As I said to RM, I am willing to take this exact same topic as Con using the exact same set of rules. I believe the rules are fair, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is to demonstrate that.
If you think the rules skewed Pro, I am happy to debate you as Con with the exact same topic and exact same rules. As long as the debate doesn’t start until June. If the debate truly is unwinnable for Con, it should be a nice auto-win for you. As the saying goes, “put your money where your mouth is.” I will.
I am sorry you think I am a jerk. Ultimately, the rules I impose on debates are not meant as a "get out of jail free card," but are rather designed to ensure a fair playing field for competition. Notice, "competition"--not discussion or truth-seeking. For me debate is primarily a competitive exercise. Because it is a competition, I do not hesitate to cite rule breaches when I perceive them, but that does not mean that the rules exist to give me any special advantage. Calling out rules violations then is almost never personal for me; I just see it as part of the activity. If you took it personally, then you should be aware that is not how it was meant.
From my point of view, you were not holding true to the spirit of the debate: to have a discussion about migration, not prior questions regarding the Is/Ought problem. That being said, I did try to earnestly engage with your arguments, and I devoted a significant number of my character space to discussing why the problem did not apply to my case. I explained my reasoning. To the extent that I did so, and to the extent that you had the chance to challenge any alleged rule violations, the debate, in my mind, proceeded honestly and openly. Having disputes about the meaning of rules, or their interpretations, is not dishonesty. It's disagreement, and that's what debate is all about.
Debates can be aggravating, even maddening, but they are not, as a rule, personal for me. I hope then that any enmity generated by this debate will not be long-lasting. I disagree strongly with the implication that I was either dishonest or unfair in the debate, and I chose not to reciprocate with identical language precisely because those are incredibly strong accusations to bandy about in the context of this activity. I take pride in my debating well and fairly. To some extent I can sympathize with your frustration at how the debate turned out; I hope you can sympathize with my own as well. I hope you can let any animus you have go.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote. And yeah, there isn't really a COC violation here.
************************************************************************
I agree that migrants have a moral obligation to assimilate to *some* extent with the country in which they settle. I do think that, ideally, migration should be legal, but neither do I think that coming here illegally is all that serious an offense.
I think your characterization of the would-be immigrant is already ideologically loaded and biased.
Your argument about the asylum-seeker is also problematic, as it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties.
I am not going to talk about what I am arguing in the debate, as that may or may not reflect my personal beliefs. What I will say is that, personally, open borders are aspirational and inadvisable at this point, though I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for the forfeit by pro. Con kept it respectful throughout and din't have poor conduct, but pro forfeited which was bad for the debate and con as con didn't have an argument to go off of and didn't know clearly what pro's position was.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter cannot award points merely on the basis of a single forfeit unless the voter is also awarding argument points, which they are not.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: swetepete540 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: It is possible to be a jew but practice christianity.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not justify any of the points they award in any clear manner, and it appears they are voting based on a pre-judgement of the topic. Per the site's voting policy: A vote bomb is a vote "cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed." The user can find the site's voting policies at this link: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: swetepete540 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The Bible did come from the lord God
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not justify any of the points they award in any clear manner, and it appears they are voting based on a pre-judgement of the topic. Per the site's voting policy: A vote bomb is a vote "cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed." The user can find the site's voting policies at this link: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
I am not interested in debating these rules with you, tbh. By accepting the debate, you accepted those rules. If you objected to them, then you should not have accepted. Plus, Ram said almost everything I would've said anyway, lol.
It's clear to me that you do not understand what "no new argument" means, and that is leading to much of your confusion. Not all new points are new arguments. As I said: "New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments."
It implies non-tabula rasa judging because only that kind of judging would allow a judge to vote on arguments which were not up for debate (as new arguments in the last round are).
Obviously, I am not a voter in this debate, so it is a false equivalency to compare me with a potential voter.
It applies to BOTH debaters final rounds. And, let me repeat: New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments.
Your argument rests on the presumption of non-tabula rasa judging. Since judging should be tabula rasa, your argument holds no weight.
I don't think you know what "no new argument" means. It does not mean "no" arguments; that is you can defend and explain and add on existing points up to a point. But if we have gone the entire debate without you making argument X, it would be categorically unfair for you to talk about X in the last speech. It's really a commonsense type judgement.
Believe me, debaters throughout the US have been using that rule for decades, and we have not infinitely regressed.
Cheap tricks are "cheap" because they unfairly benefit one side. If you started one racer a mile behind the other, the contest is not a fair one, and thus not worth having. So yes, there are cheap tricks--they are perhaps better known as cheating.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Debaticus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro convinced me more and provided more resources than con, but he did swear and refused to answer a few arguments, so conduct point to con.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. In order to award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. And, to award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. The voter performs none of any of these steps, except, perhaps, the first step of awarding conduct points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Under no circumstances may you plagiarize another user's vote. Virt is quite correct here. From the COC: "The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes."
Also, people should use all this passion and channel it into something for the site...like commenting on this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1754
Lol. Everyone should chill out. I haven't even presented my case yet and people are freaking out about what I am or am not going to argue. Wait and see, and may the force be with us.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: At no point in the entire debate did Con explain what an intellectual is. Only in the last Round, which Pro couldn't reply to, did Con even hint at how Ben Shapiro 'thinks rational' or any such thing. Pro used sources and highlighted what exactly in the YT video was being 'exposed'. Con doesn't even say what is in the YT links he uses, he just posts 2 in 2 different Rounds and says 'look how much Ben Shapiro backs things up with facts'... Okay, what things?
Pro highlights that cherry-picking points and holding strange views like Zionism, without being able to back them up would mean we are to default Shapiro (if Shapiro is these things) as a non-intellectual. This truly shifted BoP onto Con, even though it already was on Con had this been correctly written as 'is an intellectual' and with Sparrow as The 'red' side (Opposition) despite being the Instigator.
As for Conduct, Pro was thoroughly rude throughout, even imitating Shapiro in a way that could get him sued in a defamation lawsuit if he keeps saying Shapiro is most of the things he said in this debate. You can't just do that. Don't misquote to bastardise the subject of a character-based and/or intellect-based debate about a real person.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points are borderline, and so default to being sufficient. Sources points were insufficiently justified, as it is not clear from the RFD how they impacted the debate. Conduct is also insufficient, as no particular example of misconduct was identified. Misquotes--okay, like what? And how were those conduct violations unfair, excessive, or in breach of debate rules?
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
The policy on tied votes which allows for their removal was only implemented after RM cast his vote on this debate. Since rules are not applied retroactively, his vote is essentially grandfathered in. It's obviously not a good vote, and not a "perfectly fine" one either, but it is not a removable one.
So, the use of profanity, unless it is insulting another user specifically, is not grounds for removal. RM's vote has been left up because it was not in violations of the standards in place when he placed the vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sparrow // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro at least provided arguments backed up by evidence, whereas con just questioned the credibility of that evidence without providing counter-evidence. I also consider it poor conduct because he is trying to shove all the BoP onto pro even though by default nothing can be assumed to either exist or not exist without some kind of logical or empirical basis for that conclusion, otherwise you may as well make no assumption either way.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and conduct points. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how sources impact the debate, (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) compare each side's use of sources. The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award conduct points, the voter must explain how the violation was " excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate."
************************************************************************
Arguments: Pro provided a more soundly structured argument, whereas con merely tried to imply that something will always go wrong as a result of an auto-loss algorithm, but he cannot account for every possible way an algorithm could be made so he has not proven that a good one cannot be created.
Sources: Con provided no sources
Grammar: Pro structured his argument very well, breaking it down point by point in a clear and concise manner. Con's grammatical structuring of his argument is inferior.
Conduct: Con forfeited a round.
As I said to RM, I am willing to take this exact same topic as Con using the exact same set of rules. I believe the rules are fair, and I am willing to put my money where my mouth is to demonstrate that.
If you think the rules skewed Pro, I am happy to debate you as Con with the exact same topic and exact same rules. As long as the debate doesn’t start until June. If the debate truly is unwinnable for Con, it should be a nice auto-win for you. As the saying goes, “put your money where your mouth is.” I will.
To voters:
I would enormously appreciate any feedback on my opening speech. Thank you.
I am sorry you think I am a jerk. Ultimately, the rules I impose on debates are not meant as a "get out of jail free card," but are rather designed to ensure a fair playing field for competition. Notice, "competition"--not discussion or truth-seeking. For me debate is primarily a competitive exercise. Because it is a competition, I do not hesitate to cite rule breaches when I perceive them, but that does not mean that the rules exist to give me any special advantage. Calling out rules violations then is almost never personal for me; I just see it as part of the activity. If you took it personally, then you should be aware that is not how it was meant.
From my point of view, you were not holding true to the spirit of the debate: to have a discussion about migration, not prior questions regarding the Is/Ought problem. That being said, I did try to earnestly engage with your arguments, and I devoted a significant number of my character space to discussing why the problem did not apply to my case. I explained my reasoning. To the extent that I did so, and to the extent that you had the chance to challenge any alleged rule violations, the debate, in my mind, proceeded honestly and openly. Having disputes about the meaning of rules, or their interpretations, is not dishonesty. It's disagreement, and that's what debate is all about.
Debates can be aggravating, even maddening, but they are not, as a rule, personal for me. I hope then that any enmity generated by this debate will not be long-lasting. I disagree strongly with the implication that I was either dishonest or unfair in the debate, and I chose not to reciprocate with identical language precisely because those are incredibly strong accusations to bandy about in the context of this activity. I take pride in my debating well and fairly. To some extent I can sympathize with your frustration at how the debate turned out; I hope you can sympathize with my own as well. I hope you can let any animus you have go.
Thanks for the debate. Can you please bring it to a close?
I agree with all those points.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Mod Action: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter voted for the forfeiting side, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote. And yeah, there isn't really a COC violation here.
************************************************************************
I agree that migrants have a moral obligation to assimilate to *some* extent with the country in which they settle. I do think that, ideally, migration should be legal, but neither do I think that coming here illegally is all that serious an offense.
Thank you! I appreciate that.
Lol. Glad you're enjoying the debate.
I did not say your plan was biased, I said your "your characterization of the would-be immigrant" was. I don't know what your plan is.
As for your fears about immigrants, they read as deeply paranoid and absurd.
I think your characterization of the would-be immigrant is already ideologically loaded and biased.
Your argument about the asylum-seeker is also problematic, as it would lead to a cascading sequence of nations shirking their duties.
I am not going to talk about what I am arguing in the debate, as that may or may not reflect my personal beliefs. What I will say is that, personally, open borders are aspirational and inadvisable at this point, though I would like to see open borders be established in the next couple of centuries.
Posted.
Also my 500th comment...
Posted.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Conduct to con for the forfeit by pro. Con kept it respectful throughout and din't have poor conduct, but pro forfeited which was bad for the debate and con as con didn't have an argument to go off of and didn't know clearly what pro's position was.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter cannot award points merely on the basis of a single forfeit unless the voter is also awarding argument points, which they are not.
************************************************************************
OOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooohhhhhhhhh
I still don't get it...
Who? What?
Awkward, lol. Didn't know you were under 18, but still...Nevada is fantastic.
That's right. You just watch yo'self sonny!
Hey! If I want to take 17 hours for a 15 minute drive, that's my 'Murican right!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: swetepete540 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: It is possible to be a jew but practice christianity.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not justify any of the points they award in any clear manner, and it appears they are voting based on a pre-judgement of the topic. Per the site's voting policy: A vote bomb is a vote "cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed." The user can find the site's voting policies at this link: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: swetepete540 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The Bible did come from the lord God
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not justify any of the points they award in any clear manner, and it appears they are voting based on a pre-judgement of the topic. Per the site's voting policy: A vote bomb is a vote "cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed." The user can find the site's voting policies at this link: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
I am not interested in debating these rules with you, tbh. By accepting the debate, you accepted those rules. If you objected to them, then you should not have accepted. Plus, Ram said almost everything I would've said anyway, lol.
It's clear to me that you do not understand what "no new argument" means, and that is leading to much of your confusion. Not all new points are new arguments. As I said: "New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments."
It implies non-tabula rasa judging because only that kind of judging would allow a judge to vote on arguments which were not up for debate (as new arguments in the last round are).
Obviously, I am not a voter in this debate, so it is a false equivalency to compare me with a potential voter.
It applies to BOTH debaters final rounds. And, let me repeat: New arguments are not developments of previous rebuttals or new rebuttals to newly introduced arguments.
Your argument rests on the presumption of non-tabula rasa judging. Since judging should be tabula rasa, your argument holds no weight.
I don't think you know what "no new argument" means. It does not mean "no" arguments; that is you can defend and explain and add on existing points up to a point. But if we have gone the entire debate without you making argument X, it would be categorically unfair for you to talk about X in the last speech. It's really a commonsense type judgement.
Believe me, debaters throughout the US have been using that rule for decades, and we have not infinitely regressed.
Cheap tricks are "cheap" because they unfairly benefit one side. If you started one racer a mile behind the other, the contest is not a fair one, and thus not worth having. So yes, there are cheap tricks--they are perhaps better known as cheating.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Debaticus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro convinced me more and provided more resources than con, but he did swear and refused to answer a few arguments, so conduct point to con.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. In order to award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. And, to award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. The voter performs none of any of these steps, except, perhaps, the first step of awarding conduct points. The voter can access site voting policy here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Sure, lol. When I get home.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Under no circumstances may you plagiarize another user's vote. Virt is quite correct here. From the COC: "The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes."
Also, people should use all this passion and channel it into something for the site...like commenting on this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1754
It's a cheap trick, not good tactics. Good tactics are innovative ways to win fairly, not ways to short-circuit the argumentative process entirely.
Lol. Everyone should chill out. I haven't even presented my case yet and people are freaking out about what I am or am not going to argue. Wait and see, and may the force be with us.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: At no point in the entire debate did Con explain what an intellectual is. Only in the last Round, which Pro couldn't reply to, did Con even hint at how Ben Shapiro 'thinks rational' or any such thing. Pro used sources and highlighted what exactly in the YT video was being 'exposed'. Con doesn't even say what is in the YT links he uses, he just posts 2 in 2 different Rounds and says 'look how much Ben Shapiro backs things up with facts'... Okay, what things?
Pro highlights that cherry-picking points and holding strange views like Zionism, without being able to back them up would mean we are to default Shapiro (if Shapiro is these things) as a non-intellectual. This truly shifted BoP onto Con, even though it already was on Con had this been correctly written as 'is an intellectual' and with Sparrow as The 'red' side (Opposition) despite being the Instigator.
As for Conduct, Pro was thoroughly rude throughout, even imitating Shapiro in a way that could get him sued in a defamation lawsuit if he keeps saying Shapiro is most of the things he said in this debate. You can't just do that. Don't misquote to bastardise the subject of a character-based and/or intellect-based debate about a real person.
>Reason for Mod Action: Argument points are borderline, and so default to being sufficient. Sources points were insufficiently justified, as it is not clear from the RFD how they impacted the debate. Conduct is also insufficient, as no particular example of misconduct was identified. Misquotes--okay, like what? And how were those conduct violations unfair, excessive, or in breach of debate rules?
************************************************************************
On a troll debate, you can vote however you want for almost any reason.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Pro
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
Okay.
Sure. But I won't be free to debate until the summer.
You might win, sure. And, a debater never reveals his strategy before showtime ;)
Yeah, maybe over the summer. A lot on my plate atm.
That's a lot of hopping around...
Okay, fair enough. I enjoy doing some fun debates every now and again myself :)
The policy on tied votes which allows for their removal was only implemented after RM cast his vote on this debate. Since rules are not applied retroactively, his vote is essentially grandfathered in. It's obviously not a good vote, and not a "perfectly fine" one either, but it is not a removable one.
So, the use of profanity, unless it is insulting another user specifically, is not grounds for removal. RM's vote has been left up because it was not in violations of the standards in place when he placed the vote.
Nice debate! I think I might vote.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 points to Con for sources
>Reason for Mod Action: Troll debates are not moderated, per the site voting policy guidelines. No moderation action is appropriate on this vote.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sparrow // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Pro at least provided arguments backed up by evidence, whereas con just questioned the credibility of that evidence without providing counter-evidence. I also consider it poor conduct because he is trying to shove all the BoP onto pro even though by default nothing can be assumed to either exist or not exist without some kind of logical or empirical basis for that conclusion, otherwise you may as well make no assumption either way.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter insufficiently justifies argument, sources, and conduct points. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps. To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how sources impact the debate, (2) directly evaluate at least one source from the debate, and (3) compare each side's use of sources. The voter completes just one of these steps. Finally, to award conduct points, the voter must explain how the violation was " excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate."
************************************************************************
Sparrow's RFD:
Arguments: Pro provided a more soundly structured argument, whereas con merely tried to imply that something will always go wrong as a result of an auto-loss algorithm, but he cannot account for every possible way an algorithm could be made so he has not proven that a good one cannot be created.
Sources: Con provided no sources
Grammar: Pro structured his argument very well, breaking it down point by point in a clear and concise manner. Con's grammatical structuring of his argument is inferior.
Conduct: Con forfeited a round.