hey-yo

Seemes like con was distracting from the point made that if one can cure or remove the desire of pedofilia then that would inherently mean that it would be a disease under given definitions.

Con would have recieved my vote if they had followed up with proving a thing could be cured or that the premise that removing a thing is not the same as curing.

Ex: you can get the person to stop doing x but to do so is not the same as curing.

Pro seemed to push the issue more.

Pro had arguments. Con had onliners and concieded debate.

Both sides agreed to leave the debate, per discussion in chat.

If this was not a point system, I would vote tie . However, some points may be more than others.

first I will explain sources. Both provide exallent sources to express their position. I dont know why con gave restrictions on sources, but I could be reading that wrong - benefit of doubt. So tie there.

Conduct? Unfortunately pro does go off topic. Im really torn about this point because con forfieted a round. I half want to votes as others do, but half dont. Others have voted against those who forfiet. However, considering any debate, what affects audience more? Taking debate off topic. Wherher on purpose or accident, pro takes away from main debate. I see all of this as conduct. Also, I dont like it when people say " I proved x" we gotta stop doing that as a collective.

Which participant's arguments had significantly better legibility?
Neither. Debate started with circular reasoning, and then continued with it. This is true for both con and pro. I also put articulation under this category because articulation allows us to understand pro/com position as they comnect the dots for us.

Which participant provided more convincing arguments?

As I read con's approach, I got the vibe that everything is being explained to me as it is. Rebuttles including, this is x, that is y, that is z. Listing genders is prime example. However this does not explain why. Even in rebuttles.

Pro had the same thing going, but had a saving grace from a rebuttle that I think went over some heads. I am not able to determine how well Pro can articulate the point but I try not to count articulation against debators ability to convince others.

What is the rebuttle? Pro tried to point out that gender as it is understood (or explained by con) could not exist because - as con explained - was a construct. I read pro's comments to indicate that the social construct is inherently false because it is not real. I wish pro had stayed on this path and clarified why he thought his own position was accurate. Same with con.

Although Mall leaned too heavily on fallacies by my standards, context to objection in con's use in fallacies were thought provoking. Also challenged b.k. given statement.

Con Concedes too.
Would have liked to see more from con.
Should do one where both sides produce a "better system," because b.k. said they already believed current system is failing. Hard to argue for something you dont believe in.

If both pro and con argued for their own alternative, this would deliver more of a debate

Pro did a nice try but needs to really break things apart in their posts. Having a long paragraph develops into reading like its a run on sentence. People start to get confused really easily.

Over all debate falls apart as pro forfiets later rounds.

Con put in an easier format to read. I feel like con also did two things that I always felt hard to balance: Participate in the debate to demonstrate your position and give opponent a fair oppertunity.
I consider this a matter of sportsmanship that con expresses very well.

Im sorry I thought both candidates had 1 source but found none for Pro as I reread the debate.

Pro: sometimes hard to connect with provided meanings or sentences. Although there was more content, quality is more important

Con: sometimes less is better. Especially if everything is said right. Overall responses were easier to understand.

Evaluation: con wins

Forfeit by Con