RationalMadman

Con, a pseudo-banned multi account of YeshuaBought, failed to show up as per her agreement with mods I presume. Con had to prove that rape culture exists on campuses and never did. Con FF.

I do not care about conduct when it comes to forfeiting. Con brought up a totally new angle (not just points) that Pro had no chance to reply to, in the Last Round so while Pro forfeited 2 Rounds (which allowed Con to build a case unchallenged for longer) it really cannot compare to what Con tried to do in the last Round.
Con would have won this debate had they said that troll-angle on the topic from the start but instead Con says that Dragons are not real in Round 3 but in Round 1 blatantly isn't talking 'would be' but rather 'are/is' present tense. It is in no way at all correct to do what Con did in a debate, this is absolutely impossible for me to vote Con without lying about the reality of who debated better. Pro wins because Pro uses absolutely every point Con brings in the first Round against himself. The intimidating threat that dragons impose make them fantastic pets if you use them defensively and Con never explained how you can't tame them while Pro didn't explain how you could but since Pro strongly hints at feeding being a passive means of taming them, Pro met this burden of proof.

The mentioned ban and FF mean Con is proven to be the real Tyrone but personally, I preferred Biggy.

Tie agreed upon by both debaters.

ETs could not be present enough to debate against Earth. Thus ETs don't exist as proven in this debate.

Con won this in the weakest way possible in my eyes. Con needed only to provide one more dangerous animal to win and instead chose to mitigate to zilch which hardly is easier, it's actually not just weaker, it's more effort to pull off.
Pro actually was winning until R2 from Con in my eyes because Con wasn't explaining why there is to be assumed to be an equally/more dangerous animal out there as/than the duck.

I believe Pro loses because Con mitigates everything Pro brings up to either be a failure to meet BoP or to simply be proven irrelevant (as opposed to cast doubt on, which is more passive). From the speed of ducks to the mental-control of ducks over humans, Pro is constantly pushing forth points without expanding on their relevance to the resolution or to the reason why that in itself makes ducks dangerous if they can't execute well due to lack of strategy, as Con keeps pointing out.

Con wins via mitigating every point if Pro successfully and the 0-sum favours Con since Pro ends up with the BoP thrust unto him at every stage and isn't up to par in that regard.

Conduct to Con because while Con is rude calling Pro a crackpot in a really condescending tone, Pro says the following in R4:
"so a duck would silently sneak up at you at night and sit your throat and nmvarco I shall summon the duck god to smite you in your sleep tonight." which is clearly intended to terrify Con and even if it is a joke, is poor conduct in a formal 1v1 debate as 'just joking' doesn't mean your conduct was better within the context of the debate. A Graphic oblique threat followed by a direct one is not a joke. I do not care what you say, if you take 'duck' and 'smiting' to be metaphors, this is a very sinister comment indeed and since Pro is saying (in this debate) that genuinely ducks are that dangerous it's not even a case of 'can't be done' from Pro's point-of-view.

I found both to use terrible sources. Personal blogs and Wikipedia are terrible. Both score low so both tie. Good troll debate

BoP on Pro. Pro FF. Con wins.

I don't think the source Con used was relevant to the debate. I don't care about water (wtf did water have to do with this?) I care about the debate at hand and how both sides approach is.

Pro is stating that chairs are concerned with the concern lacking towards words themselves, such as 'water' and 'sock'. Pro then says that because of this Sock would be better as 2 words and frankly was hinting at 'suck cock' if you follow how he was splitting the word up. It's a troll and a joke and the reason it lost is because Con points out that chairs seem to lack emotion and because people do care about words... Although the way he proved this was to only focus on water instead of socks, it still was sufficient to Kritik the angle that Pro took.

Con is incorrect in this entire debate about what debating itself is about and that's largely why Pro was able to win by trying so little. Con finishes their series of attacking grammar and nitpicking quality of lighting in Star Wars by stating 'Plus, this debate is about you convincing me that the movies are good.' but a debate is not about that when it's in a 1v1-arena type scenario as it is here. In contrast, it's actually about convincing unbiased (or even biased) third-parties to vote you as the winner in awe at the skill you displayed over your opponent and with regards to the topic at hand. Pro convincing Con was not the win-condition of Pro, Pro had to impress the judges enough with their skill at debating the topic in order to win so long as Con failed to equally or not furthermore impress us.

Pro uses admittedly biased sources (Starwars itself as well as Wikipedia) but these were extremely relevant in backing up claims of money and such. Pro did raise new points in the last round to achieve this but both sides were playing dirty so I really am not going to care about that. Con attacks a run-on sentence that wasn't even necessarily a run-on sentence at all but merely a placing of comma where, perhaps, semicolon could be a superior choice if one is really OCD about grammar.

Con's only point against was the lighting and realism which Pro shouldn't have gotten away with just saying 'it's not meant to be realistic' as well as pointing out that the lighting is not meant to be great in outer space but Pro DID INDEED get away with it because Con just lets it be. I am a flat-earther who has severe doubts that the ISS is what we are told it is but Con just says it has fantastic lighting... So, is Con comparing that to an outer space movie? It's not quite clear to me what Con meant there.

Pro wins because Con just allowed Pro to steamroll this debate without even properly steamrolling at all (Pro was actually abysmal in both effort and quality of execution).

Neither side actively proved or explained itself but Pro actually met their burden of proof because Con explicitly agreed with them and then brought up a totally new point in the last Round via rhetorical question but new points in last Round are unfair especially when you're the final speaker of the whole debate. Also, Con agreed we should colonise the solar system, he only disagreed with a tiny bit about the order of doing it which he never remotely justified, at least Pro explained their idea fully.

Full Forfeit

FF, easy vote grab ty.

The direct way to attack the resolution's argument is only to attack Axiom 2. You need to enter a very 'everyone has heavy BoP' scenario where you need to post a ton of reasons to doubt the universe has a cause at all and then you need to further back Pro into a wall as you need to attack conclusion 3 by alternatively posing the 'cycle of determinism' theory in that reality is determine start-to-end and the end was the cause of the start (and if the voters are as highly intelligent and deep thinking as me they'd realise Con is correct, not Pro). The issue is this is risky because I know most voters on this site are... I will just say that they are not me and leave it at that.

Con, buddy, Pro never said God was anything you said. Just because Pro is labelled as a Jew here or because the resolution is usually used with regards to the Abrahamic God variants doesn't entitle you to bring up a new point in the last round about God being omni-everything. This is about a creator, not the all-encompassing moral authority that you are expecting 'God' to be.

Con's entire argument revolves around a need for God to be proven physically and that God isn't omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time adding to doubt that there is the mentioned God at all. What if we concede that God is only omniscient and is just hyper-powered and extremely multi-faceted with barely any limits bit not completely omnipotent? Why bring this up only in the last Round? Get out of here with that. Conduct to Pro for the laziness and dirty play of Con, arguments too because Pro successfully shoved all BoP onto Con from Round 1 onwards.

RFD IN COMMENTS

Pro concedes everything and every time Pro concedes they bring up something totally different. Dirty tactics but not enough to take conduct in my eyes. Pro keeps saying how everything that the right-wing do to attack the poor is racist because most poor people in the US are of non-white races but this is confusing correlation for causation which Con explicitly explains again and again to the extent that Pro physically says in the penultimate Round that they concede and decide to try a new tactic in the LAST ROUND which was totally different to anything before and still Con dismantled it.

Conduct is to Pro. not Con. I do not give a single damn about forfeiting on a debate where the opponent tricked the other into picking the wrong side. It was an intentional trip-up, I know death23 tried to do this to me before but aside from precedent here and here alone in the comments section is indisputable proof if you go back far enough that this was preying on a noob to the site (not DDO but the mechanics of accepting and side-switching here etc)

Pro did try his best despite being totally against the topic yet his assertions relied on us believing a certain percentage of Indian or even that baseless value based on baseless claims lead to Trump owing something to someone for their heritage which were all proven wrong by Con. Not only does Con refer to the exact DNA percent racially but he/she also elaborates on the potential for fraud in whatever proof Pro raises. This combined with the sources Con uses means that since Pro used 0 and only hearsay we must side with Con on the facts and consider the resolution not successfully upheld via the meeting of BoP by Pro.

Ff because my client wasn't that user.

Full Forfeit by Pro.

Zedvictor says ok, I say KO

Rhyme scheme combined with flow and metaphorical harshness win every single round for Con.

Even internally, Pro frequently is blatantly not trying to have any rhyme scheme at all. How do bicycle and cycle rhyme? How to imminent (spelled as immanent by Pro) and 'peasant' really rhyme unless you pronounce one very strangely and fast/slow compared to the other. The thing is the entirety of Pro's rap is not at all good in rhyme scheme whereas con is phenomenal.

Con is a rhyme-scheme specialist so I am factoring in that it's sacrificing some things to get such good rhyme scheme consistency but seriously compared to Pro it's not a fair fight even. Combine it with puns and we see that there are literally zero times when Pro has a harsh pun or good metaphor THAT ALSO RHYME WELL. Con, on the other hand has the following:

R1

you ain't no psychopath bitch, you only kill my interest
your shit is worse than little poems my mom shares on pinterest

You tried to diss the pyramid, that shit came off weak
my pic represents enlightenment, eclipse at the peak
representing the light, obscured and occult to the sheep
I'm not a common square, but the black cube in the east
I hold all the knowledge and wisdom you ever seeked
I'm a clever beast
with a treasury full of severed meat
I never sleep
cause at night I hear letters weep
cause' buried their family members deep
in my raps, and once you hear them they forever creep
through your thoughts with tender feet

^ THIS ENTIRE RHYME SCHEME IS OFF THE CHARTS IGNORING THE BRILLIANCE OF THE PUNS and stringing-along of a chain of linked metaphors. 'tender' and 'weak' mean even the first and last line of that are linked in some metaphorical sense.

R2

I didn't like the n-word at all from Con and I happen to know he's, let's just say not of a racial complex entitled to use that... I can prove it too from on-site public links he's posted but that's not too relevant as I hate when black rappers say the word too. It was lazy and really isn't what Con needed to do to dig in harsh or flow well.

watch me crank it, watch me flow
I'm swankin' do you copy, bro?
your mom, she gave me sloppy blow
she cranked that knob, she got me so
turned on that I just shot three loads
and I think you should probly know

^ Pro never even had lines that internally rhymed like this. 'knob' 'shot' 'cranked' 'that'... 'swank'... There was a lot of blatant internal rhyming meaning one doesn't even have to try to flow that, it is naturally flowing well regardless of delivery quality (if this was a spoken rap that would matter and mean Con was even better in setting up the lines like this).

R3

You think you're a killer? then come find me
but you'd better find me first, cause' I already have your IP
you're a whiny
little limey
who fucks his dog in the heiny
you're a slimey
certified re-
-tard with weak rhyme schemes

^ I didn't like the lying threat but frankly this was such good flow and rhyme-scheme consistency that it was the highlight of the Round.

I just didn't feel Pro's rap at all and it objectively had poor rhyming.

Both rappers need to work on their grammar.

What Earth said.

Semi full-forfeit. I also liked the sylweb adheres (perhaps got inspired by me and is a secret admirer) of the prop vs opp dynamic and ignore the 'pro vs con' because being the instigator or contender is not actually indicative of the dynamics in a resolution like this (where side 'con' isn't representing a positive, but a negative whereby Prop has full BoP).

Pro got disputed by Con who explained that what Pro is saying is that morality is an irrational belief at worst and incomplete theory at best, neither of which are inherently 'superstition',
Con adds types of morality and elements to it (realism, absolutism) and explains how not one of them is actually superstition but rather than superstition may come in regarding how the morality is punished or whatever but not directly into the moral code.

Pro never once explains (AND FORFEITS SO HE COULDN'T REPLY) how a superstition is inherently what an irrational belief is.

Conduct explained. Con had no bad conduct that I can see.

Pro says: "If something is popular and sells well, chances are it's complete trash. Because most people are fucking idiots. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you cunt breathed weasel."
This calls most readers of the debate 'fucking idiots' by default or at least by direct interpretation as debate fans may not be the 'most people' but even the term 'fucking idiot' to refer to most people is bad conduct. The tone of 'put that in your pipe and smoke it' is sardonic and then the 'cunt breathed weasel' is beyond recourse as an act of poor conduct.

Also this:

" I don't agree with your arbitrary metrics based on what a multitude of witless fucks decide to spend their money on. Notice which of these songs is mindless garbage and which one has quality then take a look at which one has millions of views and which one has only a few thousand"

This is saying that the majority of fans of any popular game is 'witless fucks' but what Pro forgets is that he is affirming the resolution, not opposing the resolution that would be Imabench as Pro to: "The best game of 2018 is game X" where Type1 as Con would then be entitled to question the basis on which Con defends the supremacy of the game over Assassin's Creed that he would represent from a defensive 'is potentially equal, if not better' stance. Also, aside from altering BoP and directly insulting most gamers and their taste he then refers to all popular songs as 'mindless garbage' which in turn is insulting all Music Artists who are popular as the producer of the mindless garbage is most likely mindless and of garbage quality. This was totally uncalled for and in no way all added a single point to their debate that Pro couldn't equally have achieved politely or in a stern but non-crude tone.

Let's analyse what Pro backs up ACO being the best game of 2018 with:
"It offers a vast and detailed open world in which you get to explore a virtual Ancient Greece, which in itself makes it a unique and fascinating experience."
Why does this make it better? I am a huge fan of having subjective-taste debates as in my eyes they are the only fair debates one can have because either side can win and it comes down to debating ability much more than Data but when we talk about something being based in Ancient Greece and say that in any way adds to its superiority over other games of 2018 we must at least hint at why this is subjectively more pleasing and/or impressive than being based in the settings of the other games of 2018. What Pro does is... To not at all explain why this makes it superior so Con needn't say a single word to this since it proves NOTHING about the resolution.

Pro then leads with

“But on top of that, it also surpassed my expectations (and the expectations of many AC fans) in a very crucial way. They did not entirely butcher or ignore the story opportunities, they took advantage of them to a fairly decent extent, shedding light on the origin of the Templar order among other things.”

Failing to butcher something isn’t being the best at it, it’s called being average or maybe ‘good’ at it. Con doesn’t attack this from that angle though, Con actually surpasses it by using data-backed reviews of God of War (on all accounts, including storyline-depth), Spiderman (on quality of the terrain/setting and quality of mechanics rewarding well-trained players who dedicate time and raw sales just as with his other games), Monster Hunter and a couple of others on grounds of pure measurable success be it speed of growth in popularity or quality of the game in general reviews.

He then rebukes Pro's entire case by explaining how the setting in no way at all is close to the quality of other 'open-world' games where the extent of the map and quality of the terrain are far superior to the Ancient Greece limited setting of ACO and frankly won by this quote alone:

"If its not the best story telling game, and its not the best character construction game, and now its not even the best RPG game or the best Assassins Creed game, then what is left?" Where he uses a concession made by Pro against himself and to strengthen his case in that he attacked the other aspects than RPG-quality.

It is sealed in the way he makes ACO out ot be nothing more than a reskinned prettyd-up version of other Assassin games reducing the quality of the game in ingenuity, originality and anything worth complimenting other than graphics.

Pro just responds with insults and rhetorical questions, Pro never explain what to judge the game on OTHER THAN popularity, sales and professional reviews so Con wins by default.

Full Forfeit

Yes means yes and no means no.

Con says 'no'. Con forfeits Round 1. Pro contradicts 'no' with an almighty 'yes'.

Pro states that since the consensus is 0.9r equals 1 (which they didn't prove was the consensus with any reliable source), they have pushed the burden of proof onto Con.

Con lost.

Con relies on NASA not lying to us. If the ISS footage is all real and it's an angle issue then that explains the lack of curvature shown among other things in the footage Pro brings up.

The reason Com ends up feofeiting is that Pro calmly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory to question what were told. Pro gives images that inoly the Earth keeos going on past the illusory 'edge' as oppoose to curving down past it. Pro also gets accused by Con of appealing to popukrity with a minority opinion and Pro calmly defends this.

Con has a fisheye lens in their source and says weirdly that if the lens was a fisheye lens we would see the curvature but the weirdest part of the I is deception is the footage was with fisheye lens and even then the curvature was barely visible in an illusory manner which Pro correctly points out.

The case made by Pro is that the Bears stand a chance of winning whereas the case made by Con was that the Vikings are blatantly going to be the winner instead while decimating the strategy choices made by this coach 'Nagy'.

For me, Con blatantly takes the point on Offence in that he makes Pro back-foot strongly (not even concede later like with Nagy but entirely back-foot from Round 1 through to Round 2) that the Bears have nowhere near the best offence of the seeming only four teams [I am very ignorant of American Football and never ever want to get into such a braindead sport but I fully read both debates, I assure you]. The issue here is that Pro doesn't do anything other that the Bears can run down a team? Is that knock them over with raw momentum and stuff or is it literally running to strike or what? I don't know but I fully understand that what Pro is saying is Bears can maneuvre at high speeds in ways the other teams in their particular division struggle to equal but concedes they have irrational passing strategy relative to the other 7 as well as relying on 'overall league' performance whereas this debate is about division and not the overall NFL so even if you're a running specialist and those that perform well in the league have good 'rush stats', this alone means it's a stat that's worth considering (like leg muscle toning for a fighter of ANY martial art for example) but not that it is good enough to counteract their deficiency in passing stats which Con clearly proves are subpar relative to the others in the division and which ultimately factors in more than rushing in output of a team. Pro's counter was logically fallacious in that he proved that a passing-specialist (Chargers) didn't beat their opposition for their Division as well as the #4, #6 and #9 in 2017 and does an extremely similar thing for 2016 stats but everything is relative in divisions (because you could be the best of the worst division or the worst of the best one if I'm not mistaken in how it all works, the splitting isn't based on skill unless I'm wrong). Even if I am wrong, the sample sizing and analysis of WHY passing matters so much would have won Pro the point. I was waiting to see more of a scientific 'here is why their passing prowess will be enough to win and counters rushing stats' etc but instead all I got was a justification of them standing a chance to win the division and the burden of proof to prove they win the division. I think that Pro does do a decent job but that Con does a 'good' job and wins by a margin that's slight due to how LITTLE they explained here.

Now let's look at defence. It seems that 'front line' functions much less like a 'front liner that engages ON THE enemy' and rather a tank-like being that waits to be hit and tank tackles and manoeuvres such that the mid-to-back liners can grab the ball and push it forth to a 'scorer' or something. That's how Pro portrays the strategy in how they put the front line relative to the team and this passive form of a front line seems to indeed then directly translate into good defence but what I'm at a loss at is if their defence is truly that optimal how do the bears get scored against so frequently relative to games played?

I feel the only strong point Pro made is that Bears seem to perform well against tough opponent in ways these "Packers" clearly don't. It seems both debaters think Packers are losing. I think that Vikings and Lions were insufficiently attacked by Pro because just proving something is possible to beat doesn't mean the probability of beating them is such that we should hedge bets on the bears winning the division (which in my eyes is basically what this debate is, if you were to bet money would you bet if for or against the Bears winning the division? Yeah, that's the debate). Con simply states that he's proven you defeat rush attacks with efficient passing and since Vikings are good at the counter-style to Bears, it's clear that Bears are far more likely to use than if they were not against a counter-styled opponent yes? Both debaters agree it's either Vikings or Bears so really this debate became that.and if your playstyle counters your opponent, you have to put in less effort and can afford to be less good and still equal them so imagine if you are equal what an unfair advantage that is.

It seems Pro is forced to drop that Nagy is a terrible coach due to restrictions in the agreed debate structure, that's Pro's fault for accepting the debate and I award the Nagy argument to Con.

Honestly Con won in my eyes.because this whole "weakness" line of attack by Pro only really affected the packers and Lions and Con keeps saying that it's the Vikings who will win the division.

Full Forfeit

FF, pro never met bop by default.

Here to service his modship himself, Kaiser bsh1.

FF by Pro = No arguments made = automatically any argument Con made is more than 0 unless Con self-imploded but Con did not self-implode because Con is his heighness Kaiser bsh1.

Watch how the Communist concedes to the Capitalist, watch the scum know their place understand what a stupid ideology it is to think we can ever all be equal. Winning a debate makes you unequal to the loser and in this debate Con shames Socialism and his entire crew of hypocrites by forfeiting every single Round whereas Pro explains that not only does Capitalism naturally evolve FROM socialism in nations as they succeed but that Socialism is defunct inherently.

Pro is a banned alt account who posted 0 content. Con posted content and sourced it well. The sources mattered because they added reliability, if this vote gets removed for not explaining how the sources mattered, then bsh1 is just trolling.

UBI is right wing BS cloaked as left-wing salvation for the poor. Bsh1 excellently took down his opponent and made him see the disgusting nonsense of the same mentality that goes into flat taxation:

You can't give the rich as much as the poor and hope to equalise anything.

bsh1 made the progressive movement proud. I am more centrist than a progressive, I am a social democrat but our closest allies are the progressives (hillary is soc-dem, bernie is prog) so I am proud to see a debater defeat the nonsense of UBI like this.

Both had extremely reliable sources overall, good job you are tied due to equal proficiency not insufficiency.

I feel personally that Virtuoso was extremely lazy in this debate in an intentional manner to the degree where his R3 was a joke of a length so I give conduct to Pro, he totally ignores the points Pro is raising and doesn't explain why he's ignoring them in R3 and also in R2 tbh.

Con could easily have won had he used my technique of explaining it's the Constitution that should be amended if it contradicts with the core value of protecting the vulnerable and/or poor and elaborate on how much necessity there is in enforcing this to avoid states to get economically blackmailed into being extremely right-wing. Instead, Con decides to use pure mitigation against a very eloquent case made by Pro.

It's quite sneaky how Con attributes the FLSA's content to the Darby legislation. Darby was about enforcement of FLSA and helped hugely with enabling it to become enforceable on a federal level but it didn't outlaw child labour itself and even the other aspects were about enforcing what FSLA already had outlawed but lacked legislation to enable enforcing.

Nonetheless, Con wins via mitigation and here is why:

Pro’s entire case rests upon the idea that if a single clause is having an issue with either perfect consistency with the Constitution or within itself that we should overturn the entire legislation rather than amend it.

This concept was not even remotely explained and Con did attack this by saying that the very exact clause has been concluded to be sufficient in Constitutional correctness to remain legal by the very SCOTUS being said would overturn it as well as a lot of legal precedent to it.

Both sourced well. Tied due to sufficient proficiency on both parts.

Bench is wrong, episode 2 was best of them all. Con didn't try, you can't prove something like this objectively anyway.

Con wins because the debate was about Catholicism and not Christianity of the Protestant forms. In Catholicism you take the adapted interpretations of the Pope and Bishops (especially the Bishop of Rome in this case) and listen to them in how to adapt Christianity to present times.

On top of making it clear how Catholic figureheads have moved towards Progressivism in multiple ways over time, Con also wins sources because he doesn't use Wikipedia and copy pastes the links Wiki uses which almost all links to expansion on what the terms mean rather than any reference to back up what it is saying as well as avoiding linking a personal blog of someone who seems to have no qualifications on the matter (https://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/). I am not saying at all the personal blogs are wrong and as a conspiracy theorist myself know the issue with trusting more qualified writers in and of itself but Pro's entire case rested upon Bible verses which Pro never even linked to which source and/or interpretation of the Bible they were relying on and we needed to take his word for it whereas Con backed up all stated facts with reliable sources and this mattered enough for me to give the reference/reliability vote to Con.

CHECK COMMENTS FOR MY REASONING

Con never offered an alternative definition for God that could be sourced. The issue with this debate is that Pro defines God as truth itself and Con just says 'no it isn't just the truth because you say it is' but the dictionary that Pro used wasn't his/her own words so... Con loses by default.

Pro gives up willingly.

Both debaters agreed on a tie.

Complete FF, Pro posted 0 content.

This debate comes down to the fact that Pro keeps trying to explain that the Sith had their reasons to be bad... So what?

Con proves from every angle apparent that both sides had their reasons to do their bad but the Jedi blatantly are the more good-intended side in net-outcome and based on consequential moral compass are the good side beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The sources of Con were actual star wars verified stuff but Pro relied entirely on YouTube videos which were either essentially pirated or just based on biased outlook of a vlogger and on top of that sourced a quote of the Sith Code from a site that lets anyone upload quotes and only verifies it later (goodreads.com)

Aside from that issue, Pro continually defends the Sith as having reasons behind their acts but is being reasonable inherently good? Sometimes the irrational move is the good one. In contrast, Con only uses rationale behind acts to further delve into the morals of Jedi including peace and fairness as their utmost priorities.

Conduct to Con because Pro calls him a superstitious retard, a crackpot, a troll and says the following too:

"Cut the ass hat shinanegans buddy."
"No he didn't you cantankerous wanker biscuit."
"LOL. Fucking idiot."

Spelling and grammar is tied.

While Con used a lot more sources, neither side used a remotely reliable one. You cannot ask people to watch videos that are over an hour long at times and not even that, you can't use a video or even entire google search result page as your source. You need to quote, from the source, the part relevant to the debate and the source is how you avoid plagiarism concerns and how you increase reliability to what you are claiming... Nothing more, nothing less. Also the Venus Project is extremely biased in favour of Pro so I don't consider that a reliable source for this debate.

Both sides went into the arguments totally wrong. Pro wins because what Con did was try to prove that RBE is corrupt since it's founder is corrupt but the issue is that even if the founder is a racist shill, it doesn't mean that RBE isn't the system that all alien civilisations in the theory of 'type 1-4 civilisations' use. Pro explains that RBE is what these imaginary alien civilisations all use and Con decides to simply say it's a corrupt theory and that the founder is a shill. This is not what Con was supposed to do in this debate. Con's angle had to be either that the RBE is impossible to be a system and that civilisations are possible only without it (which would render the fact that the proponents for RBE preach it must be used in civilisations as liars OR that RBE is not the system that any one of the civilisation types use above type 0 which was negated in the debate as it's the uncivilised type. Con never does this, not one in my eyes. All Con does is say that RBE is not provably sustainable and that the founder is corrupt which doesn't mean that in the theory of type 1-4 civilisations the RBE isn't the system they rely on.

Con's tone and attitude to Pro is horrendous in Round 2. That being said, Pro concedes that part of what Science evolved from is metaphysics and also concedes that science is a way to understand Magick.

What is clear to me is both endorse tai chi and such arts and both believe in the benefits. Pro says that Magick is not real because it can be explained by science and Con says that Magick is real only when it is scientifically valid (they don't use these words but they admit it can't make food and other things).

So, to me Pro insufficiently proved Magick false while conceding that science is a result of it and expansion on it in terms of explaining how or why it works but not that it disproves Magick.

Con forfeits and Pro provides sufficient reason to have the packaging.

The approach Con should have taken is the nihilistic, meat-endorsing one. This is actually a debate where the objective truth is Con but subjective truth for a non-psychopath is Pro. This comes down to how much we care about animal suffering.

Con could have won but I will respect their right to forfeit.

This will look like I didn't read in depth but I did.

Pro almost won the debate even with the forfeits because of how little Con tried. Here is why Pro lost, however:

Pro made quite a strong case for women being inferior at understanding consequences and hence being poor judges of risk (I am not saying I agree but actually the latter is more true than the first, females are better at understanding consequences but worse at accurately converting it into a quantitative risk element because of how their brains on average are allocated grey vs white matter and how it is wired in general vs men). I am not using my opinion to vote though, of course not I am among the world's best debate voters..

What I notice is that there's extremely little in Pro's case that explains why the RIGHT TO vote was the mistake and not why the ABILITY OF SOCIETY TO ALTER THEIR MEDIA AND WAYS OF INFORMING to cater to the female brain. Then I notice that Con doesn't attack any of this but instead CONCEDES ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT I TELL YOU STRAIGHT: IT IS NOT ACCURATE THAT SINGLE MOTHERS ARE OBJECTIVELY WORSE WTF... The thing is, though, this debate is like this for me:

Pro proves (even though it's a lie) that women are worse at comprehending risk and other elements of policy that are key to economics AND to social policy (and foreign too but I don't notice him really dig into that). Where he goes wrong is in the backtracking, he never makes the source/root the right to vote for women but the ability of society to get female voters correctly informed. Con literally concedes all the key points to Pro (LITERALLY ALL) but says Liberalism is somehow better after conceding all the points Pro made against it...

In fact Both of them are so wrong I didn't quite know how to calculate this... I will say Con won as Pro forfeited and failed to make the root 'mistake' be the right of women to vote.