Total votes: 51
Pro says "no, gender is not a social construct, but it’s purely biological." then straight after this says "While I can agree that certain aspects of gender can be said to be ‘social construct’"
He has made contradictory points.
-It is purely biological.
-Some aspects are socially constructed.
Saying purely is another word for entirely meaning you have no room for something else.
"As of matter fact, there are brain difference between male and female brain, which will leave to different brain activity.
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders"
I guess this is an argument but this undermined by the previous point. On this own it isn't even a good one given the link states "Scientists have discovered approximately 100 gender differences in the brain". I thought was providing a point for gender not being a social construct as in there is male and female but here we have 100 gender differences in the brain.
This is the only arguments made by Con so yeah.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Pro decided to lay out definitions of the debate. The problem with this is that if both people agree on the definition then there is nothing to debate about in this debate. Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Pro would have conceded the entire debate to the other side. Even though this is well weird of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.
Pro gave dictionaires definitions from Oxford, Merriam-Webster, WHO and Standford medicine which I consider to be more than sufficient to demonstrate that he didn't use site that are not really popular to win by definition.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Both did give rebuttals but neither of them posted anything relevant to what the other person says. Con decided to not rebut the main point as in popular websites are defining it my way instead says "I said gender and sex related to each other. I never said that their the same.". Pro on the other hand decided to talk about sex and gender when that wasn't necessary. I highlighted the problems with Con's points which was all he needed to rebut the claims brought forward but he didn't instead talked about the difference between sex and gender. The debate was about "Is gender a social construct?" not if sex and gender are the same. Both of them after gave conjecture which was the fault of Con. With nothing to rebut from Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Only arguments because I can't be bothered to do the rest.
Defining yourself to win by using popular sources is better than contradictory statements made through the very next words Con typed and the link Con used to support Con's side.
Pro wins the argument vote because of this.
Comment #5 - #10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D00M2KZH1J0
Comment #59 - #70
Only one person gave arguments.
Only one person gave arguments for their side. That was Virtuoso. billbatard didn't realize he is supposed to state Trump should be re-elected in 2020. Instead of actually realizing it when Virtuoso did state it in Round 2 billbatard carried on making a case for Virtuoso
Only 1 person gave an argument. The other conceded then decided to help his opponent.
Only one person gave arguments for the contention in the debate. That was TheAtheist.
He is also the only person to use evidence that pertained to the debate at hand. Whether it be dress code, terrorism and abortion.
TheAtheist forfeited 2 rounds while Mharman forfeited 3 rounds while also for 5 rounds giving no argument or rebuttals.
I am giving conduct to Pro because Mharman could've given an argument an rebutted if we go by his last two active rounds he was there and submitted words but he didn't. He also forfeited earlier which gave nothing for TheAtheist to rebut.
A forfeit leads to only one side giving rebuttals which means Pro's arguments went unchallenged. 1 out 2 rounds were forfeited which is bad conduct.
50% forfeit is bad conduct.
I could read the debate but I don't want to in order to give the other votes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzGwKwLmgM
Pro pushed the burden of proof and still couldn't make an argument for God. Pro's argument can also be summed as a special pleading fallacy or probability equals God. Even if we grant it is improbable for the universe to be causeless. Pro would have to demonstrate that it is more probable for it to be God. Pretty weird he shifted the burden for some reason. Another problem with Pro is that analogy are used in order for the reader to engage with an argument with a tailored context. It doesn't make your point correct but it can show if your opponent is inconsistent. Since Pro started you would have to show outside source of Con being inconsistent but you didn't. I pretty much summed up Pro's argument without the context. This clearly shows how lackluster Pro's argument is.
Con decided to show how probability actually works. Given that most of Pro's argument was on an incorrect assumption of what probability is Con did all that he needed to state how wrong Pro is. Con also used spaghetti to show there is no difference between an intelligent life and spaghetti. This argument wouldn't work if Pro was able to demonstrate God was intelligent but Pro couldn't which is why the argument was helpful in getting his point across.
Pro after this decided to explain what the Bible says while also adding in more points. This all is not helpful in demonstrating God created life. No amount of belief makes your point better. You need to demonstrate it as in show observable evidence of God doing something or something linking to God or even something logically deducing to God but Pro hasn't.
Con didn't really have much to say apart from regurgitate what he said in the earlier Round. So basically Pro failed to counter Con's point and Con was left stating what he said before.
Pro again decided to bring in more points that were pushing the burden to Con instead of proving God created life. Sure his rule did say Con will have the burden but I don't have to take into account your rules and moderators don't enforce it. He also did add a Bill Gate which doesn't actually support him since he isn't a scientist nor parroting from other scientists he quoted.
Con like the same in other Rounds said pretty much the same thing, modified with new information. Con also pointed out Pro does state Evolution is a fact.
So even though the rules stated Con has the burden to show God didn't create life the debate centered around Pro giving claims Con refuting it. Given that Con did a better job than Pro he wins as I have demonstrated it.
I think Pro should really attend English classes. It helped me with my argumentation as in point, evidence and explanation while also philosophy. In order to find arguments for your side while also presenting it well. Hopefully this leads you to seeing the other side and see how wrong you are but I think I have said enough.
I don't really like Gatorade.
Don't like the drink nor did like its raps.
F for Forfeit.
F is also Full.
Put them together Forfeit Full.
Next time on voting on a debate...
*Dragon Ball Z shtick* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyCAZkz4uVg
I don't know. I don't have the money or time to shoot that episode or whatever I call this.
Look what I found online:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxgrJxagix4
Full forfeit.
I suggest that the instigator accepts or creates a debate that he knows or thinks for the foreseeable future he will finish.
I think there was enough information for the person to realize they were taking the Pro side. The description the colored borders for people more informed about DA.
Contender conceded in the last Round.
The instigator's Round 1 argument is copied from Dinesh's book: Hillary's America:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gIq0CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14&lpg=PT14&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
Simply pick any sentence. Use CTRL+F on the link I just gave and find the sentence he plagiarized.
The instigator also forfeited 2 Rounds out of 5.
If plagiarism is not worthy of a bad conduct point it should be added to the rules.
With plagiarism and 2 Rounds forfeited the contender gains the conduct point for not forfeiting for plagiarizing.
Round 1 plagiarized from here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/27439/6-facts-show-gun-control-not-answer-amanda-prestigiacomo
While also forfeiting is bad conduct.
If plagiarism is not worthy of a conduct loss then the rules should be change to allocate for it.
Sorry about not voting on other criteria but if I am supposed to vote on other criteria. I would actually want arguments from both sides not 1 person giving arguments and the other copying arguments. Why is the instigator here if he copied? Surely not to debate his ideas if he is too busy copying someone else.
His rebuttal for copying his awful. He states those were the facts but does not realize his entire Round was copied. Meaning either his entire Round 2 arguments were facts or he simply copied things that were not facts but didn't realize it. The first would apply to Round 2.
Reason here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1850
Pro forfeited the majority of the debate which is why I vote for Con. Only opening arguments were gave and no rebuttals which meant all Pro had arguments and nothing as in rebuttals to state why his the opponents side is incorrect.
No one wins. Pro could have won this so easily but didn't even quote the videos he used. There was so much more material out there that was better than what he gave instead of abortion was equivocated to slave-owners and don't get me started on Con. He wrote this as a rebuttal to his claim "He only referrers to some. Nowhere in their did he say "all."". Saying he never meant all doesn't mean Pro's point isn't valid. I wrote about 3k characters when I reached to that point and then realise why am I even doing this? Now this is what my debate is. A tie because both are incapable of debating. One can't clearly lay out his argument and the other can't even rebut the main argument brought up.
I can't believe you accepted the debate. I wanted to but guess you did.
The Instigator/Pro forfeited half the Rounds which can be seen with Type1 forfeting Round 2. This meant Ramshutu did not recieve a rebuttal to his claims and went unchallenged.
Bad conduct.
I can only see the instigator's meme so he wins by default for giving a meme instead of no meme.
The instigator forfeited which lead to the contender not being able to add anything new due to lack of rebuttals. The fault lies on the instigator.
The instigator's points were Alan Walker is more creative but did not say how this is that case. The instigator also said Alan has more fans since David since David has fan that don't like him. Never said how or by what measurement this is the case. The instigators leaves us with personal experience used as a gross generalisation of every single person person who is a fan of David or Allan.
The contender stated David is more popular due to how many views he gets and people know him. The views argument is supported by evidence that states he has 400 million views for a video. This alone trumps any point the instigator since the contender's claim is supported by evidence. He also used another links which states David 905 million views on a video. The claim is now supported by two videos where the instigator failed to mention a single one.
Due to this the contender wins the most convincing argument because he was the only one to provide evidence for his claims.
Favourite line "What are the benefits of wasting money on the wall you may ask? Zero, it's just not worth it end of story, kiss my ass."
Since it is a rap battle I will based it on what I liked the most. I liked the contenders the most.
Full forfeit.
Number is the thing I am voting on. 1) = most convincing argument.
1)"But I don't need to be a hero when I'm up against a zero."
Pretty funny.
2)"I'm rapping half assed, but still I have passed.
you up in the lane, My engine's your bane."
I am sure this is a metaphor and I liked it.
3)"Too bad, you can't recover from your win ratio
Of 67, a failing score, it's way too low
Mine is so high, I'm getting vertigo"
Great flow.
4)"You wanted to redeem yourself, you left DDO
Too bad, you can't recover from your win ratio"
This one was pretty funny.
Absent like the moderators of DDO.
The contender was more arguing for a better version of the instigator's argument instead of an opposite or a difference that was enough to say he was on the opposing side.
The instigator forfeited almost all Rounds.
The contender's argument is based on if the tapes are corrupted. The problem here is that it is an unfair position for the instigator to defend and an easy position for the contender to defend if corrupted. The problem is we don't know and that hypothetical makes or breaks this debate because it revolves around it. It is a hypothetical so it can't be right or wrong and since he was using it in that way I will vote for Pro for most convincing argument for not using cheap tactics.
The contender gave up at the end.
The instigator did not forfeit whereas the contender did.
The instigator provided sources for his arguments whereas the contender did not.
Neither side explained their point so I don't want to give the most convincing argument to either because one only gave claims while the other gave claims with evidence. Explanation is required in order for the reader to understand clearly what you are trying to say with your claim.
Con conceded.
Pro waived the last Round which means he conceded the debate.
Full forfeit.
The contender forfeited multiple of times while the instigator did not. The contender's argument amounted to agreeing with the instigator but saying there can be injuries. The instigator provides the claim " players wear appropriate safety gear. It is a requirement to wear a helmet at all times while playing paintball.". The contedener provided the claim that airsoft can have the "highest risk of injury". The instigator then replied with a list of possible injuries. Since the contender did not respond the instigator wins the most convincing argument because a bad argument is better than no argument.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit because the contender did not bring in a single argument. Even if the contender said something everything is a non-sequitur to the debate at hand which was about "Is Israel a good ally?" not an introduction or forfeiting or complaining about time restrictions and voting.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit.
The instigator failed to provide an argument so this can be considered a full forfeit by the instigator.
Since a bad argument is better than no argument. The contender wins that also.
The instigator forfeited the first Round. Which meant the debate was cut even shorter by only 2 Rounds from 3. Since there is a rule of waiving 1 Round shared by both opponents it is already cut down to 3 Rounds but since the instigator did forfeit and the contender did not give a response in Round 1. The debate was 2 Rounds which is the fault of the instigator.
Pro forfeited 2 Rounds so in order for me to actually provide a vote based on other criteria I would have to see a complete debate. That wasn't the case so my vote is based on conduct and my reason is Pro forfeited 2 Rounds and Con didn't forfeit any Rounds.
Con failed to state something that does not abide by physical laws which could have improved his case by providing an explanation of how nothing can come from nothing but that detail was not given. Even though the charcter limit was at 4k. Con only used 1942 characters in Round 1 which was more than enough to provide an explanation for his point of view. There was an instance where Con did state that the physical laws can be broken but did not say how this can mean God. Pro is correct when he said "how does Prime Mover/Uncaused Cause = God? CON does not make that link.". This problem was not addressed. The burden was higher on Con but Pro is right in stating that the link was not found in Con's argument. Pro made this point " then it is physically impossible for that thing to exist." which was not rebutted sufficiently by Con. The problem was that Con needed to find something that is not bound by the physical laws. Con did but did not state how God can be found in it.
Sure this debate could have had more characters but Con did accept the debate I am sure knowing full well the 4k character limit. Pro was not as Con was saying his conduct was which is why it is at a tie.
Everything else is also a tie.
For the contender to win the he must show how the instigator dishonestly votes against him. The problem is that all I saw was nothing of the sort which means the contender was unable to fulfil the burden he had. The contender also did not follow the rules of the debate which were "Pro has burden of proof to demonstrate at least one of these claims are true." instead the contender decided to have the burden of proof shared. Not fair on the instigator since he had what was supposed to happen in the debate but the contender didn't care. Sources don't matter because the contender did not fulfil his burden of proof. No where did any of his sources state what the debate was about. The contender also said "bullshit" which is also bad conduct on top of not waving the last Round. Everything else I didn't say was not worth speaking about for the vote.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1634