Total votes: 20
Concession
Full Forfeit
Concession.
Concession.
Con argued the point beyond "I said so." Although a joke debate, the humour wasn't funny enough to levy the debate in Pro's direction.
They called it a tie
While it could have been worded more clearly, Con is the only one to actually argue his case, whereas Pro did not respond to anything.
Conduct to Con for pro forfeiting a round.
I don't vote very often but I like ethics, so here we go. Logicalism presents an epistemology for moral judgements. The resolution states that this epistemology is objective, because the laws of logic are applied to one's conception of desirable consequences, in order to determine a moral ought. However under logicalism moral good is still consequentialist, and therefore subjective. This appeal to a fundamentally consequentialist assumption of the moral good is heavily attacked by con (by means of syllogism) as being subjective to the individual deciding what consequences are desirable. This was not adequately addressed. Arguments to con.
Conduct to con for pro forfeiting a round.
Hmu for more elaboration if desired.
Mostly forfeited.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit
There was some clash back and forth, but at the end of the debate I was left wanting by both parties. I don't think Pro met his burden of proof beyond his assertion, and con came back with a one-liner. Good effort debaters!
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit
I have seen the light.
Concession
Con's round 4 was so fire, my screen melted. The forfeiture demands a conduct point.
While I am glad that at least two of the rounds got used for this debate, I'd like to see these guys run it back. Con did a good job of refuting Pro's arguments to support the resolve, and for that I give arguments to Con. They provided the same amount of sources. The SnG caused no real hindrances in my understanding of the subject matter. Finally, I'm not gonna dock Pro for missing a round when he was sick, especially because he took the time to let us know.
Concession
Con presented arguments about the KCA and why the universe can be explained naturalistically. Pro, expecting an easy win because of the slight typo in the resolve, ignored the subject matter and engaged not a single argument. The overall lack of energy in Pro's responses also compels me to give conduct to Con.
In conclusion, Con wins in my book, by virtue of having no arguments contested, and actually trying to have a discussion.