Total votes: 29
concession
A very cogent argument was put forth by CON, the very act of PRO making a convincing argument would undermine his case, I inclined with PRO that informal debates undermine the arguments porduced by both sides untill CON made the above mentioned argument.
I think CON saved the best for last, he made a fresh argument in the last round when PRO cannot furnish a rebuttal, thereby losing points for conduct.
Reason:
Good job on both sides. I am only voting after PRO said I was free to view it to any religious perspective I want.
Arguments: PRO had a massive task prove all sins committed by individuals are encompassed within three sins. Pride,Possession,Power, I entertained his notions, I mostly don't comment on religious issues, I avoid hurting religious sentiments. I will try to present the reason in the most palatable way. Atheism and following other religions is not a sin by any means .The Bible says:idolatory is a form of worship of Satan. All CON had to do was to point it out, he did, he scored. More than a billion Hindus live on earth to say that they are all are sinner , including myself is far stretch. Almost impossible to prove, all CON has to do was point it out, he did , by stating say he lived in India.
Full forfiet.
Full forfiet.
Con Conceded.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit.
CON tried to ascertain that God and Science are two different entities, PRO rightly claims that Science and Santa should also be held under the same weighing scale. PRO's arguments of both God and Santa being entities of faith and are thus similar made more sense to me.
ff ff ff ff ff
Full forfeit.
ff ff ff ff ff ff
CON forfeits thus PRO wins
Full forfeit
Full forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
PRO's own definition says the scheme has to profit mainly from subsequent participants, here is where CON argues, if the distributers can earn from sale of products there is no need to rely on recruitment. CON argues it better when he says there are 6 different career options, point to CON. Since PRO has instigated the debate he should have prooved that other sources of income, such as direct sales are negligible when compared to back payment from the company, which he does not, so PRO fails to make his case.
Sources: PRO loses his arguments mostly because of his sources the income disclosure statement used by PRO specifically states that even if the income received as payement from the company is 0. The distributor can make money from sale of products, which in essence is what a distributor should receive money for. Other business also have the same working, you pay a fixed price for distributorship which is in thousands of dollars and recieve cut based on the sale of products. How is this model any different, I could see no difference. It further made no sense to me how by paying only 100 dollars PRO is expecting anyone to make an yearly income. PRO's sources contradicted his stance of a pyramid scheme.
Concession
Full forfeit by PRO
There is some sense in CON's arguments thus this debate is not stupid.
Concession
PRO failed to make his case against CON whole showed some polls about the beauty of Euler Identity. Had Pro taken a more application based approach I could have sided with PRO, a theorem is maths is also not limited to one application, PRO could have used other theorams and tried to compare their application. Eg:- complex variables and their application in fluid dynamics. CON showed two polls so argument points to CON.
Conduct points to CON for PRO's forfeit.
Arguments: CON conceded the debate
Conduct: use of pejoratives by CON is not appreciated.
argument: on one hand PRO refuted CON's claims stating that the big picture did not matter yet used the big picture argument in refuting CON's claim on goeben, CON message was more precise from the beginning to the end he was focused on the big picture. He even used one of CON's own sources and turned it against him in his objective of delivering the big picture to the audience. CON is the victor.
R1 con won with the argument pro argues about something to be wet liquids should be integrated within the subject. There was no BOP provided that challenged the properties of liquids and their wetting properties. A liquid may itself be wet but need not necessarily make the object it interacts with wet. Eg:- Oil and water both are immisible and will form layers rather than interacting with eat other. PRO 's argument that humans consist of 60% water and thus humans are wet make no sense to me. A water balloon has water its inside it, does not mean it is wet.
PRO could have won had he bother to search few facts such as:
Water does not wet waxed surfaces because the cohesive forces within the drops are stronger than the adhesive forces between the drops and the wax.
All CON had to do was refute PRO , he did and he won, according to me.
Great job on both sides
Pro did a far amazing job than me defending this topic, but he repeated some of my mistakes, which CON exploited very easily, in instigating the topic itself the word "accountable" becomes very intangible and the argument made by CON against the word usage of "should" were more convincing than PRO. The entire arguments were from the beginning about the Chinese governments response which CON has defended, had PRO chosen to bring the wetmarkets and Chinese governments handling of them and effectively potrayed those points I would have sided with PRO. CON's defense was as strong as steel.
Personally I find Chinese government a very questionable one with little regard to human rights and civil liberty PRO could have used those pretext to strengthen his arguments and stated all information coming from them is fabricated. Chinese have previously too resorted to this sort of stuff, the world is no stranger to it. For as it is now, on epidemic response CON's counters reign supreme. It really makes no sense to enforce lockdown without confirmation of human to human response.
Sources: Both sides put so much effort on sources it would be criminal to rob either side of points on sources.
Amazing debate.
First of all great job by both sides, very convincing arguments
Arguments: I liked the gish-galloped argument made by PRO in the first round, and cited research papers to make his point but CON certainly made cogent counter-arguments by stating options are for the common folk to choose from, further tried to disprove PRO by stating examples of 2 research papers,I would have voted for CON had he used average Research Paper size to disprove his opponent by quoting an average or median size of research paper from a source rather than citing extremes. Exceptions are not examples. Till this point I was still in favour of CON , since his options are good argument was relatable and agreeable.
I was inclined towards CON most of the time when he exposed PRO's self contradictions and effectively cited how cross-examinations in comment section is unviable, but in one of the CON's examples of his previous debate,"The Bible Created Western Civilization Part 1: Humanity, Rationality and Technology", he said he needed 28,000 argument to make his point, PRO went into specifics of the debate, and pointed out " Why, he could've simply just typed in Western Civilization's definition comes from Ancient Greece, with major advances providing the expansion for early Christianity".
Which was exactly the point even I had voted in favour of CON in that debate, I really liked this point . This had me inclining towards PRO again as he stood by what he argued for a small summarized ,readable argument. CON lost argument points firstly he did not defend this point in R3 when PRO had used a good chunk of his argument in this point, secondly gish-galloped point made by PRO in his conclusion in R3 was proved by CON not defending his previous debate in his R3 and using a huge number of counter arguments and still missing to address such a sizeable portion of PRO's argument when his entire case of using long argument was based around the need for quoting exact texts of the opponents.
Conduct : Conduct to PRO because CON used the word" bullshit" in R2, I was in favour of CON of the point he was making about shared burden of proof , but I mostly like language formal and free from verbal pejoratives, outright refusal to accept an argument can be made by using other better terminology such as ," I vehemently oppose it" or " the argument does not make any sense".
Secondly, in R3 CON stated PRO has dropped the Gish- galloping argument whereas PRO's ending in R3 was based on it , how can an argument used in conclusion of R3 considered as dropped? This is falsifying stance of an opponent. Not proper conduct.
Arguments:
PRO defined originalism as :
"a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. "
I felt inclined to side with CON stating that vague terminology was supposed to be an inclusive aproach for change in the future, because if the original author's original understanding was that of flexibility then I don't see how the definition of Originalism is being challenged by CON.
CON also made a cogent case against pragmatic approach by stating how Japanese Internment violated norms. I just can't side with PRO on the pronoun usage point since CON made it clear that it was the usual approach those days. PRO made some convincing arguments about how the society has progressed over the years I would have sided with PRO had he extrapolated and added some specific sections of the document which were not relevant to current world, but just a mention does not help me evaluate as to how much of a factor it is on the current debate.
Sources : Both PRO and CON were sourcing their arguments but since I am neither a citizen of the mentioned country nor a legal expert, I would abstain from commenting.
S&G: Both PRO and CON were high in their usage of legal jargon, I would advice both of the participants to elucidate some legal terms and add some definitions, so as to give the reader some added clarity on the topic. A normal reader would have no idea about Hamilton's Federalist papers, similarly if I start speaking about Finite element analysis or non-linear buckling even if it was relevant to a given debate,I dont think it would make sence to most readers.
Conduct: Both participants upheld proper conduct.
Arguments :
I read all the responses in detail, while CON stuck to rational understanding of the topic, PRO definition were not concrete and kept misinforming about other religions. Buddhists , Hindus have been actively downplayed by superficial understanding of PRO on sensitive subjects such as someone's religion.
While PRO made bold revelations of Hindu's understanding of the world, and how they see it, he lacked sources to back it. Similarly a lot of over exaggerated claims on the east were just not germane to the topic of how bible created the western civilization. CON made a congent case of stating the various achievements and technological marvels of Greek and Roman cultures , making it safe to say CON was the victor.
Sources: sources used by PRO were not germane to the debate , and even when used sources were outdated, CON stuck to better sources.
Conduct: PRO became very aggressive against CON, which is not recommended. CON's conduct was proper.