Total votes: 17
Arguments: Pro's arguments 1-6 are simplistic, simple and rely on a single view point of Summer from one area's perspective, ignoring the fact that seasons are diverse. Argument 7 again has this issue, but is more rhetorical from the perspective of a Florida student.
Con's arguments are more well-set out and comprehensively responds to the core points of their challenger. Con not only argued their case but pulled apart Pro's arguments.
Sources: Only Con provided sources so easy to hand that point to them. Pro: "A 2016 study had found " - a link would have been great!
Spelling/Grammar: No major issues from either competitor. Tie.
Conduct: Both very polite and completed their arguments. Tie.
FF: full forfeiture
Arguments: Pro's arguments 1-6 are simplistic, simple and rely on a single view point of Summer from one area's perspective, ignoring the fact that seasons are diverse. Argument 7 again has this issue, but is more rhetorical from the perspective of a Florida student.
Con's arguments are more well-set out and comprehensively responds to the core points of their challenger. Con not only argued their case but pulled apart Pro's arguments.
Sources: Only Con provided sources so easy to hand that point to them.
Spelling/Grammar: No major issues from either competitor. Tie.
Conduct: Both very polite and completed their arguments. Tie.
Point Breakdown:
Convincing Argument - The arguments of Pro were quite strong to begin with, but Con effectively showed the entire argument and debate itself to be critically flawed. Con's arguments were much more convincing throughout. Points go to Con.
Reliable sources - Con had sources, Pro didn't. Pretty simple one - points to Con!
Spelling and Grammar - Although Con's argument was laid out much better, not enough to separate them. Tie.
Conduct - Pro forfeited the last round. Points to Con
Concession
Double Full Forfeit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IpwSqIEbJLVUv3YArZ02Bzg0yCzc4IHMt8LDM492Y7Y/edit?usp=sharing
Literally no arguments from PRO
Multiple forfeits.
CON accurately pointed our PRO did not meet their BOP.
Half forfeit
Full Forfeit. - Vote Ragnar!
Convincing Arguments: CON has well-laid out logical arguments which are, for the most part, left unrefuted by PRO. The debate also had the key issue of the definition of "no-one" as defined by CON which again PRO failed to refute. PRO seemed to be arguing that military use didn't count which was not explicitly stated so, therefore, the military argument is won by CON. This is very similar for the other arguments.
Reliable Sources: CON provided sources for definitions and various points whereas PRO's sources were limited to YouTube and Wikipedia, therefore the point is awarded to CON.
Spelling & Grammar: PRO fails to use basic punctuation such as capital letters so this is also awarded to CON
Conduct: CON was discourteous in his final round, but with just cause as what he said was absolutely correct, therefore the conduct point is tied.
FF
Plagiarism, Failure to meet BOP and forfeit - extreme poor conduct from Pro.
Full Forfeit