Undefeatable

RFD in comments. Nobody messed up spelling and nobody had illogical sources or bad conduct

RFD in comments.

RFD in comments.

fullll forfeited. A rare win for mall.

I mean, tough luck pro. Even if I didn't accept the Novice II vs Novice_II argument, there's really no way to prove accepting the same debate many times is the same as obsession.

Forfeits. Unfortunate; con was going a good way there.

RFD in comments.

Pro gave up, but I’ll analyze first three rounds when I get a chance.

Forfeiteddd

Con did not address most of pro's arguments

RFD in comments. I did not feel anyone did severely better sources nor much better conduct. RM tends to talk a bit harsh but it didn't pop out too badly in my eyes.

To be honest, this is a massive semantics debate, Pro arguably misinterpreted as his only source was gotquestions.org, a questionable site that Con pointed out had many fallacies (and hence why sources points go to him). The Definition was jumping to an end without any real support, while all the Dictionary sites pointed out the Pluralism was more closely related to freedom of religion and coexisting. The validity was what made the idea muddy, Pro was basically saying there is likely only one truth existing, yet all religions disagree in some form, therefore pluralism is invalid. However, as there is no way to prove which one is true, Con's note that Christianity tolerates other religions existing, means that there is Pluralism accepted by the general religion.

I can go into more detail if anyone needs but I think Pro got stuck on a single source for a bit too long. Pro confused that Pluralism meant all religions are equally true, which isn't what the dictionaries defined.

RDF In comments. Neither had bad sources, grammar nor conduct.

Forfeiteddd

Blamonkey has many significant arguments: including the vast cost of child abuse, the opioids, and Pro's lack of framework. Pro has some sources that suggests a little bit of benefit to sterilization, but fails to establish a concrete criteria for "deadbeat parents", nor clear benefits of sterilization. I need explanation for why it's so important to reduce abortion rates! Tell me how you uniquely create these benefits that Con can't replicate. Because Con used the domestic violence as a powerful crux to build his case upon, establishing a truly dangerous and horrifying world. Pro would have to do much better with diving deep into why sterilization is good in its core with logic and reasoning, or extra sources supporting his logic. Here, his case falls flat on its face. Sources also to Con, because Pro was very nebulous and his one important source regarding abortion was clearly wrong/inaccurate.

See comments. Con won by a landslide, even if his round 1 wasn't very impressive.

Con presented a poem about castaways, seemingly unrelated to Pro's argument.

Concession.

Tip to Con: The FLO argument doesn't work as well as you think it does...

pro forfeited half the rounds.

In comments. Will revote later.

This debate is quite odd because Nevets argued he should be able to claim a draw -- but only in round 2, rather than noting the strange difference and proactively looking ahead over time. I would argue that it is equally likely that you would accidentally select pro while you are con, as well as forgetting to change the short description. Therefore, Nevets should have taken it upon himself to notice this difference early on. I find it rather odd that he didn't comment before accepting, or question why the selection choice of position differed from the actual positions.

I'm tempted to give conduct points to Con because Nevets took action later than necessary, but accidentally wrong debates are often rare and I think he was not certain what to do.

not only does pro have run on sentences that are extremely difficult to parse, his evidence is weak and circumstantial. With con's reasonable appeal to liberty, contract, and pro's lack of tackling *women only* specifically means he completely loses the debate.

Feel free to ask me any questions. Pro's arguments were relatively short and didn't have strong linking, so they were much weaker in terms of showing the resolution.

full forfeited

Con has discriminations and socialization points, largely dropped by pro.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f8v5YwAzQXd06Mi9RwkGJTJBlXlhFoZYNOpko0BVszs/edit?usp=sharing

Swap pro for con and con for pro in this vote. I got confused

Pro argues that Cancel arbitrarily censors views, that ordinary people fear it, and that people's mistakes remain unforgiven, which is counter productive.

Con argues that Cancel gives accountability, punishing celebrities for inexcusable actions, and can prevent people from being hurtful.

Pro counters that Con admits there is negative, and that it is hateful in essence. They continue by saying regular people will not be affected in general, and advocate for support rather than separation.

Con repeats that the people who violate must be punished, and that not canceling is equal to supporting the bad actions. They repeat that awareness will be raised due to cancel culture.

It's very hard to judge without a framework, but based on what I've read, Pro successfully argues his side slightly better. I've got a lot of counter productive ideas on Con's side, especially that punishment is for retribution rather than rehabilitation, thus making Cancel culture questionable. Furthermore, the awareness backfires on Con as he doesn't stress enough why it's so important that you never say offensive things. In the future, I recommend highlighting why the offenses are so destructive that is is absolutely necessary to censor speech.

Full forfeited. Good job pro

Pro argues that police will have reduced effectiveness. Con highlights that some people will be unjustly killed. I think Con is slightly more convincing

concession

Pro has: Prediction of disasters, autonomous vehicles (help environment), society believes it can resolve problems, face scan ID makes things quicker
Con has: intrusion of privacy, inaccurate predictions, further developments will make intrusion of privacy worse

It's very difficult to judge this as both sides have very little impact. With privacy up against environmental help, it's near impossible to tell which one is better. Thus efficiency with face scan ID allows pro to narrowly win out by a hair.

This topic is heavily slanted towards pro and applaud efforts of con. But I see millions of lives saved from pro and merely lost jobs from con. Intuition tells me pro outweighs con. So pro wins.

Concession

Pro is truly undefeatable, such that even with zero arguments, Con was unable to overcome his ideas.

By the end of the debate, it’s clear that con only holds onto his future value argument. He loses Grasp in his arguments that the traits of the fetus are human, and instead relies on the idea that the fetus may or may not have value. However, even though pro did not outright mention that not all fetus will become human, he made the point that the personhood is arbitrary and that the murdering of man being a crime already supposed they earn their personhood or humanity. Con, I need to see you connect the ideas together. If you weigh responsibility combined with future value then you tell voters that some babies will indeed become human, even if the vast majority do not. Yes, you tell us that murder is unjust, but pro also has coercion on his side, with self defense backing his case. He managed to clarify why it is different from someone forcing you to kill someone: the mother’s liberty is actively being oppressed by the baby as a consequence unrelated to her. I need con to tell me exactly why this future value matters. I buy that a person can have great contribution, but the fetus is far more ambiguous. Make me see that our responsibility to raise the fetus combined with the eventual birth will deprive of the freedom pro vouched for and the value of human we asked for. And pro, try to latch onto this and mention that abortion could be related to crime (as some studies show). The poverty issue means that the future value even if accepted is severely reduced, forcing con’s argument to lose a lot of impact. It’s true that he didn’t 100% soundly connect his future value case, but a concise summarizing discussion could very well turn it around and defeat your case. Be sure to tell us why future value is contradictory, because con was just one sentence away from linking FLO to matching the human value.

Pro claims that the Bible was white washed. He provides zero evidence of such. Pro claims Columbus never set foot in America. He Provides no evidence. Pro claims there is no "sub saharan Africa", also using no evidence. He says crime statistics are also debunked on a regular basis, but provides no evidence. His arguments are muddled by his claims and evidence conflicting each other. In contrast, Con clearly delivers the facts that Columbus did find America, and that the mainstream media proves that Europe did not lie with significant detriments to information or the population.

forfeited, rip

While it’s true con didn’t explicitly tell us what his source says, it’s clear that it claimed agender, cisgender, etc.

she tried so hard, and got so far
but in the end, it didn't even matter

full forfeited

Incredibly enough, pros singular argument is enough to uphold his entire argument. I buy all of cons arguments except his refutation of speed of light, and that the universe age is equal to age of the earth. I buy that pro’s support of evolution is slim to none. I buy that there is a plausibility that God exists where pro failed to disprove. I buy that there is quite a possibility of a flood that pro failed to poke enough holes in. But all of these are useless if you can’t point out a legitimate reason besides time dilation gibberish. It is not too only argued that we see the light from 13 billion years ago, but also that the measurement itself proved that our separation of 13 billion years mean that the light travel itself must have been at least this long. In addition, con provides no reasons why God would fool humans into believing a wrong age of the universe. For these reasons, I toss the vote to pro. Perhaps a debate about Earth’s age would be more interesting...

half forfeited. Pro's ideas were pretty well grounded that the evolution was grounded both as theory and as fact

forfeited ouch

I will be voting TIE in all categories because of personal bias. Nevertheless, I believe that CON won this debate. The stack-up of arguments is divergent in two directions, but PRO consistently fails to display why his way of determining RELIABILITY is truly the best method or standard. In addition, though I would give PRO source points for using a variety of ideas to push his point forward, I do not think they are enough to overcome CON's doubt. CON managed to defeat what little accusations PRO could offer concerning Fox News -- there is a lot of more convincing evidence PRO could have chosen. PRO's own paradox regarding Wiki slowly builds up throughout the debate, the doubt never truly resolved.