Total votes: 18
I believe that Benjamin *should have* won this but failed to address the core of the issue: age. He left numerous arguments by baggins about age on the table and conceded a full 70 episodes of aging without a word. On the other hand, baggins made this a big part of his argument and, although the claims are dubious, they are unanswered by PRO and thus must be considered as real according to PRO.
Based on age, Aang has received little to no training and would be easily brought into avatar mode, which, as stated in CON’s argument, is not as powerful as it seems on the surface. On the other hand, Naruto has significantly progressed and the power of the full nine tails is insane in comparison. As noted by CON, the power levels majorly differ between the series and it is clear that in Naruto there are more powerful characters. As Naruto is the main character, he is one of the most powerful characters in the series as well. His true power is more innate (the nine tails) whereas Aang needs to train hard to learn many different bending types and power up.
If the timeline works according to what was argued, Aang is simply not well-trained enough and underpowered while Naruto has undergone serious training and still has more innate power. Furthermore, Naruto is so durable that Aang's chances are minimal. Therefore, I believe that CON wins in arguments.
Sources are tied because although there were some minor imbalances it is not enough to give the point to either side. Conduct and legibility were balanced as well.
Pro conceded and Con provided valid arguments.
Section 1: What some of CON’s arguments were:
CON argued that he had they right to run for presidency, as they would help improve the site in numerous ways through their resources, and even if it was technically not allowed, the moderators had made exceptions in the past and thus they should be able to now. Additionally, they argued that the usage of the word should implies the possibility, and thus is not a valid argument for PRO. They also claimed that they had the merit to be president, as they had a vision for the site’s future and a plan to achieve it. However, they didn’t cite their sources well and relied on unreliable personal testimonies.
Section 2: What some of PRO’s arguments were:
PRO argued that CON did not have the right to run for presidency, as they didn’t meet the official requirements to be eligible. They also claimed that CON’s claims of merit lacked a firm foundation and were not based on valid reasoning. They also refuted any accusations from CON with clear and simple logic, along with trying to show that CON’s arguments also had many fallacies. They cited their sources to back up their claims and show their credibility.
Section 3: Why CON’s arguments were less convincing:
CON’s arguments were less convincing because they failed to completely counter PRO’s criticisms in an effective manner. They even admitted that certain points that PRO made would be of critical importance in the real election. They showed that they did not understand the root and purpose of the question, and instead argued semantically about whether they could even run for president, which was practically irrelevant to the original topic. The focal point of their arguments appeared to be blaming fallacies and giving unbased claims, rather than direct facts and logic. Being able to be the president seems to outweigh the considerations of whether he is a good president, yet even ignoring that it shines through to me that his arguments are shaky and indirect, giving PRO the victory.
Section 4: Why PRO’s arguments were more convincing:
PRO’s arguments were more convincing because they provided clear and cogent refutations to CON’s relentless attacks. They did not shy away from addressing each accusation that CON made against them, and they used a well-supported case citing DebateArt's own Presidential Eligibility rules to support their claims. They were sometimes blunt in their responses, but they were also honest and straightforward. Despite the deep-weaving fallacies pointed out by both sides, PRO still managed to stay tidy and concise, laying out a deep-layered argument and cleanly refuting the allegations against them and their arguments. While they might have gotten lost at times, overall it appeared that they proved that they understood the true basis of the question: whether CON had the skills and knowledge to become an important and useful president. That appeared to me as a strikingly vital point and showed to me that PRO’s arguments were more solid and sound, with a powerful foundation build on reliable sources.
Conclusion/Summary:
One of the main issues that plagued the debate was the confusion between the right and the merit of CON to run for presidency. Instead of focusing on the question of whether CON should be president, both parties spent a lot of time arguing about whether they could be president, which was not relevant to the original topic. This resulted in a lot of unnecessary and unproductive arguments that did not advance the debate. However, despite this flaw, PRO managed to win the debate by providing clear and cogent refutations to CON’s attacks. He did not shy away from addressing each accusation that CON made against him, and he used clever reasoning and evidence to support his claims. He could have improved his arguments by pointing out CON’s lack of competence and credentials for the office, but he missed those chances. However, this did not affect his overall performance as much as CON’s failure to counter PRO’s criticisms effectively heavily outweighed this missed opportunity. Therefore, even though PRO sometimes deviated from the main topic, he still secured his victory with more solid reasoning and support from his sources than CON.
Votes:
Arguments: PRO. Reasons stated above.
Sources: PRO. PRO used 19 sources while CON used 1. PRO used his sources to back up his claims while CON barely uses sources at all. Clear winner.
Spelling/Grammar: TIE. Practically identical.
Conduct: TIE. Similar conduct.
Too many forfeits by pro.
Con's poetry (and the forfeits).
Forfeitures.
forfeiture
Forfeiture
forfeiture
Conduct points are lost for forfeitures. Arguments are left tied because there are too many forfeitures, and thus Con didn't refute points that Pro failed to truly prove.
Full Forfeit.
Near full forfeit.
Pro perdido todos.
Complete forfeiture by Con.
Con cites "chicken nuggies" as a valid argument, which is currently composed of chicken, not ham. This is a critical point to consider and Pro's arguments about the health benefits and hamminess of ham are also very convincing, all whilst having relatively good grammar. In comparison, Con doesn't refute Pro's arguments well and fails in the grammar category, as to the point of being incoherent.
Complete forfeit.