Total votes: 116
A true FF. .
Well this was nteresting. I decided to place a vote while i am waiting to board a plane. A few things.... Carnivore and herbivore were kinda used interchangeably. Pro never peotested so iI give that a pass.. Pros starts was unnecesaary and obnoxious.
Con had great spurces... much better quality than Pro.
Con rebutted mu h of Pro with clear sourced examples.
I am surprised Pro did not mention Tom Brady, or Con mention Inuit people or the Lion Diet.
An easy read. Pro states abortion is immoral because it is evil as God prescribes. Pro then states that evil is available because of free will. Pro then states that aborted babies, or effectively any baby that is not baptized go to hell. Con points out this huge conflict, and states if God allows for infants to go to hell, there is a question of morality. Con does not tie a ribbon on the debate but does show a blatant failure in Pros logic. Pro used searchable references in most rounds and wins that regard.
Pro does not even mention flat in the opening. Pro does not mention rational in the opening. Pro lost it right out of the gates by not even arguing the resolution. Con's arguments were not strong, however, did include enough for deduction to show the earth is round. Conduct awarded against the forfeit.
Hands down the winner, because of the qualification for each rating. It was a very impressive presentation of a subjective topic, presented with an understandable rubric.
I am not sure I agree with either list nor would I opine why. Too much subjectivity. Props to both for a great dialogue about it, however, Con is correct, Pro gave no justification for the rankings.
It sure is from the objective of a cow.
Pro starts off simple, and direct. Creates a clear point of argument, and justifies it later on with respect to euthanizing a brain-dead person.
Con does not refute that. Pro had some careless language about murder, and Con rightfully pointed out a few contradictions, however all Con did was try to attack what Pro said, and said nothing of their own. Con did not create an argument. The very best Con could do was tie.
However Pro did enough, even when Con said "You have a very thin position on what is ok". It is still a position, it was clear, it was sourced, and it was not refuted.
Pro bailing on the first round was fatal to their position because Con opened up with a very literal interpretation, which was clever. I thought Pro had a chance to bring this back, because the need vs want contextual is psychological, however, Pro flushed it when they admitted to the literal meaning of the word.
Everything Con said was true. Ergo Con wins.
I have become more comfortable expressing my onions in votes, as I think it really helps show the tendency of bias. I tend to be extra critical of positions that I would tend to support.
In this debate, I disagree with Pro. However the resolution is a tough one, the word Entire to me seems rather aggressively all-encompassing. A debate is about the resolution, the description, the rules and the performance of the participants. In this debate, Pro won, handily. There are 3 reasons:
1. Pro created a very clear structure of their argument, connecting the overall goals of Jesus for obtaining moral perfection, and that being a cornerstone of Christianity. I think Jesus was far more tolerant of poor and sinful decisions, as a cornerstone to flawed humanity, and sanctification would not be "entire". However Pro made some very valid points supporting their position.
Con on the other hand reduced humanity to a grape on a vine, with no freewill, and removed the fundamental direct conscious elements of atonement required by Christian thinking. Maybe that is not what Con was saying... More later.
2. Pro used proper sourcing, which was helpful for me to connect the dots, that I did not agree with. Pro has not changed my mind, however, Pro makes a few great points. that are supported. Con did not provide structure or sources.
3. Con, I have said countless times, your formatting sucks. It is so hard to read your debates and follow what is going on.
Finally, I am also becoming a fan of what Pro did here, and I have seen it from others, and that is closing further rounds down quicker. Stay focused on the issues not addressed, rather than create more noise.
People don't know how to read. All 7 points go to the winner.
Lyricism: 4:2. RM
Flow: 1:4 SL
Diss: 3:4 SL
Rhyme: 2:4 SL
Total is RM - 10. SL - 14. Per the description, SL gets all 7 points.
RM knew they had an uphill battle to get it all stitched together by breaking things up to explain some of the previous rounds. RM is a fantastic lyricist, using a great vocabulary, innuendo, metaphor and intellect. SL is crisp, and tidy. Easier to read. I think that the lyricism of the "diss" would go to RM, however the flow and execution forced me to have to read a few times, and that just did not work for me.
Yet ye troll, and the troll doth win.
Trolls. Oh those pesky Trolls
This was a tough one. I disagree with Pro's absolutist perspective. I also disagree with most of what Con said in the preamble of the first round. However, I do think Con landed a few punches and secured a win on a few autonomy and social responsibility notes. Most important were the notes about rising the child, fatherless, motherless, loveless... what happens then.
It is that repeated reference that had me swing to Con.
However... Pro did an exceptional job in their first round and subsequent round at referencing. Con could have won this with more references because in fairness, that position is more popular. With respect to my friend Con, they could have put this to bed with better and more diverse sources. Specifically Pro opened up with a huge array, and Con did not match that standard.
Con is correct. Pro did not meet their burden of proof.
"Holocaust-denial legislation is driven more by a desire to criminalise thus stigmatise dissent than by a desire to mitigate harm"
I agree with Pro in everything they said. I do not believe the screenshots without raw sources, and that went against them. I agree that the concept of dissent is highly manipulated and controlled. I also believe the resolution title, even though it is worded like someone was speaking with marbles in their mouth.
What I believe does not matter. What matters is the debate and the BoP. Con said a few things that made me wonder if they would lose.
motivated by a selfish intent
Denying the Holocaust is an attempt to reinstate Nazism
Those are some bold statements, conjecture and inflammatory speculation. However... The BoP is clear, and what Pro failed to prove was the true motivations of legislation. That proof was not even really hinted at. Con did show sources that demonstrate a counter position. The counter position is stronger in the arguments.
So while I agree with Pro, and agree with the resolution, it was not remotely proved, and Con wins this with ease.
Concession.
The DART voting policy says a full forfeit occurs when 40% or more of the rounds are forfeited. 50% of the rounds were forfeited. Both forfeit.
Female trans athletes have an unfair advantage
The resolution is very clear. This is not something that requires immense linguistic or lexicological analysis. It is very res ipsa. It speaks for itself.
Pro has a ridiculously short opening, however, it is very effective. Shorter is often better when it is precise. “Lia Thomas was ranked 200th as a male swimmer and won the national championship the first year she competed as a woman. “
While a source is not given, I accept that particular event as being well-known. Con does not contend that the event occurred. Con instead states that everything is an advantage or not, and the concept of unfairness is moot.
Pro nearly wins the debate when they state “We have decided as a society that the advantages men get biologically at birth would create an unfair advantage in competition with women.”
Con does not disagree with that. Con deflect by talking about advantages and disadvantages based on birth.
Con loses the debate with this statement “So in other words, you randomly pick what is fair and what is unfair.”
I accept Con’s concern that bundling all trans females together as an assumption that they will have an advantage is improper. However, the resolution does not say all. The example given gave the context. Con is skirting the issue and the evidence. One thing neither side did was address how one identifies as trans.
That was not what was said at all. Pro was very clear, gave a crisp example, and an explanation as to the distinction of Male and Female sex-based sport groups.
This is a clear Pro win.
Sex, Sexuality, Sexual Orientation, and gender are all different things. Pro tried to conflate Gender and Sex as the same thing and then indirectly admitted that intersex is a thing.
Pro had a few very clear examples on how to tie this up in a bow and mails it for Grandma's birthday, alas they did not. It was a very one-sided debate. Pro had a very poor start. They did not recover from it in whole or in part. I am not sure why this turned into a huge list of activities, actions and gender identification tendencies other than, it proved the point.
I accept the distinction between sex and gender as presented by Con.
Pro gets a point for conduct on the forfeit.
Note to Pro... you need to open stronger.
I am disappointed with this debate. I really thought Pro had more games, and unfortunately, they did not step up enough to win. I found no punches by Pro that even glanced. Pro lost the debate by stating three baseless claims in their opening argument. Subjective and non-evidence based. If Con had said “no proof provided by Pro” based on that opening argument, Con could have won.
Examples:
"In an ideal world abortion is something that would be rendered unnecessary"
"Abortion is a waste of resources"
"Abortion could be making God angry"
"Abortion not only costs money, but often leads to physical discomfort."
========
Con did a pretty bang-up job ripping Pro’s tissue paper thin claims to shreds. I agree with Con that the resolution was slanted. And a more esteemed debater could have twisted it. However, Con did put up a very convincing perspective. Here are some of my noted examples.
"we fuck when we want how we want, protection or not". <--- that's how I gots me some mf'n kids!!! And they are awesome!!!
"In life we have many issues at times, pain can happen"
Arguments - Con
Sources - Con
Legible - Tie
Conduct - Tie
I do think the framework of conduct should be changed to be far more subjective. Separate note for a separate time.
Full Concession
A clear troll debate. It is like they are the same person. The narrative is the same, and neither of them are taking this seriously. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
Spam. If Con had said one word they would have gotten a free rated vote.
Arguments: Better lyricism, including quality of comebacks and metaphors (3)
R1: RM. Lyricism and metaphors. "so her back don't break?" and " juices on the page after I masticate," All followed a theme. Devon's theme was broken in the opening round.
R2: Devon. "o let me chop you down to size", and "perhaps you should try getting one"
R3: RM: A great round. RM really goes at Devon, and ties that theme from the first round into it. There is continuity here.
R4: RM. The comebacks were really weak for Devon, The lyricism for RM was very good. Something was just contrived and forced about Devon.
Sources: Better flow (2)
R1: Devon, The tempo is good, and constructed fairly well. It certainly reads easier as a first read. RM's can read very well if you read it a few times.
R2: Devon, same style as above.
R3: Tie, again easier to read Devon the first time, however, this was a much better round for RM, and if you read it twice you can get the rhythm.
R4: Devon, by a hair. RM is better when read a few times, and with the beat music. As a judge I don't want to have to practice to make it sound better.
Spelling & Grammar: Better disses (1)
R1: RM, went at Devon. Devon did not directly attack RM.
R2: RM, "I'm the one your girlfriend cheats with as you eat out what's left behind," <--- quality
R3: RM is on offence. Devon is not Offence is the key to a diss.
R4: RM, again offence is king. The card-playing analogy is pretty weak considering the huge diss's that RM put out.
Conduct: Which opponent was more creative (1)
R1: RM, This is a little overlap with the argument. Creativity can still have structure, and Devon's did not have it.
R2: RM, as RM really was using sources to support the claims. That is pretty creative and impressive.
R3: RM as RM is really stitching the theme together. The theme from Devon being gun-based, and gangsta just seems contrived
R4: RM, just kept the theme together, with better vocabulary diversity.
R1: RM. 5:2
R2: Devon: 5:2
R3: RM: 7:2
R4: RM: 5:2
General Impressions:
RM had better overall diss quality, material, word choice, sources, and passion. Devon appears passive, defensive, and trying to rap like a nursery rhyme.
RM won all rounds in accordance with the agreed evaluation criteria, all of it being in my opinion.
Concession by Pro. Con had good sources. I am not sure about Con's conduct. I dont think trading babies is permitted yet it is not expressed in the Code of Conduct. :)
I am an enabler
Bruno makes great music. The red planet is beautiful, and the chocolate bar certainly has fans. What Mars is Mars?
FF. This resolution and description were more flawed than a restaurant manager asking Bill Cosby to be a bartender. It could have gone anywhere
Full Forfeit. Pro's opening argument was very weak. Con's had a great argument insofar is woman who have lots of sex certainly have value to some, which I see irrefutable, If this debate continued, and Con reiterated that concept, it was a home run.
This is a full forfeit. The question, however, does cons first round response constitute an actual position?
"something cannot be politically correct and wrong as a political party would need to take a clear stance"
While very poorly worded, I say it does. Vote to Con.
I did not find either side good, or funny, or even strong from a diss perspective. However, Con effectively had 2 free rounds and did more with it.
In a realm where bad poems were penned,
A vote was to choose, my dear friend.
But alas, the verse was so bleak,
No joy did it speak,
Yet we voted, hoping its fate would amend!
Con circled this very well.
1. Jesus' teachings are clear, do unto others.. and that conflicts with slavery.
2. Christianity is the modification of the law of the Old Testament after Jesus. Like Islam after Muhammad. Referencing the old book and ignoring the new book is selective, and does not reconcile.
Sources were limited and inconsequential.
. .
.. .
Pro gave an argument. Con responded with questions. Pro answered the questions. Con never responded to the answers. Pro wins.
.
.
I will admit that I have a bias towards Pro in this conversation. However, the resolution was really teed up for Con to hit this out of the park. All Con needed to do was find two drugs, that clearly should not be legalized, and those drugs could even be theoretical. If a newly discovered drug has a psychoactive effect that will lead to permanent brain damage 72% of the time it should not be legalized. The catch-all statement of "all" was a huge mountain to climb, and I had no idea how Pro would do it.
Pro did not do it. However, Con never put Pro away. Con talked in circles about addiction issues and overall social weight. And therein contradicted himself, explaining how the majority of addicts are high-functioning productive members of society. Con speculated a few times on a variety of issues and while being creative, it really undermined his case when Pro pointed out the lack of evidence. In the balance of the arguments, Pro was crisper, rebutted well, and painted a better picture. Pro did not deal with the All part of the reso very well, however, Con did not deal with it at all.
I am surprised Pro did not look at the regulatory framework in Canada for cannabis and reverted to Portugal and France, which are decriminalized and unregulated.
Both debaters argued with a total view passion of the concept, and Con lost the opportunity of the individual silver bullet to snipe a win. Con is usually very good at identifying these trap elements, so I feel that the passion for the subject clouded the view of the actual resolution. Pro did not forfeit any rounds and deserves the conduct point. I think this debate brought up a bunch of secondary small debate subjects, and I would be happy to participate in any of those.
Thank you for the great content, and the opportunity to give my opinion. I appreciate it.
Full Forfeit.
Well structured by Con. Nice use of sources. Unfortunately we did not see a rebuttal by Pro.
A clear troll debate. No points to either. I am undoing the previous vote which I feel was done in err. Admins can retain or delete both votes.
After the first round, I was voting for Con. I had no idea how Pro was going to get out of that first round. Con made some great points with respect to not knowing if there was any evil in Anakin's heart after the spiritual death of Vader. The points with respect to how Anakin killed the children, were something I wondered how it could be reconciled.
However Pro nailed it with respect to Anakin becoming a force ghost. I buy that argument. I buy that the evil caused in the name of Anakin was an unconscious development of Vader. I accept that Vader spiritually/consciously died, and Anakin repented in a manner for which he was absent of evil and therefore redeemed.
Con's argument was very repetitive. Sources go to Pro, as they were fantastic and I needed them to reach a decision.
Two great debaters, and a fun read. Thank you to both.
Full Forfeit.
I accept the logic and disclaimed use of ChatGPT in Con's about me. I think it can be a good use of AI. ChatGPT policy is clear, the copyright owner of the ChatGPT is the person who asked the question.
Troll vote for a troll debate.
Full Forfeit and concession. Con did a great job showing how poorly drafted the resolution and description were.
When Pro says. "To respond to con's arguments, they're pretty obviously correct. Advocating to literally murder someone in cold blood in a public space on the first thought that they may be a pedophile is plain stupid." They are tapping out.
Neither addressed the resolution.
Full plagiarism.
The original article is here :
https://issuu.com/bibleapologetics/docs/the_biblical_god_exists.docx/1
FF. Plus a reasonable opening argument
Interesting first rounds. Full Forfeit, however.
Forfeits. Not a real debate. More of a conversation.
This was interesting. The first round was great. Each made a very good point, leaving me wanting to read the next rounds. I just wish Con would change their formatting. Their debates are very hard to read.
Con has a great argument that because one does not equate to the other, there is no contradiction. I accept that principle.
For me, when Pro made it clear that the foundations of Christianity are based on Judaism, I saw that as an unrecoverable wound to Con's argument.