Total votes: 861
I will make a baby with Con's wife
Slava Ukraini
Encouraging suicide and bullying instigted entirely by Pro on a shit tier rated debate about arbitrary diet choices. Vote goes to Con wholeheartedly.
countervotebombing TheUnderdog in case vote mods don't get to it in time.
Guys if you can, just vote me, even if this is not about songs being popular, and my opponent's songs have caused anger in their comments, but you should just pretend that that isnt true.
Also, if I win these two debates, my opponent will lose what little rating he has left, and probably quit the site, so take that into consideration when voting.
Conduct for calling Wylted a turd and violating rules of the debate (actually it's only for the turd comment but I'm trying to sound dramatic).
The problem with this debate is it is a truism due to the rule structure. Con can keep arguing that Pro has to prove he is a piece of shit but Pro wins even if he loses because Con violates rule 1.
Where Con went wrong is honestly in clicking accept, I can't think of why this debate is allowed.
Based on the comments section one's narcissism and the other's self-loatyhing lead them to both have a win trading arrangement that I should enable for self interest.
Pro never define his version of evil, not once in the entire debate.
He has an improving view we would see hedonism or maybe some watered down version of utilitarianism as valid. He doesn't mention either but they are 2 different ways to see pleasure as good itself and pain or withdrawal of pleasure as evil.
In Round 2, Pro concedes that Con is able to redefine evil to axiomatically pivot all good around God.
On top of this, Pro forgot his BoP is to prove God is evil, not that he's done evil things nor that God simply isn't definitely good.
Con pivots 'evil' around whatever God deems it to be. This seems to match the idea god made everything and is ruler of all but Con doesn't extend there.
Con wins due to Pro never proving god is evil.
I think with a debate like this going Round by Round is unfair but Pro messed up a link so if I score, Con has at least 86% odds to win instead of 50%, if you consider all the variables and have 86% as the bare minimum odds Con has to win even if he picks meh songs (not terrible ones that's in the 14%).
The first stage I'll run through is a disqualification stage. Instead of ranking songs on how gay vs not gay yet sus vs not sus they are I think it's safer and fairer to just outright disqualify songs I hear actual homosexuality mentioned in (I'll allow lesbianism to be gay, I haven't heard part Round 1 before writing this so don't know if that's involved) and then disqualify any that aren't sus.
D or A Disqualified vs Approved:
R1
Both A
R2
Pro A
Con D (zero sus)
R3
Pro D (this context of sus is not what the debate meant at all)
I think the 'sus' here is pedo sus? Because they say 'lil'... Okay Con A...
R4
Technical Pro A, video is not the song but the 'rainbow' does hint something.
Con D zero sus?
R5
Pro D (not a song)
Con... A I guess, I supposed it's serial killer and pedo vibes alike.
Now what I'll do is rate the songs and base it only on that, this way the songs are what win the debate and the qualifier filter has already been applied.
Pro 1
57/100
listenable but gets annoying after 2 listens, severely.
Pro 2
37/100
Decent guitar, okay enough rhyme scheme but the voice is fucking disgusting to the ear. Idk why this guy thinks he's cut out to be a singer, his voice is vile to my ears shit was unlistenable and a chore to endure, I will be honest, I didn't listen to it all. Also while the guitar was okay, the melody was pure 'on repeat garbage' vibes.
Pro 4
Due to length it's docked points.
If he'd used the original he'd have scored more.
The song he played is just 82/100, real thing is closer to 91.
176 Pro
Con 1
17/100 Could barely make it through that shit. The voice, the fucking everything to my ears was disgusting. It is still musical to some degree and has rhyming.
Con 3
This song makes me wonder what kind of brain is needed to find it actually 'sus' but anyway...
34/100
The hook is okay, annoying voice but decent enough. It's all 'decent' other than the really displeasing voices and dogshit bars. Mumbly anunciation throughout, fucking irritating autotune. It's just barely okay. The dude at verse 2 is the most garbage rapper i've heard in a long time. Disgusting he thinks that's a career worthy verse to call himself a pro at it. Verse 1 at least had 'tries' that didn't land.
Con 5
70/100
This is a solid 7/10 track. Lyrically it's both impressive and vile because it's obvious this edgelord is using the most vile stuff to seem original for the sake of it, horrorcore is nothing new, he's trying to make himself seem cutting edge but gore/horrocore has been done as has the creepy vibe. It's good decent flow and rhyme scheme. I wish he'd cut off more for the hook, gives a headache how long his bars go without a pause.
His voice is clearly meh as fuck at singing but I appreciate he didn't do the autotuning too much at all throughout.
It's one of those songs that's okay until you pay attention to either his voice tone, the vibe or to the lyrics. As an example of rap you'd never show your parents and throw in the garbage after a listen but respect the art of, it's a good track.
121
Pro wins.
🤷 🤷
shoppin' at the mall
Pro attempts to lull Con into a state of slumber by wasting 2 of 3 Rounds of debate before a Round 3 blitzkrieg.
Foul play.
To have foul breath on top of it and to be fat is just unacceptable.
We don't have to accept a tie just because con gaslight pro into thinking they lost.
We choose to.
Obliviate was casted upon Pro.
Case is pending.
Since Con loses an entire Round (Round 2) for it not being electronic, I will avoid doing some scoring system and just do Round by Round as it also seems both songpickers were enjoying shifting around their picks across the Rounds.
Edit: After voting 3 Round from Con are disqualified by me.
Round 2 is obviously won by Mharman due to the DQ.
Round 1 has a really close clash. What Mharman's lacks in ear-pleasing for me is made up by the good tempo fluctuation leading to better dopamine rushes than the superior melody of Cristo. Cristo nearly failed to qualify because this is barely electronic as opposed to just some variant of Rock. I believe that Mharman's shows far more skill in terms of being a DJ and making a song from scratch rather than just getting a rock song and then remixing it. I do not dismiss the skill that remixing takes but Cristo's remix was a lazy remix of the song it didn't change that much or sound very EDM-y.
2-0 Mharman so far.
Round 3 is surprising to me. The 'type' of song Mharman used usually makes me go na not my thing too this too that but that song was a bop at least to a decent enough degree to surprise me. It's more your background music while gaming or doing some coding type activity (some may even use it as workout music I imagine) rather than being the hype song for a club (it can work in a club but that's never the track you went there for let's be real, it's the filler one). I can dig it. I like it. Cristo's is also background music but more study music for some or elevator music for others. I am not quite sure what to say here but Cristo picked a good piece for a study mix and a bad choice for a true showdown. This doesn't mean he chose a bad track, it's about context.
3-0 Mharman.
Round 4 starts with the headache inducing hardstyle dubstep fusion that most would never show your parents or grandparents because of how headachey it is and how it lives up to the stereotype of what EDM is... same shit over and over. I do not get that much of a headache from it at first but it would torture me if replayed many times etc. It's got a decent melody but I also think it was a track that either should have dedicated to dubstep, drum n bass or hardstyle rather than be the fusion it was. It was an ok track, I admit that but for me was not my thing. Idk if we can call Cristo's electronic... I'd say this is like Round 2, I disqualify it... It's way more acoustic and the most dj thing in it is the disk scratching sound...
4-0
Cristo's Round 5 is unavailable but I searched the song elsewhere in YT. It's Rock. Lol.
5-0
While the gore is putrid and the tone is self-defeatist, Con's is artistically superior and has raw emotion in it. Pro's lacks both.
Pro did every line, even though some were cheating as in 'cat' is spelled but not said in the word (educate, locate, cadillac misspelled) and just repeated 'cat' a lot rather than made it creative.
Con conceded.
Con accidentally reinforces the resolution.
Pro actually initially lost the debate because Con can argue he's just hetero, asexual or bi (or another alternative) but Con backs the idea that Wylted is hiding his 'gayness', not realising the angle Con had to take.
FF .
RFD in comments
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5273/comments/58292
read next 6 posted BEFORE it (but reads down visually)
I'm the bad guy troll, Benjamin is the hero who debated with good intent.
Idk what the actual hell happened in this debate but the last-Round sniping/onslaught attempt from Con makes me give the conduct mark on top of the other 2 to Pro.
Pro's argument had many holes in it, I can see that, however I am not Con I am a neutral voter. What Pro presents to me is a case for all the benefits for being awake at night when others are majority-resting.
This includes privacy, peace of mind and more.
The problem of why I didn't give sources to Pro despite all the additional argumentation is because there are 2 vaguely dumped in Round 2 and one is purely used for defense in the sense it proves there's much more to diabetes risk than being chronically prone to be awake at night.
Neither side mentioned the fact that being awake at night may not actually be combined with being asleep at day for a decent amount of hours to compensate. Pro never had to do this because Con never raised it.
In the final Round Con's onslaught is actually ridiculous in a way. Con acts as if the oneliner in Round 1 is supposed to win the whole debate even thought in Round 2 before Con 'extends', Pro explored all the other factors that matter much more to heart disease and diabetes, meaning what Pro did was say that maybe night owls don't fight the other things as much (which Con never mentions and so this is fully in favour of Pro).
There was really no debate in this 'debate' until the final Round and that's entirely on Con, making me give the Conduct to Pro because that was intentional, premeditated dirty play even as poorly executed as it was.
basically an FF I give conduct only because the other side had 2 Rounds of 5 with debating.
Full Forfeit
Round 1
Pro opens with a demand that Con prove (to Pro) that Zeus isn't real.
Con opens with define 'a true god' as:
"a deity possessing supreme authority, omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, who also exists according to evidence and logic."
However, there is a difference between 'the true god' and 'a true god' that neither debater seems to be realising, which isn't a problem as Pro doesn't capitalise on this.
Con proceeds, in Round 1, to set up a structure for which Pro could supposedly prove to us that Zeus is a real god, even though 'the Real God' would have been a much wiser thing to force.
"Historical Context: Zeus is a figure from Greek mythology, a polytheistic belief system lacking historical evidence."
No sources given, nor for the assumed-plagiarised definition of a true god. This actually begins to support Pro.
"Contradictions in Attributes: Zeus, like other Greek gods, displays human-like flaws and engages in morally questionable behavior, contrasting with the notion of a morally perfect true god."
you can be flawed and meet the definition Con gives:
"supreme authority, omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection"
so long as your flaws aren't moral ones. This is something Pro also completely fails to capitalise on during the debate.
"Lack of Universal Recognition: Zeus was worshipped in limited regions and not universally acknowledged, questioning his authenticity on a global scale."
This doesn't matter because being worshipped isn't included in Con's own definition of a true god. I consider this an irrelevant point due to Con's definition of a true god.
"Scientific Understanding: Scientific advancements have provided alternative explanations for phenomena once attributed to divine intervention and gods."
So what? Which advancements? Which explanations? I presume this to be a baseless claim that leans lie because not even one single explanation or advancement is provided.
Round 2
Pro:
"So where is the proof that Zeus doesnt exist?"
While I agree with Pro that Con completely failed to address this in Round 1, Pro also is failing to explain how if Zeus does exist, he is the true god as opposed to one of many. The debate's description says 'one true God'. God with capital G is only Judeo-Christian but I'll let that slide.
Con:
"Zeus doesn't exist because the mythology he is said to exist in does not exist."
Pro has baselessly stated this, it's obvious the mythology does exist because Pro refers to it in Round 1. This is a nonsense point.
"Modern science has not found a single piece of evidence for Olympia or Hades or any of the countless wars these beings were supposedly having."
We have to take Con's word for it, Pro has indeed provided us zero evidence so far for any of it so we must default now to favour Con's assertions that science doesn't support Zeus or the stories linked to him (though this doesn't mean they disproved it either, whatsoever).
"Pro has not fullfilled his BoP to prove that Zeus is real and is the true God."
But neither side said Pro had to. Con said 'a true god' in his own Round 1.
Round 3
"Since there is no proof that Zeus doesnt exist, the only logical conclusion is that Zeus exists."
This is a brand new point in Round 3 by Pro. Though it was implied that Pro did think this way due to how he argued the prior Rounds.
I don't know what to make of it. Both sides are whining and moaning that the other side isn't proving them wrong, it's like both sides wish the other side was giving evidence to prove them wrong.
"Bro your argument is terrible."
Irrelevant borderline ad-hom but attacks the argument and is a one-time thing. He's not your bro, he's your enemy. Treat him as a worthy adversary, even when beating the shit out of his arguments.
"I can easily use the same logic against you. Since there is no proof that Zeus doesn't not exist, the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist."
Not can, did. This is what Con did the entire debate so I default it to a Con win by negative BoP-meeting by Pro.
Extend all other arguments.
Full Forfeit
Full Forfeit
Sources
Only Con links to sources and the sources are used to provide backing for the definition of 'wet' and the fact water often dries things. Con also used a BBC reliable source to prove scientists aren't sure water is wet.
Pro refers to a dictionary forcing the user to need to Google if it's real or a lie and misspells Merriam-Webster again and again while at it. The sources seem to be used solely to prove that to be DRY (not necessarily wet) requires lack of moisture and/or water.
Is water free of itself or is itself on and all over itself? This basically opens a line of philosophical thinking that Pro barely touches the surface of and means the sources go to Con because all Pro did was very poorly try to make the user need to Google definitions to check Pro wasn't lying but the usage of them doesn't really hammer home Pro's case just lays groundwork.
Tabula Rasa disclaimer
I am slightly biased towards what Con is arguing because I know for sexual purposes, water definitely is a terrible lubricant and people who very-often shower often have peeling skin if they don't properly hydrate (inside their body not water on the outside) and put cream on their skin in the places.
Arguments
Con's logic is that water fails to cling to solid surfaces in a way liquids are meant to. I am not sure if the stickiness itself is a necessary component of wetness but it's backed by a source. Furthermore, Pro keeps arguing that science definitions and dictionary definitions are both valid, which hurts Pro's case not Con's.
Pro's case seems to be if something isn't dry, it's wet. While this is a flawed dichotomy, Con doesn't fully capitalise on it, instead points out this is a passive sounding statement (which I don't think is right, it didn't sound like a question) but then does dedicate to a murky waters type angle.
Con's entire thesis is that we can't really tell if water is wet because some definitions include properties this anti-lubricating non-clingy thing water is lack. Pro doesn't quite get this. What Pro does is try to muddy the watters back but in doing so, destroys their own burden of proof. Since now both sides are saying water can be wet in some context on some definition but water can't be wet in other contexts and definitions.
This favours Con, since we can't then definitively say water is wet.
"And, if you use your own logic, like I originally did, you might just conclude that water is actually wet, because water can't be dry. It seems very strange to me the idea that water could be dry. Thus, I can only conclude that water is wet."
Pro ASKS ME as the reader to USE MY OWN LOGIC. My own logic fits more with Con's case here, I am ALLOWED BY PRO to drop tabula rasa for reasons I cannot comprehend. Thus I will use my own knowledge that water is one of the most deceptive things and sex in water is fucking grating.
Forfeits demand me to give conduct to Pro.
This is also technically a full forfeit as after the first round Con debates, Con forfeited every Round. However, I believe Con actually won the debate in one single Round. I am torn and will give Con the win.
Full forfeit
Essentially a troll debate, only Con used a source.
interesting
Pro made a 2 word nonsense statement ina troll debate vs the counter angle from Con.
Severe conduct issues
concession
Snow Tha Product, Little Simz and Rapsody vs Chief Keef, Nicki Minaj and Cardi B. I liked Kehlani but he chose some of her worse songs to listen to so, Devon is down already in Round 1 throughout the debate. Lil durk is terrible while J Cole isn't. Then again, we have trash like Lil Peep on Bella's selection. I don't mind doja cat but to focus entirely on SZA instead is a bit boring to me.
I can tell you that Round 1 of Pro screams 'boring' while Round 1 of Con screams 'interesting, I wonder what's coming' I know Cardi B wasn't in Pro's R1.
Little Simz from Round 1 is one of those 'don't love don't hate' picks. Simz is a slow and dull rapper in one way but has sick enough flow and is a good showcasing of UK female rap. She's actually UK hiphop as opposed to UK Grime or Drill which is rarer in itself.
I then look at Round 2.
I really don't get what Pro is doing because his selection has some decent picks like 'only' but in general is boring. Of all Rihanna tracks, he picks one of her most lame ones. I can literally fall asleep listening to it but if he was going for chill vibe then why are songs like Doja Cat Get Into It (Yuh) just before it?? I like the picks at times such as the Doja one aforementioned so I guess it's a nice 6/10 Round as even though I am not a massive fan of 'needed me' and think it's Rihanna's lamest track it's still good as Rihanna is a good artist so her worst is decent.
Round 2 from Bella was... terrible... Kanye's worst song of all time in her selection... Unpleasant as fuck to my eardrums, boring buildup and lame shallow lyrics. Foolio... Oh no. No. No. Disgusting trash mumble rap. Absolute shit tier. In round 1 that was a minority thing amongst many gems from Con but in Round 2 the Foolio made everything worse... It was the same trash track repeated. FAAAR FROM ME CAN'T SING OUT OF TUNE WHY WOULD YOU LAAAAY WITH ME WHY WOUL DYOU PLAAAAY WITH ME RAAA RAAAR
I am pretty sure that Pro used songs I posted to other debates in his Round 2, which is why I am not ranking ithigher than 6/10 because I know what he did and he's votebombed me elsewhere so I owe him no mercy for the unoriginal strategy. The stuff that wasn't what I'd posted or mentioned elsewhere is clearly mediocre.
Round 2 is still solidly to Pro. I did not enjoy Con's stuff in R2 at all. Even the screamy emo rap like 'swear to god' is not lyrical at all it's just singsong lame rap instead of mumble rap.
In Round 3 I am struggling to make it through Con's stuff, much like Pro's Round 1. In fact, I am genuinely angry because the rapper stack$ is one of many examples of dirt tier mumble trash ruining the rap game with their shallow unearned fame with 0 effort into their chatGPT ass lyrics.
I also am getting annoyed that Con is spelling Spotify as Spodify, whether dyslexic or not to do this across 3 Rounds seems sheer laziness to me. I am not listening to all of Con's stuff as there's enough that's boring (such as the one Con insists was amazing vibes).
Pro's is weirdly decent, I know he tactically chose artists like Nicki and Rick Ross because of what I'd posted elsewhere but he chose gems of them and there was trash to pick instead.
So at this point Pro has taken Rounds 2 and 3 solidly and Round 1 he lost completely. This makes me nervous of a tie coming up as Idk what to do then.
Round 4 from Pro is underwhelming AF given what camebefore, whiny delivery from Keke Wyatt that hits my ears the wrong way etc. One of Beyonce's most boring, lame tracks of all her career and Cardi B (a hypocrytical cretin that has been a parasite to the rap game and OnlyFans only to turn her back on both and say it's immoral to be that way after making hundreds of millions off of it all).
However... Jhene Aiko... Pleasant enough. There was some pleasantness in Round 3 fromPro but the bad and lame stuff was so unbearably dull/boring/irritating.
From Con, Little Poor Me by Layto is dope, love it one of my alltime fave Indie-esque artists wish he had more out.
Venom and Everything Black are already epic picks so I listened to them 'slowed' as mentioned... Wow, the slowed of EB is legit better. Legit. Deeper, smoother, less rushed in the 'fast' part.
I found this, assume this was what Con meant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R06Gt5aLCgo
On the other hand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QapQ_FPwQM That's Venom slowed... yikes...
Con Forfeits Round 5...
May as well give it to Pro.
Made me laugh.
Also had better understanding of the hilarity of flexing one's diet over another's.
FF .
FF .
FishChaser was the better rapper here.
Follow this link: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4677/comments/55981
Starting there, my RFD begins it has 3 parts to it, see the comments posted just prior to it (below it visually unless they are over a page) for the remainer of the reason for my decision.
Both sides use sources in a loose, weak way. They say something and back it up whether a definition or keyword, so both are tied for sources in my opinion.
I can follow the Kritik of Con but definite = 100% probability. However, Pro doesn't say this and therefore, I require a longer RFD.
In this debate, what I understand happens is that Pro's angle is very likely to exist, Con's angle is that it's 100% certain (without mention percentage or probability) and believes that this is a clever Kritik on the resolution, that I see as not quite so clever at all.
As the debate progresses from that point onwards, Con first does a syllogism to fight Pro's proof, stating that quantum foam as 'god' is not feasible due to it requiring creation. Following this, one round later, Con proceeds to make a new reverse-syllogism that Pro has no opportunity to reply to, this new syllogism tries to back up the original case that Pro has proven a god to 100% exist.
While Pro doesn't say that 'definitely' means 100% probability, what I understand happens here is Pro says Con has to prove it is definite and both Pro and Con seem to think the clash is whether or not quantum foam qualifies as a 'nothing something' or proof of something god-related... Which I am still confused to the end of the debate as who that even backs or why the actual fuck it is relevant to the topic (I am not saying I can't think of why, I am saying neither debater makes it remotely clear).