Total votes: 282
Forfeiture
Pro argues that animal suffering outweighs the pleasure from meat. Con argues logistical problems and majority rule which Pro addresses and Con drops. Pro provides sources and Con does not.
>40% forfeit by Pro
Pro's arguments largely rely on a framework that they don't do much to defend, and they would have done well to establish some definitions up front. Con argues that any form of taking something by force is theft, even if it is justified. Pro does not even argue that conquest implies justification for taking something by force (at best, they imply it). Meanwhile Con uses a few analogies and argues that "stealing from a thief is still theft," which makes most of Pro's arguments irrelevant until that framework is challenged.
Full forfeit
Mutual FF .
Con does not pick a religion or denomination, or attack Pro's arguments for eternal sanctification. Pro basically extends. Conduct to Pro since Con does not do the thing required in the title.
RM wins lalalalalala
Pro argues the resolution, while Con argues the existence of God and basically concedes in R2. Their argument seems to be that we shouldn't teach lies, but it's hard to weigh that against all the benefits Pro is claiming, and Con never really establishes that Christianity is a lie, given that all of Pro's responses are dropped.
Full forfeit
Pro gave no arguments.
Full forfeit
Con concedes that abortion is immoral but argues that it should not be illegal. While legality is mentioned in the description, it's not included in the debate resolution. Con's case might have been stronger if they argued that the principle of bodily autonomy makes abortions morally justified, but instead, they argue that we shouldn't be considering morality at all. Pro comes in and makes a case that we should pass laws that are beneficial to society. While Con brings up bodily autonomy, this doesn't work as a moral objection to an abortion ban when Con is saying we shouldn't care about morality at all. Pro has a stronger case since abortion is largely conceded as immoral and undesirable, while Con insists that we should default to bodily autonomy (without much reasoning given).
Con mentions that the US is a democracy, which Pro concedes. However, Con's case doesn't talk much about freedom or show how the US stands for either—being a democracy and standing for democracy are technically different things, unless Con makes an argument for how one should necessarily constitute the other. Pro's framework is more developed, and they argue that while the US is meant to be a democracy, it acts undemocratically and against the interests of freedom in a number of ways. Even if the democracy point is largely a semantic dispute, the resolution is affirmed if the US does not stand for freedom, because then it would not be standing for both freedom and democracy. Pro goes into a lot of detail on foreign policy here, which Con fails to negate. Even if the US does stand for freedom and democracy in some ways, I'm interpreting this resolution as referring to how the US acts most of the time (I think that's the most reasonable reading), unless Con makes an argument for why the resolution should be interpreted differently.
Con argued for the wrong side.
Neither side gave an argument. I didn't interpret Con's response as a concession, I thought he was saying he agreed that his position was silly but that being silly is good. (If I'm misinterpreting that, at least my vote's not changing anything.)
Basically a troll debate, but Pro did not provide an argument.
Pro argues that gender is biological rather than psychological or based on stereotypes. Con argues that transgender people are oppressed, but this does not address the debate resolution.
I think this qualifies as a foregone conclusion. Most of Con's arguments were dropped, while Pro continued posting things irrelevant to the resolution.
Con gives no arguments
Full forfeit
RM took a risk by asking me to vote when he was 7 points ahead. Obligatory "let's see if it pays off" Dodgeball reference.
First Impressions:
This battle is a good example of complex rhyme schemes and metaphors against extremely personal disses with some elements of truth. RM is very versatile as an MC with good lyricism and would probably dominate in a rap cypher, but SL came prepared with 95 theses and is prepared to nail them to RM's front door.
Lyricism:
I'm giving SL a 2 for this and RM a 4. SL has good character references at times, but RM is very focused on metaphors and makes puns on basically everything he says. Maybe needing to explain references should count against him, but RM is very creative here with consistent metaphors, so I'm giving him all 4 points.
Flow:
I'm giving SL a 3 for this and RM a 2. SL breaks lines into smaller chunks, making it easier to see how they flow together, while it often seems like RM is trying to rhyme one paragraph with another paragraph. There are a lot of complex rhymes in the middle which can't be ignored, but it sometimes seems like the length of words and syllables is completely based on finishing RM's train of thought, rather than following a consistent structure. Recognizing that many professional rappers do something similar to this, I'm still giving RM 2 points on flow.
Diss:
SL does well here. There's a history of beef between these two MCs and SL references a lot of it, pointing to specific events that happen. Even though it didn't rhyme with anything, and RM later has a good response, "OMG Barney, you're such a manly man!!" was pretty funny. Both sides use references, but SL uses more of them. While RM will link to something and then use a complex rhyming metaphor, SL tends to stay on topic more to the thing being discussed. While this doesn't allow for many complex rhyme schemes, sometimes simple works best. SL is able to give straightforward criticisms of RM, so I give him a 4 for disses.
RM makes use of a lot of analogies, comparing himself to King Arthur and using complex rhyme schemes. But I'm only evaluating the quality of disses here, not rhymes. RM's strongest line is his comeback about SL's post thanking Barney and whiteflame (although I posted on that thread too so maybe I should take offense to that?) Regardless, these are well-developed analogies that paint a clear picture. However, they mostly come across as threats or taunts that could be used against anyone, not specifically SL. I know that's not always the most important thing in rap battles, but when I have to separate disses from flow and lyricism, there's not much left to evaluate. I give this a 3, since the disses are good, even if they're not always based on real events.
Rhyming:
I looked for the best examples I could find of this from each rapper. SL's best was in R3, because I think he rhymed the most consistently there. "velocity" and "ferocity" were decently impressive rhymes, and "screw up" and "abuse...much" was a good multisyllabic rhyme. There's some loss of consistency since not every line rhymes, but I acknowledge that some of these lines are meant to be hype lines before a verse starts. I give SL's rhyming a 2.
RM has a lot of good examples, most prominently the opening of his R1 when "wetter" is rhymed with 7 other words on two syllables. There are a few slant rhymes, but RM balances very complex rhyme schemes with bars that make sense. I looked to see if these rhymes came at the expense of jumping from one topic to another or not making sense, and that was not the case. Regardless of how he did overall, RM's rhyming was very good, and I'll give it a 4.
Favorite line from SL: "Must hurt that The People chose an anti-semitic racist as President just so they didn't get stuck with you. Couldn’t even woo them with your charm and charisma, everyone was better off when you left."
Favorite line from RM: "Love a sycophant tryna mock his opponent showing love for Barney while having Whitesmoke and Shillton in a gangbang, all at once, stuffed piggy with a wilted chode down the throat"
RM wins 13 to 11, but this is a close one due to the use of very different strategies from each side.
Pro conceded in comments
Full forfeit
Not very familiar with either of these rappers, but I will be judging on quality of each verse, since nothing in the description tells me to do otherwise.
Overall, I think Con has more hard-hitting disses. Although Pro does provide a lot of insults, they don't pack as much of a punch since they don't reference many things that actually happened (to my knowledge, since no links are provided). Con has a lot of references and a more consistent rhyme scheme, as well as some clever wordplay ("G 'til their fans is dead on an OD") and some complex multisyllabic rhyming near the end. Not all of what Pro said seemed to be disses targeted toward Con, though they did seem to be more committed to staying in character (from the narration I saw). Points to Con.
Unfortunately, the description doesn't specify how to allocate points, but it looks like we're giving 7 points to the winner.
Both sides are sufficiently random, in my opinion, but Con was able to convey more meaning despite having shorter verses. In the first round, Pro rhymes a lot of unrelated words (which I suppose fits the resolution), but these don't translate into disses against Con. A lot of them seem like threats, which don't carry as much weight as calculated insults. Con is able to build on previous insults to paint a clearer picture ("why 5 inches only?", etc.) In the second round, Pro uses a lot of slant rhymes and a number of lines where even that kind of rhyme is questionable ("fit you"/"yet you"). Con is again able to paint a clearer picture with complex double meanings, with a complex multisyllabic rhyme scheme near the end. Pro again gives a lot of threats, and the quantity does hold some weight, but Con is able to respond with more vivid threats and again paint a clearer picture.
Both Pro and Con are random in the kinds of subjects they bring up, but Con is more coherent. So that's where my vote lands.
Pro begins by arguing that we live in a simulation with a flat video game map. There could be a bit more reasoning here for why we should assume a flat model, but Con doesn't argue this point in the first round. Con gives seven reasons to assume the earth is round, which Pro attempts to mitigate (though Pro's main argument is that we are probably in a simulation.) Con then argues that we ought to assume the things we see are real (or that the simulation is extremely detailed) and defends his earlier points. With no response in R3 from Pro, arguments go to Con.
>40% ff by Pro
Con Kritiks their own definition, which I have a hard time weighing since it doesn't get challenged by Pro. That said, I'm not sure how much it matters if Con is arguing that SG is a metaphor. The resolution does say "accurate representation," and while I argued against this exact point in another debate, Con's argument that the metaphor works for capitalism goes unchallenged for the most part. Con argues that some similarities make the metaphor accurate, while hyperbolic humor is a common part of TV that does not affect accuracy. With neither of these being challenged by Pro, most of the differences they bring up between the show and capitalism do not show it to be inaccurate under the framework that Con established. With Con framing the debate significantly in his favor, Pro had to either challenge this framework or talk more about the symbolism in the show. In the absence of that, arguments to Con.
Con gives a source to support their definitional Kritik, but Pro gives a lot more in terms of evidence. So sources to Pro.
Con agreeing to a shared BoP makes this a close one. While Pro does a good job showing that Logan Paul did something offensive, Con points out that atoning for his actions doesn't necessarily involve going back to Japan. While this does a good job of raising doubt, Con must also establish that it's better for Logan not to return, per the shared BoP.
There's a lot of back and forth on whether Logan has an obligation to do more for Japan, though a lot of this seems like both sides repeating themselves rather than making an argument. In the end, I think it's established that Logan offending Japan necessitated some sort of penance and that some level of penance has already been performed. I buy Con's point that Logan has done a lot so far. In response to the question, "How would Logan Paul atone, in Japan, that he hasn't already done?" Pro gives a number of options, but it's not clear why these things are better than what Logan has already done.
A point that I don't think got meaningfully addressed was Con's argument that Logan returning to Japan might harm his mental health. It's clear that Logan has been criticized a lot already, and while his actions were disrespectful, they did fall under free speech. This is Con's only constructive argument, but it seems to be left standing at the end of the debate. Pro argues that Logan deserves to suffer more and got off easy, but it's not clear why Logan's attempts at atonement so far have been insufficient. As Con points out, Logan has already apologized. And it seems evident that he has probably helped more people since the incident than were harmed (it's not clear that anyone was directly harmed, though many found his video offensive.)
A lot of this stems from a core disagreement about what Logan owes Japan. Con comes across as more reasonable, arguing that some penance has already been done and that more can be done without need for a grand gesture, while Pro seems to be arguing that none of Logan's redemption is sincere at all (and it's not clear why we should assume that). In the end, I think Con effectively argues that atonement doesn't require going to Japan physically, and the points about Logan's mental health are left standing imo. So arguments to Con.
Troll debate
Pro makes arguments about the increased safety of allowing heroin, backed by several government studies. Con doesn't combat this directly and mainly talks about the dangers of alcohol, which aren't directly relevant to the resolution. Pro responds to the points Con raised about the constitution and alcohol. At this point, the debate starts getting off track, and I don't think most of the claims Pro made at the start were addressed by Con. Pro brings up arrests and more evidence. It didn't feel like Con had much of a constructive argument against heroin legalization; they seemed more interested in having a philosophical conversation about sex and alcohol. That didn't do them any favors when Pro was clearly well-prepared and used evidence to support their claims.
Sources to Pro since Con didn't provide any.
>40% forfeit by Pro
Con conceded
The weakest part of this debate was the excessive use of profanity by both sides. I can't award the conduct point to either participant, especially when they spent most of the debate arguing about whose mother had slept with more people, rather than addressing the debate resolution.
I thought it was odd for Pro to start the first round by going on a racist tirade against immigrants. Con's response was clever, but I do think that sending five pictures of his erect penis in the first round was a bit much. Things were pretty even going into Round 2, but Pro gained the upper hand by somehow gaining access to Con's tax returns and mocking him for his student loan debt. It wasn't until Round 3 that Con fought back hard, revealing Pro's IP address along with some embarrassing text messages Pro had sent to his doctor. Both sides broke data privacy laws a number of times throughout this debate, so I'm willing to call it even.
The choice to argue Round 4 in the form of a rap battle was a surprising change but a welcome one. That said, Con probably should have stuck with his native language, since he clearly wasn't as fluent in Korean as he thought. Some parts of his verse were also clearly plagiarized from various K-pop groups. Pro started their verse strong but botched the second half by rhyming the n-word with itself. I think either side could have pulled ahead given a fifth round, but given what I have to work with, neither participant was effective in meeting their burden of proof.
Concession
Perfectly balanced
Troll debate
I don't see a great way to interpret the resolution that doesn't give a huge advantage to either Pro or Con. Both sides focus on specific cases and argue to place most of the burden on the other side. The resolution doesn't specify "some men" or "all men," so a lot of discretion is left to voters.
I'm siding with Pro on interpretation of the resolution, since it's very vague. Technically the resolution refers to "men," so a literal interpretation would negate the inclusion of minors entirely. But Pro doesn't bring this up, so I'll rather default to the specifications in the description, which states, "This not something should be done." This seems very close to a blanket statement, so Con only arguing about circumcision on minors seems like a bait-and-switch. Pro gives a lot of reasons why people might choose to be circumcised which to them would outweigh the risks, and Con does not succeed in showing that, in general, circumcision should not be performed. It seems implied to me that if someone has a good reason to do something that outweighs the risks, we can't say that they ought not to do it. Utility is subjective, and Pro succeeds in showing that some people may be rational in making decisions based on tradition.
Pro makes a detailed argument. Con asks Pro a question, which Pro answers.
> 40% forfeit by Pro.
Two days left and no votes so far. Here goes.
Both sides start off making competing claims about the effects of legalization. I can accept that making drugs illegal means that more people will be arrested, though it's unclear how harmful all of these drugs will be. The word "all" in the resolution makes me think that Con is best off picking a few drugs and showing the harms of legalizing those (date rape drugs, for example). Pro responds to the studies given, arguing that addiction itself is not the issue but that contamination is. I end up not completely certain about whether legalization + regulation would save lives, but that leaves the impact of the number of people arrested, which gives this debate to Pro. I also think some of Pro's points were better supported with research. While Con had a number of counters, a number of them were speculative, such as poking holes in a potential regulatory system without showing why those problems are likely to arise.
Con provides a lot of syllogisms, which can be a good mode of analysis, but they don't provide much evidence to substantiate the premises. It's made clear that Vader has done a lot of bad things, and even if I don't buy that Vader and Anakin are two separate people (or "identities," I suppose), Con doesn't challenge that framework. Even if Anakin has done more bad than good, Pro argues that redemption is a choice to reject evil, not just a tally of good and bad actions. The fact that Anakin became a force ghost establishes that he rejected evil—even if I buy what Con is saying about Anakin having some bad qualities left, I think it's established that he was more good than bad in his last moment.
Con doesn't give sources, so that point goes to Pro as well.
Pro argues the resolution, which states, "Pro must show that Biden pardoning, or attempting to pardon Biden is in the best interest of the country." Con's kritik is way too indirectly tied to this to effectively counter Pro's case. If we're considering all interests, then Pro effectively makes the case that pardoning Trump is preferable to not doing so.
Both sides play very defensively here, which prevents either of them from meeting their BoP. Con's definition of normal goes uncontested. Con gives a lot of compelling evidence that child abuse is wrong and that child grooming is a problem. Pro gives much more specific evidence relating to Mohammed and Aisha, though none of this is sufficient to prove that no abuse was going on. So I'm left with very credible circumstantial evidence that this relationship definitely could have been abusive, and less credible but more focused evidence specific to this case, which raises enough doubt that neither BoP is met.
I'm giving this to Pro because of the forfeits. Pro agreed with some of what Con said, but there was no explicit concession, and Con agreed with some of what Pro said. This was really just an exchange of ideas, but Pro showed up for more of it.
Con points out the difference between naturalism and atheism. Pro opts to forfeit the rest of the debate.