Total votes: 282
Basically a full forfeit by Pro
Pro leaves a lot on the table here. Their argument seems to be that children are not living until they are born, but Con had already addressed this with a lot of scientific backing. If Pro wants me to give weighting to their claims, they need to give some kind of justification for them. Near the end, they argue that abortions are not murder, perhaps in reference to legality, but Con points out that this isn't the subject of the debate. I'm left with a lot of biological evidence from Con and little from Pro to counter it.
This is an interesting one. Con's case rests on the assumption that if a statement is grammatically incorrect, it cannot be affirmed. Both sides propose completely different burdens of proof.
I find it questionable whether capitalization affects the meaning of the resolution in this case. If that's true, then none of oromagi's resolutions mean anything, but Pro never brings up this precedent. Capitalization can be used for emphasis, and I'm not sure whether that's grammatically incorrect or just stylistic.
These are arguments Pro doesn't make, but as a voter I have to weigh arguments against the resolution, and I do have some discretion in that regard. That said, I'm willing to let this debate take a non-conventional path.
My interpretation is that Pro supports the resolution, which is all that's necessary under Con's burden of proof. "ThE sKy Is BlUe" was enough to establish this point. Con can critique the grammar, but the meaning of the statement is clear enough to me as a voter that Pro's interpretation is reasonable. So I feel that the resolution was affirmed for all intensive purposes
There are two definitions presented at the start, one biological and one based on social constructs. I don't think either side really showed the biological definition to be in their favor, since Pro conceded a bunch of special cases, and Con never provided a biological definition for a woman. It's clear that some trans women have some of the criteria listed, and some don't. So I'm left with the definition of "anyone who identities as a woman," which Pro never challenged. I do think Con should have developed this definition more, but in the end, Pro conceded most of their criteria, so I can't judge based on a biological definition.
Full forfeit by Con
Both participants agreed to a tie
Pro's conspiracy was hilarious, but Con's seemed more well-developed, with historical evidence and statistics to support their case. Specifically, the references to the FBI and various NASA experiments seemed indicative of a well-thought-out conspiracy theory. Pro had a few links from kid's songs on YouTube, which didn't feel quite as strong. Pro also dropped 50% of the debate. That's enough to make me vote Con.
Rhymes seemed about equal, but Pro missed the ladder half of rounds.
There's a lot said here, so I will categorize arguments for the purpose of clarity. The questions here are (a) whether dueling is harmful and (b) whether that harm means that the government is justified in restricting the right to duel.
(a) Con does better here, showing the impact of the loss of life and even harms that impact people other than the ones dueling. Pro gives impacts that are much less direct, such as population. Honor doesn't really help either side because of how subjective it is—both sides try to define it differently. Impolite people may be removed from society, but I'm also told by Pro that those who duel are honorable, and the benefits of this aren't guaranteed in every case. The direct impact of death seems much bigger.
(b) Neither side seems particularly interested in weighing harm against freedom. Pro does less with this than he could, since he seems to consider freedom one of many impacts, rather than saying it should outweigh any other sort of harm. There's some questions raised about consent, and I don't see Pro doing enough with the freedom angle to show why allowing dueling isn't enabling. Pro makes an argument from consistency, arguing that people are usually afforded freedom. But this isn't true in every case, and Pro doesn't show why all cases should be treated equally—Con is showing a lot of harms that seem unique to dueling.
Hence, my vote goes to Con.
Con's arguments shift over the course of the debate, and Pro responds to all of their main points. Con doesn't bother to respond to the consciousness argument, which is enough for me to give the win to Pro. Also, Pro provides way more support for their points via sources.
> 40% ff by Con
Con being late to the party wouldn't be as big an issue if this debate had more rounds, or if they addressed all of Pro's arguments up front. But there's simply a lot that Con has to say in the rebuttal stage that Pro never has a chance to respond to. I'm not sure offhand how strongly I should weigh these points, so I'll go over each contention and say who I think won, then figure out a way to weigh them. It's clear that coal does some good with some risks of pollution. I'm not sure that this point means much on its own. I have to weigh economic growth against $1 trillion externalities - Con gives me a number, and Pro doesn't, so I might have to weigh that figure higher. There's a claim that renewables aren't feasible, which has some support, and Con attacks the source in the last round. Bias doesn't mean that a source is definitely false, and Con's sources could just as easily have an agenda, so I'm weighting sources equally.
What clinches this is the proposal of nuclear energy as a counterplan. Con argues that nuclear will take some time to implement, but the renewables Con proposes have some high costs as well, and it's not clear that we should only be thinking short-term. Both avoid the opportunity costs from pollution, so my vote lands with Pro.
Both sides agree on a framework, which makes this decision a bit simpler. The only complication would be if both sides won on different parts of the framework, in which case it wouldn't be clear how to weigh different parts against each other. But that's not how things turned out.
It's clear that both characters have some degree of all these characteristics. But Kiritsugu’s tragedy is basically never challenged by Pro, while Con raises a lot of doubt as to how well Vader fits these criteria. Pro only makes comparisons in two ways: (a) how much each character suffers as a result of these criteria, and (b) arguing that Anakin is enslaved to Palpatine. Con makes the case that (a) is irrelevant, and (b) actually makes Anakin less tragic given the framework both sides seem to agree on. Pro also brings up opportunity cost, but Con is able to make a similar case, and it's not included in the framework.
As far as evidence presented in this debate, it doesn't seem disputed that Kiritsugu is 100% tragic (i.e. that he embodies these criteria perfectly). Con gives a lot of examples of ways in which Anakin doesn't embody these criteria, and not all of them are challenged. So that's where my vote lands.
As for advice to both sides... I think the framework is what decided this debate, and I would advise Pro to always have one in mind before starting. In this case, agreeing to Con's framework is probably what gave Con the win. I think Con did a very good job of framing the debate, especially when a lot of these examples are subjective and hard to weigh against each other. The only advice I might offer them is to appeal to frameworks that are more widely used. If Pro had cited the dictionary definition of tragedy, "causing or characterized by extreme distress or sorrow," then they might have had the upper hand. It would be hard to see how Aristotle's opinion outweighs that.
But that's a direction this debate didn't go, so take my speculation with a grain of salt. Great job to both sides—given the framework that ended up being used, I think Pro and Con did very well in defending their respective characters.
Full forfeit
All rounds waived.
That said, nice of Pro to do this.
Not much to say here.
All rounds waived
AI-generated argument by Con
Pro being on the defensive doesn't help them, because failing to affirm the resolution is usually seen as a loss for Pro. Con gives five arguments indicating strong likelihood of the moon landing. Pro doesn't provide an argument against the moon landing, rather arguing that a conspiracy might be plausible. At the end, I'm left with strong reasons to believe in the moon landing, even if they are somewhat weakened, and no reason to believe in a conspiracy.
I think either side would have benefited by more clearly stating the burden of proof. In the end, each side gives me a lot of examples of when hunger is to consume or isn't (i.e. when someone ought to follow biological drives or when they ought not to.) Pro argues that these senses always function as survival drives, though it's never made clear exactly what that term encompasses. That said, Pro makes this decision easier by dropping most of Con's points. With Con arguing that biological instinct isn't always useful for survival, and no clear response from Pro, I consider the resolution negated.
Concession by Pro.
The dispute over Pro's rule-break became largely irrelevant, since I felt that Con won arguments anyway.
Pro gives a lengthy description of Islam, perhaps more than was necessary. Pro wants me to assume that a philosophy with more rules is better, but he does little to argue for why that is true. Con gives a few benefits of Buddhism and argues that no philosophy is "the best," but there's not much in the way of a direct comparison to Islam. Pro mitigates this somewhat, arguing that Islam is better for meditation and managing one's life. But then Con comes back strong, arguing, "I find it very difficult to believe that a philosophical system that micromanages ones life is :the best". At the core, certain religions and philosophical positions are designed to be a type of indentured servitude, where the work in your is for the benefit of a deity or prophet, be-it God, Allah, Mohammad, Jesus, Mary, Shiva, Vishnu etc." This seems like the best example of something that directly addresses the resolution, it flips most of what Pro said, and I don't see a response from Pro. In the end, Pro's criticisms of Buddhism largely fall short after Con makes the point about indentured servitude since Con is arguing that people ought to take aspects from both Islam and Buddhism—it might not be the debate Pro was looking for, but it falls within the scope of the resolution.
Full forfeit
> 40% forfeit
Con accepts the burden of proof, though they probably should have contested that point more strongly. They accept a lot of definitions from Pro, and this means that Con has to prove that the majority of abortions are:
(a) illegal
(b) performed with malice
(c) performed on persons
Both sides seem to agree that a brain is required for personhood. Pro also argues for the ability to feel pain as a requirement, and Con drops this. Now the burden on Con is to prove that most abortions are performed illegally on fetuses that can feel pain. They never establish this, which makes me lean toward Pro.
Neither side really talks about whether the "majority" of abortions fit these criteria. Most abortions occur in the first trimester, where there's no consensus that fetuses feel pain, but neither side brings that up. But then again, Con would seem to argue in the final round that the majority of abortions are performed on fetuses that can feel pain (which they don't support), drops the illegality point, and skips a round, giving Pro no opportunity to respond to a number of their claims. So Pro takes the win here.
Con comes in strong by citing statistics and flipping the profile picture argument. In a one-round argument, I'm hesitant to give much weight to rebuttals, but I think the arguments Con gave were simply higher quality than the ones Pro gave. Quantity helps here. I'm not sure I buy everything Con is saying about not being a weeb, but most of these arguments are essentially troll accusations. Con provides more of them, paints a clearer picture by referencing Discord mods, and cites statistics.
Pro gives a rather straightforward argument from motion and later on an argument from "order." Rather than critiquing the premises directly, Con argues that evidence must be empirical and that God does not count as a cause. That's not always a terrible strategy, but Pro does well here, arguing that an argument need not include empirical evidence to be sufficient and that God can cause something by desiring it. Con gives the debate away by forfeiting near the end. Formatting on either side isn't great, and Pro is introducing new arguments throughout the debate, but Con simply ignores a lot of what Pro says. For that reason, my vote goes to Pro.
40% forfeit. But I'll give a brief RFD.
Con drops the entire affirmative case near the end. Pro's points on Honor, population, and freedom remain essentially uncontested once Con stops participating. This debate comes down to consent near the end, and while Con makes some decent points early on, Pro argues that this is outweighed by freedom and that emotional decisions can still be consensual. Maybe these points are flawed, but we never find out, because Con ditches the debate halfway through.
I went back and forth on this several times, and the deciding factor was the point about who the first believer was. Pro may be right about the phrase "awwala almumineena" not literally meaning the first ever, but they didn't provide any evidence for this aside from claiming it means "first of the believers." If we take that literally, it favors Con. Pro needed to explain why we shouldn't take the phrase at face value or make a better linguistic argument about meaning changing based on context; in the absence of that, it's a contradiction. Con says we should take the verse literally rather than using a different meaning; without a good reason not to do that, this is a win for Con.
Half of winning is showing up.
Con makes a relatively straightforward case, which is made stronger since Pro doesn't propose an alternate definition for "peaceful." Pro counters a lot of arguments that Con isn't making, focusing on the middle east and arguing that many humans aren't peaceful. But Con lists a lot of harsh punishments prescribed in the Quran, and Pro doesn't really address that point. The debate is about Islam, not solely about Muslims. So in the end, Con makes a lot of points that Pro doesn't respond to. That's enough to meet their BoP.
Con wins this debate by framing upfront what it means for something to be based off of something else. Pro never challenges this, and it negates a lot of their arguments about the distinctions between the Bible and the Constitution. It's clear that the Bible was an influence on the Constitution, though it was certainly not the only influence. No conduct since both sides skipped rounds.
This debate was odd because it felt like Pro focused more on the resolution, while Con continued quoting the Bible without addressing Pro's interpretation. Pro made a good case that certain parts of the Bible are metaphorical or intentional simplifications. Specifically, God existing outside of time would mean he doesn't technically have foreknowledge. I'm surprised Con didn't challenge the definition of foreknowledge, though, or the analogy about the line.
Con's argument relies heavily on their proposed definition of need, but it is never directly challenged. It's clear that validation is required in some circumstances, and Pro calls Con's description of the resolution "literal." Hence, if I take the resolution at face value, that would favor Con as well.
There are essentially two debates being had here: (1) whether sex is binary, and (2) whether gender is based on sex. Pro needs to win both of these to win the debate. I think both sides represented their position well, though it felt like they were talking past each other for the most part. Hence, this debate was very close.
(1)
This one is essentially both sides going back and forth with sources. Con drops this and then comes back at the end with a source defining intersex as a "sex." I'll give this to Pro, because the debate initially seems to be about whether sexes can be classified as binary—Pro shows that they can, based on ability to impregnate. Essentially, "With some research, every single person born with the intersex condition can be tied back to 1 biological sex, no matter how screwed up they are." Both sides offer definitions, but I think Pro provided more in the way of arguments. Con largely sidesteps Pro's argument in the final round with a new source; hence, I'm more inclined to lean toward Pro's line of reasoning.
(2)
Pro argues that a social construct must be based upon something in reality. Con says it doesn't. At the end, I think Pro wins this by a small margin. Although Con describes gender as "how you feel", they never really explain what these feelings are—which feelings correspond to which gender? So in the end, Con's definitions are largely circular. Both sides seem to accept that gender must be "real," so I have to give this to Pro if Con is only providing circular definitions.
Forfeit by Con
66% forfeit by Pro. I'm not sure Con's argument is necessarily the obvious way of interpreting the resolution, but Pro never bothers to respond.
There's a back-and-forth here, but a lot of the same claims are repeated from one round to the next. Pro claims that Zeus can defeat more powerful beings and has prestige in entertainment, among other things. Con claims that Yahweh can do anything he wants. Both sides sort of leave it up to me to decide which of these denotes "more power." This puts Pro at a disadvantage given the biases that people come in with. It seems to me that the definition "having or exerting great power or force" favors Con, especially when it is argued that Yahweh has the capacity to do anything he wants.
There's the free-will argument, and Pro argues that Yahweh was unable to convince people to do things, yet there's little discussion about whether convincing someone to do what you want demonstrates more power than giving them free will. Con argues that Yahweh can do either ("whatever he wants"), and since religious traditions are essentially treated as reliable descriptions of either deity, so far as this debate is concerned, a biblical passage saying that Yahweh is all-powerful is as reliable as any other evidence offered. For example, Pro treats a legend that Zeus defeated another deity as reliable, so if I accept that, I have to accept biblical claims as reliable as well. That's the only fair way of analyzing this, and Con points it out explicitly, saying "both universes will be evaluated as if they exist and the words within them are true."
So given the definitions of power that are agreed on by both sides, I have to give this to Con. I'll give credit to Pro though for making several creative arguments and picking the harder side of the resolution.
Plagiarism
Con argues that video rentals are superior in providing entertainment and sometimes education. Pro argues that video content is better consumed in moderation. Con's main arguments about cost and convenience have largely been conceded, and I'm inclined to think they support his point. Con also argues that people have a right to decide which services to buy so long as they don't affect other people.
In the end, I'm not sure how to weigh these two arguments. Pro shows that some restrictions are consumer-centric, but there is little debate from either side on whether these restrictions are good or bad. So it's mostly up to me to decide how these arguments should be weighed. Both sides drop some arguments from the other side, which makes this a bit difficult to analyze.
But in the end, I have to give this to Con. Con simply pokes more holes in Pro's case than Pro pokes in Con's. The education point holds some weight, and Pro's response about learning mitigates this somewhat, but if digital media is more efficient and directly gives information, that seems more directly connected to education than the community approach Pro describes. I'm also inclined to believe that since mental illness and depression were around before streaming services, people could just as easily get addicted to another hobby - Con doesn't say that explicitly, but it's heavily implied. The fast food comparison and libertarian points seem stronger than Pro's responses. The regulations on tobacco don't seem like they directly prohibit someone from using a lot of it or are aimed at making smoking more difficult.
Forfeit by Con