RationalMadman

I'll stick with a conduct-only vote here based on the forfeits. To me, Pro did win it but since Pro did technically FF I am not into standing by it.

Pro gave the best argument that Pro could give... Tautologous isn't it?

FF ..............

Novice gave a best argument to be an atheist... I don't know how Mall could even win this debate... -.-

Mall won by forfeits foremost

FF by Con

Concession or ff

Mall, I genuinely think you're epic.

lol .

#FreeTate fuck cancel culture

Mall, you didn't lose this debate, I am proud of you.

Indiaaaaaaaaaa

"13often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics"

This is the final adjective entry in the only linl Con uses, it suppirts Pro 100% and was lied aboyt existing by Con.

It is therefore completely applicable what Pro did on Round 1.

There is nothing grammatically incorrect about say8ng 'Conservatives are' as it is a plural.

I also note that Pro never used capital R for right but if the Conservatives are right of the political spectrum, Con would at the absolute least need to prove that they are wrong or left to win the debate and went into neither.

FF into concession

Forfeited R2

FF and that is all

Pro FF

I dont find that the conduct of Pro as Con conceded is appropriate or good conduct. I dock for disrespect.

It was FF though. Therefore I give 6 points to Pro.

FF f

Pro trills entire debate, Con at leasts asks relevant questions.

Con concedes in final Round.

FF .

Essential concession

According to this website's dysfunctional forfeiture rules, Pro FF'd and Con didn't, even though both posted the same Rounds of debate. :)

FF .

Full forfeit

FF .

conceded debate

.. ..

Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Con met great Jihad elsewhere, may the magician persevere in his endeavours, insha'allah.

I am not sure how else to explain this vote than to tell you that in Round 2, Con linked to the direct evidence (Baptism debate) required to prove the resolution true, in fact he linked to 2 separate occasions where the reader has full flexibility to interpret it that way and proved himself dishonest and poorly conducted within the debate, adding to the allegations that Pro is claiming to experience, incapable to answer the single question Pro asked all first 2 Rounds which Pro points out is highlighting dishonesty.

I am not certain that Con actually made a single argument other than to mock Pro and link to evidence that literally categorically saved Pro's case under the very intepretation that Con had provided. Both debaters agreed to a debate description that stated that seeking truth was paramount here, not winning, which then extended to establish that the Baptism debate was the focus and that Mall felt his opponent hadn't properly studied/explored the Bible within it.

This vote, to me, cannot go to Con unless I want to be a coward about things.

Pasting to comments.

ff easy gg

full forfeit by Pro

ok...........

FF .....................

FF.......................

FF......................................

FF....................................

"Now my proposal is this, ascribe to my opponent not 0 points, but -1 points. I suspect such a awarding is more deserving in the context of our debate. Thank you for your consideration (I say that out of curiosity alone as I truly do not care whether my statements are read and followed accordingly). "

Let's try... fingers crossed...

Novice once forfeited Round 1 out of 2 against me and the voters said it doesn't count as FF, guess it's only if it's Round 2 lmao

Full Forfeit

boring forfeit

Bogan representing racists in typical fashion.

RFD in comments https://www.debateart.com/debates/3403/comment-links/42552

I think Pro plagiarised but FF anyway

Pro never once gave a coherent definition of power or how to measure it.

Con retorted point by point of why that doesn't necessarily matter for Chuck Norris.

I am not sure to count the Palpatine point for Con or not, this debate was quite... odd.

I came on, it was a concession.

Con already with the Matthew verses and quote as well as the reference to John 10:30 shows direct and explicit references to Jesus as if he is God himself.

I will give Mall credit on one thing; Con did not actually ever give a verse about holy spirit but this 'baptism' thing was not only irrelevant but Con actually proved that baptism ITSELF is supporting side Con:

1. The Matthew verse explicitly referring to the trinity also mentions baptising.

2. Acts 2:38 - And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

This doesn't seem to support Pro's constant allusion to it never explicitly being referred to even in context of Baptism.

Pro keeps saying 'where is the explicit line' where Con has already given several.