Total votes: 282
Con has an advantage right from the start. Pro's main issue in calling the wage gap inaccurate and unreliable is lack of clarity in the resolution and nothing in the description to make their position more clear. Hence, when they say the wage gap is "inaccurate," it is unclear what argument they are making in particular. Con capitalizes on this, arguing that the measured wage gap is an accurate statistic, essentially taking the resolution at face value.
Pro argues that sexism is not the cause of the wage gap, but Con does not have much trouble refuting this point—this isn't what the resolution asks for. There's a lot of arguing about the goalposts here, but Con's argument is more consistent with the description since they are simply sticking to what it says.
Con does a good job of formatting here, and I find prose a bit harder to read. That said, Pro's grammar is fine, and his arguments are reasonable. So I'll leave legibility tied, given that this is essentially a matter of taste.
Con is good here. It seems rather obvious by the end that not all forms of speech (or expression, which is classified as speech) are protected. Honestly arguing that there are many forms of speech by legal precedent was quite clever and Pro probably should have done more to counter that. Pro argues that it is the action being punished, not the speech and essentially says that if something is restricted, it's not speech. But I think these examples clearly help Con's case. If not all speech is free, then there are limits on freedom of speech. Pro says in the beginning "the USA has no limits to freedom of speech," but then redefines freedom of speech to mean "whatever is legal under the 1st amendment." This seems absurd, since the law is precisely what is being debated. Threats are just words, as Con points out, yet they're still illegal even if no physical offense has been committed. And regardless of whether speech is sometimes connected to an action, it's clear that the statement "the USA has NO LIMITS to freedom of speech," (emphasis mine) is false. The principle of free speech is simply too broad for that statement to be defended, so Con admittedly has an advantage here. Pro would have done better by defining "hate speech" or "free speech" right at the start. Changing the resolution to something more broad didn't help them.
RFD in comments.
Concession
Two words for the win...
Con ff
Pro basically conceded the debate by (a) using less than 10% of the character limit and (b) not responding to anything Con said. Pro's argument in R1 is essentially summarized as "It is a human organism and deserves life." Con argues that several other impacts outweigh this. Pro never shows up to contest Con's weighing of the arguments, and forfeiting 50% of the debate might be grounds for an auto-loss anyway.
Full forfeit by Pro, also Con had some good points that Pro never responded to.
Con gave no arguments.
===Initial Thoughts===
I confess I don't know much about either of these rappers, but with no votes and 13 hours to the deadline, I decided to just do my best.
I thought both sides did well on lyricism, and this was a tough match to call. One big advantage of Con's is a more consistent rhyme scheme. ABAB is simple, but it's consistent and it works. Pro had a few lines that didn't appear to rhyme with anything ("Dyin’ suns don’t fade" and "Bout time you stop headbuttin milk cartons") There might be a more complex rhyme scheme here or something to try and imitate the rapper's style, but if so it wasn't very clear.
The amount of syllables in Con's line are also more consistent, so I get more of a feel for what they would sound like, whereas Pro seemed like they were occasionally trying to fit more syllables in a line than fit naturally. Con does it sometimes, but Pro does it more. On stage it might fit together cleverly, but when it's all written out, it's hard to put it together.
Content itself was kind of equal. A lot was generic, but there were some good career disses as well.
Conduct is equal. There was a ff and probably some plagiarism, so I don't lean either way there. Right now, I'm leaning toward Con, but it will depend on the final round breakdown.
===BREAKDOWN BY ROUND===
Round 1: Con
Pro's best line: "Tryna fight government corruption with your storytime introduction, / Gettin’ smoked by the bars of my divine interruption. / Do you still even function?"
Con's best line: "You lost to NIP? Well, bitch listen to this, / I never lost a battle, I'm a verbal pugilist."
Explanation: Both rappers are at their best here, but Pro has a few lines that don't seem to rhyme with anything, mainly just there to fill space.
Round 2: Con
Pro's best line: "Shame I don’t got the patience to dig wide enough. / Try not to cry, you sad lil creampuff."
Con's best line: "You try to give headbutts, but I elevate with words / Constructive criticism, to help all soar like birds"
Explanation: Con responds to a lot f Pro's attacks here (see best line) and both sides seem generic (though I don't know enough about either rapper to know for sure), but Con is responding to things so it makes their lines a bit more clever.
Round 3: Con
Pro's best line: "All the shit you say is baffling, so keep rappin’ outta tune, we’ll just keep on laughin’ because you’re just a fuckin loon."
Con's best line: "Why such a short response? Cat got your tongue / Or did K-Rino kick, all the air out ya lung?"
Explanation: Quantity decided this one, Con just has a lot more to offer here.
Round 4: Con
Pro's best line: ...
Con's best line: "You think your all cleaver, with thoughts under your hat, / But you aint got nothing buts thoughts of your cat."
Explanation: ff vs. partly plagiarized
Round 5: Pro
Pro's best line: "Gotta plagiarize my own lines just to keep up with me, old man? / You got less originality than a copycat stan."
Con's best line: "You stumbled and bumbled, you couldn't keep up / While I rocked the mic, with my sick flow erupt"
Explanation: Pro's complex flow works well here because I can follow it. It's hard to explain the "feeling" of rhythm that flows consistently, but Pro is using more complex rhymes and insults than Con does.
Essentially a full forfeit by Con
Full forfeit by Pro, who never contests the burden of proof.
Concession
Pro ff.
Con gets conduct for his sportsmanlike concession.
This debate is essentially a semantic back-and-forth, and I can't really blame Con for playing Pro's game here, since it was obviously intended to be a technical win with the description of homicide in the description. I think the semantic bit could have been argued either way, but it turned out in Con's favor since both sides seemed to agree to a very literal interpretation. Animal abortions went conceded by Pro, and that's where the resolution comes in. Had the resolution been "Abortions are homicide," then Pro might have won by saying that the statement is true more often than not. But Con makes a compelling case that the resolution is a subcategory classification, essentially that abortion is a subset of homicide. This largely goes unchallenged by Pro.
Essentially, Pro argues that the resolution is generally true, but Con provides an interpretation wherein a single exception negates the resolution. I don't even know if an animal abortion has ever been performed in a clinic on an animal, but that point largely goes conceded by Pro. The internet seems to indicate that these kinds of services are offered for animals, but that's largely tangential to who argued their point better in the debate. At the very least, the animal point gives the win to Con, since Pro doesn't challenge that animal abortions actually happen.
Pro spends a lot of time arguing that life exists before conception but never challenges the evidence Con cites showing that a human life is created at conception. Pro treats these two facts as mutually exclusive for some reason.
Full forfeit by PRO, although CON doesn't say much either.
Full forfeit
PRO dropped most of CON's arguments and ended up arguing against their own side.
CON provides his five examples, and PRO repeats the same claims over and over. PRO does not attempt to reconcile the passages that CON provides. Instead, PRO claims that the passages can be reconciled without providing support. CON gives extensive reasoning for why the passages cannot be reconciled, which PRO largely ignores.
CON spends their entire opening supporting PRO's position and then forfeits all the following rounds.
I have to admit that I'm heavily biased toward CON here, and I found myself agreeing with almost everything RM said so it pains me to vote against him. That being said, an argument is not just a series of true statements. Slainte did a much better job justifying what he said, mostly because he showed up for both rounds of the debate. PRO argues that NATO's actions were provocative to Russia (according to the standards Putin set), hence they instigated the war. RM did not dispute this and mainly attacks Putin for other things, without defending the actions of NATO as justified. CON did not have Sources, so that point goes to PRO as well.
Full forfeit. Props to CON for arguing anyway.
Concession
CON laid out his argument in an organized manner. PRO did not respond and instead opted to attack CON's character. CON gave sources throughout the debate, PRO did not. PRO all but conceded in the end, they didn't seem interested in addressing any of CON's arguments or forum history showing they had never accused Novice of stalking them in real life. The gaslighting point got thrown right back at PRO, and PRO never responded to it.
Right off the bat, using the Bible as the only source is a big advantage to PRO. I'm not sure why CON would agree to use it as a reliable source, it would be like PRO agreeing to use the Quran. CON sort of argues outside the scope of the debate using historical events, so I will just focus on the bits in the Bible.
Anyway, PRO doesn't argue for the Trinity and seems to be closer to the Nestorianism camp. This actually doesn't hold them back as much as I expected, and it keeps them from having to counter the usual criticisms of the Trinity. CON does not argue that the Bible contradicts itself and is unreliable, which would have bee their strongest opportunity given that some verses seem to support them and some their opponent. In the absence of such an argument, PRO's spirit explanation is the only thing that explains all the evidence given. Once PRO argues that Jesus has the spirit of God but is part human (though not in the conventional Trinitarian sense), CON has to address that. Unfortunately, all the evidence CON gives from that point on is consistent with PRO's view of Jesus. So CON would have had to show that Jesus doesn't have God's spirit at all or reframe the debate.
In short, PRO's argument explains CON's evidence. CON's argument does not explain PRO's evidence.
As is the case with most semantic debates, I get what PRO is trying to say here, but the way they phrased the resolution doesn't do them any favors. PRO continually argues that life exists before conception, and CON points out that a new life is created at conception. CON is arguing much closer to the resolution here, because some life existing already doesn't mean that new life can't be created. CON also establishes this framework pretty clearly, and PRO goes on to argue that life comes from other life. That's true, but not really relevant to this debate with everything that CON has pointed out. In short, CON does a better job of sticking to the topic of the debate.