Total votes: 282
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.
Pro has the BoP and argues that Con cannot prove the resolution false. This does not satisfy Pro's burden of proof, and Con actually argues for their position, while Pro does not. Unfortunately, I cannot award points for verse or rhyme scheme, as much as I admire Pro's commitment to poetry.
Pro rests their argument on premises that Con does not accept and for which Pro does not provide evidence. Pro has the BoP, but Con gives several arguments for Cthulhu not existing (arguably proving that Cthulhu does not exist, as Pro insisted they do), which makes this essentially a foregone conclusion.
I'll start by giving a lot of credit to both sides for coming very prepared. While both sides argued very well for specific points they considered important, Con's argument that the long-term negative effects of GAC outweigh short-term benefits was too big to ignore. I'll admit that this is one of those debates with so many sources and points from each side that other voters may end up weighing things differently and coming to a different conclusion. Debates like these can end up being judged on how much weight is given to a single source, which is close to what happened here. Nonetheless, I think Con ended up framing their case better with respect to the debate resolution.
Both sides use a good amount of sources to support their case. Pro presents a lot of studies that, taken in isolation, imply that GAC is probably effective. Knowing that consent is required and that stress is reduced in the short term would imply that a treatment is probably an effective one. A low regret rate also implies that the treatment is effective, or at the very least that those who got it believe it was effective.
Con's advantage is in using sources that measure larger time periods and more broad overall trends. If each of Con's studies and the conclusions he draws are reliable, then the long-term negative effects of GAC will likely outweigh the positives.
Con's first study is the one that seems most relevant to this debate, and while Pro makes challenges to the control group being used, they don't address the graph showing a stark decline in mental health, indicating that the treatment is likely counterproductive in the long term. Pro argued that Con gave no evidence, despite Con linking to a graph that seemed to show what Con was arguing to be at least somewhat true. If Pro had addressed the table and argued that it did not have the implications Con was making, then they might have won this point. As it is, I have to give this point to Con since it went unchallenged, and the long-term effect of GAC is probably the most pivotal point in the debate.
Pro attacks Con's source on puberty blockers for being biased but doesn't really address the point on bone density, which comes from another source. I'm left not knowing how to weigh the Pros and Cons of puberty blockers against each other, so that point is too close to call in my opinion. Regardless of which side edges the other out here,
Pro's strongest arguments are about low rates of regret and benefits in the short term. However, they do not mount an effective counter to Con's studies which seem to show overall harmful effects in the long term. Con is also showing overall trends in suicide which seem to support their case, and while correlation is not always causation, Pro doesn't really argue what the confounding variable might be or give controlled counter-data. With Pro having a BoP to uphold, all of that together is enough for me to vote for Con, though I'll give source points to both sides for doing their due diligence.
Concession
Con makes a case for abortion being healthcare which is not directly negated by Pro. I can buy that abortion is healthcare for the mother while also believing it is not healthcare for the fetus. Pro responds to some of these points but does not give an alternate definition of healthcare, so as long as abortion improves well-being for the mother (regardless of whatever else it does), Con's argument succeeds on this front.
Both sides seem to agree on biblical morality. Pro argues that fetuses have souls, which goes largely conceded. Pro could have done better here by arguing the implications of "Thou shalt not murder," but on its own this does not establish that abortion is murder, since it does not establish all killings of human souls to be immoral. Con argues that sending babies to heaven is good, which Pro at least somewhat agrees with. So this point goes to Con as well, in the absence of a stronger framework from Pro.
In short, Con's framing and definitions go mostly unchallenged by Pro, which makes it near impossible for Pro to affirm the resolution.
Pro provides the only definition of God in this debate, albeit a very nonconventional one. This opened the door for Con to respond with a more conventional definition of God, but they did not. Since Pro is the only one to say what "God" means in the context of this debate, and this definition goes basically unchallenged by Con, I have little choice but to accept Pro's nonconventional definition. People exist, so God exists if we define God the way Pro wants.
Mutual forfeit
Pro defends the resolution. Con goes on several tangents that are irrelevant, since the resolution talks about humans and not cows. Basically, Con does not contest the actual subject of the debate.
Pro forfeits a good chunk of this debate, but they do give an argument criticizing Israel in the final round whereas Con does not give an argument relevant to the resolution.
Mutual Forfeiture
Full forfeit
Concession
This was some high-quality trolling from Con. But the fact that "an globe" and "the globe" were used to describe the same shape indicates that the shape being described is a globe (the word shared in both phrases). Con agreed that "globe" is the shape of the earth, so arguments to Pro.
Concession
Con drops all of the points that Pro brings up in R4, simply repeating an earlier point that Pro's analogy was meant to address. Since the thought experiment about the staff sergeant goes unaddressed, that's enough to make me vote Pro.
Debaters agreed to a tie
Full forfeit by Pro.
Concession
Eh okay. .
Con gives an argument for why abortion does not fit the definition of genocide due to intent. Pro does not respond to this, essentially ceding that point.
Pro cites "The Cold War: A World History" to point out bad decisions Stalin made. He's able to refute each of the points Con brings up, and Con leaves the entire affirmative case on the table while giving up a chance to rebut Pro's case in the last round. Con argues that "if certain policies didn't do as good, it probably means that they were still the best possible policies," but Pro is able to counter this point, and Con doesn't give any examples of why other policies would have been worse. Con doesn't use sources, so that point goes to Pro as well.
Full forfeit by Con
The topic here was very clearly defined by Con, so I don't buy Pro's kritik. To believe something means to think that it is true—this is strongly implied throughout Con's argument, and it is the most straightforward interpretation of the resolution. Since Pro concedes that mathematicians do not think 2+2 is actually 61738383, this is essentially ceding the resolution as false.
Legibility goes to Con since Pro's case was unreadable at times, with arguments that seemed to shift from one kritik to another on different words in the resolution. This could have been solved if Pro had just used bold headings and bullets (as Con did) to make their case easier to comprehend.
I had expected this to be a debate on the pros and cons of religion, and I was rather surprised by the decision of both sides to completely abandon the resolution and have a rap battle instead. In R1, Pro proposed that voters judge lyricism, flow, disses, and rhyme on a scale of 1-4. Con's only objection, which they did not give until R3, was “no, that's gay.” Without further elaboration from Con on why exactly this proposal was gay or why he believes rap music should not be judged in a gay way, I must default to Pro's system.
==PRO==
Lyricism (4/4): Pro was able to use complex metaphors and clear analogies. Finding Con's Facebook account and comparing the shape of his mouth to a chicken, while also using it as a complex metaphor for poverty and class struggle, scored a lot of points for Pro in just the first round. Normally, I wouldn't award points for using a “Uranus” pun, but Pro was able to use it as part of a complex metaphor about how governments restrict free speech.
Flow (1/4): Pro does very poorly here, since their doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the number of syllables they put in each line. For example, when Pro said, “Socialism is a reckoning on class inequality that requires collective effort to achieve, but it cannot succeed in an individualistic society like the US / Oh yes,” the switch from 50 syllables to 2 syllables felt a bit jarring.
Disses (1/4): This is clearly Pro's weakest point in the battle. The comparison of Con's mouth to a chicken was funny, but the photo was clearly taken with a front-facing lens, so criticizing Con's looks based on that picture seems a bit unfair. Con was also able to rebut most of the disses Pro made about Con's mother dying, since Pro admitted in another thread to murdering his entire family.
Rhyme (4/4): Pro comes out ahead here by rhyming “orange” with “door hinge,” “storage,” “porridge,” “four kids,” “sore limbs,” “floor kick,” “drawer and,” etc. I think quantity beats quality here.
==CON==
Lyricism (1/4): Con does not attempt to use any metaphors, and most of his attacks were on-the-nose, so to speak. Most of Con's insults were straight and to the point, without leaving a lot of room for flips or analogies. For example, “You're fat. Your waist is big. / Oink! You're shaped like a pig.” The only metaphor here is comparing Pro's figure to that of a pig, and Pro was able to completely flip this point by turning it into a critical examination of capitalism in the United States.
Flow (4/4): In R2, Con sticks entirely to iambic pentameter, which I found to be very impressive. They make a few mistakes in other rounds, but it's not enough to hold against them.
Disses (4/4): Con's disses were reminiscent of the late rapper Tupac’s famous album, “I'd like to chop off your limbs.” Con easily came out ahead on disses by describing in great detail how he would chop off and disintegrate each of Pro's limbs.
Rhyme (1/4): Unfortunately, Con rhymed “pig” with itself five times, which strongly detracted from the quality of their verses. I'm glad that Con's rapping style had other redeeming qualities.
I did not expect a tie, but both participants scored 10 points out of a potential 16. I considered going back to look for a symmetry breaker, but both sides were so entertaining that a tie felt like an appropriate outcome.
There's some back and forth about personhood, but Con brings up a point about trespassing that Pro doesn't really address, arguing that abortion is self-defense and not murder. As such, even if I buy everything that Pro is telling me about personhood, Con's argument about self-defense goes dropped and thus essentially conceded.
Pro gave arguments. Con did not.
Concession
Con drops all of Pro's arguments and rebuttals in R3, and seemingly concedes that a god does exist.
Con argues that the bible does not explicitly contradict, whereas Pro seems to argue that it espouses contradictory themes or messages (i.e. two things we wouldn't expect to both be true). Pro does not make much of an effort to defend their framing, mostly relying on one or two word responses. That essentially makes this a foregone conclusion, since Con's position is much more fleshed out.
Forfeit by Con