Wylted

Counter vote bomb.

Nobody made arguments, this should be a tied debate

I wish this were a seven point debate so I could just award pro conduct. The forfeits merit a pro win. No arguments made by con and pro did put some effort into his arguments.

Forfeit merits loss of conduct only

Actually mad because I spent a lot of time analyzing this until it got to the forfeited rounds. Just awarding conduct for forfeits, but obvious loss either way, because con could not respond to pro's rebuttals nor offer any rebuttals of his own. Next time con, please just take a one round disadvantage and keep going. I have won debates with a one round disadvantage before, no big deal

Con forfeits which merits a loss according to the rules

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QFY-LuLlhU08ws4Ar6sdAgUewikeYXmtCaYZiw98tSw/edit?usp=sharing

Full forfeit..

This comes down to a semantic debate. I can tell that pro is using a definition of selfish that Ayn Rand would use. A definition that means (not altruistic) among other things. Pro argues that since everyone derives some benefit from seemingly unselfish things than it qualifies as selfish. I agree with his definition. If you give your kidney to a person needing one than it is usually out of a desire to help the person. The desire is the selfish motivation.

Con provides a definition that contradicts this view of selfishness that me and pro both have. His definition means that as long as an act is not with disregard to others it does not qualify as selfish. Pro never challenges this definition, leaving Con to win this semantics battle as even pro does not seem to disagree with the assertion that people can think with regard to others, even if they derive benefits from doing so, such as the pleasure of seeing a person get a new Kidney or to use an example from the debate, somebody saving a life when they will get no credit.

Pro defines legalized as "not illegal" and defined it first in the debate. Con does not object to the definition but still seems to be operating under the belief "legalized" means written into law to allow. It may be because of the confusion about marriage. Marriage does not need to be civil. It can be done with no authorities recognizing it.

Con does not object to the definition of legal or pro's argument that it harms nobody to remove laws making gay marriage illegal. Con argues that gay marriage should not be codified into law but that is not being argued here and pro seems to agree. Obvious win for pro

Full forfeit. I respect that Con still performed despite not having to for the most part. I do take issue with rap battles being rated. It is silly mods can't or don't force it manually into the unrated category.

I am using the forfeit rule of surrendering the debate if you forfeit a round. I would have ignored the rule had pro put up some sort of fight in the final round but he seems to have no problem with the rule being enforced here which forces me to respect the mutual decision of both debaters.

Neither person even argued for the resolution just merely touched on it. Here is one thing I found especially retarded about Con's argument.

He says in the debate as a response to pro saying there is some risks to OIT

"There is no risk within OIT"

Then later on goes on to list the risks of OIT things such as anaphylactic shock. Pro argues there is some good and some bad that come with it but doesn't tell us how we should consider the good and bad impacts. Con argues that there is some good things and bad things that com with OIT but does not tell us how to weigh them. Both sides need to work on linking their arguments to the resolution. I will award con points on sources because he atleast attempted to provide evidence of his claims. I am tempted to award conduct as well because of the lame skipping of round one but will refrain.

See below reasons

Con behaved badly by forfeiting every round

reluctant vote here, but pro encouraged me to. I am not a fan of music in general. I usually just try to learn with books on tape while heading to work and only listen to music for the convenience of other people who enter my car. I also hate electronic music, but con had songs that seemed more catchy, and actually had lyrics. While I assume I could come up to similar shit as what pro shared by randomly screwing around with a cheap drum machine. Con wins.

con uses the bible to define god in round one as spirit, light love etc.. This is not ever offerred a rebuttal, and explained that proof must come from empirical evidence. pro never refutes this or offers empirical evidence. Pro offers another definition of God "The Truth", but If God is merely the truth than he doesn't exist at all. It would be like me saying God is a shoe and then asking somebody if they are trying to deny my shoe exists. It's dumb and given that con's definition of God is never refuted I can't just accept pro's definition. If I did blindly accept con's definition he would still need to prove ultimate truth has consciousness and that it actually exists. Con pretty much points out these same problems. Honestly much of pro's arguments sounded like the reamblings of somebody with schitzophrenia

Pro wins the moral arguments and proves that something transcends the world to have created it. I disagree I think things are cyclical in nature so the universe can kinda keep creating itself, but that is irrelevant. I see some arguments about the judeo christian God which is off topic. Really Con won because it is not enough for him to prove some transcendent creator existed, which I think he did prove, but failed to assign this creative force any intelligence, he has to prove this creative force was omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The task is too big for a single debate. Perhaps prove existence in one, benevolence in another omnipotence in another etc. I read the debate and analyzed it, Pro proved god but did not prove the tri-omni definition of God, and therefore loses arguments. I don't have time for an analysis that does this debate justice though, so I'll just vote on conduct. Pro's forfeits cause me to award con conduct.

Pro made no positive argumentation to support his half of the BOP, but since the debate isn't well defined, I won't weigh arguments other than to say I think con won there. I usually wouldn't give con conduct just for a forfeit, but it is at my discretion and an easier vote to explain than the arguments one, so I'll use my discretion to award con points for the forfeit

The semantic arguments in the last round come too late, but conceding that dragons are awesome pets in the final round, I'll accept. Other than that concession being a tiebreaker, other arguments by both sides were dropped. Conduct to con for not forfeiting

Debate should end tied, because neither side argued.

Tied as agreed upon

This debate should end tied

No arguments from pro or con so no argument points awarded. The forfeit merits a win by con in the conduct category and none other

All of pro's arguments were dropped

FF for obvious reasons