Pinkfreud08

Pro FF 2 rounds which is poor conduct

https://imgflip.com/i/2yl01c

BigBoonj forfeited the entire debate which is poor conduct.

Con FF half of the rounds, this is poor conduct on their part

Full FF this is poor conduct

Conduct: Pro moved the goal post, in his description he defines the goal post as

"provide BoP that Trump has said or done racist things."

- Which implies that he HAS done racist things. Which implies that the time period doesn't matter. However than later on Pro moves the goal post by stating,

"My opponent has not proven that Trump is racist today, and is using evidence from 50 years ago"

This is a moving of the goal post since previously Pro used a general tense but is now claiming that the goal is to prove Trump has been racist recently. This is an obvious moving of the goal post which Pro spouted multiple times throughout the debate.

Moving of the goal post in and of itself, is poor conduct on pro's part.

Con forfeited every round which is poor conduct.

Reliable Sources: Neither used any sources so therefore it is a tie.

Spelling and Grammar: Both had relatively the same grammar. Overall between both sides, it was legible.

Conduct: Neither Forfeited and neither resorted to insults, therefore my vote is a tie.

Convincing Arguments: Both had aright arguments and I was flip flopping my position during the debate, however one statement that Con stated absolutely proves that morality has to be objective.

The quote in question was " Cuz here’s the rub, you both can’t be right. That’s not logically possible. You can’t have two contradicting things and have them both be true."

- This quote pretty much proves that morality has to be objective, otherwise morality would contradict itself. Pro's response to this fact was this,

" Even though morality is subjective, it is not logical or productive for society to let people go around doing things that harm others."

- This statement directly contradicts pro's entire argument. Right here Pro is literally stating that harming other people is objectively wrong. Which of course contradicts his entire argument based around subjective morality.

Spelling and grammar: Both had decent spelling and grammar, therefore it's a tie.

Reliable sources: Pro only used 1 single source in his debate and it was from a wiki page, Con not only used a wider variety of more trustworthy sources but used his sources in his argument better than pro did as pro throughout the debate mostly used anecdotes. Therefore con has better sources.

Conduct: Pro ff the last round while Con didn't. Therefore Con by default had better conduct.

Convincing arguments: Both made decent points, however in the final round Con absoulutely destroyed most of Pro's argument on this point.

"There is a missing link, even in the Harvard-supported research into proving consciousness to be physical, to identify what exactly knowledge known to the conscious being is and what the emotions experienced turn into from 'hormones' into genuinely felt sensations."

Con than stated,

"There is absolutely no way to explain it is in a physical sense because while you can prove consciousness to be materialistic in the sense of this definition, you cannot explain where, how or when knowledge is or feelings are 'operating' or absolutely tangible in a physical sense for the conscious being to 'access' with their conscious thinking. Instead, only the 'why' and the 'what' are explainable, meaning it isn't entirely unreal but it lacks any physicality."

- This statement alone while doesn't 100 % prove that materialism doesn't exist, it does provide reasoble doubt on the entire concept of materialism. And since all Con had too do was to provide reasonable doubt, Con easily won the debate in terms of convincing arguments.

Spelling and Grammar and conduct: Both had very fine conduct and spelling and grammar so both tied in those aspects, however, the similarities end from there.

Reliable Sources: The instigator did provide one absolutely absurd and incorrect source in his final argument, being the one that quote " claims that capitalism is responsible for lowering child mortality rates and preventing tooth decay rather than advances in medical science",. Through conducting some research and using common sense this is obviously true. However aside from that one source, con not only provided more sources but also used his data in his arguments, something too which the contender failed too and instead relied on anecdotal claims. Therefore the instigator won in that aspect.

Convincing arguments: The instigator made some decent arguments particularly in his 1st rebuttel, however they also made some condradicting points. For example at one point the instigator made this contradicting point. ." Black people make up about 13% of the population and make up 27% of poor people in America. Capitalism has raised their living standards,". In case you don't see the blaring contradiction, all this stat proves is that black poverty is a huge issue in America as a minority which only makes up 13 % of the population, also makes up 27 % of poor people in America. Which is a very high statistic too have in supposedly "capitalist paridise",.

- The contender also made stronger rebuttels particularly on " White people are not handed down money. They work hard for their money. 69% of kids from rich parents work for their money while only 6% are inherited."

The contender than argued back,

"The ones at the very top of the wealth ladder all inherit massive amounts of money though. On top of that, just because you work to make MORE money doesn't mean you didn't get a massive head start by being born with a rich daddy."

This is obviously a very true point as just because whites may work harder, doesn't mean they don't have a better head start than other races due too most blacks living more poverty than their white counterparts.

And of course, my personal favorite argument that the contender made was this masterpiece,

" If you want to say those advances were helped because of capitalism, then I could easily cancel that out by pointing to the USSR which went from being an abject feudalistic shit hole to being one of the most advanced countries on earth under socialism. The USSR also saw these advances much more rapidly than any capitalist country in history."

- Before I begin my analysis of this point, I would like too state that I do not support the USSR due too the vass amount of corruption and human rights issues in that country. However in terms of it's success in advancement, what the Contender is saying is indeed correct. Compared too Old russia and the USSR, the USSR had a better millitary, a better economy, better infastructure, less wealth inequality, and overall became a global superpower, even comparable too the old british empire, and the USA.

All of this being said I feel very strongly that while the instigator had better sources and both had equal amounts of conduct and grammar, overall pro made more convincing arguments for their claim.