TNBinc

Basically a concession. Also ragnar used a lot more sources.

ARG>PRO
SRC>PRO
S&G>TIE
CONDUCT>TIE

Ragnar easily won. Here's why:

a) Ragnar fufiled BoP more than once, and mall barely did anything not only from his point of view but also refuting Ragnar's claims.
b) Ragnar used sources. Mall did not.
c) Mall forefitted.

Okay... this one was weird.

Pro opens nicely; however, con easily refutes. In the following rounds, pro says con said things con did not say. I don't think that is considered a proper refutation. Either way, Con either says he did not say it (true) or properly refutes it. I also feel like Con better fufilled his BoP.

Tie for souces; both used them.

Grammar and conduct was also fine for both.

6120636f6e63657373696f6e206973206120636f6e63657373696f6e

("a concession is a concession" in hexadecimal)

forgot to give "argments" to CON first time I voted. Immediately deleted and revoted

Concession.

Accedentally flipped the votes when I first voted. Immediately deleted and re-voted.

Weird concession but its still a concession.

It is a debate, therefore there must be some reasoning. Pro only mentions the songs whereas Con gives a description of why.

436f6e63657373696f6e

https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/hex-to-ascii.html

So the resolution is, this debate will end in a tie, and the question it asks is "Which particpant won the debate"?
I'll just dismiss the fact that this is a half-paradox.

Con used many sources to back up his argument which I consider essential in these type of "prediction" debates.

Just a side note--CON either has to prove seldiora will win or he will win, and seldiora has to prove it is a tie. However, if seldiora wins the argument, that cannot happen beacuse he proves it is a tie. Conversely, CON's position makes sense because he can prove that he will win-- and he will win vote-wise.

I really liked CON's third argument--It really gave it a boost in terms of argument quality.

In the first round CON says it is a paradox and at the end of the day, he has to win. Seldiora counters by saying it he knows it will tie with certanity which has no sources--whats the proof?

I would vote CON since his argument is very solid. Plus, he is the only person with a valid, reasonable stance that is not a paradox.

FF and plagarism.

https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/hex-to-ascii.html

4974277320707265747479206d75636820612066756c6c20666f7265666974206275742050524f20636c6561726c792068617320612062657474657220617267756d656e742062656361757365206170706c657320697320626574746572207468616e206e6f7468696e672061732077656c6c20617320736f757263657320616e6420636f6e647563742e20436f6e207361696420686520686164206e6f2074696d6520776869636820697320666f72656669742e

PRO uses more of a personal description essentially saying something like "I don't think I am a great debater since I try to use non-sensical topics to try to get the opponent to forefit". Con counters by saying how everybody makes mistakes and gives a few examples including his past as User_2006, which I consider a good argument. Con's argument really sticks because he shows that other people think seldiora is a good debator and how everybody makes mistakes. Points to CON.

Using a personal description is not bad, but I think CON should get the points for sources because he uses many examples of past debates to back up his argument. These raw debates are probably a #1 necessity in proving a BoP in these types of arguments since the resolution is about whether a debater is good or not. Con also says how the sources are relevant, for example, showing even if seldiora lost it does not mean he is bad Points to CON.

Both did well in terms of grammar and spelling. Conduct was also fine.

kənˈseSHən

That's how the dictionary asks us to pronounce "consession"
Pro = more conduct because he conceded.

Arg--Con used a simple syllogism which con did not refute. Pro also "half-conceded" in his round 2 saying one arg is not enough, in a debate but this debate says "100 character max each round is too few for arguments". Points to Con.

Sources-- I am leaning towards con on this. Pro, make sure your sources are on topic as your first three rounds were not really on topic.

Grammar-- Pro mainly included incomplete sentences that did not include simple words like "a an is" and look at his first round:

avg word 5 char, avg essay need at least 200~300 words [v.gd/argsh]. 100 char too few for good arg!!

Pro used more abbreviations and I had to read it over and over again to understand what he is trying to say.

Conduct--both did well.

Arguments-- Pro did not properly fulfill burden of proof. Pro also repeated arguments that con already refuted. Pro's argument of something that can kill people is equivalent to another thing that can kill people does the same damage, which CON refutes multiple times. Points to CON.

Sources-- only CON used sources.

Conduct -- ALL CAPS TEXT DOES NOT MAKE IT IMPORTANT THIS JUST MEANS YOU ARE LITERALLY SCREAMING AT THE OTHER PERSON.

Spelling -- Capitalization is only at the beginning of the sentence, not the entire sentence. Point to CON.

Primarily because of concession, Con = more convincing argument.

Sources-- both did very well

Grammer -- no errors detected

Conduct -- both did well.

FF by pro and oromagi had better arguments