RationalMadman

I don't usually give the Conduct vote to the one forfeited against because I think it's not bad conduct to forfeit and not good conduct to get forfeited against but in this case I will. The reason I give the Conduct vote is that Pro, clearly with forethought, saved more arguments for the last Round of debate than the entire 2 rounds above. Additionally, I know for a fact that Pro was not inactive on the site during the time he had to post Round 2. Posting so much new content in the last Round is not damning in my eyes since Con is the second one to argue and has a chance to retort but it's extremely poor conduct because now Con can't bring new points or evidence against you without looking like the bad guy themselves (since you, Pro won't get a chance to fight back).

I will also give sources to Con because all were extremely reliable and used in severely relevant ways to the case he made. Pro embedded by copying and pasting pre-made hyperlinks that link you to a pre-typed Reference on Wikipedia and only about 2 of them was actually relevant to proving that Nazism directly opposed Marxism which still doesn't mean it could be a form of Centrist or left-wing politics that differed to Marxism. These sources were not even all that reliable in and of themselves and the reliable ones were the ones that proved something about Nazism that wasn't to do with the resolution in my opinion.

Pro did a very good job ignoring conduct (he was also rude in a couple places on top of the post-order conduct) at proving that Fascism stands against Libertarianism and Marxism but never once explained how this forces it to not be centrist and/or something beyond the wing dichotomy (he didn't ever specify what the wing dichotomy was only what it wasn't). Con wins because Pro proved 2 things that were not directly the resolution and because Con successfully turned back on Pro the fact that Stalin used Fascist means to stay in power and said that it is actually the Nazis and Italians and such who used Socialist policies and masked it as right-wing and not the other way around. This was really interesting because it conceded the overlap and flipped the narrative.

Pro does a good job fighting it back in Round 3 but never explains why Fascism is inherently right-wing because he never explains what it is to be right-wing the entire debate (only what it is not).

No one had any source.

Pro had completely unsubstantiated claims and Con comes with come mumbo jumbo 'third chair out of two' analogy. The initial (and fundamental) BoP was on Pro. That's why Con gets the win. Neither proved their case at all with any facts backing it up.

Rebellious vote addressed to Thoth

I don't care of you think I am trolling, I am not. This is simply idiotic, three of the verses Con used directly showed how the Bible itself supports a tri-state god having three forms and you say every time it just means the three are in alliance but the resolution explicitly says the Bible doesn't support it and only later interpretation does when yuore doing the exact opposite.

I admit that the way Con laid out their debate made it so hard to read so I'll give you s&g

RFD in comments (character count)

Pro forfeits.

Con says that there's more to Conservative ideology than solely the butchery of facts.

Con uses reliable sources whereas Pro uses 0.

I am sick to my fucking stomach at the fact that someone can say what Con said and win a debate.

FF by Pro, you are a shame to our kind to have let Con win saying what they said.

Con cockily says they will give Pro an extra round. Then Con proceeds to show what they really are; a coward,

This is the truth and I will not take back what I typed here. This is common amongst the right-wing to act this way and no doubt Wylted wanted to preach against Transhumanism on some basis of maintaining status quo and denying alien life. Pro proved that it's inevitable and also that it's optimal.

Pro forfeits in Round 3 after what I assume is it becoming apparent to him that in congratulating Tesla on his objective ingenuity, Pro forgot that there's nothing objective about such a congratulation which Con explains in detail, proving with solid links too.

Linking to a Wikipedia page of Tesla's supposed inventions (some of which were as a result of him, not actually him inventing it) and then linking to Merriam-Webster for a definition is nowhere near to equal to Con's direct sourcing in raising bout scepticism in measuring intelligence itself and then in the proof that Tesla's was never and can never be measured at least by current means.

Con/Smithereens is SORELY MISLED ABOUT RAPS when saying things like 'raps are lyrically primitive and don't require a lifetime of practise' hahaha I will like to show them Chris Webby or Vinnie Paz oh god the level of wrong cannot be put into words.

Here is my issue, I know for a FACT that Pro is completely correct here and I love rap deeply as it's helped me come out of suicidal thought whereas metal and rock kept me being suicidal and unhappy. I deeply adore rap and know just how much more advanced it is lyrically compared to other musical forms... On the other hand, I know for a fact that Pro never does explain how to subjectively make something valid (this is where Pro goes wrong, it didn't have to be an objective scale to be objectively verifiable). You can have a subjective scale that's objectively verifiable such as the way people vote here 'more convincing arguments', 'most reliable sources' 'better conduct' are all subjective. Even 'better spelling and grammar' leaves a subjective element where we need to decide if one typo is bad enough to vote against a side (hint, it isn't).

What is true is that Con was totally wrong here and that they tried to even disqualify rap as a form of music by saying it didn't have melody or rhythm even though it's among the most rhythmically-developed genres in the entirety of music. Pro does call out these lies but what Pro does wrong is to never fully elaborate on how to calculate the lyrical advancement of something. It is subjective but you can objectively verify what is a consistent subjective valuing of something which is how voting on this site works for example.

In the rap battle at the end of Round 3, Pro has poor conduct making vague threats and directly insulting Con at times:

"In your subjective view, rap is trash right?
I'm about to laugh right
in your face, after I show you what raps like
you're an ass wipe
you're the bitch ass type
brain-farting at the mouth like a sputtering gas pipe
last night"

"cause my mantras keep
you off your feet
after you read my stanza sheet
and you lost the teeth"

"to make sure you respire and you're kept alive, your
puny human lungs are no match for the depth of my words
my skills I will never let decline or
get retired
why is it the best alive are
less admired
than greedy deceptive liars?
cause' the retchid spiders
get to buy your
thoughts, with the media outlets acquired
by fake news weaponizers"

As for sources, Pro only links to actual raps instead of linking to sources that reliably state something or measure something or even state something at all supporting their side. It's wrong to expect people to watch an entire video and even more wrong if you yourself don't highlight what in the video supports your case. In contrast, Con does the exact same thing so I say it's a tie by both having terrible sourcing strategy.

I am quite sure that the issue with the links from Pro are due to tech illiteracy and not due to actually unreliable links. For instance the first URL he posts is broken and this is because I am sure he tried to type out an ending that would make it into a pdf. He meant to link to this: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/130/4/1007S/4686662 on top of that his second link is impossible to get more than the abstract of as the study is private to non-registered university students. I am not going to give a 'more reliable sources vote' to Pro but what I will do is say they had worse source formatting and choice despite the sources being reliable.

Pro is actually correct, just like lactose, MSG has been very harmful to people with such food intolerances and the harms of it to people with an intolerance to it are severe and life-quality-reducing by significant margins. They will have constant diarrhoea among many other issues. The issue is that to those lacking Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) or MSG-specific intolerance, MSG is actually not that much of an issue to them (and Con focused entirely on this group in a cunning manner).

I will say this: I agree 100% with Pro and predict MSG to be removed from all foods by the year 2300 but for now not enough anti-MSG articles are mainstream and the harms are hidden especially in MSG-heavy nations like China and South Korea where government-party-sponsoring corporations sell products covered in the stuff.

Pro loses conduct for not only unnecessarily claiming that Con used fallacious sources but saying the following:

"You are a Janus-faced wanker"
" the rodent literature."

The rodent literature is almost ad hominem and the first quote is verbal abuse of Con.

Pro firstly defines belief as something that is automatically not factually true... You can believe a fact but a fact is beyond a belief that's how science works at least.

What Con does is dodge this nonsense by masterfully turning the definition of 'belief' against Pro. GG it's over tbph :)

You see, science is based on the belief other scientists aren't lying about their findings and methods and on top of that assumes the simplest explanation is the true one (Okham's Razor).

We see Pro throw out man insults to Con by tone alone.

Let's showcase some of Pro's grimiest Conduct moments:

"Pretty much everything you said was complete and utter bollocks, mate."

Here's a funny one (he is backing up Con's point that we blindly trust what other research says its found as true) by Pro saying "if you think the majority of humans can't be wrong about a lot of things then I don't know how to help you other than to refer you to the nearest psychiatric ward." Pro just insulted their own perspective here.

"Oh come off it you soddy pillock, this is a philosophical debate not something that can be addressed with references and citations, especially when your citation consists of cherry picked definitions and arbitrarily deciding that Karl Popper is the sole authority on how to think scientifically."

As for S&G, Pro had worse S&G and genuinely thinks the word 'accept' is spelled as 'except' but I never like to vote this as it's offensive to dyslexics and non-native English speakers.

When it comes to sources we are left at a bit of a loss with Pro, he goes so far as to say "his is a philosophical debate not something that can be addressed with references and citations." well... Then Pro concedes to lose the sources votes as Con used reliable sources throughout and justified their use of Wikipedia.