Total votes: 861
It will be declared
Cowardice from Pro for no reason. There was so much room to keep debating and fighting, what exactly was the point of making this debate?!
50% FF by Pro
hall of fame
Con 50% FF in a 2-Round debate.
Both forfeit Round 2 but Con's Round 2 was extremely bad grammar. I couldn't followa lit of it on a first reading because of the lack of spacing and strange wordings of things.
50% Forfeit from both sides in a 2-Round debate means I don't need to vote Arguments.
Rashed's rebuttal in Round 2 was extremely risky and did not pay off in my opinion.
He conceded that genders distract each other and said to separate the students until breaktime. This also weakened his original premise in Round 1 that stated the idea is to make the genders complete equal with no differential treatment. Con attacked both points efficiently.
I am going to explain something here. Pro says 'that' and doesn't say 'Con'. 'That' could be referring to any debater he's seeing at that moment in time'.
This debate's description is trolling. To create spam guaranteed tie is trolling and toxic if others catch on to it being okay. Pro loses because of grammar. Con only had to admit it seemed that way so even if Pro had said 'Con' instead of 'that' I don't get how Pro won this debate.
. .
weak, there was a lot left to fight for.
bad .
Majority forfeits by Con.
RFD in comments. https://www.debateart.com/debates/2765/comment-links/35305
I have very little idea what I genuinely just read.
I cannot grasp almost any of the poetry by Con but there is actual argumentation in it that at times is coherent:
"
I see you've cut your hair my dear
I can see your face from ear to ear.
"
Then there is sexual intonation to the waxing of stuff that I don't really want to go into. I literally don't understand this debate.
Con argued that Pro did cut her hair, Pro didn't argue and just gave proof that a woman she claims to be her has had her hair cut without even explaining what's inside the link.
What?
Concession
Only Pro uses sources.
Pro is fundamentally conceded to in the penultimate Round because Con says that it's very good questions Pro is asking and that is how we find the truth. Pro proves that Con is immoral and unclear on his stances with many cases given that display Con's wishy-washy stances and unwillingness to stay firm. Con doesn't deny this.
Round 3 concession
Con benefitted from not being transphobic.
Disclaimer: I have been warned that I am very biased on the topic. This is why I am grateful that this debate is done as 'winner selection' so that I am not accuse of over-the-top point allocation or bias like the last BLM debate I voted on. I support BLM to the full degree of legal and moral support that one can have for their cause. The only aspect of BLM I am not entirely behind is the payment of reparations to each and every person of black ethnicity, I think more has to be arranged on this so that only the impoverished blacks are given the reparations.
I will begin by pointing out flaws in Con's case, to eliminate the idea that I have blindly voted in favour of them because I support BLM:
1. Con's defence against comparing BLM to Marxism was one of the worst I have ever seen. He says that Marxist-Leninism is the 'real communism'... Not only does he use the word Communism, rather than Socialism, but Marxist-Leninism was the branch of Marxist ideology that Stalin invented... Yes, Stalin.
2. Con keeps being too defensive on points where he should be offensive, time and time again I saw mitigation and 'yes but' where he actually could have built huge constructive branches for what he was having as a solid contention (as opposed to a mere rebuttal).
The problem for Pro is that he didn't truly exploit these flaws of Con, the 'Marxist' point was barely readdressed later on (which was the hugest flaw in Con's case) and Pro had plenty of flaws of his own that Con did indeed exploit:
1. Pro vehemently denies there being systemic racism, when Con cites sources and articles explaining how even teachers in school have displayed it, as well as law enforcement, Pro simply sidesteps by asking 'what part specifically has systemic racism?' to which Con again explains a few examples of. Con could have done much more but Pro did far too little to demand that.
2. Pro's defence against there being police-based system racism against blacks quite literally backfires from the very first Round of debate to the end. One sentence after clarifying that there's a 1:8 ratio of blacks:caucasians, Pro then admits that the proportion of killed criminal suspects by cops is 1:2. Then he realises he made this flaw and says 'but you can't just say the proportion is worse' except that is exactly what Con does and is one of the biggest examples of systemic racism that annihilates Pro's case against there being any (and by extension against BLM being necessary).
3. Pro fails to establish why BLM is unnecessary, only that the way they are going about their mission is wrong. Con keeps reiterating the need for them and the problems they are combatting, Pro agrees that black lives matter and that if there is a problem in society towards people of the black race(s) then it must be handled. This means that Pro has made life much easier for Con as all Con has to do is justify why BLM's cause is correct, not establish why the organisation itself is a problem. Even though Pro alludes to the debate being about the organisation itself, his concession that if their issues are real then they are necessary enabled Con to win the debate along a path of far less resistance than otherwise.
I will explain more in the comments if my vote is reported but I have established precisely the core lines along which Con achieved victory over Pro.
Concession.
After saying that he is on trial, Con ends up calling Pro an effective user of techniques that lawyers and politicians use to win legal cases. That one line in the last Round encapsulates the self-defeating nature of this entire debate.
The debate is simply won by Pro sufficiently proving that he/she/they has/have an issue with Mall (the user who is against the debate's resolution/topic and who instigated the debate).
What I see is that there are two key contentions from Con:
1) Pro's issues are based on missing context and key agreements made in debate descriptions which are to be sacred.
2) Pro is intentionally deceiving the voters and pursuing a rampage of character assassination and word-twisting on Pro.
The mechanical issue with these contentions is that even if both are held true, we then can say 'so what? Pro still has an issue with you and you still are on trial."
The debate's resolution was proved true because Pro displays issue with Mall (Con) in the following contentions:
1) Mall has practically no clue how to define terms and sets up debate structure almost begging to lose as the opponent is always able to define terms and abuse Mall's incapacity to fight back. I am not sure where the 'high horse' comes in but this links into Mall shouting with allcaps as well because this contention can be summed up as 'might is right and Mall is incompetent as a debating warrior'.
2) Mall is not simply incompetent, he lazy and his attitude towards debating itself is belligerent as he's neither trying to win nor to explore any specific lines of disagreement in any debate.
Con tries to highlight to Pro that Mall actually does try and that the failure to understand Pro's definitions and debate resolutions comes down to incompetence and/or malice on the part of the contender in those debates.
It is left very vague what Con is combatting though, since this debate is about if he is on trial and if Pro has an issue with him... A truism if Pro makes it so.
Pro was the only side to use sources and successfully provided several things that he finds Pro does wrong, the most severe being Holocaust denial and sympathising with Nazi propaganda.
I do not think this is truly accurate, I think Mall (Con) is playing devil's advocate in many of his debates. That said, Con keeps asking 'but why' to anything Pro raises with the entire last 2 Round of debate dedicated to Con essentially surrendering but with a tone of fervored resistance and as such he didn't overtly concede.
Pro is fairly merciless to Con and basically 'character assassinates' him to a degree where I think he's not even considering that Mall didn't really mean he supported something just because he happened to host a debate asking someone to prove that Hitler was racist. Con clearly is frustrated and struggled to defend himself but I'm unclear as to whether or not Con understand that he consented to have his character attacked in this debate by its very title and structure... I leave the Conduct points tied but it leans towards Con.
Conduct to Pro for Con setting up a troll/trap truism debate and forfeiting Round 1.
Arguments to Con as He is the instigator even if the Contender is the one proposing the resolution. I know this seems like an unfair vote but if the title said 'you' and Seldiora flipped it by making Seldiora be the 'you' this would win the debate, Ragnar did a similar thing to Sparrow in another debate as orecedence for me voting this.
He asked me if he'd be beaten, I said yes he easily would.
C .
"At this point I simply must conceed. I have no argument from design within nature to present further. "
The word 'conceed' clearly is a typo of the word 'concede' based on context. Pro has officially conceded the debate in their final Round so I hand the win to Con.
Con spread disinformation and commited libel regarding BLM, Pro put the right-wing bigot in his/her place and schooled him/her.
Con says utter nonsense like that BLM is ethnocentric and after all these false claims uses a link that doesn't even support this lie. The usage of sources is so incomparably different in skill level and reliability that I'm not sure I need to say more. Pro uses a variety of solid sources such as USCC.Gov, Forbes.Com and JusticePolicy.Org, each to slam home raised points as valid.
Con literally has 0 contentions that are true, literally. Just a series of disinformation and lies that Pro rips to shreds systematically slamming home the points of unfair sentencing, wrongful conviction and much more for black people and explains how it's the poor (who are majority black) and the biases against black people that are why BLM focuses on blacks, not the actual race being itself the focus.
In fact the strongest paragraph for me was this:
"The reality is that black people dying at the hands of police simply doesn't have enough of an objective impact to justify the focus placed on it by the BLM movement. This is a misplaced priority, an undue focus, an overreaction, etc. Problems in policing are important and shouldn't be ignored, but they're not THAT important. Pro characterizing my position as "smaller issues should be ignored" is a straw-man argument. I didn't say that."
This encapsulates the way Pro could have retorted each and every one of Con's vile lies about the great movement that is BLM.
Conduct for pure lies based on bigotry from Con, as well as a Round 3 forfeit. Con intentionally misrepresents Pro's case and the importance of police abuse, which further justifies the loss of Conduct point.
It is
. .
Con tried, Pro plagiarised several users including his own opponent and what he posted was not even that terrible.
Con plagiarised too but didn't use anything truly representing effective rap.
Elsa got tangled up
Pro conceded and these points (arguments and sources) were used far more effectively by Con than Pro in this specific debate because whenever Pro used a source it wasn't actually about the likelihood of one defining Christianity correctly or not.
I think that Pro meant 'understand' rather than 'define'.
Rhyme scheme and harshness were unparalleled in this debate.
To me the use of a link to justify insulting someone for being single and/or chinese is hardly a true thing to credit a win for. That said, Pro still dominated throughout.
Quite a few lines were jacked from mainsteam raps and could have made Pro get sued if this were a 'real rap battle' but as this is just a casual thing and since it's like a 1:9 ratio of original:copied, I'll let it slide and not point out which ones were.
Con was arrogant throughout, throwing Round 1 in an intentional manner, saying he doesn't need to try.
It was this same lack of respect for his opponent that led him to type 'e' in Round 2. He still could have won by saying he didn't 'use' the word, just typed it as it wasn't truly relevant to his point. He also could still win by pushing for 'will' and denying that he will, since he already has. I'm sure the majority of voters of this site wouldn't reqard those win conditions but it would be how he could win in my eyes at least.
Multiaccounting
I don't think Con had better arguments at all but my teammate never did anything and 90% of that R1 was my work anyway. So...
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1834/comment_links/27871
I think Ragnar made a boo-boo.
Sweet. The elo farmee became the elo-farmer.
Sources from both sides were pretty weak and this is the only reason they are tied. Con solely used Wikipedia definitions as his showmanship of sourcing but the reason I feel it would be wrong to vote Pro for sourcing is that while Pro uses his sources better (to back up actual evidence supporting his experience as a poet and rapper) it doesn't really help when your actual source is a deviantart profile and a noteflight profile. The 'rapgamenow' again was a not entirely reliable source and was only used to discuss that you improve at rapping over time. So... I leave it tied out of mutual failure to meet the standard.
Conduct was kind of towards Pro because Con baited Pro via the debate's comments into thinking that Con was going to argue he'd never accept a rap battle. In the end, Con ends up admitting he'd never accept a rap battle anyway but says the reason is:
"CON argues that non-debate competitions in the DEBATEART venue lessens the quality of debates overall and reflects talents irrelevant to our present mission of high quality debate."
So... It was very clearly a bait and switch which ended up being irrelevant as the bait and switch reversed itself when Con admits he'd not accept a rap battle but denies it's out of fear (it is out of fear and everyone on this site knows who he fears will accept it).
Now for the arguments.
In this debate only Pro discusses who would win in the rap battle, Con keeps saying that Pro fails to prove that he has concrete probability to win. Con uses Wikipedia to justify that burden of proof is initially on the one making the positive claim and that therefore Pro autoloses if he can't prove Con's incompetence at rap but this isn't how burden of proof works and Pro points this out during the following Rounds.
Con's argument that rap battles reduce the quality of debates on DART is also irrelevant because if you analyse this entire debate's title and description, it doesn't specify that it would need to be Rated on here, nor that the rap battle itself would be held on DART. What it does do is state that the users on DART are the two engaging in it.
While this seems like me inferring things that Pro didn't point out, it is Con's fault for continually trying to make this debate about whether or not rap battles are okay to host and to say he'd never accept it out of a concern for DART's quality of debates. This never held any weight whatsoever by default, since the rap battle is never said to be hosted on DART.
It is further evident that Pro understands this flaw since in his Round 1 he looks to other websites to bring in evidence of his own rapping ability. This displays comprehension that this is not in a 'bubble of DART' but about the users on DART's overall rapping ability.
On top of this, it is confusing why Oromagi keeps pretending that there's 0% proof. When he has dodged nonstop rap battles on the website despite being one of the most active debaters, we have a large sample size to infer he is insecure about his ability to win them. Just because he says he isn't and says that it's his worry about the integrity of DART debates doesn't somehow nullify that Pro has completely explained how the LACK OF EVIDENCE does INDEED support his burden of proof given how active Oromagi has otherwise been. What we can see is that the other person in the rap battle claims himself to have experience in it, meaning that if anything is the default position for burden of proof, it's the one lacking a résumé who has a lot more to prove if he is to conquer the other candidate in the eyes of the judge.
Oromagi's points all revolve around two things:
1) Burden of proof is initially on Pro.
2) Oromagi denies avoiding rap battles out of fear.
Seldiora's points all revolve around two things:
1) Burden of proof is shifted onto Con due to only Pro's candidate having displayed experience in rapping in a competitive environment.
2) Con not only has burden of proof shifted onto them, he has stacked evidence against him given his repeated avoidance of rap battles in spite of his duration of site-use and rate of activity during that duration.
I do not comprehend Con's case, especially since in Round 1 he attacks Pro for claiming that Con is going to avoid a rap battle at any cost only to later in the very same Round admit that he would but scapegoats the reason as DART quality of debates which is irrelevant as the rap battle never was stated to be a rated DART debate.
FF .
Con doesn't have an argument to survey in this debate, that is unfortunate as the voting requirements imply that there will always be an argument present. Let me help the voting moderators to see the flaw:
The debate is about whether or not Con is as pro-life as he thinks he is. The problem is that Con tries to prove that he thinks he is pro-life without ever once touching on whether or not he ACTUALLY IS as pro-life as he thinks he is. On top of this, the description of a debate is agreed upon by both parties upon acceptance and voters are entitled to enforce it on top of normal voting requirements. In this debate the following was stipulated (and a victimised, exasperated Pro brings this up in Round 3):
want you to put your thinking caps on and throw away that box your mind has been placed into.
As you explain your position in detail, prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies.
Please comment, Send a message for clarity or questions
It is evident that if there was misunderstanding between the two, it could only be Pro's fault if Con did PM or Comment for inquiry and then proved that Pro deceived him. Unfortunately this was not the case. It appears as if Con decided to completely and utterly ignore this aspect of the debate because it is he who keeps demanding Pro to elaborate on the inconsistencies between how pro-life he thinks he is vs how pro-life he actually is without he himself remotely affirming that he is as pro-life as he thinks he is.
The syllogism doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He hasn't proven that he opposes abortion and euthanasia nor the scale/strength to which he holds this opposition. He solely states that he thinks he is pro-life and that his belief is self-affirming. This is bullshit and a completely flawed way to reverse burden of proof onto Pro of a topic that says 'not'. Pro did this to not bait someone into accepting 'You are as pro-life as you think you are' assuming that they were against it.
Pro's arguments are absolutely valid and his conduct is impeccable given how abusive Con was to him and how Con toyed with him throughout. Pro's primary argument is that Con never once elaborates on 'how pro-life' he is (Round 2 by Pro) and Con never once addresses this with the slightest sufficient argumentation worth noting in this RFD.
Right-wing hypocrite says that global warming is a superior conspiracy theory to Coronavirus. The left-winger concedes to the true impact of real global warming and the right-wing lunatic is lost in the wilderness of unearned victory.
I unironically find this debate to be almost a tie and my reasoning will seem simplistic but this simple reasoning is merely fleshed out over many characters and multiple Rounds. In the end, Con wins it but I will explain why Con also loses it before winning it.
Pro's entire case is that there are ways to see all sins as motivated by pride, power (meaning lust for power), and possession (meaning greed). If Con had merely explored the other 4 of the seven deadly sins, Con could have won the debate (but not easily, Pro is clearly very educated on the matter and this is why it ended up being such a long debate).
Both sides end up conceding the debate to the other side, it is therefore conclusive to me that it's a tie.
I will explain how and when this occurs by quoting the most significant moment in Pro's case and Con's case where I perceive concession:
Con's indirect concession: "Working on the Sabbath COULD be a Sin of Pride, Power, or Possession in some cases, but..."
Pro's indirect concession: "As on all commandments “hang all the law and the prophets,” so it follows that all sins, as well, hang on them. It would be well, therefore, to understand the two commandments: Love God with all effort of body, spirit, and mind. Likewise love all people. That covers everyone on whom we should express love, and, therefore, covers all possible sins."
I will explain to you very briefly why these resulted in the tie. The only reason I am voting at all is that I was asked to by Con and I didn't ignore this debate, I genuinely read it and didn't understand why both sides kept agreeing with the other side so much.
Both sides of this debate believe that the resolution is true. Pro believes that it is true because all sins can be interpreted to come down to Pride, Power-lust and greed for posession of material things. Con believes that it is true because you can twist any sin to somehow be motivated by one of those three things but that doesn't necessarily mean that the sins are only of those three categorical natures.
So, it would appear Pro won the debate since both sides agree to the resolution initially. However, the resolution doesn't say 'motives behind sin' it actually says 'there are three sins into which all others are encompassed'. It doesn't even state 'types of sin' but 'three sins'. On top of this, Con's BoP is specifically stated, in the debate's description, to be to prove that those three sins encompass all others. What Con does in this debate is force Pro to keep admitting that he is INTERPRETING all sins through an intentionally biased lens to make them fit a three-type system he believes that Christianity declares necessary to split all sins into. When Pro indirectly concedes the debate in what I quoted, it is one of the most blatant moments where you question what he is even trying to represent. He says that because the Bible says "Love God with all effort of body, spirit, and mind. Likewise love all people."... Somehow we are supposed to then declare all sins to be ones of either pride, power or possession.
How does that logically follow?
Con's strongest attack at the resolution and Pro's case was this:
"I see what my opponent is doing here. He’s adding a piece to his definition that would conveniently include Atheism and Idolatry, my counterexamples. I can see the potential argument: “Atheism and Idolatry both refuse gratefulness to God and therefore fit under my definition”. "
This was both a defense and attack all at once and began to highlight what Pro was doing over and over throughout the debate; tweaking interpretation of things outside of pride, power and possession to somehow fit into them.
I agreed with Pro that being ungrateful for the generosity of others does come under the 'greed for possession' category of sinning so I didn't find Con's defense there satisfactory since ungratefulness was clearly what a possession-craving person would embody. Regardless, I did agree with Con that Pro kept trying to force all sins to fit into the three categories but Pro actually did so quite successfully for most of the debate, it's just it wasn't enough and Con did indeed provide exceptions such as atheism and non-Judeo-Christian idolatry.
Sources and Conduct should be self-explanatory. Only one side used sources and only one side forfeited with nothing else worth mentioning in either category.
I believe Con won this debate via arguments almost solely due to Pro not posting in Round 3. To me, no matter how obviously wrong a Kritik angle is, I can't just go ahead and 'infer the wrongness' if it's not explicitly ruled out.
Con argues that to be the highest quality standalone episode, the quality must be shown to be in all areas and categories possible for the show to be best in. While Con never brings forward episodes of MLP that surpass the episode with regards to Donald Trump, Racism or whatever else he brings up, Pro never explains on what specific criteria we are to base 'highest quality'.
I think 'not the best at being the worst' was actually a powerful point to bring up but that again is down to Pro never replying to it. This simple idea completely thrusts the resolution to default to being a paradox.
This debate was terrible, I apologise Illuminati as I want to vote for his guilt but the full forfeit stops me.
Panuto: Magkakaroon ng debate ang mga mag-aaral. Sa isang panig ang mga nagsasabi na pantay-pantay ang lahat ng tao, sa kabila naman ang mga naniniwala na hindi pantay-pantay ang mga tao.
FF .
Enemy of Con: 50% forfeit