Total votes: 861
Lol .
Oromagi .
. .
When an Indian tells you that Christian Colonialism had a negative impact on India, the best approach is to go 'damn fucking right' and leave the room if you disagree.
The opponent in this debate decided to take both approaches at once.
If you look at the definition of predict (and the entire reason I didn't accept this debate as Con despite seeing it before Con accepted it), Pro need only to say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something. This means even if what he says or estimates is incorrect, he still has predicted it. On top of that, it indeed is completley vague how specific the prediction must be if it's to be deemed correct or incorrect but the correctness of the prediction is irrelevant to the debate's resolution.
Pro predicted several things about Con's arguments and even went into specifics of what Con will say. This is, by definition, predicting. In fact the only way Pro could lose this debate (in my eyes) is if Pro never attempted to say or estimate what Con would argue. Con kept trying to prove that Pro had failed to correctly predict, but incorrect prediction is still prediction according to the definition in the debate description that both parties agreed to. Con could not win and has not won, unless enough voters incorrectly interpret the definition of 'predict' and ignore the debate's description.
On top of this, Con did do what Pro said he'd do, quite a few times. Con indeed did push to prove that Pro had not met his BoP, for instance.
llllllllllllllllllllllll
is that? yes
FF .
EricThanos tried to slap Bearman but he didn't know that Bearman is not from Marvel universe. Bearman has that girzzly grip that gone gripe ya.
Concession, forfeits etc.
Slam dunk.
Con completely trolled baselessly asserting that pineapple is disgusting and calling Pro a dirtbag and having consistently sardonic tone in Round 2.
Only Pro used sources and only Pro even remotely made an argument that used other people's taste and factors like health.
Concession
Blamonkey is a hero to Guantanamo Bay (sarcasm but what happened is brutal and unforgivable, if they were innocent they were still detained).
Same reasoning as Crocodile.
I don't quite understand what point Pro was trying to make. Even if the reader could comprehend all the languages posted, they would need to admit that this is an English speaking website and that basically Pro's Round equals posting nothing at all.
I genuinely don't understand Con's argument. This wasn't a question of whether or not accepting the debate was stupid. Also, his second sentence is not a sentence, it seems to be leading somewhere but never gets there.
Pro wins because Pro gives two clear cut ways that the debate is supposedly stupid:
1) character count being too short
2) that Pro can't defend against Con's rebuttals
I do not comprehend at any point in Con's entire debate what he is saying regarding the 'should' aspect of the debate.
Con notices that Pro, who is clearly new to debating and made a noob error in how he structured the debate's title and sides, worded it as 'should not' as he didn't want to bait someone into taking the Pro side to 'should' since the default is that the one accepting defies the resolution.
This is very dirty play by Con and is lazy debating to the core. He never once justified why they should be allowed, only that they can be, would be and are. Pro correctly points this out in Round 2 and only has lost the debate due to voters not grasping honour and valid logic in debating.
Only Pro used sources, Con didn't even semantically outplay his opponent and he didn't dare to touch the definition of 'should' as he knew he'd lose if he did.
F F
Virtual FF from Pro.
R1 Forfeit plus sardonic tone and laziness in debating give Con the conduct point.
Only Con used Sources.
The Arguments point clearly goes to Con because Pro's only argument is restating the resolution in a ruder way. He states that genetics are to blame but doesn't even go into the genetic evidence. In contrast, Con gives a lot of evidence supporting his side.
Virtually an FF, laziness and Round 1 forfeit from Pro give Con the conduct.
Pro doesn't address anything in Con's arguments, in fact he makes it clear that this debate was intended as satire on the part of Pro. While playing devil's advocate is acceptable, it's not acceptable to completely break out of character and virtually concede like that.
Only Con used sources.
FF ⠀
FF ⠀
Also, it's Adolf and not Adolph (just something I think not enough people realise while spelling his name).
FF ⠀
Conduct for the forfeited Round 1 and general laziness in Round 2 vs the hard work of Con's Round 2.
Only Con used sources and Con was the only person to actually use mathematics to explain how the numbers are projected to grow.
FF ⠀
Oro has incoherent rant woth no ppints. Con gives good.
If you punish this vote, I can show you other that shouldn't make the cut.
FF .
Ff .
I am confused why no one else has voted based on concession but to me this was a conceded debate where the other side explicitly defended taking their false stance by saying it is satire (over and over again).
........................................
50% FF
FF .
50% F
FF ⠀
50% F
Concession, why not give all 7 points? Am I missing something?
Fool's Forfeit
Full forfeit from the Satanist.
Con broke debate structure and forfeited the final Round. Thus the breakage of agreed upon debate structure was never justified.
Con broke agreed debate structure extremely by not waiving Round 4.
Pro lazy and mocking actually towards Spanish speakers more so than to Con because he is associating not understanding something with the other person conveying the Spanish language (when BoP actually is an English abbreviation of Burden of Proof).
Conduct docked.
Arguments to Con because Con has de facto authority to say that the belief is not present and Pro did nothing to suggest otherwise.
FF ⠀
3/5 F ⠀
FF ⠀
FF ⠀
C ⠀
FF ⠀