Total votes: 337
FF
FF
FF
Pro forfeited less.
NOTE: this isn't an FF debate, despite Cons forfeitures he made the more convincing arguments.
Conduct to pro because of cons forfeitures. 1 point to Pro,
Arguments- point by point. Also DF=Con and BB=Pro
Economy/bad budgeting/trade=BB
DF points out unemployment in the EU which appears to be dropped by BB. But DF winds up dropping 13 contentions in R4 which do much more for me seeing how they look at the impact Brexit has both nationally and internationally. To continue, trade was argued heavily until R3 where BB got the last word in and wound up winning trade in my eyes as a result Despite this, DF did prove the EU is bad at budgeting and this was dropped by BB. DF is beaten by a wide margin as a result of him dropping 13 points, even if I grant him victories for budgeting and unemployment his arguments are heavily outweighed clearly.
Note to BB for the future: Do not spend so much time on 1 point(in this case economy), the reason DF won arguments was because you dropped most of his case.
Migration=DF
DF points out how Europe can't cope large quantities of immigrants. BB makes a point about Jingoism which he could've tied into migration but failed to do so. So, this point was largely dropped by BB.
Russian relations-DF
Dropped by BB after DF points out the pressure EU nations have to hate Russia.
Demographics=DF
Dropped by BB.
DF wins argument because he won 75% of the main points.
DF must win arguments(3 points to DF), therefore DF wins 3-1(or 6-4 if we're talking about a 4 point voting system).
S and G/Sources=tie.
FF
AD=Avoid death BB=Billbatard
BB's R1 was weak, AD easily refuted his point about poor people being happy and rich people being sad by looking at suicide rates. At the end of round 1 I'm left to believe The rich are happier than the poor after seeing AD's evidence. On top of this, AD logically explains why money makes you happy.
BB points to shorter work weeks, which makes you less money in general being the cause of happiness. But, as AD pointed out, BB completely shot himself in the foot with using the Netherlands because they are incredibly wealthy despite a short work week. BB again makes a mistake by looking at Singapore which BB stated had a very long work week and very wealthy people, but they aren't happy. AD pointed out that Singapore was actually the second happiest Asian country. BB opted to completely neglect AD's logical point.
AD proved money logically will make you happy, and left BB's 2 arguments with no real weight to them seeing how they actually prove AD's point about how money does buy happiness with rich people overall being happier, and the two nations Singapore and the Netherlands being very wealthy and happy. AD wins arguments
Conduct to Batard because of Drone's forfeitures.
Arguments to pro because his arguments were entirely dropped as a result of Drone's forfeitures. Drone also didn't provide much of an argument in his R1 argument.
FF
Pro was the only debater to make a proficient argument, offer any sources, and forfeited slightly less. S and G was fine for both.
FF
FF
FF
Pro forfeited less.
Neither side made a convincing argument.
Pro R1- Huey was for the common folk(unsubstantiated).
Con R1-states his confusion with the resolution.
Pro R2- FDR was good for America, Huey would've done more
Con R2- Forfeiture, CONDUCT to Pro as a result.
Pro R3-Nothing worth noting.
Con R3- America did fine without Huey.
Pro/Con R4- No noteworthy points.
Neither side went deep into why Huey was or wasn't needed, both sides best arguments would be okay if they gave me a sufficient evidence to back up their claims, e.g break down why Huey would've done more than FDR, or why/how he would make the polices irreversible.
It's only the forfeiture that implores me to vote Pro.
FF
FF
No extensive dialogue took place, so arguments are tied.
Conduct to Pro because of cons forfeitures.
FF
Not one side really offered an in depth argument, no extensive dialogue took place. As a result, arguments must be tied.
S and G
Errors from Pro.
"my feelings are self evident they dont have to be proven, we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created eqqual and endowed with certain inalienable rights so to say we dont hav rights is unamerican."
"i'm going to hold my breath and poop in my pants and then light your cat on fire if you dont let me vote! dont make me kiss your grandma with tongue."
So most of the time I can presume what Pro is referring to, like equal being spelt eqqual, same thing with have bein spelt hav. But, this kills the flow of the debate, I could work through Cons text effortlessly, but Pro's points continuously forced me to reread over a missed comma, or stop/stutter for a second to establish what he really meant by hav or eqqual.
Conduct
i'm going to hold my breath and poop in my pants and then light your cat on fire if you dont let me vote! dont make me kiss your grandma with tongue.
This is either a violent threat to Con or the moderation team, either way it is unacceptable to threaten somebodies cat, even if it was simply a joke it isn't an excuse to potentially make a user fear for their loved and appreciated pet.
Pro forfeited less.
Concession.
Pro is objectively wrong when he states that Ragnar always votes against him and Ragnar points this out when he refers to the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things”, and seeing how Pro must prove Ragnar always votes against him and that it is personal, he can't win this debate unless he could prove that Ragnar really didn't vote against him in that debate. Sadly, Billbatard fails to prove this in R2, he never even supported how it was personal either, he just dropped everything Ragnar stated.
Therefore Pro loses arguments because he doesn't offer any evidence.
Pro forfeited less
Conduct to Pro because of Con's forfeiture.
Arguments-----
Nem is really the only one to make a proficient argument, he states how climate change is as a result of humans because of how fast the planet is warming, and then demonstrates how this is because of humans use of fossil fuels(which releases more C13, this is a pretty sound argument. He establishes a reasonable cause for the planets rapid warming.
Sadly Con doesn't state anything relevant to the resolution, he tries to prove climate change isn't a problem, not that humans don't impact our climates change.
Nem is the only person to offer a single piece of evidence relevant to the resolution. Therefore, Pro wins arguments by a wide margin.
Pro drops a lot of what con brings up. Pro leans on shaky/old evidence to prove his point while Con gives me(the voter) great reason to believe prohibition increased alcohol related crimes which are backed up by reliable sources that also debunk the idea that prohibition was effective in lowering alcohol consumption as well. Con's sources that show the inefficiencies of prohibition at lowering alcohol consumption look at it's effect in the long-term, which show how after alcohol consumption fell initially, it rose sharply afterword, this really sealed Con's victory for the arguments point seeing how much better and in depth his evidence is.
At the end of the debate I see that Prohibition merely ate up resources and time while failing to achieve it's goals in the long-term. In a lot of ways prohibition achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to in the sense that drunk arrests increased, Con points this out and I can only side con at the end of the debate.
Con drops all of Pro's arguments. Con seems to misunderstand what he's arguing for, he points out how bad Trump is and why he should leave office in 2020 which merely boosts Virt's case. Some points Bill makes that do prove Trump is good are unsubstantiated like his claim about how crazy the Democrats are, this could be a decent point if he gave me evidence to prove the Democrats are bad, but he fails to do so.
If you're going to drop all of your opponents points, at least substantiate your claims.
Concession
FF
FF
FF
50% forfeit.
Pro relays several equations that prove 0.999...=1. Con fails to demonstrate how this is false, merely saying that Pro is "splitting hairs", and 0.999... is smaller because it must be even if only by a small amount, con doesn't back this up with any equation and doesn't provide me with a single reason why I should believe him.
So nem is the only one to provide me with any evidence at all to support his case.
Conduct to pro because of cons forfeiture.
80% forfeiture
Nem
-Democratic presidents are better for the economy.
-Democratic states are better off economically, proving how higher taxes doesn't kill business. No source attached.
R1 note:Nem's second point was great as he anticipated that con would bring up how democratic policies would discourage business and also provided reasons why businesses do/should want more taxes. However, his best point was unsourced.
Cross
-Nem's source is before Trump, Trump has lowered unemployment and thwarted China. Also, Trump cut taxes.
-Cross points out how much debt Obama added.
-He then points out poor economic decisions Obama made.
-He than shows the economic strain illegal immigrants have on the economy
R1 Note: Cross doesn't really prove that right wing policies are better here, just that Trump is good for the economy and Obama is bad for the economy. Nem was able to prove that in an all time sense leftwing presidents performed better and that Blue states were better off economically than red states. His illegal immigrant point is proficient, as it's an example of a left wing policy blundering.
Cross Rebuttals R1
-points out how taxes are okay when they are being spent on roads/infrastructure.
-He says the more education you get the dumber you are, but fails to back this up in any way with a source.
- states how red states are getting richer while blue states are getting poorer.
R1 Rebuttal Note: Cross's only proficient statement was his "red states are improving" point. He tries to address Nem's point about companies wanting tax dollars to go to education by stating education makes you dumber, which is entirely unsourced. Cross's points on spending on roads/ infrastructure are agreed upon by Nem.
R2/R3 Note-Nem forfeits, this is very poor conduct, therefore Cross wins the conduct point. Cross doesn't make any arguments.
Nem R4
-Points out how pointing to only Trump isn't proper as a president doesn't run 100% of the nations economy.
-Also concedes that Red states are growing faster.
-Proves how unemployment has always been falling, so it might not be as a result of Right wing policies.
-Also how Trump is building debt just as fast as Obama.
R4 Note: Nem refuted all of Cross's points, Cross relied way to much on trump despite it being an anecdotal point with many other factors, one of these factors was nems point about trump not running the whole economy, so trump isn't an example of right wing policies succeeding, Nem gives me great reasons to believe Trump has failed economically with the rising debt.
Cross R4
-points out how Trump wasn't just successful because of Obama.
-9/10 poorest aren't republican- the way his source comes to this conclusion is faulty.
Overall Con doesn't try to prove Right wing policies are better, but that Trump has been good for the economy and Obama was bad, Nem proved that nation wide right now Blue states are better off, and left wing presidents were better at running the economy while giving me good reason to believe Trump wasn't good for the economy given how he's increasing the debt by alarming amounts and how Trump may not be the reason for economic growth as he doesn't run the whole economy and unemployment has been falling for years.
60% forfeiture.
Concession
Con forfeits, a violation of rule 3, this is poor conduct.
Concession.
Pro never sources anything he says, while Con does for each and every one of his claims. This completely kills Pros arguments as they really need a source to back them up. Also, I can no longer check if his claims are legitimate leaving the voter in the blue as to how to treat his arguments. But, it isn't only the voters, Dr Franklin can no longer secure the legitimacy of Pro's points himself.
So, it is clear that Con won sources.
Pro's uncited claims
#1 ""Norway has more State owned assets is more collective than both Venezuela and red China.""
#2 ""enjoys the worlds best quality of life.""
#3 ""you like to cherry pick the losers that are in no way close to socialist but the most socialist nation by definition on earth is a paradise, eh.""(Multiple unsourced claims here, he doesn't prove Venezuela isn't socialist, that Norway is the most socialist nation on Earth, and that Norway is a paradise).
With the lack of sourcing on Pro's part I can't truly count any of his points, Dr.Franklin on the other hand gave me multiple good reasons to believe Socialism doesn't work.
Cons arguments
He points out Socialism's track record of failure, from the past to the present, how tyrannical governments will emerge, and how Mao killed 30 million people, this proves to me that Socialism is wrong whether you look at it from a moral perspective or a more statistical perspective, Pros attempt at rebutting these are unsourced.
Over all Con demonstrates socialisms blunders and inefficiencies. When Pro tries to debunk these things he doesn't back up 1 point with a source.
So, it's fair to say Con won arguments.
Concession
S and G- tie
Conduct-Pro wins because his opponent forfeited round 1. 1 point Pro.
Sources-tie
Arguments- I am to believe the BOP is on Pro as Con stated. Pro gave many arguments that don't necessarily assist his point, his 24 hour surveillance point, or the staged suicide point, Pro doesn't meet the BOP, all he proves is that the cameras footage was lost and that they may have staged a suicide, Pro fails to show how these things prove Epstein is alive, as well as there being . Con convinced me entirely through his rebuttals of these points and how they don't prove pro's point at all. both of these points were won by Con
There is also the fake photos point. I, like the other two points I think Con edged this one, he proved how if they were fake, mistakes we've seen wouldn't have been there as it would be too obvious. This, with the other two points make me believe Con won, with the Bop on Pro, he would have to make solid offensive arguments, Con mitigated all of these with better defensive arguments. Con wins Arguments, 3 points to Con
Con wins 3-1.
Pro didn't do bad in this debate, he just failed to meet the BOP.
Slightly better conduct on pro as he didn't forfeit as many rounds.
Conduct-
Reason 1:Wylted attempted to trick voters into thinking Oromagi agreed to a tie, he fails to prove this and Oro denies it. I can only believe Wylted lied.
Reason 2:Wylted forfeits many rounds, and when he didn't in Round 5, he lied to try to manipulate voters.