Total votes: 19
Good debate on all sides, hard to choose.
Full forfeit.
No one did anything, therefore I think it’s safe to vote a tie.
Con provided more in-depth arguments while Pro just listed a few things in single sentences.
Con used a few sources as opposed to Pro’s none.
Full Forfeit.
Pro used reasons well Con was too focused on semantics and tiny details.
FF for Con
This was not even a debate, it was more “who could provide the best definition for things.” Pro brings up a point, then Con argues that east doesn’t have to be west or something because it’s a social construct, and then pro just goes with that and it ends up as debating what’s north east south and west. Arguments to Pro because he actually made a valid point before it descended into semantic nonsense.
Sources go to Con. Con was providing sources like NASA and other reliable organizations while pro seemed to copy and paste his search history. S&G are tied.
Both debaters had poor conduct but since Pro kept calling out Con for “childish Chest puffing” and “Gish gallop,” this category goes to Con.
Neither side had strong arguments; but considering the fact Con got banned because of his arguments, it goes to Con.
Tyronebiggs got banned. conduct to Con
Arguments and conduct go to Pro for they provided consistent quality arguments while Con forfeited all rounds but one.
FF for Pro.
Pro provided some deep arguments, such as “forfeited” and “forfeited,” but con hands down won this debate.
While Pro brought up many arguments, Con only vaguely mentioned one and the debate was over by then. Pro wins arguments and conduct.
Don’t want this site to turn into DDO.
There weren’t any arguments but conduct went to Con fo Pro’s forfeit.
No content posted.
Conduct to con for pro’s forfeit.
Arguments to con since pro had burden of proof and did not post any arguments.
Neither presented any sources.
Full forfeit but Pro provided one source.
Full forfeit for Pro but neither listed any sources.
Though Pro seems to have not learned kindergarten science, they constantly provided higher quality sources, facts, and arguments than Con, while Con rebutted all those sources and facts by playing the “What if?” game.
Conduct to Pro for Con’s forfeit.