Total votes: 217
Full forfeit
Pro cites a lot of sources defending their interpretation of indoctrination and showing that any way someone comes to believe in God would necessarily involve at least one of them. Con disputes this without providing enough opposing sources to negate Pro's interpretation.
Pro forfeited 3/5 of the debate, while Con kept coming at them with complex rhyme schemes and biting imagery. Con would consistently rhyme 8-10 lines in a row, while Pro's rhymes didn't seem as solid.
Con answered the questions, plus Pro forfeited 40% of the debate.
Pro concedes "I have lost this debate."
Con gives a list of reasons to stay married (religious reasons, hope, legal circumstances, etc.) Pro claims that none of these reasons are valid without explaining why.
Full forfeit
Forfeiture
Concession
Pro argues that since God is a singular being but there are multiple humans, it is a contradiction for man to be created in the image of God. Pro also digs into bible verses and tries to justify his position with dictionary definitions in a way that Con neglects to do. Con asks a lot of rhetorical questions that make their case hard to follow and uses the term "image of works" without elaborating on what it means. By the end, I don't think Pro's point about everyone looking different has been adequately addressed. Since Pro explains how their interpretation of the bible supports the resolution and Con does not explain how their interpretation of the bible negates the resolution, Pro wins this debate.
Legibility to Pro because Con's lack of organization made this debate harder to judge.
Pro gives a clear case with multiple sources supporting their position. Con argues that consciousness, as opposed to existence, causes suffering. Pro argues that the statement "consciousness causes suffering" does not contradict the statement "existence causes suffering" with an analogy to apple trees. Con never responds to this point and does not provide sources, so my vote goes to Pro.
Pro forfeits the last two rounds, hence not addressing Con's points on the economy, famine, quality over quantity, or on why Russia would use nukes to avoid losing land.
Full forfeit by Pro
Pro argues that drunk drivers will use Waze to take longer routes home, thus becoming more dangerous. But Con links to a source arguing that DUI laws discourage drunk driving, which Pro does not address. Both sides appeal to authority on constitutionality, so I'm left thinking we may as well go with what the courts say if their opinion is what counts. That still leaves room to penalize drunk driving in a lot of places.
Con forfeits the final round, so conduct to Pro.
Pro argues that this proposal will ensure that politicians are mostly unselfish people. Con responds that this would mean that society loses its 125,000 most heroic people per year. The cost of this system seems very measurable, since 125,000 people are dying that likely would have contributed to society anyway even if not as politicians. As well as needing to find 125,000 new people every year seems very unfeasible, as Con points out.
Maybe if Pro's system created an ideal government, it would outweigh all of these issues, but they spend most of their time on the defensive. I don't see much from Pro supporting their claim that this will make the government better aside from claiming that it will. Con does seem to agree somewhat that this system will recruit patriotic people, but patriotic is not the only skill required for politicians.
So even if I grant that this system will make selfless people politicians, the harms are more clear and straightforward than the benefits.
Con argues that data "lies" wherever it is stored. Pro responds that data is an abstract concept, but Con points out that data is stored in physical forms. Technically Con brings this up in the last round, but it's in response to a last-round argument from Pro. Plus, Con had already implied that data could occupy physical space with the phrase "wherever it is stored." (They imply that data is stored tangibly by contrasting this storage with "intangible manners" of remembering things.)
Rule violations are typically separate from the actual resolution...it's usually up to voters to determine whether they have been violated.
Pro essentially wins this debate by proving that Con is following the rules of the debate. By the end, it's unclear whether Con has violated said rule. Hence, I can't disqualify Con. As Pro points out, it is either the case that Con broke the rule or that the resolution is true. But Pro doesn't win automatically if the resolution is true, they only win if they prove the resolution to be true (which did not happen). Con wins by pointing out Pro's burden of proof and then not taking a position on the resolution.
I buy Pro's interpretation of the resolution. Using one exclamation mark to indicate factorial and then a second exclamation mark for emphasis seems way less intuitive than just a double factorial. And as Pro points out, plenty of debate resolutions on this site don't have punctuation.
It seemed undisputed that 11!! aircraft carriers would destroy almost everything in the universe, so such a large number satisfies the resolution, regardless of whether or not the aircraft carriers are fully stocked. Even then, I did think it more intuitive that whoever had the aircraft carriers could at least use them. The "bullet in the wrong direction" analogy seemed like an accurate parallel. (Assuming that the attacker had nukes also seemed outside of the resolution, but they're not required if the attacker has 11! or 11!! aircraft carriers.)
Con drops all of Pro's stats, which remain the only arguments made by the end of this debate. Con doesn't defend any previous arguments they make or even develop those arguments in the first place. For example, Con completely fails to respond to the correlation between penis size and prostate cancer or the correlation between penis size and IQ.
Round 1 - Pro
I liked how Lunar Abyss was more fast-paced, and I didn't love the vocals in Distance, though there's no accounting for taste. I also think Lunar Abyss had a much stronger opening, whereas the vocals in Distance became a bit better near the end.
Round 2 - Pro
I appreciated the rhythm in Blue more than in Baddest Things. Maybe the latter is an acquired taste, but after the first few seconds, I do feel that the different sound effects and beats didn't harmonize as well. I'm no music expert, so this is just coming from my opinion, but I just liked the beat in Blue more all the way through.
Round 3 - Pro
The intro to Once Again felt like it could have been in Interstellar. I also thought the vocals fit with the instrumental. I did like the vocals a bit more in Turn Left, but the instrumental in Once Again was enough to carry it (even ignoring the fact that I should maybe be weighing the vocals less since this is an EDM battle.)
Round 4 - Pro
A New Dawn started with a good intro hook and picked up well as it went on. It als finished strong, even if the melody was a bit repetitive (but that's to be expected in EDM). That said, I thought Green & Gold relied a bit too much on the vocals, while there was more range to the beat in A New Dawn
Round 5 - Con
Moonbeam was nice, but in addition to sounding similar to a lot of what Pro had already posted, it didn't feel as emotive as Strangers. I also like that the beat in Strangers was a bit more versatile.
Pro argues that conduct does not impact argument validity, but Con counters that if one side is clearly ahead in arguments, losing on conduct won't change that. In the first round, Pro argues that bad conduct is more entertaining, though both sides don't address this much for the rest of the debate. Con argues that conduct discourages bad behaviors, makes votes more detailed, and gives further penalties for cheating or final-round blitzkriegs.
Since conduct isn't going to swing a debate when one side is ahead in arguments, the trade-off here seems to be between entertainment on the one hand and discouraging low-effort votes or bad behavior on the other. Con's reasoning just seems more detailed here, since they go more into specifics with the voting policy and what kind of bad behaviors the conduct point is meant to discourage.
I can only give my subjective opinion based on how I would vote, but there are two avenues Pro could have taken that I think would have made this debate closer. First, if they had pointed out that conduct can indeed swing tied debates (while arguing that equal arguments should result in a tie regardless of conduct) and argued that this significantly outweighed the benefits Con is describing, that would have made their case stronger. Con argues that less tied debates are a good thing, and it harms Pro's case that they didn't argue for ties being preferable to a win based on conduct (they kind of imply this, but they didn't elaborate on it as much as I think they could have). Second, if Pro had gone into more detail on how conduct should be punished for biased reasons. Pro hints at both of these avenues, but more detailed justifications would have made me weigh their points more strongly.
Con is the only side to use sources to support their argument. Both sides intentionally violate conduct rules, so I'll leave that point a tie.
Full forfeit
Pro got all three divinations correct.
Con argues that self-preservation and honesty outweigh temporary unhappiness. Pro denies these claims without really arguing against them or denying that self-preservation is the most basic instinct. In the last round, Pro argues that cancer patients can be treated without be told why, but Con counters that they won't be as mentally prepared for treatment.
Con argues while Pro links to songs. Pro gets conduct for not calling Con fat.
Despite Pro's forfeiture, Con didn't rebut any of Pro's claims or justify their statement that AI will enslave humanity.
Con concedes that morality is subjective, conceding to Pro's burden. The best outcome they can hope for is a tie if morality is both subjective and objective. Since Con does not justify the claim that everything subjective is also objective (they give a few examples, but it is not enough to prove the claim that "Everything subjective is based on something objective.") Even if morality is based on something objective, they don't successfully prove that everything based on something objective is objective.
Pro meets their burden due to Con's concession that morality is subjective. Con makes some attempt to justify their burden, but they do not prove morality to be objective, and Pro's burden was met to a much greater extent.
This is a difficult burden for Pro, since Con only needs a single counterexample to disprove the topic. A lot of Pro's round is spent elaborating on their position rather than defending it. Con gives pedophiles as a counterexample, and even if I buy what Pro is telling me about parallels between "younger Chads" and "older Chads," they are too different to be the same group. As Con brings up, female pedophiles are not attracted to the tallest (or dominant, probably) of all males available, while other women are attracted to the tallest males available.
Even if Pro wants me to group "younger Chads" and "older Chads" together, they make their case difficult by making "tall" a criterion for a Chad (even if it's not the most important criterion.)
Pro concedes that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Con posts sources and uses them to support their argument.
Concession
Pro answered the questions.
Con doesn't respond to Pro's arguments or even argue about the interpretation of the word "valid," which Pro bases most of their argument on. I can't award Con source points as they don't directly connect any of the sources they cite to the resolution. At best, connections are implied, and Pro responds in detail to all of these objections.
Full forfeit
Pro drops all of Con's arguments
Con flips Pro's source while also pointing out that the anecdotes don't satisfy the resolution, which concerns the morality of abortion. Pro doesn't attempt to draw moral conclusions from the anecdotes with regard to all abortions (at best, these conclusions are implied).
I consider rap to be poetry, and there's so much lyricism in Con's verse that it definitely clears the bar. Some of Pro's phrasing is a bit awkward in order to meet the required rhyme scheme, but it's a fine poem. That said, Con definitely put more into his verse, and it shows. Con is able to rhyme more than two phrases at a time and write hard-hitting disses, while also describing his journey on the site. Subjectively, I guess I could enjoy either topic, but I'm giving this to Con on grounds of lyrical ability and more hard-hitting lines.
Con argues that probabilities are not evidence and that any supernatural explanation could account for the universe, not just a creator. Overall, it seems like they're just putting a lot more research into their case, to the point of rebutting common cosmological arguments that Pro doesn't even formalize. I can follow some of what Pro is trying to say, but without clear premises, the cosmological argument cannot really stand. Con argues that probabilities do not make a creator more likely, and without Pro formalizing their case more or appealing to something like Bayesian probability, it's not even clear tabula rasa why Pro thinks probabilities are evidence. The closest Pro gets is the painting analogy, and if nothing else, this doesn't address the multiverse objection that Con brings up. Con also argues for Pro's sources being less reliable.
If nothing else, Con's organization makes their case easier to follow. (I won't punish Pro for legibility, though, since they didn't make any huge grammar mistakes.)
Con argues that more pedophiles would mean a higher rate of molestation. Pro argues that a larger sample size would allow more research to be done. (If successful, potentially preventing any pedophile from molesting someone.) Pro is giving a lot more sources and analysis to justify their position, so this is essentially a foregone conclusion.
Pro gives their interpretation of the resolution, and their justification for this is not really challenged by Con. Con does not really argue under this interpretation of the resolution or make a strong case to interpret it differently, which is enough for me to vote Pro.
Pro explains his position, affirming the resolution
Given the definitions in the description, this looked like a very straightforward win for Con with the examples they provided. Pro could have challenged their definition of "pain" but as it stands, Con does provide several examples of human suffering occurring without self-awareness. It's a clever route to negating the resolution. Pro argues in the last round that humans are still self-aware creatures even if they are not currently self-aware. But the resolution states "A creature can only suffer if it is self aware," (present tense) not "Only self aware creatures can suffer." Con points out that these individuals are "suffering without self-awareness," which is enough to satisfy the resolution.
Con lays out definitions for most of the terms in the resolution, differentiates between tactics and strategy, and cites sources for his claims. Pro doesn't provide alternate definitions or say anything to establish that chess is higher than other forms of intelligence. So I vote Con.
Forfeiture
Pro does not dispute BoP but does not make arguments to affirm the resolution.