Total votes: 26
Arguments:
Not a bad start from both sides, but Pro eventually forfeited two thirds of the rounds.
Sources:
Tied.
S&G:
Both are readable, but I am personally inclined to Pro's easy-to-understand concise language.
Conduct:
Full forfeiture from Pro; bad conduct.
Arguments:
Poor conduct from Pro, who forfeited three fourths of the rounds.
Sources:
No sources on either side.
S&G:
Both cases are readable, though I am personally inclined to Pro's explicit use of language, which leaves little room for misunderstandings.
Conduct:
Full forfeit from Pro.
Full Forfeiture.
The Instigator forfeited half the rounds, which points to bad conduct.
Arguments are self-explanatory.
Pro took this debate out of context by arguing about mandatory prayer in school, which is not at all relevant to the resolution.
Con, meanwhile, specifically highlights that praying in public is in fact legal, and that the school scenario was only to further prove his point, it was not designated to act as his main argument for his position, which Pro took, wrongly, much effort to refute, and consequently drops the resolution.
Con failed to provide any sources for the debate, so point to the Contender for taking the time to do research and source his claims.
Pro forfeited a round, so point to the Instigator.
Pro failed to give a proper definition of UFOs, and entangled his argument with a bunch of complexities on the government point. He has failed to prove his point, only to muddle my brain.
As for Con, he managed to refute the Instigator's points, and was met with nought defence.
Con has supported his claims with reliable sources. Point to him.
All other aspects are unremarkable.
Pro's main points were that the only way to make the bible unrevised and non-updated is to learn Ancient Hebrew. This take the argument out of context. He also stated that because English and other languages are evolving, revisions should be made to adapt to future English even if there are no major changes in the intended content. However, he continually jumps from this argument to that, and abandoning this argument and that. And he also fails to give an appropriate defence for his translation = revision case. As such, he has not met his BoP, and simply cannot win if he does not do so.
However, he was successful in giving more sources to prove his claims, as opposed to the Contender's few, and the Contender failed to source his claims in round 2.
All other aspects are self-explanatory and unremarkable.
Full Forfeiture
The Instigator only provided single-sentence points, and gave no sources.
Full Forfeiture
Arguments are just confusing jokes. No sources. S&G good on both sides. No forfeitures, thus equal conduct.
Full forfeiture from the Contender. "It's raining after all" I can see the Instigator's disappointment.
As for arguments, the Instigator failed to provide any, only presenting a lacklustre "rebuttal". He also failed to provide reliable sources whatsoever. S&G is unremarkable. Conduct points are self-explanatory, for the Instigator continually waived his rounds on grounds of "not having time".
The Instigator did not provide any arguments.
Very competent arguments from two very competent debaters. Good job!
The Instigator waived the first round, and forfeited the rest. Even if he had managed a decent argument in R1, it can still be considered a full forfeiture from Pro. Sources and grammar are self-explanatory.
Full forfeit and a heavily plagiarized first round from the Instigator.
Arguments and conduct to Pro because Con failed to provide a reasonable argument where the Instigator could respond. He also forfeited one round more than Pro.
Pro did not work to refute what Con had said, and simply by stating:
"Well, the name is the name. You failed to prove that rap battles are debates.
You gave evidence of how rap battles could be allowed on this site, however, you failed to prove why they are beneficial to the site. Remember the title is "Should". ", he has not managed to accomplish a win.
By speaking 13 different languages, including what seems to be Egyptian hieroglyphics, Pro has failed to give proof of the stupidity of this debate, because by forcing me to Google translate every single statement, he has shown that there is an intelligent process going on in this debate.
Win to Con for pointing that out and presenting 4 relevant substantives.
I don't understand what Virt is trying to achieve by fully forfeiting this debate.
Like the previous voter has said, arguments are just a pile of paradoxes, and I shall not try to make sense of them. Conduct to Pro for less forfeiture.
Full forfeiture from the Contender.
Full forfeit.
Pro forfeited two rounds and did not meet BOP.
Concession from the Contender.