Total votes: 84
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.
Con begins by arguing that anarcho-capitalism is a paradox. That its priority of freedom cannot co-exist with a value system, without an authority to enforce these values because anyone is free to deviate from these expectations and there’s nothing to hold them accountable. Con anticipates the possibility of violence in these situations and how banks, as well as greedy people could seek to take power and there’s no system to prevent this.
Pro counters by pointing out that Libertarianism is more hypocritical because the claims of valuing a Free Market Economy are contradicted by the way they operate Police, Courts...Ect. Pro mentions they oppose aggression and violence, but police are free to use lethal force.
Con made a valid point of the lack of police would be unable to stop robberies and Pro’s retort here is the weakest when he counters by saying the individual could defend themselves.
Overall, Pro does a better job of arguing that an anarcho-capitalist system could resolve issues diplomatically and points out that Con is making bold claims and not arguing the resolution he set.
Point goes to Pro for arguments. Both sides provided enough sources for on-balance, so it’s a tie.
Everything else is also a tie.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Pro starts off arguing that there are risks to cannabis, such as a heart attack and how they contribute to obesity. He mentions a study performed on mice to back up this claim.
Con wisely lays out the definitions and specifies a shared burden of proof. Con points out how cannabis may be used to treat seizures and muscle spasms, thus disproving the statement that cannabis cannot be used medicinally. Pro concedes by acknowledging that Con is right but tries to deviate from the resolution he set. It is this re-establishing of his position that ultimately proves to be his achilles heel.
Pro used no sources, so this gives the point to Con.
Spelling and grammar are a tie.
Both are civil throughout, so conduct is a tie.
Pro starts off mentioning that trans athletes should be allowed to compete according to their gender identity.
Pro mentions that the costs are cheaper and states that students would have overall better mental health.
Con counters by pointing out the likelihood of abuse and mentioning the genetic advantages biological males have over females.
Arguments are almost equal, but Con's reasoning is stronger. So, this gives him the point for arguments.
If this had been an on-balance, I would have awarded the point to Pro for using sources. Since the BOP is not specified, this means the BOP is on Pro. So I'll leave sources as a tie.
Forfeiture.
Pro starts off the debate with a Strawman and proceeds to direct personal attacks at Con by labeling him 'autistic' as an insult.
Con mentions a list of conditions that make it burdensome or even downright lethal to stay on a vegetarian diet. Pro doesn't counter or refute these arguments, so they stay uncontested.
Forfeiture.
The resolution makes this debate entirely subjective.
Pro starts off by cherry-picking verses from the Quaran to paint it in the worst possible light without providing context. Con responds to these by listing the beliefs and ethics that the Muslims practice, even refuting Pro's argument by elaborating on the context of one the verses. The specific quote about Muslims' hostility towards Christians/Jews was explained by Con as a time where Islam was the minority and they were victims of persecution by Judaism and Christianity.
In the second round, Pro destroys his entire argument by admitting it is an opinion. He makes irrelevant statements like the fact that Islam isn't real and continues to cherry-pick verses. He accuses Muhammad of marrying a child. Con refutes all of these by extending his arguments from the previous round and pointing out that most modern translations depict Aisha as being 19 years old.
Pro only pulls sources from the Quaran. Con uses sources from several websites, so this win goes to Con.
It's a tie on spelling, grammar, and conduct.
So Pro starts off by defending the benefits of Christianity by observing the effects it has on reducing crime, lowering divorce rates, and creating stronger relationships between people.
Con tries too hard to force a narrative that Christianity’s toxicity is harmful to children. (The concept of eternal fire.) He doubles down on the trauma it causes and goes as far to wish this suffering on Pro and make deliberate personal attacks.
This argument would have been successful if he went into detail about specific disorders like PTSD and talked about the damage cults do.
Pro refuses to take the bait and calmly refutes Con’s arguments by mentioning that Hell is a deterrent for crime. Con proceeds to make a lot of disturbing statements for shock value like suggesting Pro needs to be crucified.
Con approached this debate with a lot more aggression and hostility than in other debates.
Spelling and grammar was equal. Conduct goes to Pro clearly.
Pro used sources, Con didn’t.
All in all, yikes.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
I must say, I'm really impressed with Con.
Con starts off very strong. He lays out the definitions which establishes the framework for quality and clarifies that it is an "on-balance" debate. His first argument uses the website "Kialo" as an example. He provides the statistical data which shows high numbers in regard to contributions, claims and votes, using this as evidence that their website has grown significantly. The argument's strength is based on the satisfaction on the high supply of users. Con's second contention is that DART is currently high-quality, and he uses Google Lighthouse to assess the score and compare it with a website such as DebateIsland. In showing that Dart's score is higher, Con makes the point with data indicating DART is a high-quality site.
Con's third argument is fairly weak when he tries to say that DART is in a good state. He makes vague claims by saying there are a lot of active users but fails to specify an exact number. Con does elaborate that there are currently 41 debates in the debating stage, but there is a lack of evidence and information required. Firstly, what does Con mean by "good state?" How many active users are on the website? Are there enough moderators? It's questions like these that remain unanswered.
Pro starts off by introducing some new terminology to explain the difference between a "discussion" and a "debate." He states that Kialo is not an applicable example because it isn't a "debate" site. He uses the definitions of the terms to highlight how Kialo's criteria makes it a "discussion" site. While Pro is providing reasonable explanations for this distinction to exist, this argument still falls flat because it appears based on his own interpretation of what constitutes a debate site vs a discussion site. Just because Kialo isn't a traditional debate site doesn't disqualify it from being a valid example. The only way this rebuttal could be successful is if Pro managed to prove that a second category of the website existed, but the homepage of Kialo shows it is categorized as a 'debate site,' despite the differing definitions.
Pro unsuccessfully attacks Con's argument about DART being in a good state by comparing it to DDO. This argument is invalid because DDO is a dead site. The resolution addresses only "current debate sites." So this point is void from Pro.
Spelling and sources are a tie. Conduct is also a tie.
Con used data, evidence, and research to back his constructive arguments. Pro uses semantics to explain how Kialo is not a valid example, but these technicalities are insufficient on their own to establish how Kialo isn't a debate site. Furthermore, Pro's second rebuttal would have held more weight if he hadn't compared DART to a website that no longer exists.
This is a victory for Con.
Pro was wise to word the resolution as cleverly as he did “most likely.” This removes some pressure, as he isn’t arguing an absolute. His major error was in not specifying the burden of proof, which is essentially what did him in at the end. If he had made this an “on-balance” debate, the responsibility of providing evidence would be on equal footing.
Pro’s first way of starting the round is very intelligent. The six laws of logic he invokes as evidence for a creator are similar to Thomas Aquinas’s Five Proofs of God. He has a variety of sources to defend these points. Con does a great job at carefully dismantling these statements by applying scientific logic. His example that we have no way to compare the design of the universe to other universes was a brilliant retort to Pro’s argument that design requires a designer. Con wisely points out that Pro has not met his standard for proof.
Pro starts off the second round by reaffirming the resolution as an attempt to declare what Con’s position should be, but it’s too late because the BOP should have been clarified before the match. Pro gets off-track here by turning this into an argument about semantics when he could have used this opportunity to support his six contentions from the first round. Pro confusingly says he concedes, which is a pretty vague statement.
Con spends this round correcting Pro’s assumption about the burden of proof and goes into detail about the definition of the words “most likely,” and elaborates more on his rebuttals from the previous round.
Pro starts off the last round with desperation by trying to retort Con’s interpretation of the rebuttal and once again, trying to shift the conversation to semantics. Con ends his last final words by rejecting Pro’s statements on the basis that they are fallacies, and thoroughly analyzes why his examples do not hold up.
At the end, it is clear that Pro has not the burden of proof he inadvertently set for himself which Con points out. Con takes the point for arguments.
Both had consistent spelling and grammar, and demonstrated good conduct. It’s equal on both of these points.
Pro has variety of links to support his contentions while Con’s use of sources is very scarce.
So it’s settled then. It’s a tie.
Pro argues that the infamy of the drug legalization debate is due to media hype and incompetent journalism. And that poor education is the common denominator for drug-related deaths. He states that the rates of drug deaths are due to the government outlawing drugs, forcing users to resort to illegal means of obtaining them. The other way is they contaminated the drug supply in order to perpetuate the anti-drug propaganda.
Con states Pro is going off-topic and is lacking consideration for the damage drugs cause children, teens, and babies. Con mentions that the medical benefits of drugs are simply not good enough to even consider legalizing them through implying there are more cons than pros. Con points out how date-rape drugs will make it easier for predators to abduct their prey. He also states that legalizing drugs would cause a short-lived increase in gang violence.
Pro and Con go back and forth. Pro questions Con’s knowledge on the subject by comparing illegal drugs to prescription drugs. Pro mentions Portugal already legalizes drugs and their death rate is low, compared to a country like Switzerland. Con shows sources that illustrate how quitting drugs is difficult and results in severe side effects. However, Con’s other claims remain unsubstantiated like his statements about the increase in gang violence and that it will destroy lives. Pro’s original arguments emphasize that drugs can be used safely and that education needs to teach how to use drugs safely instead of preaching abstinence. Con argues these drugs are too dangerous and Pro counters by pointing out the law enables things like alcohol which is equally as harmful and that these things are a double standard. Pro also argues that 85% of drug users are functional members of society and aren’t addicts. Pro also says legalizing drugs can reduce unnecessary convictions.
Con fails to address the statistics of Portugal or the information about Dr. Craig mentioned by Pro. This means arguments and sources go to Pro. Con had good sources that gave information about drug-related symptoms, but not enough to corroborate the claims he made.
Con wins a point for Conduct because there are several vicious attacks by Pro when he implies Con is stupid, and when he states Con is incapable of comprehending the subject matter.
Both had good spelling and grammar.
Pro provides multiple arguments for why a school uniform should be implemented. There are an abundance of sources defending this point. Such as the argument that it reduces violence and promotes hierarchical equality.
Con’s response is low-effort and too short, failing to address the many reasons of this. Con claims he’ll do rebuttals in round 2.
Pro forfeits the next round. Con claims that Pro refutes his own argument, but once again, this argument is low-effort and contains few lines. Con lacks an explanation as to why. This response contains no counter-arguments or sources.
In round 3, Pro points out the lack of arguments and proof from Con regarding disadvantages of school uniforms. Pro points out that uniforms will encourage students to dress for success and cites a study about how rules will lead to better discipline.
Con’s reply doesn’t make it clear exactly what his position is. He agrees with Pro on the point that school uniform should be based on what is most helpful for students.
But beyond that, none of this refutes or goes against what Pro is saying. So my main question is, what does Con think about whether or not schools should enforce school uniforms? Because I cannot currently determine his thoughts on the matter.
Forfeiture.
Concession.
This is a very close one.
Pro's argument is that the goal of incorporating Cross-Examining should be to explore the levels of an opponent's points deeper in order to get to the truth and that honesty should be prioritized over the conventional parlor tricks normally used to win a debate. The example of how cross-examining is used in courts to highlight deceptiveness and inconsistencies is a great one that supports Pro's point. While Pro does make convincing statements concerning the use of CE and gives great examples that would be ideal for those striving for logical consistency, he fails to provide reasons for why we need CE and there is a lack of an explanation of why CE is even necessary. There's also a lack of sources or empirical evidence that would even suggest that the use of CE would be beneficial for a site like CE.
While Con may not be wrong, he is ignoring the first half of the Resolution. Con mentions that the active userbase on DART is currently very small and that adding CE runs the risk of pushing customers away. This is a compelling reason, but it makes a very bold claim that speaks with such certainty, but Con provides no evidence to suggest that this is even true. It's based only on personal feeling. Furthermore, just because Con admits he personally would stop using the site, how can he infer that others would do the same? This argument is sufficient enough on its own simply with the mention of the amount of people currently using the site and the risk that it would cause, but just because it's a good argument doesn't make it a valid rebuttal simply because it doesn't address the topic's first clause, "If incorporating CE is easy,"
The rest of Con's rebuttal explains that of all the people on DART, this is the first time anyone has requested the need for CE. This is a valid rebuttal because it demonstrates why CE is unnecessary. However, the rest of Con's argument goes on explaining why adding CE would be too difficult which completely misses the mark by failing to acknowledge the prompt.
Pro counters this by mentioning Con's lack of evidence, suggesting the potential that CE could have in the future and that it adds more diversity in terms of options for debating. Pro also mentions that Con's argument about time management is lacking evidence and points out that he is ignoring the title of the debate. The comparison between the judicial system and DART was a strong one, Pro calls out Con for dismissing this example by implying that he was using a False Equivalence fallacy without giving details to back this up. Pro accuses Con of using a Generalization fallacy and uses Con's own actions to attempt to prove the need for Cross-Examination, which was a really desperate tactic and inconsistent with Pro's own philosophy.
Round 3 is where Con presents his strongest case. He firsthand demonstrates at best how CE could even be counter-productive by illustrating that if Pro's goal is to discover the truth of an argument, CE runs the risk of only making the opponent's argument stronger. That it could possibly backfire. In this round, Con also picks a part the example used by Pro previously, by elaborating on the distinction between the judicial system and an internet debate forum through suggesting that using a form of arguing used by lawyers could be deconstructed on an informal setting like the forums. Con also points out that the forums already have everything that Pro could ever ask for.
Both opponents forfeited a round and Pro failed to meet the criteria for the Burden of Proof while Con struggled, but eventually pulled through.
In conclusion, Pro mentions great advantages of a CE system but fails to demonstrate the need for it. Remember, the word "should" in the title. DART "should" add CE. The main question remains unanswered, why "should" DART add CE? Meanwhile, Con's arguments are great but don't address the resolution until the very end by demonstrating the potential failures of CE and how it is unnecessary for DART.
Con also provided more sources by pulling directly from the website as an example.
Better arguments.
And Pro forfeited.
Several things.
Pro is making bold claims, but does not include any empirical evidence (sources at all, for that matter.) to suggest that any of these solutions would work as a long-term strategy.
Furthermore, the forfeiture of the rounds and then making up rules in the final, which were never mentioned in the description are considered void.
Con presents his arguments and offers sources.
The resolution makes this difficult to win as Pro.
There are certainly relevant points by Pro, such as mentioning how school doesn’t necessarily teach skills that are valuable or how teachers are underpaid, but the evidence of these claims is only supported by anecdotes. Pro doesn’t provide other means of evidence to support this.
Con refuted quite a few of these claims by proving that his argument aligned with the proper definition and provided links to source his evidence.
Pro’s grammar was semi-okay, but it could use more commas to make it more legible. Pro also mispells a few words. Con’s grammar and punctuation was 100% readable and spot-on for each of the rounds.
The two were mutually respectful, so it’s a tie on conduct.
Pro gives a few opinionated statements for why Kim Jong Un is good, using nukes as the primary reason. That he can keep the United States in check should we ever go rogue, and he promotes independent thinking but contradicts himself by stating he prevents his own people from leaving. These reasons on their own are insubstantial to justify the claim that Kim Jong Un is good, unless the resolution is being good at being a tyrant.
Now Con appeals to specific, very elaborate cases that prove Kim Jong Un abuses his power such as restricting expression, forcing people into labor camps, and rigging the election so he wins every-time. Con provides greater arguments for why Kim Jong Un is acting in ways that can be construed as bad, and he provides sources to substantiate said claims.
Also, Pro forfeited the last round.
Forfeiture.
Pro's writing and style makes it somewhat difficult to follow his arguments. Con's structure, on the other hand is legible and stylish. Everything is labeled correctly, and he is consistent with grammar and punctuation.
Pro's point that bible-believers shouldn't celebrate Christmas is based on the lack of a mention of Christmas in scripture and not the actual birth of Jesus. Con counters these two points by stating that a lack of a mention is not condemnation and that it would be useless to try and figure out the actual birthdate because nobody knows. Pro does not refute this, nor does he counter Con's argument that the Burden of Proof is on him.
Con cites his sources directly from scripture and includes them in his following statements. After this, Pro acknowledges Con's points but only repeats his original arguments instead of providing new contentions or a rebuttal.
Novice picks this a part logically and skillfully in an organized way. The excessive length of Mall's arguments is immediately picked a part by Novice's shorter responses.
Better argument and rebuttal.
Pro’s forfeiture.