Total votes: 689
Concession
Full forfeit
:| :| :| :|
Pro made a number of points here. He raised a number of reasons why abortion could be considered wrong, and a provided a justification for why the 3 week limit is warranted.
Specifically, that it harms the fetus; and that cells are specialized.
In general, while I felt con made an incredibly weak argument.
However pro massively harmed his arguments with limited and short rounds.
Pro had the outline of a good argument, that women don’t have enough time, and the beginnings of a moral underpinning - by arguing that a fetus at 3 weeks is more like an animal of plant in complexity. But with the lack of any substantial details to these points, I would be handing too much to pro to award him the points.
Full forfeit.
I consider this debate to be a full forfeit - with con providing only a single argument in 4 rounds.
RFD in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/513?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=14
Full forfeit.
Full foefeit
RFD in comments https://www.debateart.com/debates/463?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=10
Pro doesn’t make an argument - it appear to be mostly a nonsensical rant, without any definitive warranted claims. This is obviously not an attempt at a good fair debate, and I’m not going to treat it as such.
As a result, there is nothing in pros opening round I can consider as part of this debate which, considering that con offered an argument means that con must win by default.
1.) Con offers no argument whatsoever against the resolution, at all of any kind.
Pro wins on the resolution.
2.) Con clearly offered a Kritik argument that challenged an implicit assumption of the resolution. Haggling over whether this is a theory argument, or Kritik clearly goes to pro as pros main points are un-refuted. This together with exceptionally poor conduct that has no place in a debate (that pro highlighted in round 2), forfeits, etc are clearly also rule violations.
Pro wins on the grounds of the rules.
3.) is debate just a game.
I will consider any argument for debates, even ones like this which are so far left field, it’s travelled once around the earth to arrive at right-field. Cons argument are essentially that I should not consider any debate that doesn’t have some positive real world impact. If I were to weigh cons argument by the very merits he asks me to - then It is not clear why his debate approach in this single debate here should change the world.
The only argument for why this should be what debate is for, is that it’s not a game - and we know it’s not a game because pro is not playing pool - together with other similar assertions presented without justification.
This is wholly unwarranted claim is the basis for this kritik and pro gives me no good reason to believe it. Why would Con be playing pool if debate was a game?
As a result, I can’t really consider anything that comes after as warranted.
Pro again wins.
4.) who has more real world impact.
Even if I overlook points 1-3, and vote on clear impact to the real world, con offers a substantial number of points in addition to this real world impact argument. I agree with pro that these are wasting pros time - something con argued is a negative impact.
Con also offers no framework for how the content of this nonsense has any impact on the real world: it mainly boils down to asserting that this resolution will change no ones mind either way - something pro addresses.
Pro pointing out that this weird anarchic thread of argument is detrimental debate is compelling, as is the idea that pro argues that honing debate arguments and position is beneficial clearly seems more reasonable.
As a result, even voting based on cons argued voting lens means I am compelled to vote for pro too.
5.) The rules
I’m willing to accept harms from rules, and reject rules as presented rather than argued by fiat.
I will actually grant cons argument that there is some notional inherent harm in accepting the kritik portion of the argument, and that he shouldn’t be marked down on that particular rule violation - as this was not directly addressed by pro.
However, for the remainder of the rule violations con offers no argument for harm for the rules, and gives me no clear reason to reject them. So these must stand - which means I must accept those rule violations.
This goes pros way too.
6.) Pro argues the resolution has been affirmed
- and says if I think the resolution should be debated, I should consider it affirmed. As I do generally feel the resolution is the most important point of the debate, id agree with pro here too.
Conclusion: there is no lens or analysis that I could warrant awarding this to con. While the approach was ballsy from con - the sloppy, and petulant way he argued let him down, the appearance of trolling undermines his position in the very lens he argued to judge him by, so I have to say this is an easy vote for pro.
RFD in comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/456?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=5
RFD from comment:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/436?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=8
Arguments.
Pros argument is fairly straightforward - that fear of rejection is understandable, but it’s better to ask, and easy to ask and then see what happens.
Cons counter deals with a few basic issues:
1.) Rejection.
Con argues that he isn’t sure that the girl likes him, as she’s only given a few hints.
Pro points out that while it’s true that there is a chance this is true, if there is a chance now is the best time, as it’s likely going to be one less possible to ask her out as time goes on. He also points out to that pro may well have misread signs
Con points out that there may not be issues with waiting, as relationships rarely last. And con reiterates the signs are not there.
While I find pros points that con should not wait, and his summary that fear is always an issue particularly valid as a general point - however the main point con made was that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant belief of attraction as more compelling, making his fear more specifically justified than pros more general arguments imo.
1:0 Con
2.) Timeframe
Con argues there has not been enough time for him to feel comfortable about her and with her - arguing effectively that this is something he needs.
Pros main reply is that this is what dating is for, and argues that it may not ruin what appears to be a friendship. Con points out that pro didn’t address the main point - his feeling that he doesn’t know the girl too well.
In my view pro does not do nearly enough to show why con doesn’t know the person well enough. This is clearly a big problem for con, and in my view, not clearly refuted.
2:0 con
3.) it’s not as easy as it used to be. Con points out the issues with social media, and how it can mess up his life. Pro points out this will always be a risk no matter how long he waits.
While I think cons issue is valid, I believe con correctly argues on the basis of time here - that the risk doesn’t change with time.
2:1 Con.
On balance, I do have to say I must give this to con. His harms are fairly clear and in my view pro did not do quite enough to sell the chance of success, or to mitigate those harms.
Full forfeit - in addition, con clearly deserves the win even were full forfeits unmoderated. It was a pretty good refutation in his opening reply.
Ugh! Forfeits
Full forfeit + concession
Note: this is a very short debate, and so rather hard to work out the correct way of scoring.
It is however a good old fashioned policy debate!
1.) pros opening arguments feel relatively standard, and are well explained. He explains that homosexuals who want to get married but can’t are missing our on specific rights and dignity. In a short debate, this is more than sufficient to uphold his initial burden.
2.) Con is arguing for the SQ - the first point is that it’s he’s claiming it’s a choice - with the single source cited which disagrees with his position as pointed out by pro - but the presentation of the argument is more of an assertion, and as such I don’t find there to be grounds to discard pros point.
3.) Fiat - as a point of order: in policy debates there is a concept called Fiat - where the one arguing for a policy is effectively allowed to mostly bypass practicality. The purpose of this is to make debates about the issue and substance presented and not about complexity its implementation. There are limits to this - but in this case there is not sufficient warrant to consider the difficulty presented by con.
4.) it’s bad for the children. Con cited a single source, which pro casts doubt on with his rebuttal (but I will get to see this). However even if I accept this possible downside of the issue, it’s not clear how substantive this negative is compared to the net positive pro argues in round 1.
Given this, I feel pros case is on more solid ground with the particular harms clearer than those mentioned by con.
Note: I have not included pros final round I my decision. But this has not affected the decision. Normal debate structure here generally has an even number of debate rounds each - and I am erring that even rounds are default unless otherwise specified.
If this was not a winner selection, this may have warranted a conduct violation - it is on the borderline. This is to say as a note just in case for next time.
Equal forfeits - pro doesn’t offer any specific arguments other than a rebuttal for cons argument on all cohabiting relationships being sexual in nature. As such Neither side fulfilled their BoP.
Final forfeit is considered a total loss as per rules.
Even so: conduct to pro for forfeit: S&G to pro as con was incomprehensible, frequent use of capitalization, incessant use of ???? And elipses ... prevent. Sources as pro added to his warrant with his link concerning military weaponry - and lack of any warrant for claims con presented was harmful.
Arguments to pro as con was not comprehensible, was engaged in a largely true nonsensical rant and clearly neither engaging in good faith or clearly elaborating on any of the points raised. I must award pro arguments as a result of this as only pro is providing any form of debate argument that can be considered as such.
This is obviously not an attempt by con to engage in good faith, either by design or by capacity, to any degree - and as such as a voter I am not going to treat it as such for the sake of pro and for the sake of legitimate debate.
Arguments: Pro offers pre-emptive arguments for democracy - these are unnecessary as con has not yet made the argument and is more a protection against a Kritik - it mostly just breaks up the flow.
Pro focuses on potential harms of non mandatory voting:
That urban voters would outweigh rural voters. Pro doesn’t make it clear why this is the case, or how MV would avoid it.
Pro makes a case that it creates an oligarchy in favour of those who have time to vote, then focuses on how that could then be manipulated.
While there are aspects of this argument for which that I felt pro didn’t offer sufficient warrant (that media manipulation is avoided by MV), I felt the general thrust pro made is generally compelling.
Cons R2 counter must either negate pros benefits, or submit harms. Practicality issues are normally avoided by fiat in these types of debates, and so as Con doesn’t show harm from practicality - I have to ignore this.
Cons argument about fines doesn’t appear to have warrant - as pro already states fines are proportional to income which is not addressed.
Cons other proposed harm is relating to stupidity of voters. I don’t feel con shows this is a specific harm from mandatory voting as much as voting in general.
Pro very much counters the argument of informed voters by pointing out the solution is to inform them - this is an excellent rebuttal.
Pro also elaborates his main harm - that without voting being mandatory - voting must be incentivized by other means that are easy to exploit (such as sensationalism) - I find this a better formulation than in pros opening.
In his final rebuttal con does not really elaborate on his harms, or really counter the harms pro shows. Con raises a couple of objections to pros point relating to Latin America - which in my view do not counter the harms - and a practicality issue that pro cannot respond to.
As a result, I felt pro established a harm on the status quo, whereas con neither negated pros harm, or proposed a reasonable harm. Thus arguments go to pro.
I don’t feel spelling, sources or conduct was sufficient warranted points either way - I don’t feel pro pointing out new points is a clear enough violation to warrant conduct point deduction.
R1. Note: This RfD has been written whilst reading the debate.
Pros position is arguing the benefits of having a military. While I accept the inherent premise that more money means more of these positives intuitively, this is inherently a weak argument without fundamentally establishing the necessity of more money, to enact all beneficial plans - or even what necessary plans cannot be funded now.
Cons defense of the SQ is effectively explaining how bad one aspect of the SQ is with waste and with the issues caused by the military with radicalization. While this is okay, this position is necessarily weaker than either defending the SQ or presenting the counter plan.
R2. Pro provides a plan for usage of wasted capacity, though I felt that pro did not give sufficient warrant for this position.
Pro only refutes issues on base capacity, with most of the other issues of wastage not addressed.
Pro later massively undermined his position by conceding the US is already safe and secure - strongly supporting the SQ which he is arguing against.
Pros primary remaining points, charitably, is that the SQ of military presence should be maintained - as removing them was not part of cons argument - I feel this argument was irrelevant.
I reject cons statement that pro is changing his advocacy - R1 set up his advocacy as a broad argument that the military can better protect and intervene - I do not feel that concrete examples are outside this advocacy.
Moving on, I feel con undermines the SQ here - by arguing that extra funding will evaporate due to administrative costs intuitively implies that the SQ is insufficient, in the absence of a counter plan, to me, in this argument con somewhat conceded that the military needs more funds or it won’t be able to protect the country.
Cons counter to military intervention suggested by pro is valid, and for me spells out that the proposed plan for additional funding pro spelt out is not beneficial.
Con continues his arguments that intervention causes terrorism - this necessarily shows the negative impact of the harms caused by pros plans
R3:
Pro appears to again concede the SQ is sufficient - by accepting the us has more money than needed for the current state of military activity.
Pros advocacy of enhanced spending in this regard is effectively that the US needs to intervene with the countries stated. For this pro has to justify why the extended intervention is more beneficial than SQ. Pro doesn’t seem to offer any calculus for this, and his reasons for benefit (lives and security), are largely vague and non-specific.
Cons objection to pros new points are noted. But I don’t feel pros position advocacy is much more than building on what’s there - volume of points is another matter that I may consider
Cons arguments here are broad - but in my view are relevant - Con is clearly outlining the harms of pros plan.
This debate, was quite odd - as I found that both pro and con argued against their position.
However - I feel that while con somewhat argued against the SQ - it could be reconciled with the resolution where as pros concessions could not. Because of this, I felt the debate boils down to whether pros plans were beneficial in general and outweighed the harms com outlined - I felt pro clearly did not establish this, thus con wins on arguments.
Full forfeit.
Prefacing this with the fact that I am not a rap officianado.
Round 1:
Pro: seemed rather simplistic and generic rap.
Con: Fast, hilarious, and a bouncing type of rap with a catchy flow.
Con 1-0
Round 2:
Pro: kinda catchy little tune, not the most complex, but very easy to listen to.
Con: interesting rap, most of the flow seemed rather generic, and asside from a period where he rapped very fast, was instantly forgettable.
Pro 1-1
Round 3:
Pro, largely the same as cons last round. Forgettable and not a rap id actually listen to.
Con: this didn’t have A great hook, or any sort of interesting or melodic flow.
Close, but pro gets this one... just.
Pro 2:1
Round 4:
Pro: stripped down, but I actually liked this one, if had more emotion than Kaan which actually made this feel reasonably good.
Con: Eminem, great flow and hilarious, wins hands down.
Pro 2:2
Round 5:
Pro: Tech9 I’m assuming this was removed without pro knowing - but I looked up the song. I really liked this one, I liked the flow, the more melodic rap.
Con: I clubbed a lot in the early 2000s, and this is a less catchy than the filler hip hop songs between turn down for what and BoB. This was a terrible song.
Pro 3:2
Saying this, I felt con had the best two songs and the rest were terrible - as this is a judgement on rap taste, if I was stuck in an elevator and had to listen to RM or captain forfeits rap choices - id probably be happier listening to RMs, because the remaining songs for Con were terrible.
Full forfeit.
I cannot in any way, shape or form justify to myself that this was a genuine attempt at an argument, or a debate on the part of con. His opening round was nonsensical and rambling, being less of an argument and more of a incomprehensible rant.
Given this, pros argument - short though his one - must win, due to lack of genuine and good faith competition.
At no point during pros rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in reading this debate is now dumber for having read to it.
I award Pro no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.
Flipping that that was, Pro was rambling, incoherent and was entirely nonsensical. He didn’t offer any specific argument I can see, just a ranting word salad that made no sense, and cannot and should not be assessed as an attempt to engage in good faith debate.
Con wins this debate as he is the only individual who offered any form of understandable argument.
Full forfeit.
1.) debate stats.
Con argues he is better than RM based on his debate statistics. Pro points out cons record on DDO in comparison, which appears to show Bsh clearly having better stats. Con objects and attributes lack of losses to forfeits - then claims he does the same thing.
Pro clearly provided more compelling data here.
2.) Bsh avoids complex debates.
Con argues that winning is inaccurate as it means you avoid complex debates. Pro shows this is false by citing two examples (one later) where bsh has a difficult position defended - and one where con losss a similar debate
3.) RM can do multiple debates at a time.
Pro argues this is more related to free time than skill.
4.) Bsh choses rules to make him win.
Pro argues that the rules actually mean its harder for bsh to win.
5.) bsh beat RM.
Pro argues an example of where bsh and Rn met in debate - and RM lost.
6.) bsh forfeits debates he can’t win.
Con admits he did this, pro argues that as bsh has loses, it can’t be argued that he never loses due to the debate forfeit bug.
The objective weight of examples presented here on multiple counts give this one to pro. Pro offers by far more conclusive and objective means to show who is the better debater.
1.) Oversimplification.
Con argues that the claim is an oversimplification - that various scholars have disagreed with what hell means and how it works.
Pro tersely dismisses this, by saying that he will attempt to prove his position. While Con is effectively making an appeal to authority here, and pro rightly states that he will make his argument and it should be viewed on merit, pros generalized dismissal of the point was incomplete. Pro needs to more thoroughly justify his position in light of both these arguments (why can he simply cite the bible, in view of the issues with language and interpretation), and later on cons point 5. Without that, con has laid reasonable ground work for a challenge on the grounds of interpretation.
2.) Not forever
Con offers two examples of interpretations of the bible that do not require eternal torture. This is a valid argument - however what weakens his position is that while he provided examples of groups who disagree with the contention, but no specific reasons why that point of view is valid.
Pro points this out, by questioning where the biblical support for these two positions. This was very terse response, but I think is a valid point.
3.) could you deserve to burn in Hell?
Con raises a very interesting argument - maybe some people may deserve to be tortured forever. It’s a subjective choice.
More specifically - he also argues that it’s not so much being sent to hell, as ending there based on life choices.
Pro responds by effectively calling this a euphemism: “we send ourselves”, really means “god sends us”. By referencing Stalin, pro attempts to bolster this case, by proving a human understandable example. I feel this falls a little short of actually addressing cons point, but not far.
In my view there is insufficient argument on behalf of pro on moralistic grounds, why he believes that such evil people shouldn’t be in Hell forever.
4.) God is not evil.
Cons contention here is that effectively while it may not make sense to us, that just because there is eternal torture, a supreme beings decision to do this in the context of the universe may not be arguable. He lays our reasonable ground work for this. In terms of pros rebuttal is effectively pointing out how this is unfair, and morally hypocritical.
5.) interpretation.
Cons final argument here is that the bible has to be interpreted in a number of contexts, with a number of translatative burdens, and it’s not always easy to draw specific conclusions from a few passages. He gives an example of one of pros points that I find valid, and argues this applies to all. Pro did not respond here, so in my view this has to stand.
6.) Biblical support for Pro.
Pro uses biblical passages to argue and justify his point. Con argues, mostly that this is interpretation (see point 5). I have to go with con on this as his position is largely unrefuted due to forfeits.
Summary: My critique (not part of my overall decision)
My feeling on this debate is that pro had the individually better arguments, but didn’t argue them in enough detail, or land any form of knock out blow required to override two rounds of forfeits and being unable to respond to con. I feel that pro could well have won had he not forfeited - but I there were several parts where he made a terse or minimal reply that I felt he needed to add meat to.
Con did well, but the major flaw in my view is that he discussed a lot of abstract topics, and examples - but didn’t support a specific framework - it would have been better to have raised a particular point of view, describe the moral “Hell framework”, and defended using the bible, and against pros generalized position, that would have been preferable.
What con did argue, he argued fairly well - but simply lacked specific examples he could cite to make it harder for pro.
If I had to make a decision based solely on R1 opening and rebuttal, I think pro edges this out - just - but as an overall debate I can’t overlook all the missed refutations and arguments due to forfeits. So I have to go with con on arguments.
In general, this feels like only half a debate, and didn’t end with a satisfactory conclusion.
R1:
Con opens his argument with a very basic argument - it’s relatively facile - but gets the point across.
R2: Pros rebuttal is essentially that there is no evidence for either side in the theism debate - so agnosticism is the most appropriate position to hold.
Pro challenged the comparison, requesting clarification - pro appears to indicate the analogy is invalid as this example contains evidence - and in the real agnosticism example this isn’t the case.
Con rebuts by clarifying pros challenge to the analogy.
Con continues by explaining why simple absence of evidence can be used of evidence of absence - using Santa as an analogy, and additionally examples of failed predictions - this seems to imply that when there should be evidence of something if it were true, lack of evidence is evidence of something being false.
Round 3: Forfeit/extend.
Round 4: pro reiterates that it’s better to be agnostic when there is no evidence.
There is some haggling over definitions - but I’m not certain what pros argument is here. Ad a reader, it does not seem that the new or old definitions are different in terms of the context being argued as I can tell.
Pro appears to implicitly concede cons claim that evidence of absence can be treated as absence of evidence - though pro offers additional disproof for Santa, this doesn’t appear to refute cons position - that we can construe absence of evidence for Santa as evidence of absence.
Pro also dismissed examples of failed prophecy examples con shared as claims, rather than evidence.
On balance, here, the argument falls down to pro saying there is no evidence, so no sides should be taken - con says that there is evidence, so the middle ground is logically invalid.
The key points are that pro implicitly conceded that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and pro offered examples of evidence that in my view weren’t refuted by pro. As a result, as pros argument is fundamentally that there is no evidence either way - the fact that con has explained some of the evidence, invalidates pros position.
Arguments:
So, pros opening round was primarily pre-emptive. While that is perfectly legitimate, its up to pro to positively establish his case. If con makes any of the arguments for which these pre-emptive replies address, I will consider them.
Cons opening round points to primary harms - the complexity of implementation formal government recognized polygamy, and the societal harm caused by it. This was daily short, but well justified on the part of con.
Pros first rebuttal appears to mostly ignore cons argument concerning practicality.
Pro first assets that con mixed up polyamory and polygamy - I’m not entirely certainly what pro is actually talking about here, as it seemed fairly clear to me, I can’t see how pros accusations tie back into cons argument either.
Pro goes on to raise a potential benefit of polygamy, in that it allows children to be raised better - it’s very hard to specifically disentangle what pro is actually attempting to affirmatively argue.
Pro points out that cons argument concerning social issues was covered in round 1. Referring back to pros argument - this does not appear to be covered - con is arguing that the competition caused by polygamy is poisonous due to the social dynamics of competition between men, pros opening argument appears similar in talking about how it benefits rich men - but does not offer a rebuttal to the dynamics con describes.
Moving on to cons next round - con argues that burden of proof is not on them. My analysis of the resolution and the info concurs, it is not fair to push burden of proof on an opponent when the resolution strongly implies the opposite.
Con also points out that his opening point was defensive - and also largely conceded when pro agreed with most of the issues raised. What’s troublesome here is pro is effectively agreeing with the fundamental facts that con used to demonstrate polygamy is poisonous
Con also points out that there is no law preventing open marriages, and points out the killer line that if it was so popular and in demand, why is it so vanishingly rare?
Con rounds this rebuttal with a reasonable defense that points out the damage of polygamous societies due to competition - and points out that pro is basically trying to argue as if societies are purely egalitarian.
Con points out pro did not address key practicalities.
Pros rebuttal claims marriage has led to egalitarian societies, due to adultery being punishable. As far as I can see his primary defense of polygamy is to effectively concede everything con argued - but is now saying that despite monogamy being responsible for building egalitarian societies - polygamy would still work.
Despite reading through pros round 3 several times, I cant understand most of what he’s even trying to argue. I’m finding most of what he’s saying barely comprehensible, and I cannot determine the positive aspects of polygamy he’s trying to argue (other than a general its good), and I can’t see any specific case where he argue against the practicality, or against the detrimental point con raises.
Con - reiterates their position.
At the end of this, I did not feel pro offered any meaningful defense or argument as to why polygamy should be legalized: and did not offer any meaningful rebuttal of cons points at any point. While much of what pro said was interesting it was at times difficult to understand and appeared irrelevant to the contention. While I don’t necessarily think cons side was well justified in real terms, it was unrefuted by pro - so has to stand.
As a result, I must give argument points to con.
All other points: tied.
Pro: Omari - save me. Has a tiny feel of Royksopp about it, asside from vocals. I like the chilled feel of this: 7
2 scratch and Drama B - this is not my favourite style of electronic, and is much more like commercial pseudo-r&b, to me, it was instantly forgettable, and I kinda tuned out. 3.
Ava max: typical vocal electronic music. The vocals were okay, but had didnt a particularly good electronic underpinning, made it sound like a throwaway pop song: 5.
Crossfire: I felt this one was okay, it was a little forgettable, but had a reasonable hook. 6
Axel theself: awesome track, I really enjoyed this one. Had a lot of intricacy, and as a more chill out form of electionic, very much had the different layers and depths you need when lying on the bedroom floor at 5:30am. I really enjoyed this one: 8.
Total: 29
Termite&panda eyes - highscore: had a little of a madeon feel to it, thought the main riff was good, but not as catchy as say grand finale, great variation though, I genuinely liked this song. 7
Pegboard nerd. Very “music for the jilted generation” industrial vibe to it once you get into the main theme, I felt the theme wasn’t that catchy, but it’s a pretty fun song: 6.
Living tombstone: I don’t mind remixes of non-EDM: popiholla by chicane is a perfect example - this was an abomination. I hated this song more than anything. Part of me wants to award a loss just for hearing this: 1
Dimrain: this was like if Alt-4 was played at 170bpm. Reminded me of the fire and flame track from guitar hero 3. It would have been better if slower, I can’t say I rate this one that highly: 4
Destroid: this is a good old fashioned middle of the road 2012 style EDM song, it lacked in hook and melody, and didn’t have anything exceptional to offer imo. If this song was a person, it would be a Keith: 5
Total: 23
Winner con.
#2
Ramshutu
now
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Aside from the objective discomfort of reading this from BSh being like listening to your not-cool uncle singing gangster rap, I will offer this vote
I will score each round based on the “oh no you dint” vote style, were i award one point for each line that jumps of the page because of its fiery burniness
R1 jump outs
“You just an altar boy no priest would fuck
A rap busboy, you're rhymes went amok”
“So get in my dungeon, put your mouth on that truncheon
Follow instruction and eat that eruption”
1-0
R2 jump outs:
“Bitch lasagna
With a side of drama”
“So you think your Kylo Ren, a crybaby with no talent,
I'm more the Han Solo type, roguish, hot, and gallant”
“You're a walking carpet, a piece of nerf-herding slime
I'm more of Jon Snow's ilk, fighting in my prime”
3-1
Round 3:
“Cause they know I give those torches special head
Your virgin ass? You need sex special ed!”
Round 4:
no stand out lines. IMO
So: for my general decision:
I started thinking supas flow was better initially, then as I read, bsh won me over. Bsh started using much more complex rhyming patterns; though I am disappointed at the lack of iambic pentameter from both sides.
The big thing for me is a particular quality of relevance in insults.
Supa built up a pattern of raps that felt like it was a super burn, but regularly fizzled: take for example this -
“Damn right mother I pull off some alliteration
About to put you in some hyperventilation
More blown up that a hypertonic cell
Man you more stupid than some bitch who fell down a well”
The first three were great, and it’s that last point that I feel has to be more relevant to bsh to land a knock out. It’s the rap equivalent of blue balls - and it seemed there was far more from supa than from bsh.
For that reason, while bshs insults didn’t always land, they felt more in tune, and more relevant.
Saying that, I will say rhyming and style was awesome on both sides, it was very creative and enjoyable.
Note: particular kudos to the awkwardness of bshs opening paragraph spelling out at great, great length why it’s okay to insult each other during a rap battle that hasn’t got a vote-for-conduct option.
Additional note: “Bitch you've been beat, bitch you dead meat” In some ways I feel con should lose a spelling and grammar point for using apostrophes and contractions properly in a rap battle.
Also, bringing up Greek gods in gangster rap kinda deserves either a mark up or mark down - I’m not sure which.
RFD in comments starting here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/376?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=79
1.) conduct: RFD for conduct in comments , and was deemed sufficient.
2.) arguments. This RFD is updated - removing all information provided for feedback as follows:
The definitions pro uses throughout are defined —IN HIS OPENING ROUND—, and cannot possibly be considered agreed to. At no point can I consider any of the definitions pro presented in the CONTENT OF HIS DEBATE to be automatically assumed to be true.
As a result I cannot and will not consider pro to have successfully defined and won his position by unilateral fiat in this case - the definitions used are clearly defined in pros CONTENT and subject to challenge.
Additionally - the CoC clearly states that I must not consider debate comments or other votes in the RFD (which I don’t), but even in the comments there is no example where con accepts the definitions, so I must as a voter assume that the newly presented definitions that pro uses HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED.
Everything PRO said, and argued in every round concerning the sun being god is accepted as unrefuted and true in every single argument he produced based on his definitions - predicated on those definitions being correct and accurate.
However, as explained - challenging these definitions is relevant and valid.
Cons primary argument, used throughout is that pro is using his definitions incorrectly, that he is stretching definitions, and that doing so has absurd results: this is his primary argument used throughout. The standout example of this, where con points out that the way pro is using his definitions is so absurd, it could be used to show that elephants or the earth are god, con points out throughout that this clearly isn’t what the definition —shared in Pros opening round — are intended to mean, and clearly explains that pro is stretching the definitions to suit his case - rather than those definitions being correct.
Given cons knockout argument that pro is misusing his R1 posted definitions: pro must show that he is using the definitions correctly, and that the definitions he uses - as worded and as used - are correct as per cons objections
Pro singly and solely rejects all of cons argument out of hand either by saying that the definition is accepted and can’t be challenged or by simply repeating the definition that pro is challenging.
As a rebuttal I find this WHOLLY insufficient as an argument and result in any rational voter having to view pro as completely dropping cons primary contention and effective kritik - and thus surrenders the entire contention he is making. As he offers no other argument - pro must be considered to have failed to meet the essential burden of proof he agrees to.
Pros only other argument - that con conceded, is not sufficient in my view. I don’t consider that cons statement supporting God, is a statement of personal belief, not a specific or implicit concession. To be a concession, con needs to accept or acknowledge pro has met the specific contention of the debate - which con falls far short of. And is thus not accepted.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full Forfeit
Full forfeit
Forfeit/concession
https://www.debateart.com/debates/338?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=16
Full forfeit.
RFD from comment: https://www.debateart.com/debates/419?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=4
Arguments:
Con cites sources that show illegal immigration don’t commit crimes at a higher rate. Pro cites sources that show the reverse. Pro continues the argument, by providing more detail, which con mostly simply dismisses and instead of talking about the statistics draws the conversation off topic into discussions that it’s unfair that the US should have to punish them at all.
Both sides could have done much better, as they appeared to be talking across each other and not dealing with the others contention, but this one goes to pro due to his pushing of this point in the subsequent rounds which were left unrefuted by con.
In terms of jobs, pro argument that they create jobs as well as taken them helps reduce the inferred harm, but I felt cons argument that the government supports them was not refuted, in my view in the economic harms both sides needed to produce evidence and data to show the economic impact. Pro did help cast a little doubt on the taking jobs front with his sources on baby boomers stating on, but I view con having done better than pro in this exchange.
In terms of education and English speaking: asside from the issues noted above, it seems pro is arguing that on this front there is a lack of harm, rather than a net benefit. As such, I don’t feel that this clearly fits into the contention.
Peo raises the issue of an aging population - that the major benefit of immigration is to balance economic impacts of aging population demographics. Pro doesn’t separate legal and illegal immigration here - which would have made it easy for con to refute - but con mostly just dismissed this.
Throughout I felt that the debate deteriorated leading into the final round, there was challenging of sources, and talk about illegal immigration being bad because it’s illegal. Both sides may have done better here focusing on the contention itself, and tying to show or mitigate the harm - to show immigration is bad and to show that reasons presented why it is bad are untrue respectively.
The final few rounds strayed from this and made it difficult to really follow the harms being proposed.
In the end, I’m in a tough spot here:
I feel on balance pro made individually more logical points and was better reasoned. But I have to weigh the net benefits as proposed and refuted - as this is the contention.
In this vein - I feel con failed to show harm of criminal behaviour and murder, but only just. This is a failure to establish so effectively reduces the impact shown to 0.
I feel con establishes a net direct economic harm fairly well with specific sourced harm.
I feel pro establishes a net benefit of immigration as a whole with discussion of population demographics.
I have to weight these two, con clearly didn’t refute the demographics, and in my view pro clearly did not refute economic harm. Both claims were supported and specific, but as they are so close: I am not comfortable awarding the arguments either way as it would be within the margin of error of my own bias.
Conduct to pro for cons forfeits.
Method:
I will rank each song out of 10 based on my personal view, with a short explanation. The side with most points win.
Pro
1.)Avenza . Interesting opening, great breakdown, interesting hook, but the main portions are missing some mid range complexity that makes it sound a little emptier and let this down, but I did love the 8bit retro feel! 7
2.) Xteullor ichor. Interesting start of set song (had it not been dupstep!), didn’t have much to it after the opening, very little variation in the general theme. 4
3.) Noistrom - barracuda. This is on one of my mixes! Simple song, but just plain fun, a really good mid song break down and build up with a great transition: 8
4.) Tristam - till it’s over. Middle of the road commercial EDM. This feels like a filler song on a $7 mix cd. 3
5.) nitro fun - final boss. Not only in a recent mix, but on my running track for when I’m trying to run 8 minute miles, awesome song, with a great hook, and great breakdown. 9.
Total 31.
Con
1.) clean bandit - Mozart’s house. I hate this song, discordant and very little to it. one of my least favourite clean bandit songs imo : 1
2.) while this was interesting, it was a bit too pop like for my liking, very few layers to it, and felt instantly forgettable: 3
3.) paper love - stress remix. Very major lazer like, but neither as snappy or catchy. The link was broken, and I wasn’t able to find the full song: 4
4.) Apashe - kannibalen. Edgy and hard, I’m not a fan of this style but this goes all out and nails it. Saw toothed and has a pretty visceral feel: 7
5.) halogen - can’t resist. Another poppy song. Instantly forgettable, nothing to hook me in or keep my interest: 3
Con: 18
Winner pro