Total votes: 37
Pro forfeited.
PRO admits im round 3 that he agrees with CON that chromosomes don't always attribute gender, which dismantled his entire counter in round 2.
In round 4, PRO calls CON's case well-researched, and fails to support much of his arguments with any citations other than stories of people who detransitioned. But, arguably, to call it de-teansitioning is to agree they can transition to a different gender anyways.
However, that doesn't matter because CON decided to accept all of PRO's statements as fact and counter them anyways. So PRO got to skate by without citing sources to back up his claims.
Over all, CON had a much more researched case and got PRO to backpedal at one point.
Though, in CON's final rebuttal a lot of red herrings were used to conclude that being a woman is experiencing womanhood. And he failed to make reasonable connection between how removing a uterus as a result of cancer is equivalent to transgenderism, when there was no uterus to begin with, but since PRO backpedaled and admitted his opponent was well-researched, the debate goes to CON.
I only graded sources because, on all other fronts, PRO and CON largely debated two completely different arguments and did horrible jobs of debunking the other. RM had more emotionally appealing arguments, but lacked hard data for most of it. CON had much more logical rebuttals but largely used the "I dismiss this because I don't like it" approach. So, to me, the only clear victory here was on sources. And PRO completely owned this front. PRO cited peer reviewed studies, regulatory bodies, and experts in their field. CON did this too, but not nearly to the same volume as PRO.
If I were to pick a winner for the arguments, I would default to PRO because of the sources. But that isn't really fair, so I simply graded on sources. The arguments, for the most part, were both a mix of convincing and unconvincing to me. Some were complete straw mans of the opponent and others were really nitpicky, like "con is missing a word here. That's a grammar error" (I'm paraphrasing). Or simply dismissing CON's point on the usage of the land because some study says he's wrong. That isn't really engaging with an argument at all. It's trying to circumvent it and makes the case weak.
But for CON, you can't just make wild claims and assume people have the common knowledge. It took you until round 3 to actually substantiate how meat is beneficial. But you didn't really do that much to discredit how vegetables are less healthy, which is important. There's plenty of avenues, such as how a vegetarian or vegan diet causes high estrogen counts in males because of the influx of foods that have phytoestrogens in them. It also can cause other health problems like the starvation of certain important nutrients (protein being the main one unless the person eats a lot of beans). It's also very difficult to get Omega 3s unless a person eats a bunch of nuts. There's others, but the vegan diet is actually significantly more dangerous to the average person with no knowledge of nutrition than an omnivore diet because it is difficult to get some key nutrients from vegetables alone. This would have been your avenue. But you didn't really engage with the health arguments all that much.
So yeah, for me it mainly came down to sources. Both people addressed the other, but in the rebuttals they spent more time complaining about the other person's conduct than actually rebutting anything. So all that was left was sources for me, which PRO really won on.
Welp... After a long awaited time period, I am finally giving my vote.
While both sides went back and forth reversing their own arguments with their rebuttals against each other, one valuable statistic ultimately shredded PRO's argument.
PRO repeatedly argued that many innocent people are given the death penalty, but he also argued that the appeals process is lengthy for the death penalty and not LWOP.
This begs the question, that CON successfully answered, is it really possible that so many innocent people are dying if they have significantly more legal resources and appeals than LWOP?
PRO never really responded to this point by CON when it was raised the first time. He merely doubled down on his 4.1% statistic of "likely innocent" people.
But this creates a problem, because one central tenet to PRO's overall case was that the death penalty is immoral because it sends innocent people to death.
But when countered by a person who is in LWOP, who showed that 73% of death penalties get revoked, and how they have more legal resources, PRO dropped this argument entirely, because he previously agreed with half of it (the additional trials that can take decades to complete).
So what is PRO's final case? That a courts of law in another continent decided the death penalty was immoral and that Death Penalty people chose LWOP.
Well, considering this is "death penalty in the US," then what European courts say doesn't matter. Since this is about the U.S. and not the death penalty on general. So all that is left is that LWOP was chosen by those on the death penalty.
But, as previously shown, CON cited a person in the opposite direction, someone who has LWOP and wants the death penalty. This LWOP writer claims many of his fellow inmates would choose the death penalty because of the extra chances to appeal and the extra legal help provided. Plus the appealing statistic of 73% of death penalties revoked.
Why should we value the opinions of those on death row over those with LWOP? Clearly both groups view the other as "the grass is greener."
So, when everything is resolved, we are left with innocent murders, and the fact is both sides agree that there are significantly more hurdles to jump through to convict someone of the death penalty, unlike LWOP.
And PRO even stated that he wanted to do away with all those useless trials, which make it more difficult to murder an innocent person.
Which means that, ultimately, PRO agreed with CON that the death penalty appeals process saves innocent lives due to its extreme rigorousness, and therefore, it does not do more harm than good. So CON ultimately won the debate.
Forfeiture by CON
Full Forfeit by Con
Arguments:
Novice_II rebutted almost all of Sir.Lancelot's points while Sir.Lancelot really dropped a lot of arguments here. I also have difficulty seeing how his round 2 defense against misinterpreting the debate was substantiated. To me the block quotes read more inline with both of their interpretations if you pick apart a sentence or two here and there.
But Sir.Lancelot did have one specific argument that Novice_II effectively dropped. When Sir.Lancelot explains that Harris argues that presupposing a God is to not deal in facts, Novice_II basically replies with an opinion of Kant rather than show how Craig dismantled that viewpoint. So Sir.Lancelot won that one, in my opinion, since Novice_II was just covering for Craig rather than showing how Craig, specifically, answered those questions.
But due to the multiple dropped arguments by Sir.Lancelot, I just cannot give him the win here. Novice_II made a concerted effort to respond to all points whereas Sir.Lancelot did not.
CONDUCT:
To Sir.Lancelot because Novice_II said things like:
"Not only does con fail to respond to any aspect of my case, but his disorganized notions also don't indicate reading or understanding of the debate at hand." Insulting your interlocutor's reading ability and calling him disorganized is not the way to win conduct points. Just saying.
And "In this debate, con has not even attempted to attack my argument for why Craig won the debate..." This is simply false. In Round 2 Sir.Lancelot DID respond to your main point, that Craig won by presupposing a God as the foundation. To claim he did not respond to any of your round one points is simply wrong.
Full Forfeit by CON
ARGUMENTS:
TBH. Both sides had their moments, but the rebuttals were both so utterly absurd to each other that it was t ading one big thought experiment that was not based in reality. PRO lived in a world where throat strikes, groin kicks, kidney punches, finger locks, and pressure points didn't exist. CON lived in a world where guillotines, locks, grabs, and simply picking people up and throwing their heads into objects like rocks did not exist. The problem here is that these hypotheticals actually make really weak cases.
PRO brought up endless examples of wrestlers beating boxers and such. But these were done within the confines of heavily regulated fights that ban the deadly moves of striking and wrestling. In other words, they don't really prove anything. And, for goodness sake, anyone who has watched a boxing match knows there are holds. So neither side really won on an argument because neither side really gave a convincing, real-world case. And since that wasn't considered, and yhe definitions do not make clear whether these are only certain situations or all situations, then both are right and both are wrong. So neither side really was convincing.
SOURCES:
PRO had so many videos of actual fights of people between different styles where the grappler wins. CON had good experts, but PRO just had so much volume of quality sources that PRO wins on sources.
GRAMMAR:
Both had spelling and grammar errors, but not enough to make it difficult to understand.
CONDUCT:
Since Rule 2 was waived, I weighted conduct on behavior, and both sides called the other a liar, said the other did deceitful things.
Technical Full Forfeiture.
Forfeit by CON.
CON is ultimately right that PRO admitted there was a waye gap as per the description. So ultimately CON wins.
PRO does get points for conduct because CON forfeited and then responded in the last round out of two rounds. Would have been interesting to see a rebuttal from PRO.
Sources tied because neither really used a source.
Spelling and grammar tied because both were easy to understand and used good grammar and spelling practices.
PRO forfeited in Round 2.
Full forfeiture by CON
While "no no" doesn't really count as a real argument, CON and PRO broke the rules by their conduct in the last round, so PRO's argument is automatically breaking the debate rules and therefore cannot be counted. PRO was supposed to waive round 4, and CON also broke this rule by offering to extend PRO's opening argument into Round 4.
However, CON was very courteous in giving PRO multiple opportunities to make their argument, so CON ultimately wins on conduct. The rest is tied because neither side gave an argument, sources, or had better spelling and grammar.
Full forfeiture
Full forfeiture
Full forfeiture
PRO used the description for his round one argument, which technically isn't allowed. CON pointed this out and PRO never responded again throughout the remainder of the debate.
Because PRO technically did not make any arguments in his first round besides "check the description," the argument goes to CON, who rebutted that this is not technically allowed according to sitewide rules.
Moreover, PRO did not back his argument with any sources at all, which fails the basic burden of proof. CON does not need sources to point this out. However, CON also cited, without evidence, that direct torture caused more pain than childbirth. So for burden of proof it is a toss up. But overall CON at least stuck to the sitewide rules and even gave PRO a chance to make his opening statement multiple times.
Full forfeit
The debate isn't if writing should be illegal if it is not made legal. The debate is whether writing should be made illegal. These are two different topics entirely.
PRO argued that reading should be made illegal if it is not made legal. But this isn't the debate topic. The debate topic is on the second part that he did not argue for, the actual making of it illegal or not. Of course things cause other things to happen. But that isn't the debate topic.
CON, at least stayed on topic and argued for his side, that writing should not be made illegal. Therefore CON made the better arguments.
While PRO's argument is rather interesting, that if writing is not made legal then it should remain illegal, CON shows that writing is, indeed, legalized in the United States under the first amendment.
However, PRO once again moves away from the debate prompt, ultimately arguing that writing is not currently legal as opposed to whether it should be made illegal. While similar, the two arguments are different. This means that CON wins because they not only refuted one of PRO's central claims but also argued for their position.
CON argued for PRO's case in addition to CON arguing for his own case. Therefore CON wins by default.
While neither side really gave a great argument, at least CON made an effort to show Somalia is worse than the United States in at least two qualifications, thus fulfilling the debate prompt. PRO stated that what is best for him can't be refuted by someone else, but PRO never stated what is best for him, so he didn't really make an argument either way.
While CON's argument is unimpressive because it does not actually compare the United States to Somalia, it at least was an argument against Somalia, which is better than what PRO gave by not choosing a country at all in his scenario.
PRO did not really argue anything except say America can declare war on Canada and not go to war. At least that was what I gathered. The debate wasn't whether American CAN declare war on Canada but that they SHOULD declare war on Canada.
CON, on the flipside, argued that they shouldn't because Canada has not done anything to the United States. While this assertion was not really strongly backed by anything other than a link showing Canada and America are close allies, it is at least on topic and following what CON was supposed to prove. So CON won the debate because he actually argued what he was supposed to argue.
Arguments:
PRO provided a singular paragraph of an unsourced history of Taiwan. CON engaged in PRO's history and also supplied multiple sources to back his assertions that PRO is wrong about the PRC owning Taiwan after Japan invaded. Which PRO failed to prove with any sort of sourcing. He also supplied multiple sources to back his assertions that it was not the rebels who wanted to free Taiwan from the PRC, but in fact they wanted to free themselves from both the ROC and PRC and establish their own country in Taiwan. Because of the responses by CON to PRO's baseless assertions, including sources that agree with CON, and going into significantly more detail than PRO, CON wins the argument points hands down.
SOURCES:
Pro did not cite a single source. CON cited multiple sources. Therefore CON had better sourcing.
CONDUCT:
PRO did not direct any borderline insults to CON. However, CON did direct some borderline insulting rhetoric toward PRO:
"So, when discussing who owns who, please educate yourself"
To imply pro is uneducated based on a single paragraph is not a logical position to take, and also is insulting.
"Therefore, it is ignorant and outright deceitful to imply that the current PRC is what owned and ruled 'Taiwan' instead the China."
There is no evidence that PRO is being outright deceitful with his statement. PRO wrote a single paragraph that was unsourced. It is extremely difficult to determine much of anything PRO was doing outside of writing a one-paragraph, unsourced argument.
Full forfeit.
Complete forfeit.
ARGUMENTS:
According to the debate description, we are considering DebateArt as the criteria. So for PRO to insist an outside definition should be used as a standard for a good debater is to go against the description. CON structured his argument based on the statistical average of the leaderboard and the existence of the Hall of Fame, which are two metrics that DebateArt explicitly uses to rank debaters and good debates. This means that CON better followed the debate's structure than PRO and therefore has won the debate. The question was never "is Barney and OBJECTIVELY good debater" (according to the description), but if Barney's performance on DebateArt is good, since the description blatantly states that DebateArt will be considered.
SOURCES:
CON and PRO both had reliable sources, but CON cited significantly more reliable sources than PRO over the course of the debate. The sheer volume of citations back to previous debates and profiles proving Barney's performance on DebateArt went unmatched by PRO, who relied on a cursory analysis that he/she did not reveal to the general public and only included a laundry list of people PRO considered "good" based on his/her unshared spreadsheet.
SPELLING AND GRAMMAR:
Both sides had typos and basic grammar errors. But none of these errors were able to sufficiently impede comprehension, so both are tied in regard to this score.
CONDUCT:
Both were equally respectful and the dialogue was open and barely hostile.
Both sides forfeited.
Pro forfeited more than 40% of the debate, therefore:
"Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments."
Additionally:
"Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss."
So CON wins Argument and Conduct.
More convincing arguments:
CON showed that it is impossible to argue the notion of personhood for animals because:
1. PRO never gave animals personhood in his opening argument.
2. the word "another" denotes, as CON put it, equal value between two things.
Some reasons CON interpreted PRO correctly:
"Premise one is definitional, with all terms being found in the description of our debate. Premise two, subsequently, is truistic. In animal agriculture, animals are owned as the property of their rearers." - Here PRO distinctly states animals and humans are different.
"Animal agriculture is the enslavement of sentient creatures, turning them into resources for human consumption." - Here PRO states that animals are enslaved by humans. This is important because his opening point was the "another person" was a human.
It was not until Round 2 where PRO actually stated he meant animals were persons under the philosophy of personhood. At minimum this means PRO was trying to hide his argument for this, or he automatically assumed without cause, since the description did not include a dictionary or a definition for personhood, that person meant the philosophical sense. So PRO is doubling back because CON destroyed his argument through simple tautology.
* * *
Reliable Sources:
CON cited Pro's .edu source for personhood, the LII, Merriam Webster, Encyclopedia Britannica, and Oxford's learner dictionary.
PRO cited three .edu websites, the EPA, a reputable philosophy magazine, and one Oxford link, in addition to Cambridge Dictionary.
Therefore PRO used more reliable sources.
* * *
I ran both arguments from all the rounds into Grammarly's grammar checker (which is one of the best on the market) and arrived at the following scores:
CON: 29 issues
PRO: 28 issues
Therefore, CON had worse spelling and grammar using an objective measurement for both parties, a program used by colleges and universities nationwide to help students write better.
* * *
Conduct:
Tied.
Full forfeiture.
Arguments: CON
PRO came out the gate really strongly in round one with a very strong argument from deontology. But PRO ultimately failed (further along in the debate) when he argued that PSA should be understood the way Christians understand it, and then failing to defend how his understanding is THE proper Christian interpretation as opposed to CON's understanding of it. PRO relied on a couple Christian answer websites that openly admit their biases toward a certain type of Christianity in the websites themselves, and two (three?) theologians to claim what the "proper" Christian believe was. While these sources would normally be good usage, PRO said his argument rested on the understanding of PSA for "the Christian." He did not, at any point, prove that most Christians understand Christianity in the way he is describing it. He cited about 4 different experts, but not a collective view of Christianity. Therefore, PRO failed to prove his view of PSA was the real Christian view.
CON also failed to do this. But CON did not make the claim that we must understand PSA according to how Christians understand it. He claimed the Christian understanding is flawed for reasons he gave. Remember that both parties already agreed to a definition of PSA. They did not agree to perceive it as a Christian would. That claim was put forward by PRO and therefore the burden of proof is on PRO for such claim. PRO offered no such proof for his claim. He offered anecdotal evidence of two or three theologians and then interpreted the Scriptures according to the theologians' interpretations and not the other way around.
This is important for one reason: PRO and CON both implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are the primary source document. And CON made his argument from the primary source document, whereas PRO made his argument from choice theologians who supposedly spoke for all Christians, and then shoehorned the primary source document to agree with his experts.
Therefore, CON simply gave better arguments, since he did provide justification for his beliefs on Christianity when asked by PRO, according to the implicitly agreed upon primary source document. He also showed ample evidence from the primary source that his beliefs are Christian.
I would like to say more on the other topics, but the TOS for voting makes it impossible to judge the other three parts of the debate based on a lack of standards from the debate description and outside sources for criteria not being allowed. Oh well.