Total votes: 861
Pro justified US defending itself against a Canada attack but since Con iterates that Canada is not attacking the US, we are left to favour Con.
Con FF
Pro used a kritik or semantic trick that he has utilised in 'rape should be legal' debates but this time the sides were flipped and therefore Mall ended up actually making a case for it being legal.
Mall argues that all things relating to law are legal, so it blatantly backfires.
Pro's case relied entirely upon one core tenet:
That defeating and competing with other good opponents (and, of course, winning often enough when doing so) defines a good (or better than good) debater.
Con truly rebuts this in Round 2 because he notes that whtieflame and bones themselves are good rating but I find this flawed.
Instead, using the same logic of Con's Round 2 Kritik, I notice that when Pro says whiteflame defeated good debaters and also says that Bones did, the debaters they defeated are called 'good' for no reason other than rating.
Another issue is scope of the debate. Pro says in the description, written by himself, that this is only about DART yet uses DDO to regard Tejretics as a good opponent for whiteflame to have defeated and starts an entire contention that cuts his case in half, slaughtering the first contention in its entirety.
If nobody on DART is a good debater relative to world debaters, then why the hell did Pro juxtapose Barney's noobsniping against the fact that whiteflame and Bones defeated good debaters?
The case of Pro actually was a flawed attenpt at a pincer BoP trap. I myself pioneered this idea but I do not care about that now. A pincer BoP is a phrase I coined to describe a strategy of having 1 or 2 contentions that actually directly cannot be true if another is true (from the same side).
This works well when the opponent has to clearly exert characters and energy to defeat them, since it blackmails the opponent to need to build and defend two independent coubtercases on top of their constructive. Conversely, this works terribly and backfires if it actually directly enables the opponent to reverse said pincer by dismissing one with the other in an immediate manner. It takes finesse to pull off and close attention to how direct vs indirect the contradiction is for a voter and opponent to grasp.
Barney's case is that his winrate is higher than other high-rated debaters at the tier he is and that Pro is completely subjectively drawing differentiation between good vs mediocre debaters that are ranked high based on if he deems the opponents of debaters good or not, making the entire thing subjective and thus not objective.
Ehyeh struggled with his demons.
FF Pro
FF Con
Tied FF
FF Pro
Pro did fail all debate to prove that his agreement 'as long as' is present is linked to the right-status of the type of killing in question.
On the other hand, Con never once all debate explored even one example of where the killing of the child is either:
right where Pro disagrees.
or
wrong where Pro agrees.
I declare this a genuinely tied debate because Con did successfully tether Pro to the BoP that Pro never upheld but Pro also lacked any example where Pro would need to defend, meaning Con totally lacked any offense here to edge the win.
Con FF
This debate forces Con to either unfairly have an extra Round of debate or unfairly debate where Pro can't reply.
due to this, we must consider the Round 2 arguments from Con:
GDP ranking being terrible for North Korea and it being joint last place with 16 countries (or 15 if it's 1 of 16) for civil rights.
I look into the sources that Con provides and on page 27 of the second source it backs up the 16 countries thing (so it was 15 others) and on the first source it was true that North Korea is 177th in GDP.
Mall believed he was debating for Con and offered 2 rhetorical questions that didn't even imply anything.
Then when Mall realised he was debating for North Korea being the best country in the world, he again passively asks Con (who he now knows is Con) why he believes that North Korea is the worst country.
In Round 2, a Round that Mall could still respond to, Con offers zero arguments against North Korea being the best country in the world but makes it clear that Pro ought to first prove that it is the best.
I disregard Con's Round 3 arguments because they were clearly sucker-punches as Pro had no chance to reply to them but Pro didn't even debate at all for his side so Con wins.
Con FF
Neither of the 2 sentences from Pro had anything to do with Pro's side of the actual debate.
Con offered 0 arguments but laid out the idea that Con ought only to rebuke Pro if Pro proves it not 'illusory, fraudulent' etc. Since Pro did not even reply to that to default it to being real, we have to vote Con.
50% FF
Con FF
Mutual FF
Con FF
Following a mysterious vote deletion 1.5 hours before the results deadline, without an explanation, I am voting again without the conduct point. Allocated as that is what I assume was the issue.
RFD: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3775/comment-links/46505
Con literally handed Pro the win by asking Pro to 'prove' the resolution true that Con never addressed, without a Round available to respond to it.
The resolution was:
"A significant percentage of racial disparities in arrests for drug crimes in the United States are a result of factors other than the individual racial biases of police officers."
The percentage that was 'significant' was never addressed by Pro but Pro alludes to reasons such as age and tendency to use drugs which are terrible arguments but there is nothing we can do about it as Pro didn't even make any case.
FF and Con says:
"I would argue that causing the greatest amount of pain humanly possible would be the biggest act of cruelty, so, deliberate physical torture. "
Which is juxtaposed to Pro vaguely implying the the description is his debate but that is not enforcable agaisnt a FF anyway.
Pro proved that North Korea can be considered the best country but never substantiated further than equating it to subjective taste.
Con gave metrics of GDP and 'human rights' or (freedoms essentially).
Con didn't really disprove that despite those setbacks, North Korea isn't the best country but Pro's way of meeting the BoP meant that Con was entitled to say that the pizza/country tastes bad to Con for any reason and win the debate.
Concession.
FF .
FF .
This is essentially a concession and/or forfeit of sorts, Con didn't even offer 1 argument or rebuttal to Pro's entire case.
Pro in Round 1 asks Con to lay out an attack on biological reincarnation, then asks if it's a spammer as yes, Novice has used the same argument elsewhere.
Pro did not argue for the resolution, even indirectly. Thus, Con wins.
During this debate, Con not only essentially self-plagiarises from this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3682-forced-integration-should-have-not-been-done but never addresses the issue of whether forced integration should be done (which Pro points out again and again).
Con's position is that it should indeed have not been done but that it was not done. These are not mutually exclusive.
Mall/Pro wins the debate because he clamps down on this BoP issue over and over again, noticing Con's lack of addressing it:
"Even if the law is not forcing people to integrate, by taking away segregation, those that do not want to integrate are being forced to.
That's what you're continuing to miss or dishonest to ignore. One of the two.
I point you back to that KKK meeting example. I'll point you to Shakespeare with Romeo and Juliet. No law of the land but the two different families would of had to face forced integration for a marriage they were against.
By legalizing so called interracial marriage and miscegenation, families are not being forced by the law of the land to integrate but by marriages unwanted.
You have your two adjectives, the unwanted and unallowed intrusion of a party.
Basic forced integration.
This is what I want you to get your head wrapped around.
The law is not the only side to force something .
Taking you back to the military example, by allowing certain people to join with others that did not wish to bunk with those certain individuals (share the barracks) were forced to do so if not just all out refusing.
When something or situation is forced on you or an attempt is made to force, it's understandable that you may reject it and that's fine .
All the topic statement is saying, it's fine to not accept any association of any kind.
You shouldn't have to be around people you don't want to."
Con keeps agreeing over and over again that forced integration should not have been done because Con's entire case revolves around the premise that it has not been done and would only be wrong if it had. Con concedes the debate repeatedly.
Con keeps saying that free exchange of ideas and people of differing outlooks is important but Pro's position is that the freedom of those that wish to keep to their own ethnicity and/or race should be entitled to do so.
Con literally gives examples of forced integration (such as a gas station being forced to provide for people of a race they'd rather not) and just basically regurgitates what he said in the other debate on the topic. Unlike in the other debate, however, Con doesn't expand on why he believes forced integration should have been done, all he does is continually state that Pro can't prove it ever was.
That implicitly implies, if we account for the 'free exchange of ideas and outlooks' that those with a segregating, exclusive outlook should be allowed to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScolQPXUZW0
Seems to be 50% essentially conceded by Con.
FF .
FF .
Suspicious gamethrow
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Pro explicitly conceded the debate, I should just give all 7 to avoid any troll vote turning the tides later.
Con FF
Ff by both
Lol..........
It is only wrong when RM does it.
FF .
Pro FFd harder