Total votes: 7
Conceded debate.
Conduct for the round ff and for the rule infraction mentioned within R3, to which there is no response.
In high school competitive debate there exists the concept of what's called a "low point win". A low point win is where one side did the better debating, but for whatever reason(s) did not win the round. The structure to signify this doesn't exist in DART's voting systems, but that's what I consider this debate to be.
To start, I disagree with Ragnar that this is merely a comparisons debate. For one, no one is making any kind of arguments that this debate should be viewed in such a way. For two, there's nothing within the description of the debate to say that's how I ought to evaluate it. Because of this, I have to look for a metric under which to decide how to view what a good country to live in is.
There's a bunch of random qualifiers given but the only one giving me any kind of analysis as to why their points are important and matter in terms of being a "better place to live" is Con. His R1 sets him up for probably the freest win I've seen in a long time. The reasoning for why poverty and gender equality should be the most important things in the round is never contested, rather only where the US places is contested, so the only two areas that matter to me are there.
From here isn't where pro wins the debate, but where Con loses the debate. For all the good he's doing in focusing the debate down to these two areas, I don't think he's winning on poverty, and I don't see a place I can actually pull the trigger on gender equality.
I'll start on gender equality because it's the simplest area to review. In short, I don't know what the impact of gender equality is. The best I get from con is in R3, which is: "There is a likely possibility you do not receive the equal treatment of your bosses in America versus other countries. That means that living in a different country as a women in a developed nation is better than living in America,"
I'm not sure what that even means, nor am I given any reason for why it specifically matters. Nor are there any reasons for why gender equality in and of itself is important. So while I buy that Con is winning here, I'm not sure I can vote on it.
In terms of the poverty area, I don't think the work Con is doing is sufficient. A good example of it would be the effects of poverty on education. The arguments for poverty diminishing the quality of education one receives is all well and good but what does that do to how I evaluate the argument in terms of the res? In other words, how does that affect where the US ranks in comparison to other nations?
Another problem is that there doesn't seem to be a response to the arguments Pro makes in terms high school graduation rates, which are being advanced as independent of the poverty arguments. And it's not like responses for this don't exist - I imagine the average graduation rates for schools across the entire US look a lot different than the graduation rates for schools located in areas below the poverty line - but they need to be made.
So ultimately I vote pro.
Was told to re-cast my vote as-is by blamonkey.
Really messy debate overall. A lot the debate centered around things and issues that were never really impacted out and neither side was doing a whole lot in the way of explaining why the arguments they were making mattered in terms of my vote. This was particularly bad around the topic of adolescents just having a right to make a decision - at the end of the debate, I'm still not sure why it matters if they have a decision or not, nor how I weigh it against other arguments being presented.
At the end, the only cohesive argument being advanced that had any kind of impact tied to it at the end of the day was Pro's argument for kids going out on their own for less safe DIY procedures that were super bad for their health and is prevented in the pro world. I hate how underdeveloped the argument is, but I cant find any response to it from con other than it's a minority of cases, which doesn't really do anything outside of potentially minimize the impact off of it? But that doesn't really change the fact it's the only real impact I have to vote off of. A lot of room for improvement from both sides.
Ff. .
Forfeited. Man, how do you mess up this free win as pro?