Total votes: 123
RFD in comments.
Con forfeited half the rounds, leaving Pro's arguments unrefuted. Interesting topic, though.
An interesting read. Thank you to the participants for this debate.
The resolution is "The point of being a Christian is not to be a good person." Con, then, would have the burden of proof to show that that is the point of being a Christian. It's hard to tell whether Pro merely needs to show that that isn't the point or whether he needs to support an alternative, since the debate does not make that clear.
The debate doesn't really start until Round 2. Pro begins with an argument that Christians are saved in spite of their sin, so being a good person isn't necessary. Good works, or being a good person, are the result of a change of heart and not the point of Christianity. He also argues that it is impossible for humans to be good by God's standards. Con answers this by saying that, even though it is impossible for humans to be perfect, that doesn't mean that perfection isn't the goal. Furthermore, he points to commands such as "love one another" as evidence that Christians should strive to be perfect.
In Round 3, Pro answers Con's objections by distinguishing between salvation and sanctification. Being a good person is an example of sanctification, but that is different from salvation. He also states what he says is the point of being a Christian: "God is going to restore things to the way they were in the Garden of Eden. One in which we are in relationship with God and ruling over the Earth with Him. The point is to go back to that relationship." Con almost totally wastes his third round. He argues that many of the verses Pro has cited support the idea of being a good person and also argues that many Christians have been accepted by God by repenting and being a good person.
Pro argues in Round 4 that people are saved solely through repentance and forgiveness. To quote him, "Being a good person in our standards is worthless when the true standard to judge good implies we're all wretches." Con argues that the Bible says that we should become like God, who is perfect. Even though that is an unattainable goal, it is still the goal of becoming good.
Pro argues in Round 5 that being a good person isn't the point. They don't save, although they are a part of the process of sanctification. He again asserts that the point of Christianity is to restore the original relationship between God and man. Con argues that there is no difference between that and being a good person.
Con didn't put a lot of effort into the debate, but his arguments outmaneuver Pro's wordiness. Con's argument that the purpose Pro propose is indistinguishable from being a good person is enough to win, since Pro never really explains how they are different. Arguments to Con.
Conduct was excellent. There were no issues with S&G. Pro did cite a few sources but failed to provide links to them (the summary of Romans and the gospel). However, neither of those really impacted his arguments, so I won't dock him for that.
It would have been nice to see Con put more effort into this. He did the bare minimum required to win, which is technically enough, though not very satisfying. Pro needs to work on relating his arguments back to the point he's trying to prove or disprove. Brevity and additional clarity would have really helped his case.
That being said, this debate was good to read. Thanks to both participants.
Concession.
Concession, and Pro didn't source his claims, as Con pointed out. Even so, Pro is improving. I would suggest learning how to source arguments next.
Concession.
Con conceded after forfeiting twice.
Pro argues for the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. He suggests that this standard would not support one round debates. He argues that the first side would almost certainly lose because they don't have a chance to respond to the second side's arguments. Con counters that the Lincoln-Douglas format doesn't rule out one round debates. He also argues that there is no reason to limit debate instigators by eliminating one round debates; if they choose to have one round debates, who is to say they shouldn't? Pro drops this point and reiterates his contention that the first side would lose because they couldn't answer the second side's arguments. Con responds that they can anticipate and address objections to their cases; he points to attorneys as an example.
Pro had the burden of proof here. I think Con was able to provide a decent response to his case. Crucially, Pro dropped Con's argument that instigators should be allowed to start one round debates if they so choose without being limited in that regard. Arguments to Con.
There were no issues with sources, S&G, or conduct.
Concession.
Concession.
Concession.
Two forfeits from Con left Pro's argument unrefuted.
Interesting topic. Thanks to both debaters for a good read.
Arguments:
Pro opens by arguing that civil disobedience gives the populace political clout that can protect natural rights or oppose unjust policies. He cites Gandhi's resistance to the salt tax as an example. He also points out that people are more inclined to support civil disobedience than violent resistance.
Con counters with a Kritik undermining Pro's case. She argues that morality is an abstraction. Since the change sought by civil disobedience is physical, it is out of the bounds of morality. Thus, while civil disobedience may be politically justified, it is not morally justified.
Pro attempts to get around this Kritik by citing the definition of morality and showing how civil disobedience fulfills that definition. He also protests against Con's arguments by pointing to extreme cases such as murder not being unjust by Con's standard. He also argues that, for example, removing the salt tax is abstract and not physical and consequently has a moral dimension.
Con turns Pro's definition back on him. It says that morality "would be put forward by all rational people." Since the government has rational reasons to oppose civil disobedience, civil disobedience would not be put forward as right by all rational people. Thus, Pro's definition works against him. She also points out that a majority of Americans, at least some of whom are rational people, opposed the civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement, using Pro's definition against him once again. She also points out that removing the salt tax would have physical consequences, so it is still amoral.
Pro argues that even a rational majority that opposes civil disobedience does not negate the ability of the minority to seek change. While true, this contradicts his definition, decimating his previous argument. Finally, he argues that Con has shown that there is anything inherently wrong with civil disobedience.
Con counters once again that governments have rational reasons to oppose civil disobedience. She argues that the wrongness of civil disobedience is that it violates the code of conduct (i.e. law and order) and leads to chaos.
Overall, Con outmaneuvered Pro at every turn. She undermined his foundation for morality and used his definition for morality against him. The arguments points clearly go to Con here.
No issues with S&G, conduct, or sources.
I would recommend to both debaters that they need to work on staying on message. While the debate was interesting and fun to read, both of you were just responding to each other and ignoring the arguments you made earlier in the debate. By the end of the debate, there was very little left of the arguments both of you made in the first round. Regardless, this was still a good debate to read. You made it fun for me to vote on it. Thanks.
Pro conceded in the final round.
Concession.
Concession.
Concession.
Basically a concession.
For all the words and arguments thrown around in this debate, it's really very simple. In order for the premise to stand, not a single atheist or agnostic can convert to theism. Con provided the counterexample of himself, an atheist who became a theist. Thus, the resolution is negated. Pro never responds to this argument.
Con's "blarg" was more convincing than Pro's "blah."
Oh, there was a concession as well.
Concession.
Con didn't use the letter 'E', fulfilling his BoP.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Arguments:
Deterrence
Con says that nuclear deterrence doesn't solve the problem of mistrust and fear. He also says that it causes leaders to judge whether other countries are sufficient threats. He also points out that the UN has decided to ban nuclear weapons. Pro replies that conflict will come. Thus, why should should countries deliberately weaken themselves? Con replies that international tensions with nukes are worse than without. He claims that if countries like the US and Russia gave up their nukes, they could convince rogue states to give up their nukes without having to use nukes. He also claims that the possibility that a country might break the treaty and secretly keep nukes merely proves that such countries have no right to have them. Pro replies that nukes are a necessary evil. "To expect countries to to lay down the greatest weapon they can achieve, to leave themselves defenseless, is folly." Con counters that nukes are WMD, violent, and unnecessary. He says that if rogue states keep their nukes, other nations should not lower themselves to use nukes. Pro reiterates his previous assertions that nukes are necessary and nations should not leave themselves defenseless.
Neither side does a good job of addressing each other's arguments on the question of deterrence. Both drop some of the other's points here. This point seems to be a wash.
Cost
Con also brings up the issue of how expensive nukes are. Pro doesn't address this. However, I'm really failing to see how a price tag relates to national rights. This is also a wash.
Accidental Detonation
Con claims that there are 32 instances of accidental nuclear detonation. Pro's only response is a comparison to powder cartridges, which seems to be to much of a stretch to be analogous. Con has an advantage here, but fails to press the issue after R1. Also, he kind of shoots himself in the foot by also bringing up the passage of safety policies meant to prevent future accidental detonations.
Sovereign Rights
This is Pro's strongest point. If a country doesn't have the right to nuclear weapons, how can it truly be sovereign? Con counters that "Pro's case is also self-defeating as the country secretly keeping weapons is violating our trust and further supporting the idea that it shouldn't have the right to nuclear weapons." This is one of Con's stronger points as well. If a country violates trust, why should it have the right to the most powerful weapons in existence? On the other hand, if it doesn't have that right, how can it be a truly sovereign nation? Neither debater really advances this point any further and instead merely restate their points.
Overall, arguments are tied. Neither debater did a good job of directly addressing the other's arguments or developing the points they made themselves. There were points of interest, but there isn't anything to make me award argument points either way.
Sources:
Con had sources, whereas Pro did not. However, Con fails to utilize them convincingly. He only uses them in R1. A good source-based argument could have won this debate, but Con just doesn't even try to source anything after the first round. No points awarded here.
No issues with S&G or Conduct.
Concession
Pro focused his arguments on three points: the possibility of governments abusing ES tech, the possibility of black markets using ES tech for nefarious purposes, and the possibility that ES tech would not be able to actually solve problems.
Government Abuse:
Pro argues that governments could use this technology to wipe their people's memories, turning them into slave. Con points out that this would only remove knowledge and not erase their personal agency. Thus, it would fail to make people into slaves. Furthermore, it would be incredibly expensive to do this on a large scale. Pro has no refutation for this.
Black Markets:
Pro also argues that ES tech would be dangerous in the hands of criminals. For instance, a rapist might erase the victim's memory every day, allowing him to continue raping her. Con argues that ES tech would be too expensive and require too much expertise to be used by the black market. Furthermore, erasing the victim's memory would not erase the other evidence for the crime.
Failure to Solve Problems:
Pro's case here is a little murky. He seems to argue that erasing people's memories could harm their identities, that people with erased memories might decide to sue for their memory loss, and that it might not actually solve addiction or trauma. Con points out that ES tech doesn't need to be 100% effective to still be a good thing and that the benefits from helping the vast number of people with trauma and addiction outweighs possible failures.
Con's case, at its heart, is simply that ES tech could help millions of people get over trauma and addictions, which would be a huge benefit to those millions as individuals and to society in general. Pro just can't answer this effectively, nor can he answer Con's refutations of his case. Arguments to Con.
Sources: Con presented a large number of reliable sources explaining the vast scope of problems that ES tech could solve, giving him a powerful offense. Pro has zero sources to back anything he says. Sources to Con.
No issues with S&G or conduct. Pro could have organized his arguments better, but it was still easy to follow.
Pro opens by arguing that assault weapons are unnecessary because people can defend themselves with other firearms like shotguns or pistols. He also claims, but notably fails to source, that banning assault weapons would reduce the crime rate. He also presents statistics on how frequently guns are used in violent crimes.
Con almost completely wastes his opener with complaints that Pro didn't define assault weapons. The only thing that might be relevant here is his point that pistols, which Pro agrees are a valid tool for self-defense, might qualify as assault weapons.
Pro immediately solves this by producing a definition of assault weapons and points out that Con didn't refute any of his arguments.
Con then argues that defensive gun uses are at least as common as the use of guns in crime. He argues that assault weapons can be used for self-defense and points to the Sutherland Springs shooting as an example.
Pro points out that Con is just cherry picking by only using one example and says that pistols are just as good for self-defense. He then links to a list of mass shootings and claims that there is an average of one death in a mass shooting every day. He also claims that in only one of the shootings was committed with a pistol that wasn't an assault weapon.
Con responds by quoting Stephen Willeford, hero of the Sutherland Springs shooting, who said that he might not have successfully stopped the shooter if he had used a pistol. He again repeats his claim that assault weapons are good for self-defense. He also links a study saying that banning assault weapons doesn't reduce crime.
Overall, I'm not really convinced by either side. Both brought some irrelevant arguments like how frequently guns are used in crime or self-defense. Neither of those statistics are specific to assault weapons, so they don't tell us anything. Pro had the BOP here, since he was making the positive claim. His best arguments were that banning assault weapons would reduce crime and mass shootings and that they are unnecessary. However, he does this in a very haphazard fashion. He doesn't source his claim that banning assault weapons would reduce crime. He pointed out how assault weapons are used in mass shootings, but neglected to show that banning assault weapons would actually prevent mass shootings. For instance, how do we know that criminals would still get hold of assault weapons or that they wouldn't just use other weapons? Pro's argument makes some sense on the surface and is a point in his favor, but it is still a leap to get from "assault weapons are used in mass shootings" to "banning assault weapons would prevent mass shootings." His argument that assault weapons are unnecessary is better, especially since Con's refutation (the Stephen Willeford quote) is simply cherry picking one man's opinion rather than giving evidence. On the other hand, Con doesn't really convince either. He argues the point of self-defense, but only tells us how frequently guns in general are used for self-defense, without providing specific data about assault rifles. His strongest point is a study that banning assault weapons doesn't reduce crime. However, it's in the last round. If Con had introduced this argument earlier, it could have won the debate. But in the last round, although this wasn't against the rules of this debate, Pro has no chance to respond. Given how late this argument was presented and how underwhelming his earlier arguments were, Con doesn't win the arguments. Thus, arguments are a tie.
Sources seemed equal, as did S&G and conduct. I just didn't see anything in this debate that would give either debater the win.
This debate was a little weird because it was more of a continuation of the original debate than it was a debate over whether fauxlaw won the original debate. Since both debaters spent time on both topics, it is a little hard for me to decide what the real topic of this debate is, making any decision a little fuzzy. That being said, I'll endeavor to piece it together.
Pro opens the debate by claiming that money brings happiness because we as humans are conditioned to think that it does, at least indirectly. Pro's second point attacks the quality of fauxlaw's arguments in the original debate. I can't figure out what the first sentence of that paragraph means since no context is provided. The second sentence is clearer. Pro argues that fauxlaw tried to use a music video as evidence, which, according to Pro, proved nothing. His third point says that taking away the money in all the examples used in the original debate takes away the happiness, which caused fauxlaw's argued to collapse (according to Pro).
Con counters Pro's first point by saying that Pro misused the example of Pavlov's dogs. In the original experiment, Pavlov actually brought the food to the dog. In Pro's example, people are being shown the money, not brought it. Con claims that this changes the experiment because people in such a case wouldn't actually be using the money, and thus could not use it to buy anything. Con then turns to his positive argument. Merely possessing money does not make one happy, he claims, citing a an article that says that the level of income does not have as much of an impact on happiness as how the income is used. Con then asks what, if money can bring happiness, is the price of happiness?
Pro starts Round 2 by saying that Con conceded by saying that he lost the original debate. However, since the premise of this debate is that he lost the argument in the debate, this is irrelevant. It is theoretically possible to win the argument and still lose the debate. Pro then defends his second point by saying that if he kept bringing people money, it would eventually bring happiness. He concludes Round 2 with what is easily his best, and also most amusing, argument. In answer to Con's almost rhetorical question about the price of happiness, he points out that for $140, you can buy dopamine, a chemical that makes people feel happy.
Con begins Round 2 by going back to Pro's third point about the music video and explaining why he thought it was a good example of how money doesn't bring happiness. He then distinguishes between happiness and pleasure, citing research indicating that they are different. Since dopamine stimulates pleasure, this effectively refutes Pro's best argument, although it fails to lessen the amusement derived from seeing such a clever answer to a rhetorical question.
Pro again repeats his claim that Con conceded. See above where I discuss that. He then points out that the music video only offers ideas, not evidence. Finally, he points to an article saying that pleasure can cause people to experience a bit of happiness.
Con opens his final round by pointing out that voters may only consider the content of this debate and not the original debate. He then returns to the idea that money can indirectly bring happiness by what it can buy. He states that indirectly bringing is not the same as bringing; it is the wrong causal relationship. Con then attempts to explain how the music video did present an argument. He then turns Pro's source back upon him, pointing out that the article that said that pleasure can cause people to experience happiness is actually devoted to explaining how pleasure is different than happiness. Having distinguished between happiness and pleasure, he says that money cannot buy happiness, although it can buy pleasure.
Overall, I think Con got the upper hand in arguments. Pro just didn't spend enough time formulating, explaining, and fleshing out arguments. That being said, he was able to score some points with what little he did write. Although Pro put only a little effort into attacking the music video argument, Con's arguments that it was evidence, however well-written, fall flat. Con really wins with his evidence that pleasure is separate from happiness. This logically circumvents most of the debate because it gives him a solid basis to claim that money can only bring pleasure, not happiness. Pro's counter that pleasure can give feelings of happiness is decent, but only succeeds in giving Con the perfect chance to hammer his point home. Pro, rather foolishly, picked a quote that supported his point out of an article that, for the most part, undermined his point. Con took this chance to use Pro's source against him, and did it very convincingly. Thus, Con wins on sources as well.
Conduct and S&G were tied.
Full Forfeit and Plagiarism.
Concession. I applaud both Pro and Con for being able to create, think through, and analyze such mind-numbing madness. Once I was able to unravel the logic in my head, it was quite entertaining to read. It was really easy to see how Pro's experience in programming helped him in this debate.
Full Forfeit. That being said, I believe Con managed to list every single bit of evidence for ancient aliens there is. Impressive!
This was a really weird debate to read because Con completely misinterpreted what the debate was about. Pro was trying to make the case that homosexual marriages and incestuous marriages can be supported by the same arguments. However, he did not make this sufficiently clear, leading Con to think that the debate was about whether such marriages should be legal, rather than whether they can be supported by the same arguments. The result of this confusion was that the majority of Con's arguments had nothing to do with the topic.
Pro argued that both homosexual and incestuous marriages can be supported by the argument that people should be allowed to marry whoever they love. Con's first contention that incest leads to genetic problems in the offspring does succeed in attacking the resolution that homosexuality and incest can be supported on the same grounds, because that isn't a problem for homosexuality. His second contention that familial and sexual love might contend with each other illustrates another difference between homosexuality and incest, although it isn't backed by a source and is therefore weaker. His third contention fails to attack the resolution because it attempts to refute the idea that people should be allowed to marry whoever they love. That is irrelevant because his BOP was to show that homosexuality and incest can't be supported by the same arguments. Whether or not those same arguments can be refuted is irrelevant here; what matters is whether they apply to both homosexuality and incest. After that, Con spends the rest of the debate attacking the wrong resolution. None of his later arguments come close to relevancy.
Pro does offer a refutation to Con's first contention by arguing that incestuous couples could use contraception or abstinence to avoid having offspring, solving most of the genetic problem. Con concedes that is a decent point. Pro spends the rest of the debate vainly trying to get Con back on topic and doesn't make any more relevant arguments. Thus, the only relevant arguments left standing were Pro's contention that the argument that people should be allowed to marry who they love supports both homosexual and incestuous marriages and Con's contention that familial and sexual love might endanger family relations. I would have liked Con to support that with a source to show that it actually happens. Since there isn't a source, I consider Pro's point, which doesn't really need a source, to be slightly stronger. Arguments to Pro.
Sources: Pro had no sources to speak of, but didn't make any arguments that needed them. The only relevant sources Con had supported the point that he later conceded. Sources are tied.
S&G and Conduct: I'm going to penalize Pro for the all caps and repetition. They made it more annoying to read and were poor conduct because all caps are online shouting. I've listed this as an offense in both S&G and Conduct because it's relevant to both of them, but I will only penalize him on conduct. Although it was poor style, I don't think it was quite serious enough to penalize his S&G points because it didn't really make it any harder to read, although it was annoying.
Due to the waives, I'm counting Pro's R1 and Con's R2 as R1, and will continue in this manner throughout the debate.
R1: Pro concedes that morality is subjective. This is an interesting start, but it does give a lot of ground to Con from the get-go. He then tethers the moral obligation to subjective emotion, stating that, "I am obligated morally to do so because I am not an emotionally devoid psychopath." That is, his emotions are his obligation to help others. By tying moral obligation to emotion, he is able to argue that people without that obligation are psychopaths. Furthermore, he claims that in order to argue that people have no moral obligation to help others, one is forced to argue that morality does not exist.
The inherent problem with that argument is that Con has no issue with arguing that morality does not exist. In fact, he takes the position that, if morality is subjective, then "all moral statements are false." He also asserts that inductive reasoning is false. However, he does not provide evidence for this. Instead, he quotes a philosopher who agrees with this position. However, just because a person has a PhD next to their name does not mean that quoting their opinions is evidence. Quoted bare assertions are still bare assertions. Con also argues that individual identity does not exist. Again, rather than provide an argument to back that up, he quotes the bare assertions from people with PhDs beside their names.
Con rebuts Pro's argument by pointing to Pro's concession that morality is subjective, then it is impossible to have an objective moral obligation. He also argues that the appeal to emotions doesn't give any warrant for moral obligations.
R2: Pro misinterprets Con, thinking that Con denied our existence in total. However, his rebuttal that it would be impossible to vote for Pro as he doesn't exist still applies to Con's actual assertion that individual identity doesn't exist, so that point is effectively refuted. Pro then makes a confusing statement that Con dismisses as nonsense. That was a mistake, because after parsing it out, I found that it actually made an effective point. "I tether the win condition of Con to admit that emotions and morality rooted in obligation derived from subjective duties and meanings attributed to things." At first, this seems like mumbo jumbo. When parsed, you can see that A (emotions and morality rooted in obligation) was derived from B (subjective duties and meanings attributed to things). Pro's argument here is that morality and the obligations thereof are derived from subjective duties and subjective meanings. With this, he is attempting to draw out moral obligations from subjectivity. However, he drops Con's argument that inductive reasoning is invalid. He then repeats his assertion that denying the moral obligation to help others is to deny morality.
Con begins by repeating his argument that, if morality is subjective, there cannot be any objective moral statements. He does attempt to defend his assertion that individual identity doesn't exist by pointing to the philosophers he cited. However, as I said earlier, quoting bare assertions from people with PhDs doesn't qualify as evidence. He then admits the truth of Pro's confusing statement. However, since he's arguing that objective moral statements can't be made, acknowledging the existence of subjective morality doesn't hurt his case.
R3: Both sides essentially just restate their cases and don't introduce any new material.
Neither side had issues with sources, conduct, or S&G, so the only issue here is arguments. Pro's take on the debate is interesting. Arguing that moral obligation is derived from subjective emotion brilliantly works around Con's case. However, Con's case ultimately prevails. His argument that objective moral statements cannot be made if morality is subjective stands. By appealing to emotion, Pro makes a good case but ultimately succeeds in highlighting the failure of his side. So long as people have emotions of sympathy for others, he establishes that they have a sort of moral obligation. However, his mention of psychopaths is ultimately self-defeating, because they have no such emotions and therefore lack any obligation. He demonstrated that some people have a moral obligation to others, but failed to show that everyone does. Thus, Con wins the debate.
Congratulations to both debaters. This one was interesting and close. I think RM could have won if he'd put more effort into it and connected more dots, but that didn't happen this time around, although I was impressed by his ability to make a good argument even in a short round. Even so, both sides did well.
Pro argued that Zelensky does not have adequate experience do be president. Con's counter that Zelensky was a lawyer is weak, but sufficient to rebut Pro's argument. Arguments to Con. All other points are tied.
Forfeit. Also, Con had a far better argument. This line sealed the deal: "Not to mention, the land was legally recognized as theirs by the former owners (and most civilized countries) in 1948 [6], rather than through war as pro claims." If the owners of the land recognized Israel as legitimate, then that's a closed case, since the owners can give their land to whoever they like. Pro forfeits, so he failed to refute this argument (Posting it in the comments section doesn't count). Conduct and arguments to Con.
Concession
Full Forfeit.
Pro asserted that white Americans are unpatriotic because they would refuse to go to war against Iran if they were drafted. He also claimed that whites were responsible for the Selective Service website crashing.
Con counters that the majority of Americans oppose a war with Iran, indicating that avoiding war could be patriotic. He also points out that Pro failed to explain why refusing to be drafted is unpatriotic. Instead, he argues that it is possible to disagree with a country's actions, such as a potential draft, and still meet the definition of patriotism.
Pro doesn't have any response to this. He just repeats the same arguments.
Pro clearly failed to meet his burden of proof, whereas Con provided clear reasons negating the resolution, so Con wins arguments.
Full Forfeit.
R1
Pro: Sounded a little nasal, but it was a good song choice and an effective way to use your voice.
Con: I thought the timing seemed rushed on the verse, but the chorus was amazing.
Round 1 goes to...Con!
R2
Pro: Again, great song choice. Excellent use of emotion. Very captivating rendition.
Con: My first instinct was to try to push the fader on the soundboard to turn up your vocals. The volume of your vocals was too low. My second instinct was to pull the fader back in an attempt to combat the distortion. All mixing aside, you again had a good performance.
Round 2 goes to...Pro!
R3
Pro: Your turn to have mixing issues. The verse was much too quiet compared to the chorus. Again putting my inner nerd aside, the chorus was great and emotional, but I think I may have heard a few notes gone awry in the last verse. I'm not certain of it, though.
Con: I didn't care for the song, but it did fit your voice and you had a pretty good performance.
Round 3 goes to...Con!
R4
Pro: Once again, the verse was too quiet. Even so, I'm not judging based on mixing. It was a good song choice, and you used it well.
Con: Depressing lyrics, but a great song for your voice, and you killed it. Also, you finally hit something more my style with the rock, although I'm trying not to vote based on my preferred style of music.
Round 4 goes to...Con!
R5
Pro: Great song choice and good emotion. An excellent performance. Also, the mixing problems seemed to be resolved.
Con: Ditto. Knocked it out of the park.
Round 5 goes to...Con!
Con wins 4-1.
Good job, both of you. You've got good voices and you know how to use them.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Congratulations to both debaters. This was a highly researched, excellently argued debate that made me much more informed on this topic. If I could, I would give you both the win.
RFD in comments.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Concession