Total votes: 44
Full forfeit.
Full Forfeit. CON is the only person that brought up any argument at all.
Only Pro kept a good record of conduct, argument, and sources.
FULL FORFEIT
Concession of Pro and Forfeit of Con.
I give the argument points to Con. Pro used evidence from the average oral debate, but Con has clearly made a clear cut from DDO(DART) to formal oral debate. Con also stated that the upper limit is of choice, and he has proved his point by making a constructive argument with more than 20,000 characters.
The case is an FF of Con. Pro did not forfeit as much and is the only one who provided any actual argument and used more sources.
Pro won because he didn't forfeit.
"Forfeiting twice will merit a loss"
FF. The instigator did not give any clear reasons of his own topic.
Arguments and sources: Con provided several reasons with sources backing it up.
Conduct: Pro ff'd.
Argument & Sources: Dr. Franklin has listed several clear points where Obama isn't "Great", and Zlata did not respond to it in any way after. He even voluntarily forfeited in the 3rd round, leaving nothing of value after.
Sources: Con is the only one who used sources.
Conduct: Pro is the only one who is present for all, but that is not an FF for Con, and Pro implied that he conceded.
Arguments & Sources: Neither side had offered any valuable reasons nor evidence.
S & G: Tie, duh
Conduct: FF
I am not sharp enough to read the argument and justify them sufficiently, but what I do know is that Pro forfeited.
Pro did nothing thus he deserved nothing.
Pro is the only one who provided any argument and used sources. Con used a low-level semantical exploit and that will mean conduct is lost.
Overall RM remains victorious.
I agree with the person below.
Pro never used any concrete evidence and since the Bop rests on Pro, Con can easily say that the Bop is not yet met and win, and that is what Oro did.
Con is the only one who provided any argument.
My reasons are the exact same as the ones below.
I believe CON made a better argument, and I will write as if it was a classic 4-score vote.
Arguments: Con. Con actually wrote an explanation about why his song is good, and Pro did nothing other than posting a link.
Sources: I personally prefer Con's song, and if that is not enough, Con is the only one to provide supporting evidence.
S & G: Tie, both sides presentable.
Conduct: Both debaters are present and neither violated the guideline.
Conclusion: CON should get the vote.
Con is the only one who made arguments, used sources, etc. Pro forfeited too much.
Con is the only one who provided any argument here. Pro conceded.
Con also used text evidence, which is why he gets the point on sources.
Arguments: I really can't decide between these two.
Sources: Con is the only one who used sources.
S&G: RM specifically pointed out spelling and grammar mistakes Pro made.
Conduct: Tie
Basically the same reasons as VonKlempter. I agree with him.
Con has proved that public prayer is not outlawed in the US as fundamentally it cannot be outlawed. Pro used mainly historic examples, but they failed to refute the most steady of Con's points.
Pro is the only one that has any presented argument at all.
Arguments: None of the arguments made sense.
Sources: No sources
S&G: Both sides presentable
Conduct: Tie
This is most likely not moderated because it is naught excluding nonsense.
Con is the only one that brought any argument to the foundation. Points to Con.
Argument: Pro plagiarized whereas Con didn't. Points to Con.
Sources: Con used a variety of sources to a bigger extent.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Forfeiture.
Arguments: Pro's argument literally made Con concede. Pro's the only one having a relevant reason all in all. Points to Pro.
Sources: No sources, no points.
S&G: Both sides presentable. Tie.
Conduct: Con conceded and forfeited. Points to Pro.
f
u
l
l
f
o
r
f
e
i
t
Neither side brought any arguments, so it is a tie.
Neither pro nor con made any grammatical mistakes or spelling errors to be observed, so it is also a tie.
Pro's evidence didn't support why women aren't in leadership roles because they are scared(even in parts).
Con forfeited, conduct point goes to pro.
Full forfeit.
Con forfeited everything
Pro did everything thus he deserves everything. Con did nothing thus he deserves nothing.
Pro forfeited, and that is all it takes for Con to win.
Pro forfeited, causing him to lose conduct points and he did not create any arguments. If Con wrote anything, he could still win.
Conduce to Con because Pro forfeited.
Convincing arguments for PRO because he used reliable evidence and intricate logic to tell things. Con didn't do nearly as much of this.
Source to PRO because he provided more sources and CON provided none.
S&G Tie because both arguments are readable.
Conduct because CON wasted half of his round arguing for Baked beans, which is unrelated and Pro probably put it there as a "You don't need to read it" thing.
Oromagi at least made sense of it. "a barf a minute" just doesn't make sense. Arguments and S&G go to Con. Conduct go to con because at least he didn't forfeit even if he put less effort than usual.
Pro forfeited, failed to produce any convincing arguments with any sources, and wrote only a single sentence without errors. Con did not forfeit, used sources to make a convincing argument, and all of them are readable with little to no errors. Thus most points to Con. Con would have won anyways consider Con is a master at debating and Pro has put little to no effort into debating.
Pro didn't do anything, and thus he doesn't deserve anything. Con did everything, and thus he deserves the win.
Con has presented reliable arguments and true evidence about Trump's ancestors. Pro has not responded since the debate started.
I really can't decide between the two. I will give a tie on this vote and let someone else using their distinctive minds to do their jobs.
Pro repeats his arguments and concedes at one point where alcohol is harmful. Con did none of that. Con also used sources.