dustryder

Arguments:

Ballot Tossing:

Pro contends that 1 in 10 ballots are inexplicably thrown out and this creates a burden upon those who must cast new ballots. Con responds that ballots may be resubmitted or voted by in person. This is a weak rebuttal because it does not address the contention where a burden has been unduly placed (and hence by agreed definition under less convenient voting, voter fraud). Pro further cites authoritative figures to reinforce his claim that this is an example of voter suppression. Con doesn't seem to have made a case why these authoritative figures should not be considered, despite the obvious appeal to authority. In general, Con's rebuttals to this point were weak, however Pro has critically failed to demonstrate that these thrown out ballots were those of a specific groups. I can only assume that these ballots were thrown out in some sort of random distribution which fails to meet the established definition in which specific groups should be impacted.

Exact Match:

Pro contends that the exact match law places unfair burden on groups of individuals, specifically blacks. Con counters by stating that there were no provably racist intentions. As Pro correctly points out, racist intentions have little bearing. To meet definition, there only need be some sort of impact towards a group of people (which just so happened to be black in this case). Con also makes a similar argument as before, where he contends that those affected by the exact match law may still vote. Again however, this does not address the point that Con makes in that it places unfair burden.

Pro's arguments were unimpressive. However I thought Con's rebuttals were particularly ill-conceived. Hence points to Pro.

Conduct:

Pretty clear here. Dropping two rounds is pretty atrocious

It's hard to describe which annoys me more. A debate with rules that desperately attempts to guarantee a win or a response that is unashamedly plagiarized. At no point in reading this debate did I find anything that indicated it was anything other than a troll debate. Everyone who has read this debate is now dumber for having done so. I award neither of you any points and may God have mercy on your souls.

There is little debate to be had when a consensus cannot be reached in a critical definition such as fake news. The responsibility to clearly define a term with such myriad meaning falls upon the debate creator and should be done before acceptance so as to provide a fair debating environment. Pros failure in this regard should be regarded as poor conduct. And hence, along with the forfeiture of a round, conduct to to Con.

Essentially this debate hinges on two arguments.

1, That "genetic engineering techniques" should be taken as a whole rather than as a part
2, What is and should be considered a genetic engineering technique.

1. I find Con to be more convincing for the use of a multiword phrase to be taken as a whole rather than as a part. As Con correctly points out, in common parlance, "genetic engineering techniques" indeed would be taken as a whole rather than as the sum of parts. Pro argues that his intention was to argue this debate with the each specific word meaning in mind, however this is not made clear in the slightest in the resolution, and hence the resolution can only be interpreted as the phrase "genetic engineering techniques"

2. Both debaters have resorted to using dictionary definitions for their arguments. I note that Pro has shifted to a more favourable definition when confronted by the definition from Britannica and relies on definitions that state GMO's are organisms have been modified by genetic engineering techniques. Pro then attempts to show that definitions for genetic engineering techniques includes naturally modified organisms. As Con correctly points out however, Pro's sources indicate that only at the broadest use of such a term is it applied to animals changed naturally. Con provides several sources which argue that such a broad definition is a fringe definition of the phrase. Pro has little argument that it is not a fringe definition, nor why a fringe definition should be used regardless, only that wikipedia has included such a possible definition and hence should be used. However Con has countered this point regardless. And hence I found Con more convincing

Arguments:
In general, Pro fails to address Con's overall points. This has taken the form of either strawman arguments, or just unsubstantiated claims. For example, Pro suggests that overall homicide should be looked at over gun crime. However, overall homicide cannot address gun crime in its entirety and Pro's reasoning fails to address this.
Con states that America has a large number of mass shootings and violent gun crimes in comparison to other western countries. Pro fails to address the general idea that America comparatively has a large number of violent gun crimes. Pro also claims that mass shootings can be stopped, but fails to substantiate this claim
Finally, while Con cites a source that promoted gun control internationally, Pro responds only in terms of Australia.

Sources:
While both produced a number of sources, only Con's addressed the main points. Pro's sources were effective, but only in the contexts of the strawmans he was arguing for and hence were irrelevant in regards to Con's main arguments.

On sources: Pro has used a variety of news articles to support his main arguments. Con has used a single source to support his evaluation on the biased nature of CNN. However, regardless of bias, Con has failed to demonstrate how this constitutes as "fake news". That, and due to the ill-defined nature of the term "fake news" in the first place, has negatively affected his counter-arguments.

On arguments:

Disregard for rule of law: Pro has argued that Trump has disregarded the rule of law through his comments and filling the courts with republication judges.

Con has correctly pointed out that Trump has filled the courts with judges that follow the constitution, which can be implicitly understood to mean that Trump has followed the rule of law. Con has however has failed to meaningfully defend Trump's comments. Even were Con to prove his statement beyond opinion, Pro correctly points out, stupidity is a poor excuse.

Subverting the will of the people: Con's arguments against this point revolve around "both parties do it" and "that is simply how our country has always done it". By only attempting to justify trumps behaviour, and by admitting that Trump allows for this to happen, Con concedes this point. This is whataboutism and appeal to tradition respectively.

Trump's truth and demonization of the media:

Con concedes that Trump is a liar as he has failed to fully address Pro's source.
Con has failed to expand on his claim that the source used by Pro was biased, and further has only addressed some small part of Pro's source, leaving the rest of the article, and hence the claim unaddressed.

Con concedes that Trump has demonized the media and hence undermines freepress.
Con argues that this demonization is justified due to "fake news" however Con has failed to expand on his use of "fake news", specifically why it's justified to demonize it or how it is different to inaccurate news and biased news. Con has argued that Trump has not denied the freedom of press. This is a strawman as Pro has not claimed that Trump has denied the freedom of press, but has undermined it. Con has failed to address this point.