Theweakeredge

Args:
Con consistently demonstrates multi-faceted logical approaches to upholding their burden of proof, offering more than enough evidence to demonstrate that at least some pedophiles should be punished. While there is a lack of clarity in regards to the specifics of the resolution, pro offers almost nothing more than assertions and ad hominems against con. I don't think I have to get very specific here, Con's argument that pedophiles usually hurt people, and we should punish people that hurt others in this way - is simple and works in this context.

Sources:
Con is the only one to use sources, further, the sources are backing up their argument in a way that creates impact to their case.

Spelling/Grammer:
A rare case where there is a substantial difference in grammar and spelling, to the point where Pro's ultimate point is hard to understand, some examples for readers: "When a little girl feels strong desire for an adult, nobody should prevent her to make such a relationship. You cannot decide for the little girl if she wants it or not. You have no right to tell a little girl that she should not have relationship with an adult. Little girl has her power of will." From pro's first round argument

Conduct:
Pro repeatedly called Con's arguments "evil" and said they wanted to make little girls their slaves... I think this is very clear.

Resolution: Psychology is Pseudoscience - Therefore, Pro must demonstrate that psychology is pseudoscience, and Con must demonstrate the opposite

Foreward:
Neither debater did particularly well establishing a framework for which us voters should view the debate - for example - Pro got close, trying to establish what he considered science was and using some of his evidence to say that Psychology didn't fit - but what he didn't do was establish what a pseudoscience was. Furthermore, Con also failed to do this, and later in the argument, both debaters merely threw claims at each other - though Pro is more guilty of this than Con.

Arguments:
Pro starts out reasonably strong, declaring what science is and what Psychology is, he attempts to cast doubt by citing a single theory not being discredited, citing RMT as an example - though he lacked evidence to support his claim that it was taken down because of scandals and not discredited by psychologists, as he claims. Instead he cites a newspaper... Further, he establishes examples of "actual" sciences, using physics and medicine - then making fun of disorders? He doesn't use any sources to cite his claims, nor even make real logical arguments, just claims that its not very common according to his experience. So far, Pro has established a semi-framework, and not convinced me at all of his BoP.

Con began with an, admittedly semantic, argument - but one that was fairly convincing. Several dictionaries do indeed list Psychology as a science, like, by definition - though as Pro later points out dictionary definitions are... well semantic while trying to prove this, but Con does have some good points in here. Despite his.... lackluster source regarding the mind - I was never particularly convinced by Pro's arguments either - neither really established very much empirically - but Con did have more evidence than Pro did. Furthermore, Con also established that the fact that there are false theories and practices in sciences does not make that science... not a science, even using Pro's examples of sciences.

Now, I could go on about the second round - but for Pro its just a bunch of claims, with almost not citations, and no citations that actually support his claims - here is Con's much stronger round. He establishes that Psychology does have testable hypotheses, and gives an example, even applying the scientific method - completely destroying Pro's arguments. Really - Pro doesn't do much to actually make a good argument, mostly making claims without any evidence of said claims, and no logic in it. He tries to refute that Gravity wasn't a theory.... but it is - scientifically speaking, as Con points out. To conclude, Con won... by a lot.

Neither established that one was better than the other, though Con did present a semi-kritque before giving it up. Neither presented a second argument and thus - I rule them equal... as Pro essentially concedes that both are the same, and Con questions his own resolution. So tie.

Full forfeit

Concession

Argument: The resolution is quite hard to interpret, but based on Pro's first argument it seems to be some sort of "who would win in a fight" situation. While none of Pro's arguments are consideredly sequitur or substantiated - Con doesn't actually present an argument. So Pro does win the arguments, by default.

Conduct: Pro is being penalized as an entire round is an insult to their opponent.

The Resolution: By the 19th Century, Evidence Already Showed Earth is NOT Flat

Note:
While the use of non-previous 19th century evidence will not influence the arguments, any evidence from after 1899 will result in that user getting penalized for conduct

Arguments:
Primarily the two discuss two principles, as such, these will be the main points covered in the vote.

Ships Disappearing over Horizon: Pro argues that ships wouldn't disappear over the horizon if the earth wasn't flat, and Con responds back that regardless of shape things would appear smaller as they get farther. Pro points out that strong telescopes prove that, no, this isn't the case - but Con doesn't respond... he merely repeatedly asserts that conclusion to be a mirage. As for those pointing out that Con had sources, they had zero methodology or actual sources backing them - they were youtube videos. This point goes to Pro

Lunar Eclipses: Pro argues that the shape of the shadow of the earth would be impossible if the earth was flat, and Con argues that eclipses mean that the earth is out of range? I don't follow Con's arguments, and he provides no substantiation nor elaboration for the claim- he tacks on that there was an impossible eclipse in 2011... but the source that his source cites, literally explains why the eclipse is indeed possible - and Pro pointed this out as well it was atmospheric reflection, and Con also doesn't respond to this. This point goes to Pro

Dropped Arguments: Con literally drops half of Pro's proofs from the first round such as: Circumnavigation, mathematical calculation of the shape of the earth, the argument of shifting constellations, the argument of the compression of spheres, and so on and so forth - even if Con successfully rebuked the two primary points of discussion he would still have lost hands down thanks to this basket full of proofs. Pro wins arguments by a landslide.

Sources:
While Con employs *only* youtube videos and images, Pro actually provides substantive sources which effectively link and prove his claim... Con's only source that actually has a source sourced (remember youtube videos) actually contradicts the idea of the video, so, Pro wins this one. Though he also has a youtube video, most of his sources are non-video sources which are properly sourced themselves, in contrast, the only "real" source Con has refutes the claim that he's trying to make.

Conduct:
As I mentioned previously, and Pro pointed out, Con provided evidence that was recorded in the 2000s, no ifs, and, or buts about it - one of his sources is literally an experiment conducted by non-professionals in tennis courts, as Con broke the resolution he is being penalized.

Argument:
This was an interesting read - and a tip to both debaters: Please elaborate "what is the security council? What are its goals? Are new members being added? Etc etc" these kinds of foundational elaborations would vastly increase the quality of the debate. Next, I do indeed buy Pro's argument that a good majority of Con's last round arguments were new - and though I will still consider them - they will be minor points compared to the things mostly discussed.

Economy; So the argument goes essentially as follows - Con says that India is among the worst nations financially speaking, as it struggles with equity of income and so and so forth, Pro then argues that India is doing just fine making it to the top 5 in GPD earnings. So, for Con to win this, he has to demonstrate that the Security Council wants to establish equity of wages.... but it never does that - there are no sources from the SC declaring this to be its mission, its just not demonstrate by Con - and Pro actually demonstrates that the members of the SC aren't actually necessarily doing what's "right", so Con's appeal to humanitarian efforts kinda falls flat here. I see no reason why India's poor equity of outcome would prohibit its place on the council, and its rather high general GPD per capita would make it a good candidate as far as we've established. I'd say the point, though it is fairly close, goes to Pro here.

Miiltary: This argument goes that India has done some bad stuff, attack and perpetuate wars on Pakistan, and oppressed its people. Pro rebuts by arguing that not only have all of the other nations of the SC do that, but most still do it. Furthermore, that the attack on Pakistan was provoked. Con does point out that the mere fact that others in the SC do bad stuff that doesn't mean that they should allow others that do "bad stuff" to join the council... a couple of problems that stop me from buying that argument: Con establishes that these nations are supposedly leading by example, yet Con has demonstrated time after time that three of the five continue to lead in an oppressive, problematic way - so adding another nation would not change that- ESPECIALLY because Pro proves that India has done more to help a lot of the causes that Con points out than harm-unlike several other SC members. Furthermore, Con never establishes that India would continue to act in its ways, it is more plausible to me that India would simply change to fit the SC's guidelines than continue on - especially because nothing Con has shown would put India on the level of China or even Russia. It seems to me that this point does also go to Pro.

Overall, though I think both debaters were much to dogmatic in regard to what and who should be allowed into the SC, and very.... vague in regards to what the SC even is - overall I buy Pro's points much more - he's demonstrated that India should get a seat, it's economically prosperous generally, and has seemed to be fair, even helping stabilize the global economy according to Pro's arguments. Con's arguments were filled with assumptions regarding the humanitarian... and he never set that up (except for the last round, and not directly - but as previously mentioned - the new points by Con are not being considered majorly). So, overall - I give arguments to Pro - India should be granted a permanent seat in the SC.

Conduct: Pro forfeited a round

Argument:
The resolution clearly states that Con cannot prove anything to Pro, not that Con can change Pro's mind or that Pro has to "accept" that proof - and Con's definition of proving in the second round is a very good argument towards that. Furthermore, only Con actually fulfills their BoP - Pro actually has their own BoP to fulfill and never even attempts to prove it - it is simply taken as an assumption by Pro that their argument is right, no substantiation whatsoever. Con wins this easily.

Argument:
First and foremost - it must be said that the resolution is clear - Pro must prove that it is *possible* that the star wars army could destroy Eve. Con drops the fact that Pro's Star War army has weapons that can fire at light speed - the fact that they fire at the speed of light does not mean the actual harm of the laser is light-based as Pro points out - furthermore, they drop the fact that a *billion* soldiers could fit in one space where they could easily fire at EVE.

I simply buy that millions of soldiers have enough power to overwhelm EVE's defences - as Con has a feat of what? A combustion engine? That's nothing compared to raw energy - I actually used to be a feat debater - and let me tell ya - Pro easily wins - Con simply doesn't sell EVE's defences past the first round - where is your evidence that EVE could survive "6.7749361e+22 watts worth of electricity per shot" - Con doesn't even respond to this point.

Given this - Pro proves that it is possible for the army to defeat EVE

Conduct: Pro forfeited

Arguments:
First of all, just to get something out of the way - Con - your evidence really isn't all that strong - the source you provide isn't even the actual study and doesn't link to the study either, it isn't hard to guess why as the survey apparently only has 300 or so responses... far from representative - so while I'm not completely disregarding the source, it really has a very small impact on the debate itself.

The Libel: Con essentially asserts that because the definition of Holocaust denial precludes libel, libel is not the topic of discussion, but Pro convinces me that it is the *means* by which one should view Holocaust denial - as this was essentially a debate of rhetoric - Con you should have attacked that argument more than mentioning its preclusion from the description - clearly the implications of Holocaust denial would be dealing in Libel. Perhaps if Con could have shown evidence that cases like this were ruled in favor of the denier, or something similar, then I wouldn't be convinced - in the absence of such evidence the point goes to Pro.

Propaganda: This goes to an appeal to emotion versus an appeal to realism - and I am not very swayed by Con's attempt to "sympathize" with Nazi sympathizers, nor I am very convinced that Pro is deliberately attacking the masses - in most research papers, citing something that is common knowledge is a task in redundancy, and it is fairly common knowledge that everyone is vulnerable to propaganda - and Pro does actually back this up by reasonably appealing to the fact that it is unrealistic to say that *all* of the people who fell to the Nazi propaganda weren't unintelligent, and explained how it worked - the point goes to Pro, clearly.

The Case of Denazification: Pro argues that anti-holocaust denial laws in Britain has curbed anti-semintism, and furthermore points out that it would be unreasonable to get rid of the denazification because Germany still has high levels of ati-seministism, and argues that that is the logical conclusion of Con's plan.... and... Con plain out doesn't respond to it - in their next debate round saying: " do not feel the need to elaborate on this issue until my opponent addresses the fact that their proposal can certainly be shown to be ineffective" Con, even if this was true, and it wasn't, whenever a debate is arguing that something "should" happen, it is happening on more than a legal front - I hope its not neccessary to say, but Pro won this as well.

Despite the confidence Con has in his appeal to evidence, his source is easily ignored (even without the weakness of it) by Pro's rhetoric. Though I would have liked both sides using a *lot* more sources, the simple fact is that Pro is more convincing and makes more impactful points, whereas it seems Con is grasping at straws, saying things like, "the definition of holocaust denial doesn't include libel", this arugment goes to Pro.

Full Forfeit

Argument - "Greco Roman Wrestling is preferable to Kung Fu for winning fights"

Now, fighting is a tricky business, and fighting styles are even moreso - but I do think that I have a valid vote here: Ultimately the debaters were trying to argue that their respective style was better at winning fights, I'm including - knocking out, exhausting, causing the opponent to give up, winning in regulated matches, etc - all of those encompass winning fights.

Starting with the most impactful argument - Kung Fu's practice without resisting opponents. Not once did Con argue against this, and while Con does point out - what seem to be very effective and unrebutted points for strikes that can end fights - Con never actually provides sources to prove that pracitioners can actually pull these kinds of moves off - and Pro directly attacks these arguments. That moves like eye-gouging and neck grappling can't really be utilized by KF without the Wrestler taking advantage, and while I don't actually buy all of those arguments - Con simply never provides evidence that KF users can actually pull these moves off enough to win fights. This argument goes to Pro.

The Distance - Pro argues that all fights will inevitably enter clinch range, and that from there - the fighters trained to dominate in such spheres will obviously defeat the strike-based fighters. Con argues that such a distance isn't necessarily the case, as KF users will keep distance and stop the wrestler from getting their hands on them. Now - Con actually backs this up - they provide a source proving that KF increases reflexes and health of their users, and Pro never really argues against this point aside that the wrestler would just be able to pull it off anyway. My problem with Pro's argument is that he provides a single example of a regulated match - so even if I buy that Pro's argument is true - it only applies in one instance of a fight. Con's argument that KF users would deny Wrestlers their speciality isn't properly rebutted and the logic behind Con's arguments are sound - so I'm giving the point to Con here.

Variety - this is another of the most important arguments to me - this is what determines which is more useful in non-regulated matches. Con brings up some good points, that Pro's chosen style is something which is very likely to be taken down if the circumstances aren't just right - as being able to wrestle down your opponent is relying on the fact that no one else will just intervene; however, Con's argument is just as weakened, as he provides no real proof that KF will be able to hold off multiple opponent's any better, and Pro also throws doubt on KF ability to even strike - even if I buy that KF users can dodge, Con just doesn't give enough to argue that they can win the fight. Con at least does prove that Wrestling is effective at taking down people in regulated matches, and good at 1v1 situations - this goes to Pro, although it is very narrowly.

To summarize the main points: Pro puts heavy doubt on KF's ability to actually bring opponent's down, and Con does very little to address the criticism, Pro attempts to further discredit Kf by arguing that fights will almost always end up in Clinch where Wrestling will come out on top, but Con does have a solid argument to say that KF users can stay out of range of their best ability. Finally, Con argues that Wrestling can't take out more than a single opponent, but Pro's arguments put KF on the same level - so far Pro is leading in points that have convinced me - ultimately I am swayed to Pro's side - Con you just didn't give enough evidence that a KF user would actually be able to utilize those moves effectively - and you dropped the points whenever Pro brought it up, I need proof that KF can do what you claim it can that aren't movies. Pro, I didn't buy a lot of your arguments about how superior wrestling was, as a lot of your logic was contradicting, but you ultimately had more evidence that proved it could actually bring down foes.

Both debaters did a bad job of backing up their claims with substantive evidence, but Con did just a little worse in that regard, and with Pro's specific attack on KF's veracity, that leaves Con at a loss.

Pro didn't give up on Con - he knew the rules and so do I
-So the argument goes to Con

Concession

The argument in question:
Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old

IMPACTLESS ARGS:
Conduct Argument - dropped - Con uses continuous semantic language such is pointed out by Con, for example; interpreting Pro's claim - "The earth says its older than 100,000" as literal rather than figurative - you find these throughout Con's attempt to paint Con as unconduct worthy - I will revisit this argument in Conduct section to evaluate if this would lower the conduct of Con.

The Argument to the beginning of Life: Ultimately irrelevant to the debate - this does nothing to demonstrate the young-ness or the oldness of the earth to me the voter, perhaps it would work to support some of Con's later arguments, but it ultimately does not provide support for the claim

Time argument: Con argues that time is non-existent, yet the claim says that scientist don't know if time exists objectively in certain realms, this does not actually discredit the idea of science, as Con is using science - why would Con using science to disprove science make me less sure of science- as Pro points out in the final round regarding impact, in this debate, Time is assumed to be true, as the question of age would intrinsically mean that - and Con only ever brings up the argument to question science... perhaps if Con had used it as a kritik, then there would be a different argument, as of now, it does not support Con's argument.

IMPACTFUL:
The argument of god: Con completely ignores the fact that he makes several non-sequiturs, as Pro points out multiple times, I simply am not convinced of a god's existence because Con said that the universe had a beginning - if Con can't convince me that god exists, then I don't buy any of his arguments - even if I buy that Science has limits, why should those limits be in regard to the earth? Please Con you need to link your arguments

The argument of Science vs Theology:
As Pro points out, Con completely contradicts himself by making arguments using science, while trying to debunk science, so if I buy this argument, EITHER I don't buy that the bible is accurate (because all of Con's proof is scientific in nature), and therefore the YEC isn't accurate, OR that Science is indeed a good explanation, and that Pro's arguments hold solid.

Radiometric Dating:
Con fails to directly attack any of Pro's actual arguments, leaving them standing strong by the end of the debate, this gives the win to Pro ultimately

Critique:
Pro - you were way to weak on the last round - yes it is true that your opponent had no linkage, and you did well to point that out - but you left way to many arguments in the water, someone else could have come back in the last round and won this debate - or even Con given another debate - Con you need to link your arguments and make sure that they aren't so flawed, the trolling arguments you used in round 1 makes me want to penalize you on conduct - I wouldn't suggest it.

Conduct:
Almost an entire half of the first round of Con's use semantic arguments to try to rule Pro as breaking his own rules, all dismantled by Pro - as Con barely dedicates a paragraph to it in the last round, I find it likely that Con knew these things were semantic - I'm penalizing Con because of this red herring in regards to the conduct throughout the first round.

Arguments
- Pro started out explaining that police would have to use violence to subdue serial killers
- Con completely ignores the point and talks about Police Brutality in regards to minorities
- Pro responds that Police Violence could be used to mitigate PB to minorities
- Con completely ignores the point and talks about the disproportionate amount of minorities killed by police

If this was an argument about whether or not police brutality affected minorities in general then Con would win this - but not only is that not what this debate is about - it is more generally about brutality - Con also completely ignores Pros arguments in both rounds. Furthermore, neither debater linked any sources to substantiate their arguments. This means that any impact Con could have is completely diminished. I actually agree with Con here; however, Pro won this debate on the points argued in the round - his argument about violence towards serial killers was never addressed, even if I buy Con's arguments regarding minorities. The resolution (nebulous as it is) seems to be broad enough to account for any Police Brutality - therefore Pro wins this on argument

Argument:
Con's argument was essentially never refuted, Pro never even attempted to rebuke Con's points on the role of police officers in the community, and instead only talked about how Police might act in cases of war or terrorism; however, Con correctly pointed out that there are people literally specially trained to deal with that situation, not the police.

Con's actual argument was decently solid - they used the key principle that the police are used to protect the public, and being violent would undermine that duty - this argument in the first round solidly fulfilled Con's BoP - and seeing as Pro never actually refuted the point - Con easily wins on arguments.

Pro you never sold me on the point of terrorism mostly because you never even attempted to respond to your opponent - repeating the same argument over and over after your opponent has already rebuked it is not very effective at convincing me of your resolution - and Con you did a good job with the starting argument and refuting Pro's points; however, if they actually had responded they could have very easily countered your position about what the duty of the police are - you should back that up a tad more next time with more sourcing and preferably a syllogism. A good starter debate though.

Con conceded to Pro's resolution:

"Pro will open up by saying "That's got to be the best debater I've ever seen."

Con may only respond by saying "So it would seem.""

This is what occurred in the debate

Concession

ARGUMENT:
As the resolution "proper" isn't much of a resolution - I will be using Con's. Yes, Pro does argue against the resolution, but he fails to actually provide a compeating one. He doesn't dispute that the provided resolution is bad, just that he doesn't except Con's; however, Con's resolution actually fits closest to Pro's purposed scenario, as Pro says that the chinese attack is "genocidal" and this point is argued by Pro. This is the resolution:

RESOLVED: In response to the Chinese nuking of over 300 million American civilians, the United States should nuke over a billion Chinese civilians.

Unjustified Atrocity - so.. this essentially goes:
Pro - arguements regarding to the immoral nature of an act has nothing to do with the debate
Con - Killing a billion innocent people is unjustified and evil, so we should not do it
Pro - Any argument about morality doesn't matter

So, this point easily goes to Con - Pro does not do the legwork to convince me that we should disregard morality, he literally claims that his position is, "let's do it anyway", and that we wouldn't be reasonable in such an exchange. As was previously stated, this goes to Con.

Guarented Death:
Con argues that the bombing would result in global anhilation of the human species, Pro responds that China... would run out of bombs, and Pro points out that it if we were to fire back it there would be more destroyed humanity, which fits given the facts. Pro drops the points in the final rebuttal, which is... unfortunate, because I'm judging this as one of if not the biggest impact in the debate. There is no satisfaction to be had if everyone is dead, Con wins this one.

A lot of the other arguments are... well, essentially pro decides to contradict a number of positions that he held previously in the round - he initially argues that the chinese would launch an invasion after the strike, but then argues that the chinese would all die after the strike; that a strike back at China would protect further American harm, after Pro argues that most China would mostly be dead.. This, and the huge impacts that Con won (and one that Pro just dropped), wins Con the argument section

Arguments:
Pro attempts to argue that due to the relativity of spacetime the earth is technically flat, beyond the generally unimpressive argument, none of the sources cited by Pro support his conclusion; furthermore, Con easily points out the non-sequitur even giving us reason to not prefer Pro's unsubstantiated argument. Even more conclusively one of Con's round 1 argument: that mathematics demonstrates the roundness of the earth, is never refuted by Pro. Let's say I buy that all arguments from Con regarding how we perceive the earth to be round are incorrect, that does not account for the fact that we can mathematically arrive at the same conclusion.

Sources: Actually investigating the sources provided by both debaters, Con's sources directly demonstrate the claims he makes in the round - in contrast, Pro's only tangentially relate, and can only be interpreted to some of the positions he concludes. If you don't buy the first syllogism, then you can't even get that far. Con's sources actually provide impact and linkage for the argument, Pro's do not.

THBT: This house believes: Motion in the universe points to the existence of God.

ARG:
This is crucial - Pro must demonstrate that motion (as was defined by himself) points to the existence of the entity "god" - Con must demonstrate the opposite, that this defined motion does not. Pro, therefore, MUST demonstrate that the "actualizer" was an entity - which Con points out. I simply do not buy the notion that the actualizer was a being without further evidence - it is simply assumed in the syllogism, as Con also points out.

Usually, I would require that Con have a constructive, asserting why god doesn't exist; however, that isn't the BoP that Con must defend, Con is arguing that motion does not point to God, and argues this successfully. Pro's entire argument relies on A) Accepting the terms provided, that's done, and B) Accepting the syllogism. The problem is that Con successfully points out many reasons for the syllogisms falaciousness.

Such as: A temporal view on causal relationships is nonsensical without time, The example of "The dominos being pushed over by an outside force" is reliant on the precursory knowledge that Dominos are pushed over (the same goes for the ceiling fan example as Con points out), that nowhere did Pro demonstrate that the cause would be an entity. I'm sorry, but Pro simply does not put in the leg work to demonstrate his claim, EVEN if we didn't buy Con's argument.

Conduct: Pro forfeited final round

In round 2 Con summed up how I frame this debate: "If the effects of video games in school can be replaced by something that can be accomplished by a teacher, a staple of paper, and a single screen, then there is no need for video games"

Arguments:

The core argument starts off as follows: Pro claims and successfully substantiates that video games show academic benefit to students, Con counters that video games are either unfun and thus not conducive to learning or fun which would increase competition, and therefore also not being conducive to learning. The problem here is that neither argument is sourced, this is not very convincing. Con does have a second point however, that video games are not necessary. I don't really see the relevance. The resolution is whether we should include video games into school systems, not if school systems need video games.

In the second round we see Pro mostly rest on his laurels, pointing out that Con's claims are not sourced and logically dismantling the claims of Con, however, Con himself introduces some new arguments into the fold here. That Video Games are more likely to cause kids to care less for homework if they get a game system immediately, next that games will not stress learning, third that video games are more likely to go out of hand. I don't see the relevance of the first claim - if video games were implemented in school, they would be using the systems for homework. The second one isn't sourced, and the third one is a single example - in other words - it doesn't lend much impact to his claims.

For the final round Pro tidies everything up, rebuking a claim from last round that an example he cited was a video game, and generally rebuked the points - Pro essentially claims that with guidance from teachers the problems that Con points out would be mitigated. The problem really comes with Con's response, while he does briefly touch on Pro's arguments he spends most of the last round establishing a new argument. Con uses two sources to substantiate their claims, though one doesn't work, and the other one was referring to video games implemented specifically at home. I don't factor this into the impacts either. Ultimately Con never demonstrated that something as effective and cheaper than Video Games are or could be added to school, especially considering Con never sourced that Video Games were uniquely expensive or that they are harmful.

A comparison of the impacts: Pro has a solid foundation of video games being beneficial to a wide array of subjects, in contrast Con has a lot of assertions and irrelevant arguments. The arguments easily goes to Pro.

Sources:
Though Con had some interesting sources and claims, I think overall Pro had sources that were more relevant not only to the resolution at hand, so topicality apriority, but also to his argument. In contrast, Con uses several arguments that barely relate to the resolution, some sources not even being available. Not only that but the quality of Pro's sources was superior to Con's - with half of Con's being newspapers with no studies behind them, and Pro's being journals with hundreds of studies. Pro wins this one too.

Conduct:
Con introduced a brand new argument in the last round, giving Pro no room to rebuke them or even answer them at all, the new argument being an argument regarding a loss of social skills, this was not mentioned nor prepped in any of the round before - Con should therefore be penalized for such an action, I give it to Pro.

Concession.

Topicality - that is the hurdle that must be overcome by both debaters whenever there are competing definitions of a word at play. Con explains, and receives no valid rebuttal, about why their definitions are accurate and Pros are not. Add on the fact that Pro admitted to making up their own definitions in order to make the debate feasible and we start to see the giant cracks in Pros argument. They are dependent on their definitions.... which are admittedly made up to support their position. Con points out, rightly so, that if an argument is invalidated by the proper definitions, that means the argument is not correct, at least in its current form. Furthermore, Con fulfills their burden with a simple definition which Pro fails to address coherently.

Essentially Pro had to prove that both atheism and theism are contingent on faith, or that faith was the *only* way to get to either conclusion. That's what "reliant" means. Con pointed out that Pro never completed their bop, though obviously not in the same words, the argument that Pro attempts does no work in convincing me of the resolution, even if I were to buy some of the more arbuable definitions, there are lots that Con completely demolished, like faith and how it was necessarily religious.

Con wins by a lot I'd say.

As implied by the resolution, and argued by Con, it is unreasonable to claim that proving a small minority of white Americans as domestic terrorists fulfills Pro's burden of proof for his resolution. Whereas Con has provided explicit evidence of the fact that a very small percentage of domestic terrorists are not white, therefore Con easily wins this debate.

Full Forfeit

Concession

Full Forfeit

Let's be clear, I don't think either debater reached their goalpost, so I'll be going off based on who got the closest to it:
Arguments:

There were a lot of assertions thrown around, and one point that was never returned to: Con asserting that personhood started after birth, Pro refuted this, asking for evidence - and the best we got was a lousy analogy from Con? I don't think that stacks up to the evidencial burden placed on them by the assertion they declared. Furthermore the core of the debate - is Abortion unethical, doesn't have a proper foundation for us to accurately judge it, therefore we must use the impacts of the debate to establish a victor in the consequences of abortion. Therefore the entire "personhood" thing is dropped almost entirely.

Some core fronts: Is it the ethical duty of the impreganted to raise their child? Con does present evidence that at least half of women use contraceptives, therefore making the sex safe, which as Pro's primary argument: that the impreganted choose to have sex and must accept the "consequences". Now, I don't think that this entirely rebukes Pros point, but Pros point isn't elaborated on much beyond the initial mention, and no rebuttal was made, thereby I would give the point of this impact to Con.

Next is the mental affects of Abortion on the impregnated. Now Pro provides some examples of PSTD like symptoms as well as a cocophany of others, but Con actually provides a very compelling counter source to it - directly negating it. Pro attempts to argue essentially to either put the baby up for adoption, but Con points out that this is an absurd and non-realistic solution; second Pro attempts the "safe-sex" argument, which I've already discussed as being debunked by Con. In conclusion, this point is also to Con.

Finally we move to the.... "incest" category, this entire section is a mine field for any potential moral philosophers, but we continue on posthaste. It essentially boils down to Con showing that Pro's entire supposition on this regard is contradictory, at one point - Pro asserts that clones are nothing but copies, with no value, then whenever Con points out that directly contradicts the notion that Pro is using to suppose the value of a fetus, Pro backpeddles and says that clones shouldn't be killed, this carries over to the talks of incest, essentially with Con doing the same thing, but in disabilities terms. Con wins this one.

Therefore Con overwhelmingly reaches their goalpost more than pro, not to say that Con did actually prove their side of the resolution, but they did so better than Pro.

Conduct:

Due to two forfeited rounds, Conduct goes to Con.

Whenever the specific meaning of a term is debated between two or more definitions - there are a couple of ways to choose the one that fits the most aptly. Topicality - which is basically just asking if the definition used fits in with the context of the situation specifically, Frequency - especially whenever we are talking about interpreting the resolution, the actual use of the word and how much definitions are used should come into play, and Justification - the specific reasoning that we are using this definition over another definition. Pro has provided no reason to prefer his definition, and given by the definition that has be defended by Con specifically - both debaters agree that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Pro's entire argument is semantics and a misunderstanding of language.

Concession

RDF

Conduct:
This is the very first thing I'd like to address, as both debaters have arguments regarding whether or not Pro's argument should be considered "presented in bad faith". I find the views of Con regarding to the definition of Moral and what they find the resolution to be about, compared to Con's views on the Pro's "bad-faith"-ness to be contradictory. Con found Pro's interpretation of the debate that pro's goalpost was to prove that it was unrelated to morals as bad, yet whenever pressed for the definition of moral, fell back on the "related to moral principles"....

If you use that definition of moral, then Pro's entire side of the debate is the only one Pro could make, that Homosexuality is unrelated to morality. However, from this, we know that Con actually uses Pro's definition of Morality - relating to the right principles of morality. So this whole thing should tell us two things: That any claim of "bad conduct" is coming from a hypocritical definition of moral, and that Con is awfully shifty with their definitions. I actually deduct the conduct point from Con because they are so insistent that Pro should be penalized. As they obviously support a definition of morality that would have absolutely no problem with Pro's position.

Argument:
Now that that long take on the conduct is done, we can get into the actual arguments of the debate, and we can actually factor in Con's extremely low standard for evidence. They conclude that anything even involving morality as a claimed aspect should be rendered "related". I really don't buy this reasoning, as though Pro's specific claim of chocolate cake isn't the most compelling, the general principle behind the argument is. The core point being - just because some guy claimed something to be moral or immoral, that doesn't mean that the thing is implicitly moral. I find Con's argument less than compelling as they seem to have no real weight behind their arguments. Saying that eating the cake is immoral because the ingredients could have been collected in a immoral way? That seems loose at best, not to mention that their arguments that the mental sphere is damaged seem to be caused by external factors. As Pro points out.

The next look we should take is that the definition of moral is pretty much what Pro claims it to be, heck, even Con used that very definition of moral whenever trying to get a conduct point from Pro. This seems that everyone on the debate actually agrees with this definition and Con is being obtuse in only using the broad definition. Even if Pro presented a definition, clearly that definition isn't the best of the debate, as Pro shows with a very clear demonstration that the majority of the definitions of moral all support his side. It seems likely to me that the benefit of the doubt should be handed to pro in this sense, as no where except for the description does Pro actually contradict his idea of the definition of moral.

The next argument we should take is the argument over the considerations of what is moral, and saying: "A youtuber said this unproved thing" isn't enough to dismantle it, with Pro even clarifying why he used the table and why it applies in later rounds, with no compelling rebuttal from Con. From this we can get into the two spheres - is it an action being taken consciously, which Pro's sourcing brigade seems to prove that is not quite handedly. The second condition is whether the homosexuality affected well-being, perhaps this is where I would differ from Con very much, but we must go off what was actually argued in the debate itself, and in the debate itself, Con presented no proper rebuttal for Pro's arguments, at least not in any comprehensive sense.

From those main contentions, I would Pro wins this point.

Concesssion - this was a fun and niche debate.

Arguments:

The case is clear here: Not only did Con never satisfyingly answer the Kritik (priority issues in a debate as they question the foundation of the claim itself), but Pro also made several convincing arguments in the realms of personhood, morality, and otherwise which Con never answered beyond assertions and logical fallacies. Such as with the whole "senses" debacle. The point clearly goes to Pro

Sources:

Con provided sources that were reliable and backed up their assertions, giving their arguments clear impacts, whereas Pro only asserted things without evidence. If Pro had made no assertions which required evidence, then perhaps they could have gotten away with this, but definitions, like acceptance, are only backed up by his own words. Changed as its convenient to him, another point to pro.

Arguments:

Pro provided several example with clear impacts to support their resolution such as: pollution drops, avoidance of death with less car accidents, and that it saves people money to not have to drive to work. These contentions are not disputed with any evidence by Con, as Pro notes that Con has no resources providing evidence to their proposition.

Sources:

Pro has sources, whereas Con has none, not only that, but each source Pro uses provides a crystal clear impact to their argument.

Full Forfeit

Con forfeits

Arguments:

One thing to get aside, quality and quantity, one might be tempted to side in favor of Pro due to Con's "misunderstanding" of the resolution. The problem with that. Con clearly establishes and demonstrates that a large number of people are going from zero education to education, which is a rise in education. Zero to not zero is obviously an improvement, thus proving Con's goalpost, I find Pro's focus on first world education interesting whenever the resolution had no such qualifier. Essentially - going from fulfilling none of the categories from Pro's definition to even one, is an improvement. I, therefore, grant the point to Con

Argument:

This wasn't even close, sorry to say, Con provided literal mountains of evidence to argue a very impactful prong, such as slavery being against the constitution and therefore legally wrong, this is technically enough to declare Con winner, bu Fauxlaw didn't stop there, he provided a three pronged attack, even attempting to anticipate counters, and address them.

Sources:

Again, mountain of evidence, these equated to 18 sources on Con's side, all providing evidence to his claims, but impact too, whereas all of Pro's claims are assertions. With no evidence to support them.

Agreed on by Debaters

Argument:

Pro never got close to proving that natural flavoring is made out of babies, and even their cited article disagrees with them. As Con also points out, their definitions are confused, "aborted baby" is non-sensical, as it is either aborted or a baby. From there Pro tried to attack Con with Ad hominems, calling them a monster for not agreeing, whenever the literal definitions disagree. This is a clear win for Con.

Conduct:

I'm penalizing Pro due to the aformentioned ad hominem as well as general bad faith throughout the argument, they repeatedly refused to engage the definitions, instead resulting to insults.

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Arguments:

It really came down to one point - Net Negative or Net Positive - While Con had a few sources that would give an impact weight, Pro had a multitude of scientific studies and in-depth research in their evidence. So - as far as this debate goes - the net positives do outweigh the negatives - as well as the fact that Pro actually rebutted Con's claims, whereas Con concedes the round.

Arguments:

This was a tough one for sure: Essentially: I think both debaters could have done a better job:

Dropped/Conceded Arguments:

Definitions - Con majorly handicapped themself whenever they only responded to the Kritik in the third round - of the definition of meat. Pro easily wins the definition argument there, because not only did Con never provide their own definitions, but also simply dismisses Pro's argument, not actually refuting it. Pro point

3rd World Countries - I do believe this could have easily been Pro's point; however, neither debater actually provides sources to provide a real impact of their argument, essentially devolving into a: he said, she said, of whether 3rd world countries relied on the meat industry. However, Pro does make a point, that it is more than likely they do based on rhetoric, so I will award the point to Pro for this one.

Next, we go on to Valid Replacement: The next argument to explore is brought up by Pro, essentially, "IF we were to remove meat, what would replace it the essentials it provides?" Which is a valid point. Con brings up the fact of veggie/fake meat. Unfortunately for Con, it does fall under their definition of meat that Pro provided, therefore the arguments made by Con for it's favor only bring more impact to Pro argument. Point to Pro.

Harm to Animals: While Pro did briefly attempt to make a refutation against this, Con easily wins out by their sourcing proving that we should value the state of animals more than we should value that of plants. This is essentially dropped by Pro, and one of Con's most convincing points, as it holds some of the most impact, and is not an argument based on the definition or otherwise. Point to Con.

Greenhouse gasses: Then Con continues on and makes an argument regarding greenhouse gases caused by the meat industry, which is a solid impact, and one that Pro does not refute, essentially handing the point to Con. Con point.

Replacement Part2: Because Pro wins the argument of what Meat is, Con has only barely demonstrated that people would be able to get enough nutrients to survive (due to sourcing prior) however, due to the state of third world countries, Con has not proved they would not starve without the meat industry.

Therefore the impacts we are weighing: Con's; massive harm to animals and greenhouse gases: vs Pro's; starvation of third world countries and essential concession of Con in resolution.

Therefore I mark this argument to Pro - while greenhouse gases is an important impact, not enough work on Con's part would concretely establish it as outweighing the immediate starvation of 3rd world countries, not to mention, Con has not established why other animal suffering is more important than human suffering, which Pro has established.

Sources: Both debaters have sources that demonstrate their claims and impacts (or a lack thereof) therefore this will be a tie.

BS&G: This is tied.

Conduct: This is tied.

Arguments:

This debate could really be boiled down quite simply - It is simply not practical to implement Pro's proposal as suggested. While Pro did rebuke certain claims and such, none of their points on the topic were refuted in their entirety. For example; The point of Voter Fatigue was never mentioned by Pro,

The ones the Pro did rebuke were rebuked correctly in return. For example; The president not enjoying their full presidential powers, as the proposal would literally limit them to a trial period.

In all, Pro simply did not refute the impacts of Cons arguments with any real weight. This point goes to Con.

The rest are tied, no one provides a single source, S&G are equivalent across the board, and conduct is not violated by either debater.

Arguments:

Essentially the debate boiled down to this:

Pro: The literal definition of ALM is something which is more inclusive than BLM and is therefore better at battling racism
Con: Regardless of the literal definition the way it is most commonly used it racist, therefore the nonracist slogan works better at battling racism

Pro does not actually really attack the fact that ALM's reputation is more racist, simply dismissing the case as it is a misinterpretation of the term. However, in a debate such as this, "Which would be more effective at battling racism" one should weigh the impacts heavily.

It is simply not true that BLM carries a more racist reputation than ALM, and would therefore be better at battling racism, as Con's list of sources proves.

Sources:

As I have previously mentioned - impacts are important here, and the fact that Con consistently provides sources to back up their impacts is very effective at earning the point. Combine this with the fact that pro stopped providing sources to reinforce their point after round 1, and the source point easily goes to con.

BS&G: Both debaters are adequate in this regard, tie.

Conduct: Both debaters are adequate in this regard, tie.