Total votes: 689
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Well okay then!
Full forfeit
CVB.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit.
R5 from pro appears to concede that no arguments have been refuted and burden of proof upheld / followed by a redo request. As a result this appears to have conceded the debate resulting in arguments con - and conduct due to forfeits.
Naruto and Death note!
For the love of all that is good and holy - I encourage all debaters to define their terms! It appears pro is arguing that being an “intellectual” means engaging in honest discussion, and not engaging in oversimplifications and intellectual dishonesty.
Con appears to be arguing mostly that being an intellectual means being smart - specifically that he skipped two grades as the only evidenced example.
Pro, on the other hand provides examples of key errors in logical thinking and oversimplification BS makes,
There’s a whole tonne of factual claims made by both sides that I simply cannot assess for validity. You need to source your facts when it’s not clearly self evident which side is valid. I literally can’t vote when one side says “Ben is this”, then the other says “no I’m not”, which comprises the majority of this debate
Saying that, pros videos clearly showed BS has a tendency for lumping all extreme positions to leftists. Con didn’t do enough or provide any substantial sources to counter this summary. Even his one objection to a video didn’t seem to be fully relevant to the discussion.
On these grounds - pro managed to show BS acts intellectually dishonestly - and con doesn’t manage to counter. As no side defines what being an intellectual means - pro side is clearly closer to my understanding.
As a result - arguments to pro.
Nearly award conduct to con though, but it wasn’t severe enough in my opinion.
Simple semantic argument:
Pro argues Jewish can be used as a racial term - this is supported by the definition, and given a broad basic historical context is also in my view intuitive.
Con argues Jew cannot be used as a racial term. While I would have been sympathetic to a more detailed thesis on the non existence of the Jewish race, or a more semantic argument - this argument was clearly not well enough warranted and does not pass muster.
Without more clearly defined sources of his race claims, pro wins. I would also point out argument ad populum is valid for factual claims - but I think popular definitions are clearly relevant.
As a result of this, pros semantics are clearly stronger - arguments to pro.
This debate appears to be the issues with YouTube’s algorithms and monetization policy.
Con is taking the position that their copyright enforcement appears excessive, that their demonetization of fringe content unreasonably sanitizes content and forces edgy video makers to sell out and become mainstream to continue earning money. Con also points out that kid friendly, copycats and a variety of other vacuous content can easily succeed as it is not specifically targeted by these same algorithms
On their face these seem valid examples of bad policy.
Pros argument is to try and twist the resolution to an absurdly unfair and unreasonable extent by arguing that pro must show that YouTube is not able to continue. This is an asinine and ridiculous statement and I’m going to ignore it and focus on the reasonable and stated resolution and explanation in the description - focusing on the idea that YouTube is making poor decisions.
Pros position on this front is to show these decisions are reasonable.
Pros argument is to basically confusing the algorithm for trending videos with the whole of cons argument.
On the trending side, I can buy pros point that if millions like it, just because con doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not trending; but this is only a tiny aspect of cons argument.
Pro rounds this off by claiming other platforms are worse.
Even if I buy all of this, con clearly has the edge in the first round as the majority of issues are ignore.
Con goes on to reiterate his objections - by pointing out that YouTube is harming content makers with using algorithms to unreasonably select less offensive and middle of the road content - which is harmful for freedom of expression.
Pros response, has little relation to what was presented. He tries to respond to cons argument that YouTube copyright responses are harsh, by saying its not YouTube that report it (which in my opinion is not the point)
Pro also makes a single point about marijuana usage and portrayal of illegal acts justifying censorship.
It’s a shame, as I feel the examples con raised could have been challenged far better and more conclusively, pro offers a minimal (putting it charitably) set of arguments against cons position - and doesn’t address any of the main points raised.
As a result, arguments to con.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Firstly, i hate hate hate hate hate this disjoint structure of debate. Where round 3 refutes round 1, everything gets our of step and messed up quickly; it ends up feeling detrimental and makes the understandability. Online debates end up as an adversarial clash - it’s best to format them as such. I doubt any voters will penalize anyone for it!
This debate seems to boil down to prophecy, and whether Jesus meets the criteria to be the Jewish Messiah.
Pros opening appeared very nonspecific, that he would be despised and rejected, vilified and stricken for the transgressions of his people. This doesn’t feel limiting - in that it feels as if it could be applied to, say, Martin Luther King, or others.
In cons opening he lays out a much better and more specific case: that Jesus didn’t have the right genealogy, that he didn’t match up with core prophecies and meets the criteria of the Torah of a false prophet.
These are all targeted and fairly specific; which I have to accept over and above pros more generic claims.
Pros objections to genealogy seem reasonable to accept (Joseph was descended from David) - though he doesn’t explain the contradicting lineage.
Pro goes on to basically reject that Jesus does not need to fulfill any prophecies; there is a bit of a double standard here, as pro himself asks me to believe the prophecies when they suit his position. It’s also tenuous at best - with pro basically arguing that an ancient sect believed in two messiahs, meaning that I should accept all Jews must necessarily believe there were too. Not enough evidence was provided for me to buy that.
Pro raised some issues relating to the categorization of Jesus as a false prophet. One point was to be clarified: con argues that Jesus effectively rejected the Torah from the laws replacing it with a new set, while there may be a valid Christian reason, pro needs to do more to show why this is inline with a Messiah - it seems that Jesus was to fulfill this law, not throw it away. I do however side with pro on the example of breaking sabbath law, it seems reasonable to expect a Messiah to violate the rules to save or heal individuals.
Con goes on to explain in detail issues with the method of atonement Jesus provided - showing its out of character with Jewish beliefs (for a number of reasons). These seem fairly reasonable, but will deal with the details when I get to pros rebuttals
Con goes on to explain that a key passage of issaiah was not to be taken literally, and outlines the metaphorical meaning of the passages. Given that I feel this was weak by pro in the first place, I feel like I can buy this.
Pros counter, specifically relating to human sacrifice was well explained, and the pointing out of the scapegoat example in Leviticus law I felt was very good. In my view this eradicated a lot of the issues con raised with the conceptual necessity for a Messiah.
Pros counter to cons issues with Isaiah, isn’t entirely clear to me - and I wasn’t fully able to extract the core of why this example can’t be figurative and must be literal. Saying that, it’s less of an issue as I don’t fully find this argument convincing on it’s own.
Con reiterates a couple of the core issues he has relating to Jesus claimed divinity, and that Jesus commanded someone to violate the law.
At the end, it seems pro mostly dropped what I felt were the most compelling arguments (prophecy + false prophet), to focus on the more fringe arguments.
I felt con outlined some pretty devestating reasons why Jesus could not be Messiah, and these sort of died out with any clean resolution to those points.
The debate Got very hard to follow and seemed more targeted at other biblical scholars rather than regular voters- so I can’t claim to have understood everything but my main issue here is that con laid out some pretty specific hurdles Jesus should pass but he does not, specific things Jesus should not do - but he does. Pros only argument to support comes from Isaiah, which felt fairly weak in comparison.
For this reason: arguments to con.
Kudos to Virt for not having work issues in round 3, and Kusos to Dust for the best worst false dilemma!
Pro overused his Trollerskates
Pro negates the resolution.
Counter vote bomb
No conditions for victory - so winner cannot be assessed: and as such this is a complete tie. I would recommend that this type of discussion is better placed to be part of the forum rather than as a debate.
Pro makes a typical argument from design - that properties of life seem to imply they were designed. What I needed to see from con here is a clear argument or explanation as to how some of these properties could have originated without design, or an argument about why design cannot be implies
The most relevant part of cons arguments (ignoring pros opening semantic argument), was basically attempting to claim that pro can’t just point to traits and say that they were designed. While I am sympathetic - pros arguments is effectively a list of astonishingly complex organisms that Appear well suited to their environment is intuitive.
Fortunately, con does just enough in the remainder of the rounds, with his appeal to Darwinian selection to provide me a counter example of why these examples may not be due to design. While this explanation was minimal, it was sufficient to overturn the intuitive part of pros argument.
As a result, arguments to con.
All other points tied (equal forfeits)
CVB.
Bsh is like Tormond Giantsbane with milk.
Both sides ask me to weigh their respective policy/status quo by the consequences.
Pro, somehow immediately starts talking about justice and setting up a debate partially on the premise of justice.
In general, the argument pro makes is fairly intuitive: people being forced to plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit is necessarily bad. For guilty people, pros position didn’t seem entirely clear in terms of how it fit into the weighting he asked for. Sure there are impacts on the guilty people, but there’s no tying back to that premise.
Con rounds out his argument here, by arguing, effectively that the criminal justice system depends on plea bargains due to amount of time spent in the court system, prison overcrowding and that the innocent would end up spending more time in prison due to relying on public defenders.
Pro could have offered a counter plan, I felt his argument that without plea bargains - prosecutors would be more selective, and that drugs crimes would be lessened in penalty necessarily.
This argument feels intuitive, while con is arguing the negative side from the point of view of individuals, pros argument makes it feel that the governments side would suffer as well, and pros second round hashes some of these out.
If this had been included within pros initial plan (and thus have the fiat), this would have been pretty reasonable but con goes basically points out that cons implication that this would necessarily happen is not guaranteed. In fact much of cons argument in round three around the evidence and justification for why pros claimed mitigation may not happen: the public support for example is excellent
At the end of this, both sides of this ask me to vote on consequences: I felt that neither side really gave me much in the way of establishing the overall consequences on balance of both side. Whilst one possible outcome from pro was better justice and potentially not crippling the CJS, the mitigation’s pro offered did not seem well enough hashed out, compared to cons issues.
Neither side felt well anchored to the way I was told to vote: injustice vs crippling the system. I wanted to go for pros intuitive arguments; but there was not enough there, and con did just enough to cast doubt on their possibility.
As a result, I have to go with the most substantial and solidified consequences.
Arguments to con.
Concession
Full forfeit.
Pros argument sites two documentary sources of evidence from antiquity concerning the existence of Jesus. In the second round, Pro points out this is a similar amount of evidence - and nature as other historical figures s
Con doesn’t initially argue these are wrong, but generally implies they are mistaken by arguing they were written well after the facts being described.
Con goes on to effectively try and shift the burden of proof - that just because several documentary sources mentioned Jesus, pro must prove they are not lying.
Pro points out this exact same issue can be true of accepted historical figures. Pro lists several of them, and asks whether assuming they are lying is a justified level of criticism.
Cons response felt similar, arguing that there’s not sufficient proof, that other historical figures had other evidence to support their existence.
Note: discussion about the messiah or not was not considered topical and was ignored.
Basically, pro provides evidence and con attempted to simply cast doubt on that evidence. While that’s all he could do, I think given that he can’t prove a negative, the argument was too generic and too open ended. For me to award this to pro, con needed to give me compelling explanations for pros sources: rather than simply claim two independent non-Christian sources were making it up.
If con had provided such a reasonable argument in favor of skepticism - I would have voted for him; but as he didn’t I must award arguments to pro.
All other points tied
Full forfeit
Rush over me:
above and beyond are one of my favourite EDM groups, this is a very similar style - and I really liked it as background, but didn’t have as much of a grabbing hook as I would have liked: 7
The zero point
(Not to be confused by point zero by li kwan lol).
Again, had a very A&B feel it it with a great drop. I preferred the layers to this one, much more than the first song: 8
Carbon:
Nice combination of an ashtrax type of sound, combined i with a more dubstep drop. I quite liked this as an easy listening track, but not enough to give it more than a 7.
First time:
Nice atmosphere to it, I felt it was let down by the drop, and the background drums on the build up. It’s kinda like the first two songs, but between the drops felt a bit awkward:5
Lost summer:
This is a generic dance track that played in literally every club I’ve ever been to at 12am - played as filler while everyone gets drunk/high and isn’t going to dance. Generic: 3
Total: 30
Bach synthesizer remix
Ugh! Noooo. This is terrible. There are so many classical music remixes to drop that your focus on this one was so bad. 1.
(You could have dropped barbers adagio by ferry corsten and I would have given you 10)
Mercy:
this didn’t feel like EDM, it was okay, but more middle of the road rapping: 3
Shrillex: sprites
Not my favourite skrillex song, but it’s passable: 6
Total eclipse:
Sorry virt: this is metal. Nice cover though.
Avici - levels.
Yes. My favourite avici song, on my current play lists - I love this very much. What I really like about this, is both the catchy hook, the counter balancing to that hook, the minimalistic feel, but one that has layers, but also the gaps and pauses in the music between some of the beats- it introduces a unique staccato feel that makes this song great for running, or for dancing. 10
Total: 20
Clear win to speed race.
To win this resolution, pro needs to give me good reasons as to why power is the life priority I should prioritize, and make a reasonable case as to why it is more important to prioritize over each other.
Pros point appears lost in a sea of words in his opening round - which appear more like an opening monologue from a film than a debate.
Out of the entire first round, pros argument appears to be that no matter who you are, or what your goal is: you can’t achieve your goals without power.
Cons counter appears to be that science - or specifically in the context he uses it - the ability to gain or acquire true knowledge - is most important as it is the best and most viable method of achieving your aim.
Out of the two, cons position seems far more nebulous - this is based on a less intuitive interpretation of science a priority - that it applies to acquiring and utilizing knowledge itself. Pros a bit more intuitive.
Essentially though - both sides really fall down on the same points, the only objective reason either side gives is that their priority enables you to achieve your overall goals.
There’s a lot of going around in circles here, and my main issue with cons position is that while I believe he is right that many scientific discoveries and weapons assist with the acquisition of power, Cons argument felt as if either the benefits from science were being used synonymously with science as a priority (by this I mean “guns” are provided by science - and can give you power, but con doesn’t explain how focusing on science can realistically allow me to get a gun), or that the acquisition of knowledge is used synonymously with science: which feels like too much of a stretch.
Because of this, I felt that pros approach was much more intuitive, and plausible - even though much of the case appeared irrelevant - together with con falling short in the overall warrant and not doing enough to convince me : arguments to pro.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
S&G to con. Cons argument were readily understandable, and didn’t suffer from any major issues.
Pro on the other hand frequently relied upon overly long and obtuse sentences that were practically unreadable. The length of some sentences was often so large, changed context, and contained so many clauses that a reasonable could not be expected to follow the meaning or information contained therein.
This, in combination with pros inherent verbosity made large swathes of his debate argument seem nonsensical and incoherent.
As a result: S&G to con. (Examples in comments from: https://www.debateart.com/debates/637?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=58)
CVB.
Obvious Troll debate is obvious.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Arguments:
This is really just a semantic argument surrounding “type”, pro controlled this discussion with his example of cheeseburgers and bacon cheeseburger, and types of game console. This builds upon his opening round where he claims we are all organisms, and as male and female have different defining traits - and thus different types.
Cons argument was frankly absurd, he argues Firstly that men and women are not a type of anything - and that men and women can’t be grouped as organisms.
Cons 1.2 had promise; but his argument became that as all males and all females are different - they cannot be considered a type. Which to me makes little sense intuitively - how can I exclude them being a type when con himself is creating a category for them by using the specific names. Cons 2 also had promise, but he became fixated with grammar and pluralization rather than arguing the more obvious claim that organisms don’t apply to gender.
I feel con missed the boat here by relying on obtuse and largely nonsensical semantic attacks; whilst pro added a very sensible sounding and intuitive argument about types. Con didn’t address the details of pros analysis here, or refute the key aspects of type pro raised in his first and second rounds.
As a result: arguments to pro.
What’s absurd here, is that I feel con could have trivially won this debate by saying something along the following lines:
“Cheeseburgers and bacon cheeseburgers are a different type of burger, but not a different type of food.”
“By pros logic my properties and aspects change day to day and thus I am a different organism than yesterday, this clearly isn’t intuitive”
And many other variations.
Con argues this is an impossible resolution to uphold. Unfortunately - which is the better of two war planes used extensively in combat, doesn’t appear to be hard to draw a contrast, or to determine key properties. Not only this, the correct approach here is to outline what makes one better in a way that suits your side of the resolution, not to simply throw out absurd and arbitrary comparisons.
Pro showed the spitfire is faster, more agile, has a better rate of climb, and is more Able to match the ME109. Con offers nothing but a selection of arbitrary and subjective reasons. Better name, more agile is worse, faster is more prone to crash. These were all either subjective or absurdly unwarranted. Only one side appeared interested in even debating the resolution at all.
Because of this, arguments to pro.
Fulll Forfeit
Conduct to con as pro forfeited most rounds.
A large number of subjective and arbitrary reasons for why one machine is better than the other. The resolution is comparative, so any examples where there is a clear comparative ground to say one is better than the other is what will score this one for me.
Con doesn’t provide much in the way of objective comparison between the two that doesn’t fall down on more than subjective grounds - one is old news, or not relevant is not a great reason to vote for con. While con did spend time indicating there is some differences in their roles, there is no reasonable objective data upon which to vote that the F35 is better and thus vote for con.
Pros main argument, and only example of a compelling objective difference is that the F22 our performs the F35. This appears to be both relevant to the topic, and obviously an intuitive reason to conclude the F22 is better than the F35. On those grounds: arguments to pro.
It’s not fully clear what the resolution means, my best understanding is that pro is taking the position that the house values of Slytherin are at odds with the actions and behaviours of the individuals that are assigned to it.
What isn’t clear, is what the winning condition is. Without any clearly defined conditions, would the behaviours be at odds if the individuals would have been better in other houses? Or just if they don’t represent their house.
Pro does clearly outline the properties of slytherin, and lists some behaviours of the Malfoys and voldermort, that are exceptional and seem to go against slytherin.
These seem to be mistakes by the characters where they do not live up to the cunning and smart epithet; rather than them not living up to the house values. Con points this out, and I feel does quite well to paint these deviations as reasonable in context.
However, pro goes onto add that slytherin is more of a dumping ground for bad guys and those who don’t fit into any of the remaining houses - pointing out that there’s rarely that there is anyone so outside the generalities of the house in any of the other houses.
In essence this all boils down to the resolution. While it’s unclear to some degree, I think pro clearly elaborated on what he meant.
This is specifically about book portrayal- it isn’t about whether the individuals could technically be assigned to the house - but that syltherins are almost invariably portrayed as deviating from their house attributes whilst other houses do not.
In this respect con dropped the ball - and didn’t really address this with a substantive argument to show they were not misportrayed.
As a result Arguments to pro.
Cons forfeited multiple rounds and plagiarized the bulk of his only argument round: conduct to pro.
Nothing con raised in his main argument rounds relating to making money from fulfilling remaining contracts. I will not assess any cons opening arguments as these appear both to be plagiarized with little or no genuine attempt to make an argument - and constitute an unfair attempt at a gish gallop - to overload pro with individual points.
As a result - pros entire argument lays unrefuted. Arguments to pro.
Full forfeit
CVB
Cons behaviour and arguments were clearly toxic, and given pros response - this would likely have caused me to register a vote for pro - given how Con was not at any point arguing in good faith.
However, as pro conceded the debate - I am unable to award any points to him - as this is explicitly prohibited by the CoC. I would strongly recommend that no one concede a debate like this, unless they feel their opponent was clearly arguing in good faith, and was clearly better.
Saying this, con clearly does not deserve any points given the excessive and antisocial gish gallop of quotes and citations that are hurled unreasonably at his opponent: so I am declining to award any points in his favor - this behaviour is toxic and should not be rewarded.
There are two threads of arguments being made here. One is relating to storytelling precedence (ie satisfaction of the ending), and one relating to character motivations.
In terms of character motivations: I believe that con shows that Euron has burnt his bridges with Daenerys, and is unlikely to be accepted. This eliminates a major source of potential portrayal.
The second source of portrayal both sides discuss, is relating to ceasing the iron throne itself (ie Euron would betray Cersei for his own power). I didn’t see any decent or compelling scenario presented for how this could occur. While I think it’s possible - without a supported or logical scenario where this could happen, I don’t feel this can be accepted - pro needed to given me evidence indicate Euron is motivated by more than he has already indicated (which he didn’t). Con does rather well at highlighting large numbers of reasons why he won’t betray Cersei for daenarys, and by pointing out that Euron is unlikely to have anything to gain by killing Cersei.
From this point of view - I feel the motivation for Euron to betray Cersei aren’t fully elaborated or stated. As such I can’t fully accept them.
From the narrative point of view - pro talks about how such a betrayal is potentially possible, and there is back and forth relating to whether narrative could support the death. I feel that pro does a bit better - that there is no narrative problem with him betraying Cersei. The red wedding, or Ned Stark was a key point here. Con does highlight reasons why this may not be satisfying. For me - all this does is highlight that the narrative doesn’t preclude the issue - rather than indicating probability.
There were a lot of other arguments relating to dragonbinder, the consistuent nature of betrayal - but for me the issue boils down to the probability of Euron a betrayal.
To show this - pro must show that Eurons behaviour, and past actions support or foreshadow him betraying Cersei. Pro comes up short here - with all other arguments being largely irrelevant.
As pro comes short, and con does enough to muddy the water, I can’t say that it’s probable.
Therefore: arguments to con.
Pros main arguments are that boys as girls think differently, and learn differently. Pro also argues it would inherently improve motivation and increase achievement.
While I accept this is possible - it is pros job to show why this is the case, he doesn’t do this in opening round - I don’t like sources being used in lieu of arguments.
Cons rebuttal argues the social development impacts of single gender schools, and the exclusion or inclusion of transgender.
Pro doesn’t really deal with the transgender issue - and mostly brushes it under the carpet.
In terms of the list of issues - the denial of mixed gender relationships is a major factor raised, pro gives me no reason to doubt it - he mostly simply denies it. Similarly pro mostly dismisses the issues concerning gender disrespect - though cons point here was not intuitive.
In terms of gender stereotyping - pro does a great job of pointing out how single sex education can encourage participation against stereotypes, he mentions issues with ADHD misdiagnoses - and argues that it improves proficiency and learning of boys as well as girls.
Cons rebuttal was largely dismissive, and doesn’t fully cover the issues raised - though I mostly agree with the objection on the first point. On the second point relating to disrespect - con goes on to reiterate his position, but it appears to be a clutching at straws assertion - this argument is non intuitive, and so con needs to provide warrant for it which he does not.
In summary here, pro provided excellent benefits of single sex education. While con provided a potential issue with social interactions for single gender schools.
Given the actual benefits raised by pro - and the fact that cons harms don’t seem to be either compared against pros benefits - or provided with an objective quantification - I can’t accept cons position.
Arguments to pros.
Sources:
Cons position is largely unsourced - with two main sources - the only one relating to a core claim seems only to lightly support it. Pros sources landed a knock out with objective data pertaining to studies, and objective quantifiable benefit - specifically the acer, Eric.ed.gov and research gate links all warranted pros main claims, with the former landing the knock out blow.
As pros sources massively solidified his warrant and cons only had limited of any real impact, sources to pro too.
All other points tied.
Pro lists a substantial number of repulsive aspects of to the Bible.
Cons response is mostly semantic lawyering: that the book itself can’t be evil, and that there’s no objective definition of repulsiveness. As con shows no actual harm in accepting the decisions and intuitive understanding of the debate - I cant accept this argument.
Cons argument then morphs into an argument that says that while the Bible is vile, people don’t use that vileness. Again this feels like a bit of a semantic argument that veers of the intent of the topic.
Pro provides significant example of where the Bible has been used to advocate evil.
Con goes on to repeat his claims - he defends the JW example as saying it’s down to their interpretation of the Bible. Uh - that appears to concede the point. Con also concedes that the bible advocates slavery, and implicitly concedes it has been used by Christians in the past - just not now. Con objects to the Nazi example as being driven by people not the Bible.
Out of all of this, who I vote for comes down to definitions. If I accept the definitions as stated and the resolution as intuitively understood - this goes to pro. Pro clearly stated the evil aspects of the bible, as a book.
Cons objection were primarily semantic, and were mostly attempting to haggle over definitions of how the bible could be interpreted as evil - rather than any specific defense of how it was not.
As a result - arguments to pro.
All other points tied
So this debate is basically that one side claims that the wall doesn’t fix the problems it was intended to fix, thus the money is better spent elsewhere - whilst the other argues it does fix the problems it is intended to fix.
The problems mostly boil down to efficacy - if the wall is shown to be effective, then pro wins, if not - con wins. As con has dropped pros argument that illegal immigration is massively detrimental - that appears to be clearly the case.
Firstly, both sides agree that there’ll be no improvement in drug trafficking.
The main issue of efficacy is that con points out substantial issues with walls - that they can be dug under, climbed over, broken through - and pointed out that it requires holds and gaps for natural geographical features - like water.
Pro argues that walls work - citing the Israeli wall and the wall at Yuma.
In pros main response, he argues that the problems described, such as potential damage, crawling under, etc - isn’t necessarily a problem with the structure proposed (points 1+3). However pro doesn’t actually state what has been proposed.
Pro argues that damage and holes that aren’t repaired for months are not necessarily rare, and that con should provide evidence these would be a common occurrence.
Con goes on to point out examples of damage, points out that the prototype examples have all been breached, and undermines pros points of the wall.
Con also undermines - somewhat the fence and Yuma and Israeli walls - by claiming one wasn’t effective and the other was only effective due to large amounts of surveillance.
As for xenophobia - I am not considering this as I don’t feel it’s topical. While Trump maybe xenophobic, and some supporters may want a wall for xenophobic reasons - I side with pro that the wall isn’t in and of itself xenophobic.
My takeaways here is that pro did a lot of burden of proof arguments - claiming that he needs to prove a number of claims.
At some point one side needs to show their position is correct.
The competing issues for me, are that pro gives two examples of walls which “work”, though does not quantify how well, how much, and what the overall benefit is - though gives some arbitrary numbers quantifying the size of the problem.
On the flip side, con gives me some good reason to believe that the efficacy of the wall will be greatly reduced, and did better in quantifying the cost - and defending the efficacy problems - tunnelling was particularly well defended.
I read this about 4 times, now, and have come down on a different side each time I’ve read.
I’m really left with not knowing how well the wall on the southern border would work, not knowing how much of an impact it would therefore have, and whether - in the grand scheme of things - that money and time spent would be worthwhile compared to some other plan.
As a result - I am forced to award this as a tie.
Full forfeit from both sides. Not enough information to assess arguments.
No argument made by con (arguments to pro). Multiple forfeits by con (conduct to pro)
The terms of the debate were:
“My position is that most subjects can be discussed within the proper academic framework. However, it is a net negative for universities to allow certain speakers, who push for bigotry, to have a platform on campus. I would like to debate anyone who is against this form of censorship and someone who considers themselves a free speech absolutist. This is not a law debate(The point of the debate is about whether universities should uphold free speech, not what the law says about free speech).”
The title of the debate was clarified in the detail of the debate, and in my view con argues this point.
Pro agrees that cons side of the resolution is correct - effectively conceding the debate right there and rendering all other arguments moot.
Pro goes on to argue that con is arguing for free speech on campus: however this isn’t the debate resolution as outlined in the details. As a result, pro is arguing that con upheld a different resolution than the debate - which may be true but is also irrelevant.
As a result, arguments to con.
Full forfeit.