Total votes: 79
In my personal opinion, Pro's vocab, rhyming, and flow were the strongest in the Round 1 but stayed consistent throughout the entire battle. The context is pretty straightforward and while the wordplay isn't super-sophisticated, it is easy to understand.
Con's catchy use of the beat puts him off to a good start and I definitely approve of the way he chooses his words, especially the references to Obi-Wan Kenobi. The metaphors and wordplay may seem unnecessarily convoluted to first-time listeners but this is because of the sophistication of the style that is hard to comprehend to the untrained ear. It takes years of attuning to develop this sense.
That said, while I personally believe Con was slightly superior in some areas. I do prefer Pro's rapping style and ability because the tune sounds better to me.
Pro used more quality punch-lines and metaphors and stayed more dedicated to the role, while Con simultaneously broke character several times.
Pro managed to stay consistent as BSP, but Con wasn’t able to sound anything remotely like Vinnie Paz because the rhyming and flow were vastly different. So the rapper voice didn’t sound the same either.
Sadly, I have to give it to Pro.
This debate should've been an easy win for Con, but let's examine what went wrong.
Round 1:
Con is arguing that discussions of racial genetic differences should not be a taboo, on the basis that they help society by improving medical & genetic research, increase cultural pride & awareness, enhances inclusivity and acceptance, as well as fights racism by countering misconceptions and stereotypes which are the actual roots of racism. And it leads to academic and intellectual progress.
Pro is essentially arguing that by being proactive, you assume the full burden of moral responsibility for racism when you take action by having discussions of race. Inaction is better because even if by not talking of race, it leads to racism. You are not responsible. However, conversations of race have the possibility of leading to more racism. Therefore, it is better to not discuss it. History has proven that discussions of racism have led to more bigotry and discrimination, as in the case with Hitler. The potential for racism leads to mass genocide on a large scale and should therefore not be considered.
Round 2:
Con doesn’t refute anything by Pro. They just resort to irrelevant ad hominem attacks like the attack on Pro’s profile picture. Even if Pro did misgender Con, then Con could have politely pointed this out, but Con instead gets slightly condescending by attempting to appeal to Pro’s hypocrisy?
Pro argues that society should strive for moral perfection and consistency, and that morality is crucial for determining what is acceptable. That intention doesn’t inherently make an evil action good even if it results in the benefits of others, and that inaction is more acceptable. Pro points out Con is making baseless ad hominem attacks and that Con hasn’t contested the moral framework or any of the arguments, thus dropping and conceding to them. Pro defends his mention of the term ‘black’ by stating that talking about race is not bad, only discussing genetic differences, or comparing them in a demeaning way is wrong.
Round 3:
Con claims Pro kritiked the definition and is making a bunch of bold claims without proof and taking a moral absurdist stance.
Pro extends.
Conclusion: Con got too lazy and arrogant with this debate and didn't take it seriously.
The problem is Con had a REALLY strong Round 1 and Pro's Round 1 was setup with arguments that could've easily been defeated. In Round 2, Con implies he disagrees with Pro's moral framework but does nothing to push back on it and thus concedes to it, nor does he make any attempt to address his arguments. Instead, opting for ad hominem attacks, and wrongfully saying Pro is being morally inconsistent by using the term 'black' and calls them a hypocrite.
Pro pushes back on this by specifying talking about race is not unacceptable, but discussing racial differences and comparing them in a way that makes them seem inferior is demeaning. This was a good response from Pro. Con had plenty of ways to counter Pro's Round 1 arguments.: For instance, he could've argued that the urgency of moral necessity outweighs the burden of moral responsibility regarding action vs inaction, but they don't do this.
In Round 3, Con and Pro just extend their arguments and go off-topic.
Unfortunately, I was expecting Con to win this easily. Arguments go to Pro. Con is the only one who used sources, so they get the point for sources. Legibility is even on both sides, so tie. Con made ad hominem attacks and went off-topic, so points for conduct goes to Pro.
‘Ideal’ is subjective, so the description sets this debate up to be both a truism (auto-win) and a self-sabotage.
Pro argues that abortion is painful, upsets God, and is expensive as well as wastes resources.
Con kritiks the resolution and counters that it is even more of a waste of resources to raise unwanted offspring. Con also mentions that in a hypothetical ideal world, there would exist technology to make an abortion pleasurable instead of painful. And that God could be anything.
Pro unsuccessfully argues that if humans seek an abortion after unprotected sex, then they didn’t desire the pregnancy or the unprotected sex anyway.
Con just points out that it’s possible to desire a result, but not the cause.
Points for arguments go to Con. Since Pro didn’t use any sources, this means sources also go to Con.
Legibility & Conduct were equal on both sides, so it’s a tie.
Con starts off this Round by arguing that rationing inhibits freedom by limiting the individual’s choice, that resources can be mislocated if this legislation makes it. That rationing leads to government corruption because elected officials will abuse their power to distribute goods illegally and there may be a black market. That price is based on supply and demand, and artificially-set prices make it difficult to determine the objective value of a product. Rationing consumables would interfere with the natural flow of workplaces, stopping employees from accomplishing their goals the way they’re used to. That administration wastes costs and efforts into pointless supervision, directing, and monitoring. That hard workers would be getting paid less than they’re worth and would be less motivated. Rationing amplifies inequality and leads to more conflict and that it has negative psychological effects on society, such as fear.
I’m sort of confused precisely what Pro’s stance is because he does a lot of rambling. This is what I believe he is arguing. 1. That the government is for the people, by the people. If the people demand rationed consumables, then the government has the obligation and duty to act. But if the people have not voted on it or demanded such, then there is no need for the government to ration consumables. Pro, you’re supposed to be defending that the government should ration consumables.
Con retorts that people do not always grasp the complexity of certain issues and by enacting such policies, there would be more negatives than positives. Con also reminds Pro of the BOP.
Pro displays terrible conduct by getting unnecessarily aggressive and indirectly accuses Con of being intentionally ignorant. But there is a semi-good point. Primarily, when he says the government is The People. This isn’t strong enough to push back on any of Con’s arguments. Con is in the lead so far.
Con extends their arguments in the last rounds.
Pro does a lot of rambling this round and it’s hard to keep up with. They try to argue the “should” part of the resolution, by using a substitute definition. That ‘should’ could be used to describe how a certain thing functions. But none of the rambling this round addresses any of the points by Con.
Con used a very basic stance for their position by using all the standard arguments. Pro didn’t even argue the topic, so the point goes to Con for arguments. Neither side used sources, so that’s a tie. Legibility is a tie. Conduct to Con for Pro’s hostility.
Message to Mall: Please DM me. I wish to talk to you about something.
Arguments/Lyricism: Devon played better defense.
RM had many cutting lines that would've dealt a serious blow, but too many of Devon's responses rendered these strikes powerless and he boasted himself up in such a way that let him recover smoothly.
Sources/Flow: Devon's rhyming and flow was a lot smoother.
RM's rhyming and flow was okay, but also felt like it was shaky and forced with some lines. (This could potentially just be my bias towards certain flows of rap that just makes Devon's sound better. The shortness and simplicity of it might therefore just be giving me the illusion that it is better.)
Legibility/Better Disses: Devon didn't really make a lot of roasts. The Elephant Man line was pretty good, but RM used a variety of higher-quality insults that were just more savage. There was a lot of offense from Pro whereas Con didn't really use any.
Conduct/Creativity: RM used more metaphors and descriptive imagery that painted a clearer illustration of what he was saying. He almost won here, but Con's stronger use of puns and wordplay evens this out. So I'm leaving it tied.
Con's position is that men should not resort to genital mutilation on the basis that.: It leads to less sexual pleasure for men, a cut penis isn't aesthetic, that an accident could lead to the inability to have good sex.
Pro contests this on the basis that people have the freedom and the right to do whatever they want with their body.
However, Pro says that genital mutilation is sometimes performed for religious reasons and that the resolution only addresses adult men and their choices. And that adults should have the freedom and right to make whatever choices they want.
Con urges that people should prioritize science and reality over superstition, arguing that superstition has been used to justify throwing babies into fires. Con also extends their round 1 arguments. Con also acknowledges that men have the right to make their choices, but that it isn't a good one.
We get into the final round and while it is too late to impose a framework, Con makes valid points that the BOP is with Pro. Pro also elaborates that the resolution and description is too vague, but the description does explicitly state that the decision to cut one's penis is a bad decision. Hence, the resolution is obvious that Pro must defend that a man should cut his penis, or that it is a good decision. Since Pro doesn't really argue his side or meet his BOP and only argues that it is a person's own right. I cannot give them the win.
Con's position is that cutting dick is an objectively bad decision that could have negative consequences, not that it should be banned or illegal.
Round 1:
All and all, Pro has a really convincing first argument and this puts him off to a good start. He gives examples for how this could benefit Biden and the country by not pointlessly wasting money. There are a few other predictions that could’ve used a little bit of evidence, but we’ll see how Con contests them.
Unfortunately, Con doesn’t really do much to contest Pro’s round 1 argument. Responding by pointing out that a pardon doesn’t benefit EVERY single individual does nothing to convince me that a pardon isn’t necessary to at least help the majority. While Con’s goal in helping every individual is good, he should have perhaps elaborated on how this pardon could be more harmful instead of simply saying it can’t help everyone.
Round 2:
Pro does a good job getting the discussion back on-track by pointing out that Con is derailing the debate and thus, breaking the rules.
Con ignores Pro entirely and just insists that he is being evasive.
Round 3:
Pro argues that the needs of the majority outweigh that of the individual and Con has tried to reshift the focus of the debate when he was supposed to request changes in the comments.
It’s unclear exactly what Con is arguing, but he makes a valid point that a policy should consider the needs of everyone instead of leaving people out. The rest of the time Con is just rambling.
So with these current factors in mind, the points for arguments go to Pro, since Con didn't really bring any. There was an absence of sources on both sides and both really needed some. So that's a tie. Legibility was great on both sides and I will not penalize Con for bad formatting.
Despite the allegations of rule breaking, Pro addresses Con's behavior as cowardly, which is not necessarily misconduct as I don't suspect bad intent from Pro's side, but it isn't exactly respectful, so I'll leave conduct a tie.
The description is also a trap, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Because it has limited the verses to only being taken at face value and ignoring underwritten context which is both a significant part to the Bible as well as Con’s case. This completely strips Con’s side of any power and is a clear auto-win for Pro because Con will not be able to argue their side if I assume the rules apply. I know this is a trap because my debating is a nit-picking, trap-setting style.
Pro’s 1 Case:
God has infinite, unyielding mercy. (Lamentations 3:22-23). But this is inconsistent with the fact that God sends people to Hell.
God can do anything, as he has limitless power/omnipotence. (Ephesians 3:20-21)
Pro attempts to make the case that God couldn’t exist by appealing to his inconsistent morals, but argues that God cannot simultaneously show absolute mercy and ruthless punishment while also contradicting himself by pointing out God’s ability to do anything.
This is such a weak argument from Pro, that is irrelevant to anything the title says.
Con’s 1 Case:
Does not have to prove that God can exist, just has to refute Pro’s case.
Just because God is a loving and kind father does not mean he will tolerate disobedience. (A retort that says God can be merciful while also enforcing the rules.)
God does not automatically rescue people, as he already gave everyone a free pass to make the right choice. It is everyone’s own responsibility to take the path God intended for them.
Okay, this is a good starting argument from Con, but I would’ve liked to see more pushback on the description. Namely, the fact that the rule only allows for a “literal” interpretation. Con should have REALLY used a Kritik this round and while I liked seeing Con state he will only focus on retorts. Perhaps, he should have clarified Pro’s burden a little more.
Pro’s 2 Case:
God has a moral obligation to stop evil people from getting into Heaven.
God is a hypocrite and lets 6 million people burn while enabling murderers and letting them get away with their atrociousness scot-free.
Therefore, God does not exist.
I would not love my child if he was a killer.
God is all-powerful and wants everyone to be saved, so he should show himself to everyone instead of leaving it up to free will and being surprised there are skeptics.
God can do anything, so he can send people to Heaven. Therefore, he should send non-believers to Heaven.
Once again, Pro is NOT arguing the resolution. Pro, you’re supposed to be citing passages and arguing that God does not exist, based on the verses in the Bible. You could give a perfectly legitimate monologue about how God is unjust, and the monologue could be considered irrefutable. And it still wouldn’t win the debate simply because you went off-topic.
Okay, Pro’s argument about God not appearing to everyone is actually a solid point that casts doubt on whether God exists, but it doesn’t prove anything because what Pro is arguing is an absolute.
The point about God’s omnipotence and power, as well as Hell is also another point. This puts the debate back on equal footing.
Con’s 2 Case:
(Forfeit)
Pro’s 3 Case:
Extend.
Con’s 3 Case:
Belief requires action.
Love does not mean approval.
God has shown himself to people and they refuse to believe. If direct transparency cannot convince people, most skeptics would brush it off as delusion.
God wants people to love him of their own free will, not because he forces them to.
Con has done a great job retorting Pro’s arguments and it’s a good thing Pro opted to extend because if he brought in more arguments, it might’ve scaled the debate in Pro’s favor because Con would be overwhelmed with the flooding of text. Now Con’s response here is effective because it shows that God is not responsible for making up the minds of people and they have the freedom to decide.
The weak retort is when Con says God wants people to love him of their own free will and not through force, which is ironic because God is indirectly threatening them with hellfire if they choose not to come to him, and God being an almighty being has the power to stop this as pointed out by Pro. So if God truly wanted this, then why wouldn’t he stop it? Is he incapable or unwilling? If he is unwilling, then perhaps he isn’t as moral as he could be.
Pro’s 4 Case:
Forfeit.
Con’s 4 Case:
Extend.
Okay, really interesting argument.
I went into this expecting it to be a trap debate and it really could have been, but it was so poorly set-up and sloppily executed, that I'm unconvinced Pro was intending to do that. Based on what Pro is arguing, the resolution is also poorly formatted, the debate topic should have been, "God's portrayal by the words of the Bible is inconsistent." If that was the debate title, then this would've been an immediate win for Pro, but that wasn't the subject.
Because of the definitions, both Pro and Con are at a natural stalemate when arguing their positions.
Pro argues that a fetus is human and that the life inherently holds value because of the potential it holds and that abortion snuffs out that potential forever.
Con counters by arguing Pro is arguing for a moral interpretation rather than a legal one, as established by the resolution. But I’ll disregard that argument because Pro objects by stating it’s practically the same.
Con argues that a human being is separate from a human and that potentiality is not the same as actuality. That a fetus functions more like a cell than an organism, but Pro refutes this by stating that Con is quote-mining. The reason abortion is not identical to exterminating the life of a coma patient is because the coma patient has memories, experiences which give its life value.
The arguments are slipped slightly in Con’s favor, but Pro makes it even by arguing that a fetus is a human being, since birth is the final stage of gestation. This makes arguments a tie.
Both sides provided great sources, so that’s also a tie.
Spelling & grammar are even from both sides, so it’s a tie.
Neither side displayed bad conduct, so it’s a tie.
Pro conceded by his own rules.
Great iconic roasts from Con!
Discord mod and the furry comment? LOL.
Con conceded.
Forfeiture.
Con fails to set definitions or a framework in the description.
Pro points this out and gives his own, giving Con the chance to contest them. Con ignores this and demands to see the biblical contradictions.
Pro cites verses on revenge & forgiveness, the permanence of the Earth & its eventual destruction, God’s omnipotence & inability to conquer his enemies, as well as no man ever seeing God’s face. (With the exception of Moses.)
Con tries to double-down by explaining the context of these verses, but this comes off more as a desperate plea to maintain his narrative.
Pro wisely pointed out that the verses were confirmed by an outside source and the wording of the verses makes misinterpretation very unlikely.
It’s settled.
Con concedes.
BOP is actually on Con. But Pro did’t show up, so Con wins.
Pro argues that humanity is overpopulated, and that dueling can be a productive way to enforce population control. (No evidence is given for the planet being overpopulated or that dueling is effective, but this argument is droppped by Con so I’ll ignore it.)
Pro brings up that dueling is a good way to preserve one’s honor and that too many people get away with disrespect and consensual dueling can be used for accountability. If the offender refuses the duel, then they will be ostracized the rest of their life. Conversely, dueling can be used to defend your reputation or friends and family. Pro also states dueling and civilization can co-exist, as they clearly have in the past. What Pro needs to do is elaborate on what kind of dueling? Sword fight or bare-knuckled brawling to the death? Or gun fight?
Con counters by mentioning religion and saying a person doesn’t have a right to their own autonomy, citing God as the ultimate authority. Without proof, I consider that argument void. Con does bring up a valid point about how dueling can’t be consensual because people who try to commit suicide are overwhelmed by emotion and not in a place of stability to make such a permanent decision.
This retort is very poorly delivered, however. As Con uses legality as their defense. Pro cleverly dismantles this argument by pointing out the government is overstepping their boundaries by enforcing restrictions on a person’s choice of what they can’t do with their body. Con’s statement about lethal-based combat because of an offensive comment is disproportionately absurd.
Pro also implies that pleas to insanity as a basis to deny consent is an illusion. Because every human is emotional and all decisions are driven by emotion. They are still responsible for their own actions.
Con disrespect Pro by stating he is incapable of comprehending the law and wrongly attacks his grammar. So conduct to Pro.
Spelling & grammar was decent and consistent on both sides, so it’s a tie. Pro using an obsolete, formal style of writing is not poor grammar. Nor should it be considered such.
Both sides also provided enough sources, so it’s a tie.
Frankly, I’m disappointed by Con’s performance because this is such an easy debate to win against Pro.
Great debate, guys.
So this is basically a discussion over semantics. Over whose interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘gender’ is more valid.
Pro essentially made a slight improvement on this subject. In our previous debate, Pro’s position is gender is NOT a social construct.
Pro wisely doesn’t define the term ‘gender’ in the description because most dictionary definitions have updated to a more leftist variation that would make the discussion impossible to have from Pro’s end. Now Pro could have used a more traditional definition, but I imagine nobody would have accepted as Con because the discussion would be impossible to argue from their end, unless they used a Kritik.
Okay, so fundamentally. Pro admits gender is a social construct, but they state that gender is binary. (Male or female.) Pro’s reasoning for this is that for gender (or social constructs) to exist, they must follow an objective framework or gender identity is meaningless. Pro acknowledges while gender and biological sex are not synonymous, they are not entirely distinct either. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are based on the biological sexes ‘male’ and ‘female.’ Since the other genders are not based on any biological sexes, they don’t exist.
Con shoots themself in the foot by mentioning they have the BOP, undermining what the word ‘exists’ means by claiming gender exists several times but then saying it’s a matter of perception or exists in the mind. It’s not that I object to their argument defending subjectivity, but their side is too inconsistent with this bounce and forth by arguing something is objective versus subjective.
Con contradicts themselves here.:
1. “ There is a huge misconception between sex and gender. Though I already knew this would occur, my first contention already follows up.
Gender is, I repeat, not based on biological sex. ”
2. “Cisgender is going based on your biological sex, you identify as that.”
The way me and Con would argue this subject is similar, but different at the same time. A more consistent argument would be to specify a little earlier that Cisgender is based on biological sex, but other genders don’t have to be. Where Con does a good job is listing multiple genders and sourcing them with verified dictionary definitions.
However, it would be better if Con pushed back and challenged Pro a little more on their usage of “based on” instead of strawmanning Pro in the parts of gender and biological sex being the same.
The conduct by Con got a little cocky passive-aggressive with these comments.:
1. “No, I won't ask for you to vote for me quite yet. It's only the second round, nothings completely set in stone. Don't want to be overconfident, now do we?”
2. “Cool, we have a definition. Let's put it simpler.“
But Pro’s mockery brought it back in the middle, making the misconduct even and proportional on both sides.:
1. “What? I am sorry to the people judging but I have to laugh at this.
This is an argument about Gender, and Con is considering the possibility that it doesn't exist?“
I give Pro the point for arguments. Conduct is a tie. Both sides had great sources, consistent spelling & grammar, so it’s a tie on the rest.
Full concession by Pro.
Forfeiture.
Pro does a great job at analyzing and deconstructing the logical fallacies.
Con could have easily won because the resolution is so one-sided that it sets an impossible BOP for Pro to meet. But Con ended up conceding.
Despite this, Pro does argue their position very effectively and overturns the counter arguments in their favor, despite the disadvantage.
Forfeiture.
Concession.
Pro spends WAY too much time complaining and conceding this debate.: “ I don't really give a shit about this debate quite honestly.”
Which raises the question, then why did you accept it? And how is that Con’s problem?
“Novice followed you to your apartment and you misled us that it was a house, you elohungry troll.
Oromagi, Novice and you are the same fucking thing, sitting scared shit, preying on the weak.
Step into a tournament and I will see you as a real debater.”
Seriously?? We’re 4 rounds in and this is the best Pro can come up with? Con asks for evidence that Barney accused Novice and Pro fails to provide any proof.
If someone accepts a debate, knowing they’re bound to lose. That’s THEIR fault.
The resolution is childish, I agree. But the fact that Con is the only one able to be professional is reason enough to reward them the conduct point.
All in all, yikes....
Con conceded by forfeiting twice.
Concession.
Pro sources his work directly from The Bible and Ixam never posts.
Neither side was very impressive.
Both Pro and Con have a huge misunderstanding of what the conversation is about. This is not a discussion on morality, this is a discussion of semantics.
The subject isn’t whether murdering babies is wrong or not, the subject is whether abortion constitutes murder or whether it doesn’t.
Pro is mostly responsible for going off-track here because he sources that a fetus is the development of a human and implies that science has proven life begins at conception. But this doesn’t actually prove the resolution.
Con tries to object by comparing the intelligence levels of other organisms in order to claim a fetus is not living. Both Pro and Con talk about the ethics of euthanizing coma patients and Con had a huge opportunity to turn this argument in his favor but he conceded.
Pro is the only one to provide sources, so while arguments are a tie, this one actually gives the point to Pro.
Pro wins.
Finally, Weaver's voting privileges are back.
Neither side does a particularly good job at arguing their case.
Con cites the views of philosophers to argue that beauty is objective, but he would have done better by laying out the framework for what is objectively beautiful. A hierarchy of standards. Then he should have laid out empirical evidence indicating that either the majority of society perceives this the same way, or somehow demonstrate it is true. Now Con does a good job at explaining the differences between taste and beauty, arguing that exploring the diversity of beauty of different things is how the perceiver develops his taste. But nothing conclusive that suggests to me objective beauty is even a thing. As I don't even know what meets the standard for objective beauty.
Pro wisely lays out the definitions and explains that beauty manifests in different forms/categories. He even slightly elaborates on how not all women chase after the same man and the point he goes for suggests that beauty is relative, differing from person to person. However, he would have done better by providing more examples and situations to demonstrate how differently people think. He should have explored this a little more in depth. As this doesn't really retort Con's position about 'taste,' which would have been an epic comeback retort if Con hadn't forfeited.
As both sides rely only on their own personal opinions and anecdotal evidence and agree that God exists. I am simply left to conclude that arguments are a tie.
Sources are a tie.
But Con forfeited, so Pro wins the conduct point.
Full concession by Con.
Con conceded the debate with this very admission, "All I have done was to neutralize this argument, as there is no evidence nor counterevidence for God creating water itself, nullifying Pro's case, bringing it back to the middle ground. We have no evidence on whether God created water molecules as water molecules or let water molecules form from smaller and more fundamental molecules such as fermions. In this case, we can say neither."
There seems to be a misunderstanding with the resolution because using scientific retorts do not count as supporting your side. The description was very clear about, "The burden of proof is on both sides. Pro must prove with Bible chapter and verse(s) that God created water, that God created darkness. The con side must prove with Bible book, chapter and verse(s) that God did not create water and darkness."
So Pro wins, by being the only side to provide a verse that proves God created water and darkness. Con needed a biblical verse to counteract this.
Full concession by Con.
Concession by Con.
Forfeiture.
This resolution needs to be Kritik'd.
Because the description doesn't make it clear which side Pro or Con is for and this needs to be established BEFORE the debate starts, not after.
Also, Pro forfeited. So Mall wins.
Not telling.
Just a precaution to circumvent any potential troll vote-bombs by sock accounts for Pro.
Not naming names, but you know who you are. Me, Public-Choice, and Novice do too.
Pro brought forth too many good arguments and Con had terrible grammar.
I’m already biased towards Con because pineapple on PIZZA? 🤢
Good argument + Pro’s forfeiture= Con’s victory.
There is a huge gap between Pro and Con. While I am ideologically aligned with Pro which is my bias, Con approaches this with superior knowledge and authority on the subject that it makes me favor his side.
Pro is arguing for using stoicism selectively, picking and choosing which values to adopt to enhance your own life. His side therefore seems to support an independent and more individualist way of thinking where you take and learn from separate ideologies. That overall, it’s better for someone’s mindset to prioritize diversity over putting Stoicism on a pedestal. Pro’s argument is that stoicism and hedonism aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Con argues that it is insufficient to cherry-pick beliefs and that Stoicism requires a full commitment in order to obtain true happiness. In round 1, Con implies I must vote down Pro because him using the description as his Round 1 argument and the limited character count puts him at a disadvantage. I’m not going to oblige this request for two reasons.:
1. It’s not against the rules for debaters to use their description as their round 1 argument.
2. It’s a silly demand.
Con argues that devotion to one school of thought is inherently better than being indecisive and following multiple schools.
Pro had one good example, regarding the MMA fighter but he didn’t do a very good job at supporting his side or defending against Con’s brutal attacks. So Con wins for arguments.
Spelling & grammar is a tie.
Both sides utilized sources for their points, so it’s a tie.
Conduct is a tie.
Con conceded.
Concession.
Forfeiture.