Total votes: 861
The only kind of debate that Ramshutu can win is one where his opponent is shit or emotionally worked up.
Concession is why he won this.
C
⠀
Con, this is not funny for me. Pro tried to rap badly in a way that still was rap. Con copy pastes or just doesn't try at all.
This is a very bad type of troll debate and really is not funny for me as I love good rap.
FF
Concession R4 on Pro's part.
Pro, you would not necessarily have lost anyway, a lot of what determines that would be in the later-Round rebuttals and defence so it's very hard to say.
50% F
Forfeited all Rounds except Round 2 where he says 'next' and nothing at all about the debate.
FF
250th vote, fuck yeah!
FF
C R3
Pro ff half the rounds
Sources to Pro. Con uses 0 and doesn't even back anything he says up with anything other than his own extensions on the matter. Pro uses links to psychology websites and academic '.edu' websites in a very efficient way relative to Con in order to back up the notion that there exist two valid theories of human motivations. The Needs theory is more important to this debate as it backs up Pro's idea that continues for the other Rounds that even when we fight immediate impulse that seems selfish, we are being selfish for the long-term benefit of how we feel about ourselves and our self-image in the eyes of others as a means of power etc.
Con does nothing but ask Pro questions and then expand on Pro's answers... What I mean is, Con is literally helping Pro to make his (Pro's) case better, for the entire debate, even helping Pro by insisting that human instincts are not selfish.
I know what Con was trying to do, it was the only interesting way to fight this debate as Con. Con was trying to do the inverse of what most 'Con'-sides do here. Most Con debaters argue that instinctive, impulsive and brutal needs/wants are selfish while the extension of our need to feel good and better than evil scum isn't itself selfish. Con in this debate instead tries to reverse the burden of proof and explore how/why anything is selfish in the first place. Pro does the reverse to Con, asking how anything is selfless and Con could have gone into Buddhist and Taoist philosophy to explore the concept of a person consciously removing the 'ego' despite still being alive and present mentally but doesn't explore that at all.
Con was basically hosting a talk show where Pro was the interviewee and Pro performed adequately indeed.
Con doesn't know what the 'line in the sand is' between acoustic and electronic. This is clear by his Round 5 choice most of all (completely disqualified under my semantics of acoustic) and also his Round 4 AND 3 choice which used an electric guitar and had autotuning going on but it was done very well so you wouldn't notice it too much.
Virtuoso was losing until Round 3 because his style is too soft for my liking (acoustic doesn't mean 'soft', this is actually a false stereotype that both parties committed to, you can have POWERFUL AS FUCK acoustic stuff, especially with strings involved like a violinist or a cello player).
Nonetheless, Round 4 and 3 is not disqualified like Round 5 is from Con as I do see why the 'line' isn't clear because the electric guitar is very gentle, making it near-acoustic-plucking in a way. The keyboard sounds just like a piano and maybe it really was an 'electric piano' that uses the acoustic chamber to vibrate the sounds etc.
I don't know, it was a borderline just-acoustic song.
The thing is The Round 5 from Pro was a fucking masterpiece in my opinion, if you do like soft acoustic sissy-style. This isn't being sexist, it's undeniably a feminine taste that is still catered to 'men' (so sissy-style) that Virtuoso likes. Both clearly are into Indie music but Indie music uses quite a bit of electronic editing these days, which was proven by Con's R3 haha.
Anyway, Con was honestly edging it out until R3.
R4/3 from Con both have the problem; they are precisely too electronic-edited sounding to have the beauty that acoustic quintessentially requires for me.
Pro's R1 was a boring choice. I didn't enjoy it. Virt's R2 and R5 were beautiful if you're into sissy-style music to cry like a girl to but feel manly anyway, somehow. I am into harder stuff than that, it didn't appeal to me but it undeniably had a beauty to it that would severely appeal to the people into that type of music.
Con's R2 was fucking beautiful. I don't know what the hell Franklin is saying that it's shit, it was a fucking masterpiece and his best acoustic piece. It was truly beautiful on many levels.
I enjoyed Pro's R3 so much, that is more like if I am in the MOOD FOR acoustic the stuff I'd want to hear as a soothing background song while I do work or something.
Pro's R4 IS WHAT MADE ME KNOW WHO WON THIS DEBATE. That was very weird as it was shit in terms of lacking a beat and him tryharding to be solo with just the guitar and voice but FUCK he was good.
FF
Snoopy takes a pro-gun-rights stance and says that Pro isn't really pro-gun, just pro-right-to-bear-arms. This semantic Kritik had some potential but then Con forfeits the final two Rounds and is basically surrendering to Pro who says he is both for guns and the right to bear arms.
What Con had to do was highlight that the endgame is to remove guns and the need for them. Con was partially successful in this but barely touched on it before forfeiting two Rounds of debate where he/she had to elaborate on that.
Counter votebomb to ramshutu
FF
FF
FF
66.67% F
Liked both. Two fave artists from both are... Minaj and Russ fro. Pro while kaan and tech n9ne from Con. Both had masterpieces and also mainstream lame tracks.
All Rounds other than R1 forfeited.
C
C/FF
FF
✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔
50% FF
Indirect ff gets more towards end.
Pro actually had win-paths. This was an even debate where both could troll the other with fundamental shifting of BoP.
Con is accused by Pro of having unreliable sources but Pro has 0 sources... LOL!
Pro also failed to explain how even on Earth the sky is blue and only even properly said it as a 'fact' in the Round where Pro couldn't even reply and lost his cool completely, forfeiting Round 2 and spurting with rage in Round 3. Con explores the terrain itself as being any and all skies that don't apply to Earth.
Honourable C
Ramshutu was permitted to ignore a concession in my debate against dustandashes so I will do the same here.
Con gives 0 arguments anyway.
C
In the last Round, the most decisive difference between them is seen. Until the final Round, both were slipping up in different ways making a ton of half rhymes at times with internal rhyming being near non-existent but the last Round was fucking monstrous from speedrace, the flow was seamless as fuck.
As a reward, I will show you guys this masterpiece to comprehend flow better:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V47oj2HrObY
FF
This is utter bullshit debate. Both stay ng they know their dog is gay or bot gay based on first hand evidence. The photos can't be bestiality as that's illegal. Nothing was proven by either. Type1 at his finest.
Con literally concedes that non-migrating area-traps are the equivalent of prison in terms of human rights, at least to some degree and due specifically to not being able to leave. The Kritik that it isn't a human right but ought to be was kind of lost on me anyway since the entirety of expanding upon it became instead about the banning of Kritiks in debates and a couple of other rules like evenly shared BoP and vaguely 'no trolling'. In fact you could say Con's later Rounds were the definition of trolling as it became about making Pro feel shit for being a coward. Being a coward isn't being a troll, it takes a troll to expose a coward usually but that's how life goes. Don't overplay your hand against a coward when the coward is very willing to be aggressive when the time is right. This is poker strategy vs chess strategy, Con needs to learn not to mess with someone like bsh1 who understand how to use the opponent's aggression against them.
It's fine that you did this honestly, I agree with Con outside of this debate about bsh1 but the fact is you step into the arena you gotta respect the rules. You can't eye gouge and then say 'well in a real fight I can do that to you, coward!'
Tbh, I back bsh1 up on this; rules in the description are sacred to me (actually a lot more so than they are to bsh1, as evident by some cases of vote-modding). You agree to the description, if you lost then admit it and concede with grace.
This literally was a tied debate. One side said that anime and language is about expressing things vocally (Con) while Pro retorted that it was about comprehending tone of voice but more importantly the advantages of staying ahead and as authentic to the series as is possible.
In other words, both sides literally said the other side's value system may well be correct, it just isn't to them.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/692
plagiarism. Not a single original argument.
Con forfeited the minimum of 50% of Rounds. This enables Conduct vote alone.
☑
☑
Pro puts forth the argument "As an atheist if any of these religions are true you are going to go to hell and that will be horrible for you." in Round 2 and this follows on from Round 1 Pascal Wager logic-esque argument of "because you have a chance of making it to happen and you lose nothing if you join a religion."
this is wrong but I can't use my own deduction when voting like that (although Ramshutu loves to use his own deductions on my argument-logic when voting against me). Instead, I must see if Ramshutu opposes it well enough.
In Round 1, Ramshutu attacks every element of Pascal's Wager that the mainstream rebuttals of people like Sam Harris use but it misses the most essential one:
YOU DO LOSE BY BELIEVING IN RELIGION. This ability to explain that the core idea 'lose nothing but potentially gain' that the Pro side says is what the Theist side is, is wrong because you lose things. This is gently brushed upon by the following from Con:
"You don’t have to spend time going to church, engaging in worship or other activities - this saves time for other more useful activities."
but what other activities? What is the POINT IN ATHEISM? Why GUARANTEE the God hates you?
Ramshutu could have Kritik'd PW from the angle of a 'God that punishes those that believe in it' being equally likely to one that rewards them (since we're dealing with infinity) but also doesn't do this.
This angle of time wasted at Church is rebuked by Pro in R2:
"Yes in Atheism you don't have to go to church but you don't have to go to church to be a christian either. You just have to believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior."
but this is where Con wins the debate... In R2, Con properly annihilates the 'lose nothing' point by Pro:
"All religions have their own edicts and requirements. Pro argues that you don’t need to go to church: yet other denominations strongly encourage it for communion, for confession, and others.[1]
Christianity requires you to keep the Sabbath Holy, to not cover your neighbours ass[2], and to be specifically repentant of supposed sins. Some forms of Buddhism enforce or encourage vegetarianism[3], Islam requires daily prayers[4], Zeus worship requires burning Hecatombs to curry favour.[5]
Each religion has its own specific requirements, that you need not consider or be bound by as an atheist, making yourself morally and ethically responsible for your own actions to your own neighbours: and freeing up time and energy for other meaningful aspects of your life."
At this point the entire 'this vs that' of Pascal's Wager is DESTROYED by Con. Con should have done this in Round 1, but at least in R2 does it.
Pro's response is a Round-3 Forfeit.