Total votes: 861
Mingiwuwu and the Black Island isn't even a fucking anime or manga, it is Type1 on his Sparrow account revealing his knows my account on CreateDebate which is Mingiwuwu.
FF
Full Forfeit
FF
This resolution is incoherent to be upheld. FF
I liked the impersonation better, especially the ending. Stalin, despite swearing and brutally insulting, never raised his voice. This was a tendency that remains to this day a very quintessential quirk of his.
Virt, get Ram to CVB this. It's basically your 'thing' now, right?
I think you lost.
At no point in the entire debate did Con explain what an intellectual is. Only in the last Round, which Pro couldn't reply to, did Con even hint at how Ben Shapiro 'thinks rational' or any such thing. Pro used sources and highlighted what exactly in the YT video was being 'exposed'. Con doesn't even say what is in the YT links he uses, he just posts 2 in 2 different Rounds and says 'look how much Ben Shapiro backs things up with facts'... Okay, what things?
Pro highlights that cherry-picking points and holding strange views like Zionism, without being able to back them up would mean we are to default Shapiro (if Shapiro is these things) as a non-intellectual. This truly shifted BoP onto Con, even though it already was on Con had this been correctly written as 'is an intellectual' and with Sparrow as The 'red' side (Opposition) despite being the Instigator.
FF more than half the Rounds... Pro actually won the debate but CoC ties my hands. This is a debate where Con can't win, much like his "I'm gay" one vs his alt Sparrow.
LOL! Nonetheless, CoC supersede logic in this website so I'll respect that.
Con made a debate intentionally designed to trap noobs. Pro was new to the site and thought they were on the Con side.
FF more than half the rounds................
⠀
For the laziness in the last 2 Rounds including an actual Forfeit, Conduct would be to Con except for something I will come to later.
Con didn't use sources remotely as well as Pro did. Con could write anything and say its a Bible verse, get a credible source for people to click on and see 'ah, yeah that's legit.' Pro went through the effort of doing this for each and every single verse mentioned, it helped a lot.
Con wins because Pro keeps trying to assert that because Jesus was being promoted, resurrected and ultimately forgiven in ways no other being than God was known to do in the Bible, that this directly meant that Jesus was God in the human flesh. Perhaps Pro is actually correct, but Con points out that being assisted by God and being a sinning being of flesh that's later forgiven, superpowered and the highest ranking soul other than God, doesn't make that you are God in the human flesh. Additionally, unless God has split personality disorder, where is the 'link' to explain why Jesus refers to God The Father in third person a fair few times as Con quoted?
Pro's reply is that Jesus was forgiven for all sins... That's literally Pro's reply. Pro brings a new angle though, saying that the term Saviour is a direct God-only role in one part and a name for Jesus' role in another... This is where Con was cowardly. Con suddenly backtracks absolutely everything from the earlier Round and says 'but the Bible is just lies written by humans' in essence. This is kind of severe cowardice but whatever, Pro never replies to this sufficiently as Pro starts to give up and troll Con.
Speedrace doesn't even try with the rhyme scheme or flow. Michael is at least employing internal rhyming and slight flow.
⠀
I note the last 2 Rounds.
Pro was the only one with a second-hand source (himself). Pro. however, has forfeited the last Round and used ad hominem in Round 2 asking Con to prove he isn't gay as some kind of metaphor to proving that Bsh1 didn't guzzle jizz like a fish in a drinking contest.
I didn't really understand Pro's argument. If he saw him do it, he still has to debate for it and convince the reader of the event actually occurring.
Con failed to point out that there was something more Pro had to prove; that it was done like a fish in a drinking contest. This even could be Kritik'd as 'fish don't have drinking contests' makes it incomparable to begin with. None of these angles were taken by Con and it was disappointing but Pro didn't remotely prove anything or give a shred of evidence beyond his own sight.
Someone will counter votebomb me even though all my votes are with genuine intent or morally good outcome in mind.
I am just here to say that Ralph was completely in control of the pace and flow of K_Michael.
This is a level of dominance that shows who controls the battlefield beyond just 'who had the harder insults'. I have had similar control before but few appreciate it. This is very important in knowing who the superior warrior is.
FF
Concession
As much as I hate him, type1/sparrow is the superior rapper in elements such as flow and rhyme scheme integrity.
Both are weak in metaphor stacking and evolution because neither is a pun-heavy rapper.
Con is lucky type1 forfeited.
Basically a concession (if not then I’ll redo this vote)
FF
FF
I was unclear what Con was trying to convey or meant by 'troll'. It seems to me like Con intended there to insult Pro or to convey something about Pro that somehow related to the resolution. I'm just not sure, it seems like semantic games to me and badly executed at that. Gotta say this is poor conduct and S&G. I truly didn't understand what Con was trying to convey and the use of a colon in the last Round, it felt like an inverted run-on sentence, where he split it up and I just couldn't follow? Colons are meant to be used before lists, what was the list?
Not only does Con insult Pro, I feel he gish galloped, trying to overload Con with too much to handle. This adds to the conduct mark. I just couldn't grasp Con's points. They were poorly communicated and outright rude at times intended only to evoke reaction. Don't be so strange, Con, it makes normies like me struggle to grasp your cryptic but possibly intelligent points.
Pro uses himself as a primary source for his own urges, I feel like this was a great use of source and the argument that all men are created equal and the sexist connotation of one who truly believed in that disliking women adds to how radical an outlook Pro has. Con relies on second-hand sourcing and frankly was outright rude to assume he knew the inner workings and thoughts of Pro. Poor sourcing and arguments, Con.
As both debaters forfeited an equal number of rounds, it is not appropriate to award points to either debater. The voter cannot vote for the forfeiting side of a full forfeit. In this case, both are the "forfeiting sides."
Better rhyme scheme and flow
Sparrow was so rude.
He named one but it wasn't one.
It's a tie.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
FF......................
Kiss my goddamn ass.
.
Conduct to Pro for Con FF.
Pro was better at arguing because he/she/they point out that perception is the only thing we know to be real. What we are perceiving is enslaved to the perception and that is how we ascertain our assumed reality.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Kiss my goddamn ass.