Thoth

That ended anticlimactically. I spent a substantial period of time reading the debate, re-reading portions of the debate, evaluating sources, and contemplating which participant I would vote for and why, only to discover that Con conceded. Oh well.

Given my extensive prior knowledge of relevant topics, and my personal investment in policies pertaining to the Covid-19 pandemic due to how it has affected me, it would have been extremely difficult for me to maintain tabula rasa. However, I think I would have most probably voted for Pro anyway, despite agreeing with Con's resolution.

RationalMadman, I would like to debate this topic as Con against you.

A challenging decision.

Does this even need an explanation?

Spectacular.

Arguments: I believe that Con provided the superior arguments because he demonstrated how, according to his own definition, capitalism is not "obsolete." Pro never directly provided a definition of "obsolete" more compatible with his own arguments. If he had, and had not forfeited a round, I might have judged this category a tie or even in Pro's favor. I believe that something can correctly be called "obsolete" if it is no longer the best, all things considered, of multiple alternatives, and that Pro's arguments in favor of capitalism's obsolescence were overpowering by that definition.

Reliable sources: This absolutely goes to Con. Pro's sources were limited to Wikipedia, YouTube videos, and an alternative medicine website. Con cited in-depth articles and relevant quotes, all from sources ranging from reasonably reliable to scholarly and authoritative.

Spelling and grammar: I am not going to bother with a thorough analysis to determine which participant's spelling and grammar was quantitatively superior. The English usage of both participants was fully comprehensible and mostly literate, but riddled with minor mistakes.

Conduct: This clearly goes to Con. Not only did Pro forfeit the final round, but he was also unbecomingly abrasive and even used indirect ad hominem by describing the person behind one of Con's citations as an "alleged serial rapist, womanizer and deep-state puppet." The accuracy of these accusations is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such an assault is: 1. almost certainly intended, and likely to be perceived, as an attack on Con's moral character, not just his source; and 2. like all examples of the ad hominem fallacy, irrelevant to the contention itself.

I prefer to avoid casting my opinion on any matter which mainstream scientific experts have already deeply investigated except by directly citing relevant professional sources, for doing so arrogantly implies that I am as qualified as those experts to independently evaluate the issue.

In terms of who presented superior content, Con immensely outgunned his opponent on all battlefields except perhaps spelling and grammar. They made heavy usage of trustworthy sources and treated the opponent with relative respect, despite opposing accusations of being a "Janus-faced wanker." Con furthermore relentlessly dissected and refuted his opponent's arguments through better-formatted and thus more readable text.