Total votes: 10
Pro's reasoning is not sufficient for the contention because a lie can also exist.
Pro's putting the cart before the horse with this one because "existence" does not always denote "truth."
Con brought up a good point of Pro's statement not having any context.
Comment:
If "This statement is true" is "A," then "A" is true in relation to what exactly?
There's no context to provide a conclusion to the premise.
Con didn't even present an argument against Pro's contention, so Pro wins by default by having the only argument appropriate and relevant to the topic.
Pro lost conduct point due to forfeiting 1/3 of the debate.
Con provided more reliable sources from well-established dictionaries.
Con had the better argument because he gave good points for how pizza is not a type of salad.
Comment:
One of the things I would say against Pro's argument is that the base of pizza and salad are very different as well as the preparation and methods of serving and consumption.
Con wins because he is the father, and so his pfp is the original and son is trying to be like his dad and have the same pfp. Son wants to grow up and be like dada. How cute.
Con's argument was more assertive and convincing. He made it all make sense in the end. Now, if you'll excuse I have to go grab some Kleenex. *blows nose* It's so beautiful! So precious!
Full forfeiture of both sides.
Equally empty arguments
Full forfeiture of both sides.
Equally empty arguments
Full forfeit
Full forfeiture
Con forfeited the entire debate