Total votes: 210
both ff half of the debate, that's poor conduct!
full forfeit THATS POOR CONDUCT
Con FF the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct.
Debate is largely incomplete, all other points tied.
Con ff the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct
Pro did plagiarism! That's poor conduct!
They also forfeited the majority of the debate! That's also poor conduct!
Pro forfeited the entire debate! That's poor conduct!
Concession
Con ignored several of pro's arguments made round 1. Not to mention they also violated the structure established in the description by doing a rebuttal in round 1 when the rules specifically state that Round 1 is for opening statements only.
Overall very poor conduct by con which is why I must award the conduct point to pro.
All other points tied, due to Con ignoring Pro's key arguments throughout the debate, I deem the debate largely incomplete enough for me to make a decision regarding any other points.
Pro forfeited the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct
Con FF half of the debate, that's poor conduct.
Due to the debate being incomplete, all other points tied.
Pro ff the entire debate, that's poor conduct!
Pro ff half of the debate, that's poor conduct!
Con ff the entire debate, that's poor conduct.
Pro ff the entire debate, that's poor conduct!
Concession
Concession
Con ff the entire debate, that's poor conduct!
Con forfeited half of the debate, that's poor conduct.
All other points tied, the debate is largely incomplete due to cons forfeits.
Pro missed two weeks of the debate and FF 2 rounds leaving the debate incomplete. That's poor conduct.
Overall due to the debate being incomplete, I'm unable to judge the rest of the debate for this reason.
All other points tied.
Full Forfeit, that's poor conduct!
Pro offers no evidence nor coherent argument to back up his claims of the site being " anti-socialist"
This claim, however, is actually false considering that even though I personally label myself as a socialist on this site, I still maintain an 85 % win ratio. One of which was a forfeit.
Not to mention death who also labels himself as a socialist who has a good ratio.
Essentially Pro's claims are illogical and false
Pro spent the entire debate cursing and going on an incoherent ramble about how the " law is an ass," that's poor conduct!
Not only that but due to Cons argument being coherent enough to understand and having some sense of logic to it, I must award con the argument and grammar points.
Sources tied.
Tough one, but I'd say after considering both sides I deem this a tie.
Both had good arguments and conduct for the most part however neither stood out above the other
Concession
Concession
Full Forfeit
Meh, neither side convinced me and overall seems to be a tie.
Pro ff the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct!
Pro ff the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct!
Pro ff the majority of the rounds, that's poor conduct!
Pro ff two of the rounds and made no arguments whatsoever, that's poor conduct!
All other points tied, the debate led nowhere overall.
Pro ff the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct
Disclaimer:
This vote will contain some of my personal beliefs, this is however almost irrelevant as my vote still is objective regardless. Now onto my vote.
A very sad turn of events when one side tries to cheat and lie. Wylted blatantly lied about orogami's supposed " PM " which detailed that they both " agreed " the debate should be a tie.
I must say I am rather disappointed in Wylted as I expected much more from him in terms of debate conduct.
Take your loss with dignity and the fact you have to resort to forging lies only highlights that in the end you have no sense of honor and upon examining an earlier lie in one of his previous debates, you be ashamed of yourself for trying to character assassinate bsh1 which could have ended with him getting his mod status removed or possibly banned.
Ultimately I MUST award all points to Con as he didn't resort to making up lies and didn't FF the majority of the rounds.
Pro forfeited the entire debate, that's poor conduct
Full forfeit
Con ff half of the debate, that's poor conduct!
Likewise, due to the insufficient argument by Con and the fact that Pro's case was left undisputed, I have no other choice than to award the argument point to Pro.
Concession
Con ff the entire debate, that's poor conduct!
Pro FF the entire debate, that's poor conduct!
Con FF half of the debate, that's poor conduct
Pro FF the entire debate, that's poor conduct
Concession
Both sucked
Concession
I'd like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate, now onto my vote.
Arguments:
Throughout the entire debate Con has ignored several of Pro's arguments and dropped them without explanation.
This includes but is not limited to,
- Dropping Pro's source on small businesses supporting a higher minimum wage
- Dropping Pro's source on Medicare for all being cheaper than private healthcare
- Dropping Pro's interpretation of the torah verses they cited
Due to Con ignoring several of Pro's key arguments, I must award argument points to Pro as they responded to every one of Con's arguments and didn't just drop them.
Sources:
Con has made several claims without any sources to back them up which include but not limited to,
" So his assessment that Medicare for all is cheap, it's just a fairy-tale for adults. Remember that we're spending more money on medicare than our military as it is! Wait till we get it "for all"! And believe me, you can give privately owned hospitals all the government funding you want, it ain't going to solve a thing because rates will just explode due to the simple fact that there's no way in hell you're having more cash than them."
And also,
" 78% of Conservatives are people of faith. In Israel, it's 64%. Most Conservative Jews are from the Haredi world, and for good reason, as they look to Torah as their only authority. Democrats, on the other hand, disregard authority (a secular value). This has led to the acception of homosexuality, and, if left unchecked, to things like pedophilia, incest, and beastialty. "
Due to Con's lack of proper sourcing, I must award the sources point to Pro as they provided reliable sources throughout the entire debate such as,
" Fact 1: Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion in taxes per year [14]
Fact 2: Immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans and that there is a negative correlation between levels of immigration and crime rates [15] "
Both of which demonstrate a great use of sourcing as Pro not only used reliable sources but also cited the exact number, making it easier for voters to tell what specific source it’s.
Conduct:
I take debate conduct very seriously and Con has engaged in very poor debate conduct through the use of personal attacks made against Pro.
This includes but is not limited to,
“ Lastly, Virt wants to replace Capitalism with... Socialism. Well, what kind of Socialism, because we already have a lot of it. What, Communism? How many more millions will it take to die before people like him realize it doesn't work? He sits here and rants on Capitalism, but it's the Capitalist system in this country which allows him to live in a house and yet, complain about it! These kinds of people take advantage of everything Capitalism has to offer them, they alone prove why democracy doesn't work.”
And nextly,
“Just when I began to miss the old ad hominems, Virt got desperate and essentially called me a "racist." Liberals, what can you say? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”
And finally my personal favorite,
“ For a progressive, Virt's pretty closed-minded.:”
Due to Con’s use of personal attacks, I must award the conduct point to Pro
Grammar points tied as both had decent grammar overall.
I’d like to start off by thanking both participants for the debate. Afterall without you guys I wouldn’t have a debate to vote on.
All formalities aside I’ll now begin my vote.
Sources:
Con has used many sources to strengthen his claims such as by providing a clear statistic that illustrates that increased gun bans in california by FBI statistics have aided in a lower crime rate.
While Pro on the other hand makes up various claims such as
Uncited Claim # 1:
“ If a person wants a gun, they will always be able to get it, especially from illigament sources!”
Uncited Claim # 2: While there are 34,000 firearm-related deaths in the US per year, there are 600,000 abortions.
Not to mention numerous sources Pro Cites in R1 that he doesn’t link but cites such as,
“Since California activated their gun ban, the number of gun-violence crimes have gone steadily up and now they average at 12% above the rest of the nation!”
“ Since then, through 2012, it has decreased 49%, to a 42-year low, including a 52% drop in the nation’s murder rate, to a 49-year low--perhaps the lowest point in American history."
Consequently this poor sourcing as made voting on this debate rather cumbersome as I’m unable to verify all of Pro’s sources they used.
While comparatively, Con provided a clear source section with links to each on as they’re used.
Therefore due to Pro’s poor sourcing and Con’s clear and precise sources, I must award the sources point to Con.
Moving right along to Arguments.
Arguments:
As I’ve previously demonstrated, all of the Pro's claims are unable to be verifiable due to them either not linking them in the argument or not citing the source altogether.
Which drastically hurts their argument due to unreliable evidence used by Pro.
Not only this but also Pro’s forfeit on the 3rd round have essentially made Con’s round 2 rebuttals uncontested.
Ultimately Con’s undisputed R2 rebuttal and Pro’s evidence being unverifiable have rendered Pro’s argument as insufficient and Cons as comprehensible due to their verifiable claims and clear rebuttal of all of Pro’s claims.
Due to this, I must award the arguments point to Con.
All other points tied, both had decent conduct and decent spelling and grammar.
Pro ff the entire debate, that's poor conduct!
Concession
I’d like to start off by thanking both participants for the debate. Afterall without you guys I wouldn’t have a debate to vote on.
All formalities aside I’ll now begin my vote.
Arguments:
Pro offered Con clear rebuttals to several of pro's points which went un disputed by Con.
Including Pro never addressing Con's rebuttals on Law of love and Slavery.
Instead Con spends the entire debate regarding Pro losing out on conduct points.
While this is fair, this doesn't excuse the fact that Con never countered most of Pro's rebuttals.
Conduct:
Pro must lose a point due to Forfeiting which by the rules merits a loss.