ResurgetExFavilla

This debate was a bit odd to judge, as much of Pro's argumentation was incoherent and didn't connect with Con's actual arguments. Con's case was built around practicality, attacking polygamy on the basis of competition for mates and larger ancillary deleterious trends in behavior, and drew on real world evidence. He also made good arguments when it comes to how this would practically be implemented in a society built around monogamy in myriad ways. Pro largely focuses on claims that concerns of practicality don't apply, but never convincingly makes the case for this. He attempts to counter some of Con's sources, but misses the mark. For example, this is his primary rebuttal of Con's data:

'Con is referring to that adultery (which is basically cheating but specific to when it's done to someone you're married to and not just your girlfriend/boyfriend who legally you aren't married to) is legal and causes a lot of pain and other things to happen as a result. The harms that the studies Coin brings forth come with pseudo-polygamous relationships which are pseudo not because they lack marriage alone but because they are done where only one partner in a 'pairing' actually wants the polyamory and all of that, while the others is filled with envy, pain and regret.'

Yet the source cited by pro is literally titled "The Case Against Encouraging Polygamy / Why civil marriage should not encompass group unions". The study is explicitly about what Con says it isn't. It isn't about adultery, but about civil marriage extending to group unions. Pro continues to argue for several points concerning the history of polygamy and conjecture about how a polygamous society would work. In a debate in which he must defend the resolution, and in which Con has already made pretty devastating blows against claims that polygamy would produce happiness and maintain marriage as an institution (which he also showed to be beneficial through research), I feel as if I have to vote Con because those points have not been adequately rebutted. It doesn't matter how well a martial has shadowboxed against an imaginary enemy if his actual opponent has pummeled him into the ground in the meantime. I would advise RM to focus more acutely on directly countering his opponents in the future; he could really improve his debate game, and stand a much better chance when going up against veterans. If you are debating abstract morality, sometimes it is tenable to appeal to idealism, but trying to defend the a utopian ideal in a debate which is about a change in real life policy is always going to be an untenable position if your opponent argues from a point of practicality. I hope that he learns from this and grows as a debater; that's one of the great benefits of losing against an opponent like Thett3.

No points for conduct, as neither opponent was particularly out of line. Sources were both adequate (the debate largely hinged on impacts), as was S&G.

Merry Christmas everybody!

There are three main points to be looking at: did con manage to show whether Christ was insane or a liar, or did Con rebut the argument in some other way. He made arguments that Jesus was insane or a liar, and quotes biblical verses to do so. I think that Pro did a good job tackling these in the rebuttal, showing that Jesus's use of parables was a matter of clarification rather than obfuscation, and digging into the Greek translations of the insanity verse to offer a good interpretation and some context which undermines his opponent's original interpretation of that verse. Then Pro looked into Con's claim that Christ claiming to be God is necessarily lie by explaining Christian teaching on the divinity of God. Con could have taken this line of reasoning in particular further, but neglected completely to address any of them in the next round.

So then there is the final argument, that of the 'false trilemma'. Pro deals with this line of attack by reconciling the definition of a 'legend' with actually existing, showing that being a legend and being a historical figure are not mutually exclusive. This line of reasoning was, in my opinion, the most promising one that Con had going, so it was unfortunately to see it also dropped in round three. This was a good argument for con to argue the point that Jesus was not a historical figure, by far a minority position among historians, but if he had defended it as only -plausible- against Pro he could easily have kept that 'fourth option' open and thus negating the resolution. However, round three overall failed completely to address all of Pro's counterarguments, I cannot see how any of Con's lines of attack come out standing at the end, seeing as Pro took the time to poke substantial holes in every one of them. Saying that the false trilemma argument would negate the resolution if it stood isn't enough if you fail to defend the false trilemma argument against a good counterargument.

Ultimately, this whole debate swings on one point, which is whether libertarianism sees it as 'good' for the government to intervene in those areas which Gary Johnson supports. Pro consistently shows that this isn't the case, that it has never historically been the case, and that when Johnson deviates on these points (non-discrimination and welfare) he is deviating from libertarianism regardless of the merits or lack thereof of said purity. This also negates con's point on party loyalty, since the debate is about ideology not political acumen. Seeing as the resolution is about which one is a better libertarian, and is explicitly concerned with ideology and not efficacy from the getgo, arguments go to pro.