode of funding their proposition unable to do so. Pro instead opted to double down on their assertion by claiming alcohol and pornography were immoral to begin with, so it wouldn't be bad if they disappear. That may be true, but if you hope to use those modes of business to fund your proposal, you would most certainly not want them to go out of business. This alone is sufficient enough to convince me that Pro's proposal was ill conceived from the start, and since Pro didn't properly dispute that point, Con's forfeiture was not an issue.
Pro also did nothing to address the biased manner of the proposal and all of the problems that could potentially come from that. This was nothing more than a barely comprehensive tirade from someone who is oh so concerned about women not being at home.
Forfeit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Forfeiture is not convincing
This should have been an easy win for Con, but they couldn't overcome their "emotions". Forfeiture is not convincing
Pro forfeited two of the rounds, and made no arguments whatsoever. Those two factors did not convince me that pro had a convincing argument.
It seems that con was having trouble with the concept of what's factually correct or incorrect, and what's morally correct or incorrect. Pro drove that point home in round two by stating "there is a difference between morally right and wrong and factually right and wrong. Morality is subjective, facts are not." Con did nothing to address this point. This was a crucial point that Pro made, and Con didn't even attempt to refute it.
Nobody used any sources, so I didn't award anybody with the sources point. There were only a few grammatical errors, and none of them were all that distracting. Pro made some egregious remarks regarding murder and rape. I wouldn't be to sad if Pro were kicked off the site for misconduct, but I'm not here to judge who should or shouldn't be allowed on this site, I'm only here to judge who had the better conduct in this debate, which goes to Con. Outside of the unwelcome comments by Pro, both sides were cordial, and didn't resort to character assassination, which I guess is held in a high standard on this site. Meh!!!
Good job by both participants.
Forfeit by con.