drafterman

The context of the debate, as stated in the description was about a stone being "too heavy" for god to lift. Con encompassed this by showing that it was impossible for any reason, which necessarily includes the reason of weight. However, for Pro to demonstrate his burden, he would have to demonstrate it in the context defined, being weight, which Pro did not do.

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Con attempts an ill-considered semantic rebuttal, despite the terms of the debate being clearly defined in context. None of Pro's actually facts and conclusions were addressed or rebutted.

Con never really addresses Pro's arguments. Pro presented the KCA in order to discuss its soundness. Soundness is a well accepted term in logical and philosophy that means a specific thing. Con instead dimissed the use of the term as ambiguous which is not approaching the debate according to the terms and context of the debate.

Cons objections never addressed the specific elements of the KCA. For example: "explain how a god pops into existence and gives rise to order and eventually life" The KCA (as stated) doesn't address god or life, but merely concludes that the universe had a cause. While pro invokes God as a label to the "cause" of KCA, it is actually a red herring with respect to the resolution.

The three main points of Cons' argument were: inconvenience to other customers, the threat to consumer health, and the subjective taste. Pro addressed all three of these points in turn. 1. Any inconvenience is countered by the convenience of being able to customer ones orders (and the refusal to allow for no-drinks can actually threaten customer loyality); 2. The use of industrial ice machines itself poses a health risk; 3. Fast food places incorporate, as part of their brand, the ability to get orders customized to customer specifications (even if that specification is a shitty warm soda).

Full Forfeit

Con points out that Pros' definitions are simply statements made by people (including the dictionary definition) and that these statements (definition included) do not alone make something True. Pro does not address this rebuttal and simply restates his argument. However, Pro maintained better composure and additional gets conduct points for Con's forfeit.

The main point of contention here is whether rises and or drops in crime rates, correlating with increase/decrease in gun sales, equals causation. Pro's introduction of evidence showing counter correlations is sufficient to introduce doubt in Con's data. Especially given Pros' data spikes compared to Con's gradual trends. The end result is an inconclusive argument, in a debate where Con had a burden to convince Pro.

Pro's arguments were subjective and hypothetical, countered by Con's cold, hard facts. More to the point, Pro attempted to argue that Ducks were dangerous when the argument was that ducks were the "most" dangerous animal, a fact refuted by Con by showing that humans are more dangerous. By not refuting this or supporting his original argument, Pro concedes it.

Concedes the argument by admitting the awesomeness of dragons as pet. Forfeit awards conduct points to Con.

Con provided a detailed analysis that relied on a literal interpretation of Trumps claims, namely that a test of Trump's choosing administered by an agent of his choosing determine that Warren is an "Indian." While Pro's comments speak toward the validity of such a test, they don't speak to any possible agreement that may have existed between Trump and Warren.

Pro loses conduct points for the forfeit.

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Tie debate.

Full Forfeit

RFD in Comments

Pro conceded the debate.

I believe Pro/Budda won this debate by a slim margin. My main issue was that Con appears (to me) to have relied mostly on the self-evident nature of his presented quotes to disprove Pro's stance. I feel that more effort should have been made linking the information presented to an actual refutation of Pro's position. As it is, Pro's position was more fleshed out, addressing more aspects of the debate than Con.

In the beginning, Con alleged that in the event of unconstitutionality, an amendment should be proposed, but did not follow up on this line of thought when confronted with constitutionality issues. If they had, then the debate might have turned out differently. As it is, the primary focus was on the constitutionality of the proposal, and Pro did a better job of supporting their side of the argument.

Con forfeited.

I felt the arguments on both sides were equally convincing. Mostly I found that Pro and Con were talking past each other, not putting in enough time actually addressing and refuting the other's arguments. Also, I don't think posting a youtube video and saying "watch" is a valid form of argumentation. A video can be a source for an argument, but shouldn't be presented - in whole - as an argument itself.

Sources, spelling, and grammar were equal on both sides.

Conduct goes to Con for Pro's forfeit.

Con points out Pro's argument as a false dichotomy. Unfortunately, the debate did not advance much beyond that.

In addition to the forfeit, Con effectively rebutted and dismantled Pro's arguments as: speculation, factually incorrect, or based upon misinformation. Con also identified Pro's sources as either incorrect or misinterpreted (or, in some cases, nonexistent). Forfeiture by Pro means conduct goes to Con.

Even without the forfeit, Con provided a clear cut case as why curing Autism not only should not be prevented, but also why it should be mandatory. Con effectively rebutted Pro's argument as to the contribution of autism to scientific advancements.

Con used numerous, authoritative sources, whereas Pro provided none.

Due to forfeiture, conduct goes to Con.

One the one hand, Pro entitled the debate "Nicola Tesla was the smartest person in history" but only put forth an argument regarding the number of inventions Tesla had, but failed to explain the connection between the two. On the other hand, Con does not refute this data, or the implied connection between it and the resolution, and instead focused on the definition of smartness.

Con placed a burden of proof on Pro to demonstrate the resolution, but Pro's first round, in an implicit fashion, did: Tesla was the smartest because of the list of inventions. Given the lack of explicit argument on Pro's part, and lack of explicit rebuttal on Con's, I make this a Tie.

Both sides provided adequate sources in support of their positions. Tie.

I saw no major discrepancies in spelling and grammar between the two opponents. Tie.

Pro's style is needlessly antagonistic. More importantly, Pro forfeited a round of the debate. Conduct goes to Con.

Con provided the most reliable sources with respect to MSG's affects on humans.

Con couched their arguments in a more organized and relevant fashion, making them more convincing.

Con's formatting and grammar were better.

Con automatically has better conduct, as Pro devolved to hurling unwarranted insults.

Con wins on all points.