Total votes: 75
Pros Args:
1. That a few fraudulent votes could easily swing an election with electoral college. Con never responded so Pro gets this.
2. Increases national security. Con's response is that due to recounts and the like, you'd see a lot of delays and thus national security incidents on both sides of the house. Pro didn't really respond and I think Con's argument was good. This arg falls.
3. Certain states have votes worth more than others. Con never responds to this, so it flows for Pro.
4. Increased voter turnout. Con never responded, so Pro gets this arg.
Cons args:
1. That voter fraud happens b/c you put presidents in charge of their own elections, and also huge recounts. Pro never responded so it flows through.
2. Represents minorities better. I had a really hard time following why this was true. However, Pro never responded, so Con gets this arg.
3. Electoral college promotes listening to different groups. Pro's response that on his side, you would lose by only going to places like CA was very good and wasn't really responded to by Con, so this flows to Pro.
So at the end, Pro is left with fraudulent votes swinging elections under EC, certain states having votes worth more, and increased voter turnout. Con is left with voter fraud happening under incumbents and representing minorities. The arg that without electoral college, candidates are more likely to appeal to a larger voter base flows to Pro as well.
I cancel out the fraudulent vote args on both sides because I wasn't told why they were LIKELY to happen, rather than they COULD happen.
So, Pro is left with certain states having votes worth more and increased voter turnout. Con is left with representing minorities more. The arg that without electoral college, candidates are more likely to appeal to a larger voter base flows to Pro as well.
I wasn't given weighing so I'll do my own. In this case, I think appealing to a large voter base is much more likely to happen than Con's representing minorities more arg because the former simply makes more sense to me. It was just really unclear to me why minorities are represented more on Con's side. Because of that, it immediately outweighs, leaving Pro the clear winner.
Pro's claims:
Uniforms enforce security, prevent gang colors, decrease crime, decrease bullying, saves money, prepares for jobs, provides a sense of unity and belonging, improve school spirit, and improve discipline and attendance.
Con only rebuts the claim that uniforms save money by showing that they are very expensive. He attempts to counter the point of improving school spirit by saying that kids do not go to school for that goal, but that fails to prove that improving school spirit either does not happen or that it is actually a bad thing, leaving it as an advantage for Pro's side. He says that uniforms are not required for improving discipline and attendance, but again that concedes that uniforms do raise discipline and attendance.
Con also didn't respond to multiple arguments. Because the description defines "should" as the positives outweighing the negative, and Con only provided one negative while Pro provided 8 positives, Pro therefore wins the debate.
For sources, Pro's arguments were completely substantiated by sources, such as this one: https://thegreyhoundnews.com/1621/op-ed/studies-find-that-uniforms-decrease-crime/
Without them, my decision might have been different, but Pro was able to provide foundation for their claims with it. Con only provides a few sources, only one of which, https://education.costhelper.com/school-uniforms.html, actually works to prove a negative of school uniforms. Con's other sources were irrelevant. Therefore, Pro gets sources.
This was a landslide win. Con consistently reminded us of the fact that the BoP was on Pro. Disregarding everything else for a second, Pro has to prove that holidays are religions, that they are commercialized, and that they have a greater push than non-commercial religions. As far as I read, Pro never even touched upon the "greater push" part of the resolution, as pointed out by Con, which by itself automatically gives the win to Con. Pro barely touched on the commercialization as well.
As far as the religion part, Con repeatedly showed that holidays are dependent on religions/belief systems but cannot independently be one themselves. Pro's only counter was that religion is democratic and can mean anything but failed to disprove Con's claim that holidays are dependent on belief systems.
Therefore, I'm giving arguments to Con. None of the other vote options were important here.
Pro's Arguments: (con rebuttal (CR), pro defense (PD), final rebuttal (FR), my ruling (MR))
1. Under the current system, people who produce under the minimum wage won't be getting hired.
CR: 90% of Americans graduated from high school, and they are mostly all producing at or above the minimum wage.
PD: Only a quarter of students have job experience, and the rest are producing at below minimum wage.
FR: The average high school graduate has 13-14 years of education and therefore do have large worth.
MR: Pro never gives evidence that people out of high school produce under the minimum wage, so it is bare assertion. Without seeing the actual evidence that says high school students only produce at below minimum wage when they haven't had job experience, I have to side with Con.
2. By starting at the bottom, workers can work their way up to higher wages. This is apparent because those with college degrees make more money than those without them. The system allows everyone to sell their labor.
CR: A lot of employees won't stay for such low wages, and then wages will stay low because minorities + immigrants will be willing to work low paying jobs, which harms them. Job growth won't happen because a lot of people won't be willing to work. India is an example with a dangerously low average wage that people are (??) working to raise.
PD: Immigrants and minorities aren't harmed because they're willing to stay, and India doesn't know any better.
FR: Immigrants and minorities are harmed precisely because they are willing to take ridiculously low wages. India does know better as cited in the source, and they are trying to raise the minimum wage after having it go dangerously low.
MR: Con consistently showed that lowering wages is dangerous and only takes advantage of people who can't get better jobs. Pro's argument hinges on employees not having minimum wage value, but he never shows a source stating that their value are that low. I have to side with Con.
3. The unemployment rate would dramatically drop.
CR/FR: The source used itself shows that there are more jobs than people trying to work, so everyone should be able to find one.
MR: If there are more jobs than people, then the unemployment rate is really no concern, so I have to side with Con.
Con won all the arguments, so he wins.
Tied on all others.
I'll just award the win per round
R1
Pro - Immediately love the piano opening so nice! The voice is ok but gives me country vibes, drop is eh but after that it's not bad at all!
Con - Not a huge fan of rock but this wasn't bad, I hate the drop though but it's alright
Pro wins
R2
Pro - I like the buildup, but I hate guitar so after that it's like ew, the lyrics are ok but the screaming is dramatic to me
Con - This is just Pro's song without the intro to me, it's different in a way but eh
Tied
R3
Pro - Ok sounds country starting off, it's catchy!! I like what they do with the alternating voices a lot!
I'm allowing it as rock since Con seemed ok with it
Con - I like it off the bat, it's a different style of alternative, it's short enough to loop though so hmm
Tied once again
R4
Pro - Well this is the only song I actually know I think, I like it starting out slowly, it like deliberately builds up for a while, it's disappointing when it doesn't drop when I expect it to though
Con - Funny lyrics, I don't mind this tempo, it's weirdly catchy?
Con by a small margin
R5
Pro - Oh this song! I didn't know that's where these lyrics can't from. This dude's really deep voice works really well somehow
Con - I like the rhyming, nice voices and the screaming is bearable lol, so it's not that bad, and I like how it's all put together
The voice in Pro's is amazing so he wins
For the record, I would've discounted Pro's R3 and R5 completely if Con had asked me to, neither really struck me as rock
Concession
Concession
Not by my usual out of 10 style but by each round instead on which one was happier to me
Round 1
Pro: A classic, just very happy and nothing wrong with it, the talking can be slightly annoying but not by a lot
Con: I can see the happiness but it doesn’t make me happy listening to it, the way it sounds is annoying at times too, it’s not bad but it’s not good either, much more of a love song
Point to Pro
Round 2
Pro: This is basically cheating lol it just makes you want to dance and it’s like the best
Con: It’s not a bad song but it doesn’t make me happy, it’s just catchy and not a bad listen but not what I’m looking for
Point to Pro
Round 3
Pro: A little slow to be happy, not bad because of nostalgia because of the voice but not my favorite so far
Con: I wouldn’t necessarily call this a happy song, but it has feel good vibes
Point to Con
Round 4
Pro: Another classic, it’s slow but it’s good slow and it’s sooooo happy and I love it, it’s songs like this that make my day better
Con: Right off the bat I love the music, it’s such a stark contrast to the last song LOL, but the beat is suuuper catchy and it made me bob my head
NICE comeback Con, I did not expect a song to beat Pro’s this round!!
Point to Con
Round 5
Pro: It’s happy but it’s not the type of song I’d listen to to make myself happier, happy songs pretty much require a lot of lyrics
Con: I thought this would be an easy one for Con but this song was not happy at all, not to say it was bad but it doesn’t make me smile at all
Tie
So it was a tie WOW, good job both guys though
RFD in the comments
Arguments
I'm ignoring the original arguments because they weren't contested at all by Pro. I'll just give them to Con, but there's literally no reason to discuss them here because I'd just be regurgitating what happened. So basically Con said that the relevance of DST doesn't matter, which is a concession essentially. Kritiks weren't disallowed as part of the rules. Pro showed how it's still relevant because it is used in many places.
Conduct
I, for the most part, really don't like kritiks. Although Con did stray from the topic, Pro could've gone along with it and at least tried to go the path that Con meant for the debate to go. Just relying on semantics, while effective, is rude.
Conduct
Con "sentenced" Pro to hell many times, called him satanic, and had many other insults. It was extremely distracting. It literally made it so I couldn't follow the arguments so I'm not even voting based on that.
"Furthermore, your debate title will come back and bite you in your Satanic ass"
" There will be no insidious pseudo-christian anachronistic spin doctoring, decoder rings, or crystal balls used in this debate to fallaciously try in vain to deviate from what"'
"Not known to the bible ignorant Dr. Franklin at this time"
RM’s was super vulgar but he had way better roasts, KM had good ones too though and his flow and rhythm was better, I can’t choose
Full forfeit
Ew, ew, double ew!
10 - adding it to my playlist
1 - just leave please
Pro
R1 The music is AMAZING, it’s so consistent and flows very well, it also is diverse and not repetitive, 10, nice way to start us off Pro!
R2 The voice is very nice and soothing, it goes really well with the music, I don’t really like the ending though, and it does tend to get repetitive, 7
R3 The harmonies are ridiculously good, the music is really nice, they flow really well, 9
R4 She has a really nice voice, the music is good, it’s kind of short though, 8
R5 It’s really slow, it’s nice but I wish it was faster in the beginning, it gets better towards the end though, 7
Con
R1 This is a classic, the music is good and his voice isn’t bad, but it can be a little repetitive and sometimes the music is lackluster, 8
R2 It’s kind of catchy, his voice is ok and the music isn’t bad, 6
R3 This is also another classic, however it’s not acoustic (I think) so I’m taking a point off for that, but the voice is nice and it’s got really nice music, 7
R4 He has a nice voice and the music is good, it’s super sad too, 8
R5 This has a lot of after effects, it’s good but I’m not gonna judge it since it’s not acoustic
Pro: 41
Con: 29
Good job to both of you, y’all had really nice picks!
10 - adding it to my playlist
1 - Just leave please
Pro
R1 I like the music but I don’t like that guy’s voice, the rap isn’t bad though, 6
R2 I like the music, she has a nice voice too, not the best I’ve heard but they match well, 8
R3 Good beat, nice rapping, the chorus part is kind of weird though, 9
R4 Of course she has a nice voice, it’s a bit slow for my taste though, the music is very calm though, 7
R5 I love the rapping and the voice, the music is super catchy, 9
Con
R1 The music wasn’t bad at first, it got kind of annoying with the vocals though, I don’t like the woman’s voice at all, they have terrible harmony and I can hardly understand what they’re saying, 3
R2 I like the piano and she has a really nice voice, and I looooooove the beat drop, 10, nice comeback!
R3 Her voice and the chorus are meh, the rap is ok but it isn’t that good, 6
R4 Her voice got kind of annoying and it was very repetitive, yhr music wasn’t bad though, 4
R5: She has a nice voice, the music is nice, 7
Pro: 39
Con: 30
Pro wins! Good job to both contestants, props to Con because he had the only song that I added to my playlist
I'll be ignoring Con's rebuttals because that isn't fair given that Pro couldn't give any rebuttals either.
So basically Pro tried to prove the resolution by showing that the founding fathers were racist and were trying to increase the white population. Con's only point is that there is no "white clause" in any of the legal documents used for the founding of the country.
While Pro does show some racism, it doesn't sufficiently prove the resolution. And, as Con showed, why would they say that if it wasn't written down as law. There simply isn't enough evidence to support the resolution.
This started out good, but it became just...sad.
Arguments
First of all, Pro, you used the definition of conception as the definition of abortion. This was quite clearly a glaring mistake, and I have no idea how you missed that.
"The definition of abortion will defined in this debate as when a SPERM CELL comes in contact with the EGG to form a baby within the time it happens."
That's what conception is. This is the definition of abortion:
"the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"
Anyway, on to the points.
Con did not respond to any of Pro's original arguments. That's 3 points for Pro. Con's only argument is on morals, not legalities, which was not allowed, and I am ignoring it because of that.
Pro has all of the points and gets arguments.
Conduct
Conduct for both parties became petulant and rude. However, I'm tieing it because it was equally bad on both sides.
Arguments
Practicality (1A)
Pro says that human corpses can be used as sacrifices, and Con responds by saying that there are other more efficient ways of doing that. Pro says that we could do both, therefore creating a surplus. Because Con didn’t respond, this point goes to Pro.
(1B)
Pro says that we can sacrifice criminals and lower the crime rate. Con says that this will make farmers vigilantes and turn them into executioners. He also said it would be unfair for those who committed minor crimes. Pro says he doesn’t care about criminal’s rights. Con said that they are entitled to their rights regardless, and also makes the point that it wouldn’t be sacrifice unless you’re giving up something good. Pro says the Constitution never explicitly guarantees a right to life, and Con corrects himself and cites the Declaration of Independence.
Overall, Pro gave no real reason to sacrifice criminals beyond the crime rate. Con showed how criminals still have rights, and also that we shouldn’t sacrifice people who commit minor crimes. This point goes to Con.
(1C)
Pro says that this will allow fairness and increase our sense of community by making kind of a sport. Pro says that executing all criminals isn’t fair. Con uses consequentialism to state that if it lowers the crime rate, the end justifies the means. Con never responded to this, so this point goes to Pro.
(Ship Some Off To Africa)
Pro proposes sending some people to Africa to be food. Con shows how there are WAY to many criminals for this to be practical, as well as it raising African crime because cannibalism is illegal there. Pro just says that this will stop car crashes and help African crime rates (but gives no evidence for that). Con says that encouraging cannibalism doesn’t help. Lowering population rate should trump consequentialism here. This point goes to Con.
(Farmers Shouldn’t Kill)
Con says that farmers need to focus on their job, not killing. Pro says that they have to still do the killing to show solidarity, but that the bodies can be processed elsewhere. Pro argues that farmers become executioners, not farmers anymore. Pro gave no evidence to show how farmers killing increases solidarity. This point goes to Con.
Pro: 2
Con: 3
Sources
Con cites definitions of human sacrifice, but he also gives car crash statistics that are vital to his argument, as well as citing the Declaration of Independence. This specifically puts his arguments into the perspective of the entire country, and he actually won two if his points just because of the latter two sources and their corresponding arguments. Without those sources, I wouldn't have been able to evaluate this based on demographic changes or the policies outlined in our sovereign documents. Pro gave no sources. Con gets sources.
Conduct
Pro forfeited. That’s bad conduct.
*All Other Points Tied*
It was so bad
Full forfeit
Compelling argument by a Pro, but I have to give this to Con because of the forfeits
Virtuoso is very nice btw
It’s type1, which is obviously the only disadvantage necessary to give points to con
Pro states that one can be of Jewish descent and then be a Christian. Con says that race is an illusion. Neither side has sources to back up their claims. Pro says that either being Jewish is an identity or a race, and either way one can be both Jewish and Christian. Con shows that identifying as something doesn’t actually make you that thing.
This was a pretty flat Debate, but neither sides gave any real evidence for their position. This is a tie.
Speed Racer wasn't on there so no one deserves any points
bsh1 is actually a very nice person SIR
|
Con barely tried, Pro did amazing this debate, looking forward to more of his
Basically a concession (if not then I’ll redo this vote)
Pro’s first argument was captivating, but Con swooped in with quite the rebuttal. I’ll have to give him arguments
Jk full forfeit essentially so nah
Here we go!
Arguments
Pro’s entire argument was about whether or not what we observe is what reality actually is. He says that what something appears to be isn’t necessarily what it is. However, as Con points out, if something can’t be observed then it can’t be known.
Con’s main argument is that because science is strictly about observing and empiricism, literally anything and everything can be discovered through it except for those things that cannot be known. He then goes on to make the argument that any other better method would necessarily become a part of science itself.
Pro’s only rebuttal is that we can’t truly know that what we observe is the truth, but he fails to give evidence as to why this is the case. As Con says, what we observe is all we have, and therefore it is what we should rely on.
Because of the lack of rebuttals and repetitiveness on Pro’s part, I have to give arguments to Con.
Basically a concession and a full forfeit
Basically double full forfeit
Basically a full forfeit
Full forfeit
Both parties forfeited
Conduct for forfeiture
Conduct to Pro for less forfeits
Concession
Full forfeit
Concession
Full forfeits LOL
Forfeiture
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Concession