Slainte

Because this was w cut and paste from https://www.learnreligions.com/reasons-to-convert-to-buddhism-449752, I render that not a bonafide argument. Therefore neither party made an argument, and it should be a tie.

Con made some very good points. The problem with Pro's response is that

a) There is no reference for the contextual interpretation that would resolve the apparent conflicts.
b) The language is prima facia contradictory, yet Pro says you need to read it all in context. yet
c) Pro asks what are the exact words that are conflicting.

The debate topic is clear, and the answers were not complete from Pro to render the claim of conflict/contradiction resolved.

"On balance, the competitions in Squid Game (2021) are not an accurate representation of capitalism in South Korea".

Pro, takes a very literal approach, which I found surprising. The resolution says "On balance". Con rightfully contested the strictness of the definition, and I think appropriately referenced that SG can be considered an allegory. The problem with Con, is they never reference the On balance part of the resolution. I think the Kritiks would have been more effective if the On balance component was included. I also do take Pro's point that Con saw the definition and could have addressed it ahead of time.

Con rightfully pushed back on Pro's composition fallacy. Whilst the drawing of a leg, does not constitute a dog, when we take into consideration that there is an assumed allegory here, I take Con's point. However, I do not accept Con's attempt to reframe the definition of capitalism. The definition was clear, and purposefully written.

I do take Pro's point that Con set a definition for accurate, and then tried to soften the interpretation of that definition later on. It should be noted that Pro opened the door to some great counterpoints with the statement "It’s one that is not false or misleading, that doesn’t leave out major components or “misrepresent” the comparison." Con did not walk through that door.

So then this comes down to a few things: Do the Kritiks have persuasive weight? Did either side meet their BOP, and if so did one do it better than the other?

I think the Kritiks had some merit, but not convincing, in part because Con had plenty of opportunity to resolve the definition issue predebate. Con could have leveraged the "On balance" part to free themselves from the shackles of the strict definitions but did not do so.

In terms of content, I preferred Con's approach. I thought it was more representative of the spirit of the topic. Unfortunately, that is not enough to overcome the BOP. I accept the definitions, and whilst I think it was a semantical resolution trap set by Pro, Con had some wiggle room. Sources were great for both. Conduct was fine, as the Kritiks were very clear.

Mutual Forefeit. However no points were awarded, because the description requires both sides to present some form of argument, and neither did.

"BOP is for Pro to disprove any alternate possibility for God's existence". Pro said nothing on the matter.

I quote the description

"1 Forfeit = Loss"

Con never forfeited a round. Had they, this would be a tie. No merits, not value, no nothing, save and except for showing up.

An unfortunate forfeit. Wrll done for Savants well structured and referenced arguments. There was so much potential here for a vivid discussion. Maybe I will take this on later. Keep me in mind :)

Tie for the following reasons:

1. The resolution is very clear. The BOP would be to demonstrate a more effective form of birth control. Con tried to infer someone who is practising abstinence can get pregnant through rape, and therefore abstinence is not perfect. There are two problems with that argument.

1.a. The term abstinence is a voluntary deliberate choice. Rape is not a choice. Conflating the two is not a valid argument. If someone is raped, they did not choose to engage in sexual activity and their abstinence was not broken. Any pregnancy as a result thereof is not a but-for cause of abstinence.
1.b Con did not offer another alternative with any sort of factual or scientific backing.

Points to Pro.

2. Format

Con did a great job formatting and presenting their concepts in a clear manner. Pro's position is nearly illegible.

Points to Con.

3. Sources

Con provided sources, albeit only a few, and Pro provided nothing.

Points to Con.

4. Conduct.

Pro is very patronizing, and unprofessional. Specifically Round 2 and 4.

Points to Con.

I cannot give Con the win, because they did not win on the merits of the resolution. However in the totality, and when taken in context, as Pro claims people don't do, Pro did not win.

Forefeit, and probably because Con buried the Pro position with "that none of them would be rightfully be the only "chess 2"."

Per the rules in the description, the first to forfeit loses.

Regardless of Cons arguments, they win by default.

Con provided a proper definition of Contradiction. Con provided proper examples of what appeared to be contradictions, from scriptures as required. Conduct on Pro is not good. Changing definitions, the comment "gotten too deep for you ", Formatting for Con was great, and for Pro it was terrible. It was hard to follow. Finally, I agree with Con's assessment. " it appears that by enlarging the context of a statement, Mall thinks that he can resolve any contradiction". Effectively Pro is arguing that Con is using contextomy, when in fact it is the reverse.

A confusing start to this one. Round 1 the topic is "Life is not created at conception", however Rnd 3. I see that the topic is “Life begins before conception.” Pro would have had a much easier time if the topic was “Life began before conception.” The entire discussion is Pro's playing with the word life, and its use. Con provided a source and valid points about the common understanding of life and in this conception. Either way Pro was not persuasive that conception does not create life. Source to Con, Format Tie, although using the quote feature would make it easier to sread, Conduct Tie. Side note, Pro says. "So when does life start Mr. Mall? Since the answer is so simple, I'll leave this chapter or round on a cliffhanger. Tune in to the next episode." We never got that answer.

This was a tough one, in part because Con and Pro are reversed. The debate was about "an origin story". Origin was never defined. Mcdonald's as we know it, versus how it was at the time, was never discussed. Both sides accept that the founders of Mcdonald's were not greedy. Con said "Ray Kroc exploited the original founders to take over the business. " Con never justified that the Ray Kroc actions constitute "an origin story". The question is, on its face, does it? I would say no. Based on the common use of the word origin. Whilst Ray Kroc did create the chains of what we know today, it was built on the foundation of others, and that would be the origin. Source/Spelling tie. Conduct Pro for the forfeit.

I found Pro's arguments a little thin. I think the concept of atheist Christian was fantastic, and if developed more, could have won the argument. Con did a better job explaining their position, although ran into some potential problems with the moral and intellectual bankrupt claims. Unfortunately Pro did not attack those concepts. Con had a much harder argument to make, and based on the narrative was the winner. Conduct and Sources a tie.

The bar joke was funny, however, the zoo joke was the better of the 4 jokes.

While this is a concession, I want to make a few comments on the arguments. I believe in the truest sense, that atheism is a belief system. An aetheist believes the universe exists and operates without a god(s). However CON made a great point, that could have been very interesting if they had stretched it out, that being "Any instances, which are appropriately being classified as atheism yet are not appropriately classified as a religion, exists soundly intrinsic structurally." An argument could be made that an agnostic atheist falls into that classification. Con's arguments were starting to be persuasive. Pro did a great job rebutting some of them.

This is my first vote. The topic of the debate is very clear, from a linguistic perspective. "Life is not created at conception". I must say, I am not in favour of Pro's style. There is an unnecessary, and condescending edge. A clear lack of respect, or courtesy. An example "I don't think you realize the question. Perhaps going over it too fast." If Pro was concerned about the issue being comprehended, Pro should have taken the opportunity to reframe their concern. That aside, Con is the one who defined Life. That definition was not contested. That definition included the aspect of death. Therefore the definition is not implying any metaphysical or ecclesiastical concept. As requested by Pro, "by foundation of the natural laws of science, physics, biology." , which is what Con did. Con made a clear statement, with sources about what life is, and how it in fact starts at conception, stayed engaged in the debate in a courteous manner, was easy to understand and straightforward..

Side note, "So when does life start Mr. Mall?

Since the answer is so simple, I'll leave this chapter or round on a cliffhanger. Tune in to the next episode."

I never saw the answer.