Total votes: 861
FF by Con
Why they dooop
Pro exploited a secret dissonance I spotted and keep pushing to the website, this was absolute outplay, pure and simple including not having it be four-point selection as Pro clearly planned to use barely any sources.
Barney made the most crucial error I have ever seen.
A trans man transitions from one gender to the other in a dichotomy and a trans woman does the inverse. This doesn't mean I believe that dichotomy is true, it is important to approach this with tabula rasa.
Barney slipped left, right and centre here even being outright transphobic to say ciswomen and transwomen aren't the same gender.
Crucial error, period.
Pro swept the floor with Con.
Edit (revote) I see a place Con says some believe there are 14 genders... yet the ONLY genders stated are transphobically separating trans and cis members of the same gender in different ones. The 4 were really 2, Pro excellently explains this in round 2.
I put my orange four-inch door hinge in storage
And ate porridge with George
FF .
Pro won but conceded.
Only Con used sources.
Pro argues that vaccines involve unwanted penetration, however something neither debater explores is consensual vaccination. This actually gives the point to Pro, Con lazily and arrogantly gives up the following Rounds with barely any response to Pro, even intentionally sending a blank Round.
This is why conduct is given to Pro, it was intentional disrespect with Round 5 having direct abuse given to Pro in a mocking manner.
The problem for Pro is that Pro never explores how rape causes autism, that link is never made. Con only provides us with the fact that rape and vaccination are not defined the same, which proves very little as a dog and a cat are still both animals and have breeds within them. Definitions differing would mean one cannot call kung fu a striking art if anything in it is grappling nor could one compare it to Karate as the definitions differ. That does not remotely follow.
Pro wins the rape comparison since Con fails again and again to point out that vaccination can be consensual and often is.
Pro does not ever explain how rape or vaccination cause autism, this is a fundamental flaw and how Con ends up winning.
FF .
extend .
Again .
FF by Con
Con proved that self-consideration of normality can refute itself if compared to an action to be called normal or abnormal based on it.
Both relied on anecdotal evidence, thus sources are tied.
Pro FF
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NOVICE GOT OUTPLAYED !!!!
. GG
Pro FF
FF Pro.
Conduct for the forfeit and all new arguments by Con being when Pro cannot rebuke, in fact I could just give the win on that alone.
Pro's case is simple and since Con didn't abuse his/her/their already abusive position in order to give sources backing what is said, Pro wins the debate.
The wages are exactly equal at every job level, which Pro says here:
"Truly though, it is simply calculated on a basis of averages. What is the average income of men, then women. They do not take into account how many women are working, or if they take time off.
For example, are women taking gender majors in college or engineering? You must also take into account that men take jobs such as coal mining, where women are either unwilling to preform or lack the physical abilities.
You must also ask, did they have children? and if so, when the children went to school, did she still work full time or leave the job to be more flexible?
I await your response."
In other words, Pro implied already the accurate idea that the primary gap is due to less women being in as many high paying jobs as men, not earning less at the same level with the same hours put in.
Furthermore, both sides completely ignore the difference between salary and wage and since Con didn't define wage either, I am able to use a dictionary and choose my own applicable definition that I see as most sensible here.
A wage, as opposed to a salary is as follows:
"a particular amount of money that is paid, usually every week, to an employee, especially one who does work that needs physical skills or strength, rather than a job needing a college education"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wage
It is always knowsn to me and most to be held opposed to a SALARY or one-off massive payment for a 'big job' or 'big series of jobs'.
Since Con only replies when Pro can't defend, it is just as fair for me to understand and see what Pro naturally was instantly leading to because inside of what Pro wrote it discusses all the other factors at play including what level the women work at vs the men.
The idea Pro is getting at is that at the same level, wages are identical. Neither side touched on what a wage is as opposed to a salary making that a tied point and also leading into why Con saying Pro conceded is nonsense, as Con ignored all the reasons and questions Pro gave.
FF .
Rule 1 is 'no forfeits' in the description. Con violated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIbnUMqLQ78
Pro FF
One of those
Con FF
Conduct for islamophobic degrading from David.
Other points for Pro's FF
As Athias said.
Con FF
Con FF
Pro FF
Absolute waste
some kind of FF
Joke of a debate
Concession .
Conceded .
yikes moment
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3852-the-majority-of-current-policing-racial-disparities-in-the-united-states-are-a-result-of-police-racism
This was clearly a tied ff Wylted says his first round is a wipful pass/forfeit.
Con offered absolutely zero arguments other than that on the day the two 1v1 each other, MJ may win.
Pro argues that efficiency and endurance both in their career and even literal endurance to clutch victories as they have energy and effectiveness late into a match, makes tbe type of player LB James is superior to the one MJ was, statistically.
No show
Con FF
In the description it is written that the sides are set in stone, only the topic is up for choosing.
Therefore, Mall's mistake is objectively punishable even if we empathise with him handling so many at once where he is Pro in most.
Mall is correct. The first amendment solely permits writing, not the reading part. There is no law Con presented that showed reading being legalised.
Pro also noticed that you cannot truly uphold a law against reading if people are to read the paw, making the resolution cyclical. When reading is outlawed, the law is defunct, which then would essentially enable anarchy.
Neither side justified why their side is better off or morally correct.
Pro's case has a flaw beyond the lack of elaboration on why:
Pro's logic runs as that if voted in, women who voted it in should lose the ability to vote.
Firstly, Americans do not have referendums on individual laws like that generally and more importantly, that would be respecting the wisdom of the female voters.
Since this is Pro's sole basis, it means he respects the democratic vote used by women that much that he justifies them voting away that right... Con says there is no real difference in terms of ethical wisdom etc... Novice did not prove that though. Nonetheless, Pro loses.
Neither side established how to determine what the best country is. This actually favours Pro's case but then why should we favour Somalia?