Total votes: 337
Pro forfeits last round, that's poor conduct.
1/2 FF that's poor conduct
Concession
FF
Con states his case, Pro states his case, and rebuts what Con said. Con can't defend his points and forfeits which is poor conduct. Pro doesn't forfeit R2, thus keeping his conduct mark intact.
FF
K_Michael is correct.
Concession
Concession R3
Concession via comments.
To start I want to say I enjoyed the debate, and I agree with Pro on this issue strongly. I think it was cool to see such a close debate, hope to see more of "Loverof12343."
Pro R1
-Guns Stop tyrannical governments
-As guns have become more powerful, crime has plummeted
-Even if there is gun crime, most of it takes place in Gun free zones
-There are alternative methods to kill somebody
-Horrible determined criminals will just buy guns on the black market
-California gun ban makes resulted in more homicides.
My Note 1-Very solid arguments to prove the benefits of having guns in a society is good, sadly that isn't what the resolution is.
My Note 2-Pro doesn't source anything here, I've got no reason to believe she hasn't fabricated everything she's just stated. As a result, the "Which participant provided the most reliable sources" mark will go to Oromagi. This isn't only because of this round, she fails to source ANY of her claims during the entirety of the debate, making her points impossible to fact check, thus hindering Pro's argumennts. This wouldn't matter if Oromagi also didn't source, but, Oromagi brings fourth sourced claims from reputable sites.
Con R1- Sadly Oromagi miss posted, no arguments to be seen, meaning Pro easily won this round. Seeing it was an honest mistake, this won't hurt his conduct mark.
Pro R2- Pro doesn't state much, just how in certain situations, she personally would like a gun there. Her lack of arguments is largely a result of Her opponent not leaving anything to rebut.
Con R2- Con states how Pro doesn't prove how gun bans are stupid, I agree, but she proved that the removal of guns is nonsensical to some degree, although she should've gone a little deeper to prove this further.
Also, Con kindly sources Pro's California point for her. But, he also refutes it. Con states how the murder rate didn't change significantly in California during the gun ban.
Con continues by pointing out how pro's claim about increased sales of more advanced guns correlates with a decrease in crime. Con points out how gun ownership has actually DECREASED.
Con also points out how pro is incorrect when she stated guns make people safer. He points out how the opposite is true, and you're more likely to be shot if you poses a firearm.
The round ends with Con stating how Pro's claims are unsourced and/or false.
Pro Forfeits, THATS'S POOR CONDUCT.
Con R3-Con states how as a result of a machine gun ban in America, Machine gun caused homicides were so low they were weren't even tracked in some cases. Thus also proving illegal purchasing of firearms doesn't skyrocket as a result of a gun ban, or else we'd be seeing illegaly purchased machine guns killing more people. This also shows how a gun ban can work AND ISN'T STUPID.
Pro doesn't prove gun bans are stupid, while con does convince me gun bans aren't stupid.
Jus realized Ramshutu's name isn't Rashmutu. The more you know.
No extensive dialogue took place.
Concession
FF
FF
FF
log=PRO Rm=CON To profess, I agree with con, although it's not a topic I'm very interested. I don't believe I was biased in my voting.
Log states how the purpose of debate has been changed from the pursuit of truth, to winning to achieve support or power. RM fails to truly address this, he states what debate is in his eyes "to outwit, outcharm and outmaneuver the opponent via logic, emotional appeal and anything to get the votes that doesn't break the rules." in RM's words. This doesn't disprove how MODERN DEBATE has been abused.
RM states"the focus here is on what is being abused not that abuse is happening. It is not debating itself that's being abused rather my opponent has a romantic view of debating and then is shocked that it's so harsh and corrupt in reality." This does fail to address the debate, Log states how modern debate leads away from the pursuit of truth, you can lead away from the pursuit of truth by attacking your opponent, if modern debate encourages attacking your opponent then you can still claim modern debate is abused. Log states how the act of dodging truth in the pursuit of victory is abusive.
Log does make a mistake however by denying RMs definition of debating without offering an alternative definition, he state how it's too limited, so offer a more broad definition.
Log states that modern debate is seen in political debates, and abused there.
Overall RM doesn't prove that modern debate isn't abused well enough, his R3 response is a misrepresentation of Log's point, it's clear when log states truth is abused he means were putting truth aside for victory, in other words RM's largest point, that it's not the debate being abused but the opponent doesn't hold up.
Concession
Concession
Pro tries to conceal vital information and gets called out on it.
FF
FF
R1-Con= a person who is just born couldn't even understand the concept of sexual orientation, therefore they're orientation isn't determined at birth but after birth.
R1Pro= The baby doesn't decide the sexual orientation, the genes do. This is similar to how handiness is determined, by genes. Also, twins are very likely(when compared to the regular population) to both be gay(30%), thus proving that similar genes does produce a correlation in sexual orientation.
Me- Pro won this round, he used statistics(which weren't sited), got to bring him down for that, but the data is convincing, showing how similar genes caused a correlation in sexual preference was much better than saying that it's determined after birth with no data to back that up. Con does state though that babies can't understand the concept of sexual orientation, but pros argument about genetics mitigates this. Good round for both but Pro won.
R2-Con=States how Pro concedes by stating that they're talking about when the child knows he is gay, making genes irrelevant. Good on con for calling pro out for not sourcing.
R2-PRO=States how con never clarified that they were talking about the time the person knows they're gay. Then goes on to equate what con is doing to saying sex is determined after birth because the baby doesn't understand biological sex. Good on Pro for posting his source.
Me-Pro won this round, con shifted the goal posts, con in the future should clarify the parameters of the debate, this fact, which pro points out costs him the round.
R3-Con=States how he didn't change the parameters. Then goes on to say that if a gay gene exists than Sexual orientation should be determined before birth,not at birth as pro claims.
R3-Pro=States that when a person knows they're gay and when it's determined are different questions. He addresses the statement about a gay gene by stating that if he knows how to drive a car at 18 it doesn't mean he doesn't know how to at 19.
Me=Pro won round 3 largely by attacking the title of the debate, stating how con is equating knowing you're gay with having your orientation determined at birth. Pro then stated that just because something is determined before birth doesn't mean it's not determined at birth as well. He achieved this with an analogy.
FF
1/2 FF
FF
Pro attempts to prove that breast size and hair colour is what should quantify hotness. Also, he states how peach looks like she has more fun than Zelda as well as having "more goods."
Con states how neither of them are the hottest because there are girls with larger breasts which mitigates pro's point completely. He then proceeds to show how broad the term "goods" is. R1=CON.
R2-Then, Pro shifts the argument to how hotness is determined by the guy your kidnapped by. Pro then states how Gannon is slender and has a skin condition, while bowser is strong. He then states that Goods means curves and "lady parts."
Con then shows that just because you get kidnapped by an attractive guy doesn't make you hotter, it's not objective enough either. Con then shows that Peach doesn't have the best goods, as there are people who are effectively built to look pretty in every way.R2-CON
No Argument stated by con.
Arguments-Con was the only one to even state anything.
Sources-Con was the only one to site anything.
Grammar- No words to even observe for pro.
OMG, the vocabulary an literary genius has to go to Con but I literally mumbled the word oh dang when I heard some of pros lines. Too close