Total votes: 861
C/FF.
Pro literally has the argument the the law is an ass and that therefore the website is elitist bullshit. If you transcribe Pro's R3 and R4 logic into the angle he (profile identifies as male so I say 'he') took in R1 and R2, the case Pro makes is literally that the law is an ass and that there's no rationale behind it any more than there was behind racist slavery and that therefore they are equally abhorrent.
At first, Con slips up, for he makes the error of playing too defensive but not defending against the defence of the enemy. What I mean is that at first Con's reply was that Pro was totally entitled to attacked the law and rules and opened himself up to complete stampeding in R4 by Pro who could bring many new points thanks to Con asking him to, in order to justify why slavery is equally stupid, elitist and/or bullshit as voting regulations on this website. However, Pro never capitalises on that, Pro comes back just as passively defensive and asks for Con's rationale.
There also seems to be no way to tell if it is bullshit or not, because Pro didn't know you're allowed to swear on this website, unlike DDO, so was too afraid to directly use the word or definition in his debate round(s).
Pro never uses sources, other than using Oliver Twist, a fictional story, to justify that the Law is an ass because the main character says so... That is a terrible and unreliable use of sourcing in a debate that is meant to make the opponent admit that the site is elitist bullshit. If anything is elitist bullshit it's saying that as a Dickens fan you're entitled to just quote a character and win a debate down to your taste in books.
Con cites an actual event that Pro is referring to, compares others' votes that got removed and shows how Pro's own vote was actually worse than one that got removed, which was never ever countered by Pro. Pro's case is actually racist. What Pro is saying is shockingly that he considers that his vote is as inferior to the non-removed votes as the enslaved race was to the 'master race' in the times where slavery was legalised. This is actually the true extent of the analogy that Pro uses to counter Con's logic. It is neither justified nor properly brought into linking to the resolution throughout the debate.
FF
C
Con is the only one to use sources, backing up statistics like 100 million being killed and such, to show evils and/or inefficiencies of the Socialist regimes. Thus, I give 'sources' to Con as Pro didn't do anything of the sort.
Pro also loses the arguments point because the entire case of Pro is thrown out when, in Round 3, Pro suddenly admits that at present Capitalism thwarts Communism and/or Socialism, then stating that Socialism is to be equated to having horse and carts that later became cars. Pro may have meant that somehow Capitalism is meant to be the horse and carts that later evolves into Socialism but if that's true, then Pro still loses the debate because Pro never ever explains how this is guaranteed or desirable in the entire debate. The following Round was forfeited by Pro... This is, to me, Pro failing to meet their burden of proof.
Meanwhile, Con gives both moral reasons (killing people, ensuring everyone stays in poverty etc) and logical reasons (Socialism has never worked the way it was supposed to and is more likely to be the horse and carts in the analogy, than Capitalism being it) for one to conclude that Socialism is flawed.
concession but rude attitude from Con.
Pro, in the future don't concede until your enemy actually brings up the unbeatable point.
I love philosophical no-links-required raw logic debates, I fucking dig this stuff so much and this is what made me fall in love with debating but it's extremely clear that Omar/Pro had no clue what exactly his side represented.
The entire case of Omar's can be summed up as defending against the notion of the best being the most effective thing to use time on... That doesn't mean it should be left until last nor does it explain why you're constantly going to not want to use the higher quality thing. Con correctly points this out continually, explaining a simple concept from the beginning:
"Saving the best for last may seem like a harmless impulse control exercise for most people but it's not so. For one thing, saving the best for last is just developing your mindset into always using the worse the materials or eating the worst food first and not using things that are more high quality. Also, "the best" may turn bad after too much "saving"."
To which Omar replies that this is extreme interpretation of Pro's stance, that things do get worse over time but that we can't have benefits without consequences and many other tautologies surrounding the topic. While I actually think he had a good point with paying bills and could have run 'consequence butterfly effect' lines of reasoning along game theory, Omar instead opts to engage with Con, who was hostile but is new to debating, in an equally hostile way. Conduct is tied because both had bad conduct equally in my eyes.
This became very 'he's wrong omg omg' 'he's wrongerrrrrr omg omg' but ultimately I find that con's opening was succinct and held throughout, as I quoted. The concept Con represents is that as resources diminish (which they will do anyway), you want to at least have some of the best while it lasts. Pro said this was an extremely unfair interpretation of his stance (that one literally should always leave the best until last) but PRO NEVER IS CLEAR ON WHAT HIS ACTUAL STANCE IS.
might as well
FF
Pro trolled Con into a debate that Con thought would be a troll debate in the sense of rap battle. No matter how you look at it, Pro dug his own grave because he's against Rap battles then by the very refusal to engage in one in this debate...
Janesix didn't quit this debate because she was wrong. She quit the debate because she realised how much of a coward one can be to win this debate as Con. All they need to do is say 'yeah but what if it isn't' over and over again and they win.
I encourage her to find truth and not always argue for it. Let the sheep be sheep sometimes, Jane, find truth and heal within yourself. :)
50% forfeit by Pro, this is a conduct loss and this vote highlights the true depiction of the debate in my eyes regarding arguments. Both sides used sources well. I can go into why I don't think Con deserves Arguments or Sources in the comments section with a vote mod if need be.
Seems like and agreed tie to me. If wrong then both technically FF'd so...
FF because R1 with forfeits means FF in the CoC.
CVB delete this as and when needed.
FF
FF
I mean technically, there is justification to give Con conduct and leave all other points tied but I won't go into technicalities as clearly to me this is a debate where neither side in any way deserves either the loss or win (and on top of that they agreed to a tie) so a tie it is.
C
Better songs but King's Nicki Minaj song made this closer than it otherwise would be. I love Nicki and that song is beastly.
The Final song from simgaphil is one of the greatest soothing-emotional hybrid type of songs in the history of music.
FF
FF
Plagiarism in a 12 hour per round debate. Only Con brought forth any original argumentation.
Rule 1 in the Description says 'No Forfeits'.
Rule 11 states: "11. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."
R3 and R4 forfeited by Pro while Con didn't forfeit.
Out of Four rounds 2 were forfeited. 50% Forfeit means I can vote Conduct on its own Ramshutu, ask the mods if you don't believe.
I feel as if Supadudz was the better rapper here. He added the definitions in one of his raps which I know is really hard to do. Also K8 made a grammatical mistake.
FF
FF
Arguments
~~~~~~~~~
Con proves God to be destructive via relishing in destroying Israel if need be among other lines quoted from the Bible. Pro's rebuttal was LITERALLY that because something can't come from itself that therefore there is a need for the Bible to be used as a moral compass. If you think it makes no sense, that's because it doesn't.
In Round 2, Con annihilates Pro's Kalam-esque case for the Christian God by both sandwiching Pro in between needing to prove other Gods than the Bible's God false while simultaneously needing to prove the God of the Bible correct and necessary to existence. Pro was left checkmated at this point and nothing resembling actual debate continues from there on.
============
Sources
~~~~~~
Only Con used sources and it was to back up terrible Bible verses existing which is superior to what Pro did which was use 0 sources.
============
Spelling and Grammar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The entirety of Pro's R1 was incoherent to the extent that so many times where a comma was actually needed, it wasn't used but sometimes when it was used it was arguably correct, rarely...
Let me give you some examples:
Soft-error #1: "Before the universe, there was nothing."
This is the most grammatically correct part of Pro's entire R1 and it still is written off-kilter. Before the universe... There was nothing... either add in the word 'began' or 'came into existence' before the comma or don't use a comma at all then. This was an acceptable sentence but if you compound it with the other errors it builds up why it was confusing.
Hard-self-made-error #2: " Nothing, and only nothing can "
This beginning of the sentence could be written simply as "Only nothing can" but since it was written like that, the error was to not put another comma after the second 'nothing'. This is not a soft-error at all, it severely confused even Pro himself such that in Round 2 he conceded he hadn't conveyed what he even meant.
Hard-inevitable-error #3: "Nothing, and only nothing can come from nothing, as logic says."
So, if you continue from error #2, we now have the sentence actually reading that "Nothing as logic says and only nothing can come from nothing." This is literally what the sentence reads if you correctly extrapolate the commas.
I am a genius and understood exactly what Pro was arguing but if I wasn't, I know I would struggle. I see things systematically but most humans read English grammatically, following the sentence left-to-right etc. I skim read and piece together puzzles in my head and even then it was confusing what Pro was saying because Pro basically seemed to be building a case that God was logically impossible to have come from nothing, which contradicts his side.
Hard-error #4: "in this nothing, there is"
If Pro had literally just removed that comma, so much more about the sentence before and after would make sense to most people. Because of that comma, the 'there' is severely confusing and the entire case began to become fuddled.#
===========
Conduct
~~~~~~~
Tied, Pro was lazy but Con wasn't harshly offended or mistreated.
Rule 1 of debate description is no forfeits. Look at last 2 Rounds from Con.
Rule 11 states "Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."
Loss being total.
The entire argument of Con was that bullying is good and resisting it and potentially putting your child in harm's way of bullying later on in life is toxic for you to do. While disgusting and against everything I stand for, I'd have allowed this angle had Con genuinely gone into the psychological and sociological justifications and proofs against the well-being of bullied trans kids being reason to not raise children as non-cis. Con didn't do this and both sides seemed to only use sources to back general things they said, with the most specific being the babycenter source that was in the last Round so Con never got to reply to it and also was such a generic fact to the debate that it was not better.
Pro argues that the focus of theyby-raising is to enable the child to become either cis, tans or genderfluid by their own choice and not a pressured one. Cons refutation was that bullying is inevitable and a great thing to cower to but seriously Con put zero effort into justifying why, while every single thing Pro said was left unchallenged other than by unjustified bully-synpathising.
Crud = Concession
FF
FF but honestly this was really fucking toxic debating style from Wylted and I didn't like the Conduct. Can have the win but really this is too toxic for me to just allow like that with my vote.
Darth Vader did a death grip in Round 1.
What the fuck.
I would say that RM had better roasts and insults, but KM and amazing flow/rhythm. I personally think I would give KM the win on this one.
⠀
⠀
While the four-category system may not apply, it still is relevant to a winner selection debate where the criteria all can be applied.
Conduct Pro - 1: R3 forfeit by Con and Con strangely trying to say history can't be used in the debate to turn things to his favour makes me tilt this to Pro.
S&G - Neither - 0: Pro had more errors but they didn't reduce understanding. The most strange one being spelling Sepukku as Sepuka despite the point not only having nothing to do with the debate but being in the link he used as his only remotely would-be reliable source if it had been relevant.
Reliability and Relevance of Sources - barely tied, Pro did worse- in fact I'd say 1 point to Con if I could give 1: Let me explain something, Pro had a YT video which basically never counts as reliable and was only to back up that Nukes apparently can be attributed to a decrease in warfare (without himself expanding on the how and why). Pro's only actual would-be reliable link was something to explain that the Samurai committed Sepukku... What does this have to do with the debate?! Using Nukes that killed so many civilians in an Era where the Samurai were long gone has nothing to do with the debate at all, it was a bad use of sourcing by Pro. Pro's business insider source was the only one used correctly to explore the cost of Nukes and risk vs reward. The other source while reliable again was solely about a war where the most horrific example of Nukes gone wrong was used... This is not a smart think to bring up.
Conversely, Con's science-backed sourced supported actual statistics of what would happen post-Nuclear war and also how expensive Nukes are (and what that money could be used on instead).
Both users need to learn to put a '- source' UNDERNEATH the quoted thing. You don't quote with the URL in your quotation unless you're quoting your opponent quoting the source...
Tip: ctrl (or cmd for Mac) + ] and [ help to make many layers of quoting, fast. Use the Enter/Return key to split parts up in the quoted text and rank them with the [ and ].
Arguments - Con - neither side defined 'Good' in the entire debate:
There was never ever a given definition of 'Good' provided in the debate. This means that in my eyes even if Con FF'd Pro would win (but I'd vote Pro if this was the case as the Code of Conduct demands us to ignore logic in such scenarios). Neither side explained what Good is, no dictionary was referenced and no real concept of Good was provided. Pro automatically loses because of this as if nothing is able to be shown as Good the default is nothing is proven good, including nukes. Con also showed that Nukes take away money and would cause catastrophe, Pro argues 'but that will never happen unless we are against Samurai types who commit Sepukku'... Well, okay, I guess Con didn't reply saying 'so it only takes one nation to be suicidal and BOOM' but even without Con arguing that, how does this prove it's Good?
This felt like a debate that was "Nukes are Evil." with the sides swapped. Pro clearly felt he was Con to a topic where the other side had the burden of proof and Con clearly felt that he had to prove they were sinister, rather than playing more defensive and exploring what Good is/isn't relative to nukes. Neither side was clashing in the correct dynamic of the debate but because Pro never proves Nukes are Good, only that they can maintain peace in the absence of suicidal types, thanks to mutually assured destruction, Pro loses by never meeting his burden of proof. Con successfully cast some doubt on how Good nukes may be and again, Pro shot himself in the foot but Con didn't capitalise on it when Pro said but a war will never really happen. If a war will never really happen, why then did you just admit that it not only can happen but be very necessary such as with these "sepukku types"? Con didn't retort that, but instead said history shouldn't be brought into the debate... This was all very strange.
60% forfeit on Pro's part with plagiarism as the majority of the case. Conduct to Con.
FF