Total votes: 25
Full forfeiture
Concession
Pro limited Con's response and Con confirmed Pro's assertion. Therefore, Pro successfully defends his premise.
Pound-for-pound one of the best pie-eating contests to ever take place!
Arguments: To Con; Pro basically resorted to the harm principle. Even putting aside the fundamental flaws of the theory, Pro struggled enough to defend the genetic defects of the baby due to inbreeding which Con countered with convincingly.
Sources: Tie
SnG: Tie
Conduct: Tie
As it's a huge debate, a round by round analysis will supposedly satisfy the debate spirit.
Round 1: In the first round, Pro propounded a very basic opening statement. His stance was obvious but he decided to keep it that way with no pressing into the matter. His syllogism was not defended properly; rather was just a mere statement to let Con know about it. Such weak argumentation had already faltered his position right away. Con's position in R1 was quite clear and he easily made a strong case for himself with some good pieces of refutation. R1 to CON.
Round 2: In the second round, Pro accumulated rebuttals against R1 of Con. In the process, Pro's arguments seemed rather muddling with personal opinions and contradictions. For instance, Pro says Utilitarianism talks about 'equal good for all' including the minorities. On another point he says, not everyone will follow utilitarianism and so the majority can't be forced if they believe selfishly that their needs are greater than those of minorities. End result? The minority exploitation continues because they just won't follow utilitarianism. Pro loses the objective ground he's defending at this point. Con addresses this very point brilliantly in his "rebuttal V". Con does a good job with his "rebuttal II" as well when he challenges Pro's objective claims of greater goods over lower goods. In "rebuttal VI", Con makes another compelling case as he links utilitarianism with the tendency of selfishness and psychopathic characteristics which ultimately self-defeats utilitarian goals. He briefly mentions the gist in "rebuttal II" by coining that "intentional based morality is just the opposite of utilitarianism". All in all, Con made a very structured response to Pro's unorganized compilation of utilitarian ideas. R2 to CON.
Round 3: In this round, Pro does well by reasserting that utilitarianism is not all about pleasure/happiness and also that its application is rather bounded by the walls of ethics not daily affairs. He goes on to defend the idea of treating most people's good well to be the primary goal of utilitarianism principles. The debate turns to considering personal happiness in the mix of utilitarianism at this point. Pro attempts to include personal good in the utilitarianism whereas Con brings out the concept of egoism. Con resorts to the previous study that Pro countered as flawed methodology and adopts a first person perspective on utilitarianism. Pro escapes that allegation of selfishness in the next round with a third person perspective. Con traps Pro with his virtue ethics argument and his conclusion reflects the self-contradiction that Pro had been dealing with. Pro already remarked in R3 that intentions matter as well but Con fails to notice that and loses his grip in the Deontology argument. R3 to PRO.
Round 4: Pro tries to clear the air again with the definition of pleasure which was a good move given how Con was focusing on 'happiness' being the sole factor. Pro countered the deontology argument from Con convincingly. He compares virtue ethics with utilitarianism stating the latter deciding for good/bad based on consequences. This argument falls pretty weak as predicting future consequences can never be a base to build upon a moral system. Besides, Pro hasn't defined any measuring stick to settle on the short/long term effects/consequences and so in terms of objectivity, virtue ethics trumps utilitarianism. Con questions the principle of maximal good for a rare society that would be considered taboo in an ideal 21st century utilitarian society. Also, Con re-spawns the self-contradictory minority issue that Pro failed to objectively answer. R4 to CON
Round 5: The last round was rather the sum of all that came about in the previous 4 rounds. Both the parties went on to repeat themselves and so I've called this a tie. R5 is tied.
Overall
-----------
Arguments: To Con
Sources: To Con [Pro provided no convincing source to back up his claims from an objective standpoint]
SnG; Tie
Conduct: Tie
Forfeiture.
I would call this a back-and-forth tight debate. Even if the extraordinary streak is over for Oromagi, there's no shame going out with this debate. What an amazing exchange!
Now, the debate premise chosen by Pro was already against his favor given the technicalities- as Con pointed out in his R3 argument that the debate involved comparison in terms of reliability of sources; not accuracy that Pro so strongly emphasized on. Also, in his R1 argument, Con convincingly asserted that the types of sources of information draw a significant distinction between Wikipedia (tertiary source) and Fox (primary/secondary source) and kept pressing the argument on without being challenged. Such short but effective articulation, in my opinion, has sealed the deal for Con. Arguments to Con.
Despite better display of rationality and logical derivation of facts from Con, Pro cited some really powerful sources for his case (e.g; mediabiasfactcheck). Sources to Pro.
Con wasn't even slightly refuted in his arguments; instead Con rather seemed to have convinced Pro of Con's reasoning. On top of that, Pro couldn't provide any plausible argument of his own.
Pro's sources failed to back him up.
Pro 'humbly' switched to different cases after each round although of no feasibility.
Pro had to carry the BoP; he does well in R2 by identifying technicalities within the debate topic asserting that humans should "seek" to colonize moon. However, he doesn't share why they should in a decisive manner. Con does well by pressing that on for the next 3 rounds and by also reassuring the idea that "colonize" doesn't really mean to enjoy a vacation and resource mining. Arguments to Con.
Conduct points: Not distictively to Con as he forfeited two rounds; neither to Pro for his alleged plagiarism. Tie
Arguments & Sources: Regardless, Pro presented something that went unchallenged. To Pro.
Lack of evidences to support each claim.
Muddled arguments on display; nothing strong from either.
Multiple arguments dropped while could've provided credibility in form of rebuttals.
And of course,
Not a sound debate to enjoy.
So, I will safely vote it to be a tie.
Concession from Con.
Two forfeitures from Pro.
Concession.
Pro could've easily done better had he not forfeited and dropped the arguments because of time. Unfortunate ending to a good debate topic. Arguments to Con and conduct too for Pro's forfeiture.
This was an interesting one. I'd like to engage in one of these kinds someday.
Arguments: Con effectively refuted Pro's R3 and R4 arguments, there can't be any question there. R1 and R2 have most likely went on to be of equal strength between the two parties. To Con.
Sources: Relevance from both sides. Tie
SnG: Tie
Conduct: Nicely managed. Tie
Con conceptually and linguistically proved why an "I" into the mix is unnecessary and irrelevant.
Concession.
Pro keeps asserting the same idea of well-being as objective morality and of a safe and healthy future but completely ignores the well-being of the fetus where the future is more relevantly involved. Consulting ethics, Pro resorts to more subjectivity in the name of objectivity by a framework of his own. Con did well addressing the issue multiple times and refuting Pro within the same framework.
Sources seemed relevant from both sides.
Pro forfeited two rounds and so the conduct goes to Con.
Full forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Concession.
Concession.