sigmaphil

Conduct:

The Debate was an instantaneous win for Pro due to Point 7 under Rules under description , "7. Fauxlaw cannot participate".

Moreover, Pro in their final Argument invoked Point 7 to confirm this violation. Therefore the Debate happened under immediate violation of the agreed-upon Rules under the Debate Descriptions.

All Other Vote Criteria are therefore are automatic points for Pro based on the above violation

Win goes to Pro.

Pro concedes in Round 2. All votes should go to Con.

I'm going with Pro on this one. Though Con's first arguments were well thought and rebutted in the second round, Pro did a good job of defending his position. Also, Con neglected to make a 3rd Round argument (waived) of which Pro just extended their arguments in the final round.

I wanted to add that it is my understanding that Matthew's genealogy of Jesus was His Paternal side and Luke's was his maternal side. Perhaps Con's point about the Jewish status being proven by the mother actually supports Pro's position then? Just food for thought.

I humbly submit my vote...
I will keep this brief.

Better Arguments
- Con's arguments in Round 1 were not rebutted due to Pro's Forfeit in Round 2.
- Vote: Con

Better Sources
- Both had good sources
- Vote: Tie

Better Spelling and Grammar
- Both had good spelling and grammar.
-Vote: Tie

Better Conduct
- Pro forfeited Round 2
- Vote: Con

Pro Wins

My reasons...
1. This whole debate, for me, boils down to the existence of an individual.
- If the individual does not exist then how could they have a moral obligation of any kind, which is what Con would argue, per C1
- If the individual exists than do they have a moral obligation to help those in need. Pro would say that if you are not a psychopath than you have an intrinsic obligation to help those in need.
- My thoughts: This "C1" argument by Con is very weak against Pro's appeal to the reader's own sense of humanity.

2. The other point in this debate that is important, in my view as a judge, is the subjectivity of morality argument
- Pro concedes that morality is subjective, but claims even in subjective morality looking at objectively one would have to agree that morality is a part of the human empathetic condition and therefore, again unless one is a psychopath, morality is foundational to humanity. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)
- Con uses Pro's concession of subjective morality and alludes to their "Identity is Fluid" argument.
- My thoughts: Con's use of the "Identity is Fluid" argument was well played against Pro's concession of subjective morality but was it enough?

Final comment. DId Pro do enough to prove that "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need?" Though it was close, what flipped my vote toward Pro, is their appeal to humanity and the intrinsic human empathetic condition. This appeal is was very powerful and, imho, proved Con's "C1: Ontology" argument invalid, which was critical to Con's side of the debate.

Concession.

Debate Participants
-Pro: Virtuoso
-Con: Lazarous

Resolution: "Resolved: The Global Flood, as described in Genesis, did not happen"

Burden of Proof: Shared

I humbly submit my vote...

Better Spelling and Grammar
-Both sides exhibited excellent S&G throughout the debate. Pro recommended in his final round that this vote should be left a tie. I agree.
-Vote: Tie

Better Conduct
-Both sides showed good conduct throughout the debate. Pro recommended in his final round that this vote should be left a tie and I agree.
-Vote: Tie

Better Sources
-Even Though Pro claims that "Answers in Genesis" and "Creation Ministry International" are unreliable sources, I don't have a problem with Con citing them in the debate.
--Reason number 1; Pro referred to both sources in the description, so why wouldn't Con use them as sources?
--Reason number 2; Since Con is trying to argue from the Biblical side of the debate than it would logically flow that Con would use sources sympathetic to their side of the debate.
-Both sides did an excellent job citing sources supporting their side of the argument.
-Vote: Tie

Better Argument
Note: I usually like to break the arguments down round by round, but in the interest of brevity I will hit points that stood out to me in the debate and then issue a vote at the end.

-Point 1: Other historical buildings' argument.
--Pro brings up an excellent argument about the Pyramids existing before the flood and makes an argument about "other historical buildings."
--Con responds by rebutting the Pyramids argument but does not mention anything about the "other historical buildings" argument made by Pro.
--Pro calls Con on this lack of rebuttal.
--My take on this is if Pro would have specified another historical building in his "other historical building" argument. Pro does not do this and instead lists a source and expects Con to go that source and rebut the other historical buildings listed. I feel that this is an undue burden for Pro to place on Con. If Pro wanted Con to rebut the other historical buildings' argument then Pro should have specified other historical buildings.
-Point 1 goes to Con.

-Point 2: Building the Ark argument.
--Con made an argument that more than just Noah built the ark.. His sons and other people from the general population could have helped.
--Pro calls Con on this and states that the Bible only says that Noah built the Ark.
--Con does not rebut Pro's response.
--My thoughts are that Pro made an excellent challenge against Con's argument, which Con dropped.
--Point 2 goes to Pro.

-Point 3: Space requirements argument (Water and Food)
--Con explains with calculated amounts how there would have been enough space on the Ark to water and feed every living thing. Con uses Sheep as an example.
--Pro rebuts Con's argument by saying "those calculations are way off," but yet doesn't give a counter reason why Cons' calculations are off.
--My take is that Pro's rebuttal against Con's argument is weak.
--Point 3 goes to Con

-Point 4: Sexual Maturity of Ark Animals Argument
-- Con states that in order for larger size animals to fit on the ark they would need to be a younger age.
--Pro responds by saying that genesis 7:2 uses the word "mate" and this clearly means the animals were sexually mature and couldn't be juveniles.
--Con responds by saying that Pro's interpretation of Genesis is "strange," which I disagreed with. Pro, in my opinion, made a fair assumption of the verse. I do however agree that Con's reference to the Hebrew word leaves enough wiggle room to give "mate" a different eaning then sexually mature.
--Point 4 is a tie

-Point 5: Ice Age Argument
--Pro makes an argument that Creationist claim that an Ice Age that occurred after the Flood and lasted for 700 years, which would be a challenge for people to build pyramids and emigrate to the Americas. Pro states that building pyramids and emigrating would not be what survivors would be worried about.
--Con responds by stating that the Ice Age would create bridges for people to migrate to the Americas.
--Pro counters by saying that Con did not respond to his main point which was why would they build pyramids or migrate under harsh environments.
--My take is that Pro has a legitimate point and rightfully called Con on it.
--Point 5 goes to Pro

Final Vote
-I had other points I wanted to make, but it was a back and forth, so I stopped at 5 Both sides gave great arguments and both sides made great rebuttals. I am finding it hard to pick a winner and therefore am issue a tie.

Final comments
-I am a Youing Earth believer and a Creationist and so I sympathized more with Con's position, but I was very impressed with Pro's arguments and challenges. Great job by both debaters! Well done!

Pro Forfeited. Bad Conduct. Con wins.

FF, which makes me happy because I'm a dog person. Don't get me wrong I love cats, but given the choice, I'd take a dog over a cat.

I am going to vote as Patmos did, the winner takes all. The criteria I will be using to judge will be song choice, voice quality, and performance (not necessarily in order of weight). Since there were five rounds of five songs, I will pick a winner for each round and the one who has the most round wins will win the debate.

I humbly submit my vote...

Round 1
-Pro: This was probably my favorite of your performances in the debate. You have a special gift most singers don't have and that is your voice has a distinctive and emotional quality to it. I felt "Knocking on Heaven’s Door" was a perfect choice for your voice. I'm giving you the edge on song choice and vocal quality.
-Con: I liked the song rendition of "High Hopes", very cool! I'm giving you the edge on performance.
- Vote: Very close call, but I feel Pro edged it out based on Song Choice and vocals. R1 winner is Pro.

Round 2
-Pro: Another great song choice that plays to your distinctive voice. "Fix You" is one of my all time favorite songs. I've actually done a cover of this song on my youtube channel. Let me know if you want a link to it. Again I have to give you the edge on song choice and vocal quality.
-Con: I didn't feel this was your best vocals of the debate. I did enjoy the performance of "Feeling Good!" I love Michael Buble! I again gave you the edge on performance.
-Vote: Pro won this round based mainly on better vocal quality.

Round 3
-Pro: Again I thought you did a good job with song choice for your voice. I did not think your vocals on "Hallelujah" were as good as the first 2 rounds.
-Con: Your song choice was excellent in this round. Played well to your voice. I feel like you nailed it on this performance.
-Vote: Con was clearly the winner in this round. Con won on Song Choice, Vocals, and Performance.

Round 4
-Pro: Another spot on song choice. You really know how to play to your voice. Loved your vocals also. Well done rendition of "My immortal!"
-Con: This type of song, "I'm Not A Vampire" is clearly your wheelhouse! Great job!
-Vote: Man this is so close, but I'm giving the edge to Con on an excellent song choice for his style of vocals. Con wins R4.

Round 5
-Pro: Great song choice as usual. "Hello" is the type of song that leaves no wiggle room on pitch and I felt that you started strong and ended strong, but in the middle you went off a few times. Overall, though, it was a great job.
-Con: "This is Home" was by far your best vocal performance of the debate! You nailed the vocals on this song! Well done!
-Vote: The winner of this round is Con.

Final Vote
-Con won 3 out of 5 battle rounds, so Con is the overall winner of the debate.

Final comments
-Pro started out strong, but Con ended on the high note. If this were an up or down vote on who has the better voice and which songs I liked more based on my own subjective opinion, I would have given Pro the win. Smooth jazz and pop ballads are more my "cup of tea." However, this was a round by round battle based on very different songs and singing styles and looking at the debate objectively I felt Con edged out the wins on some very close battles. Well done to both of you!

FF .

First off, I truly enjoyed this debate. Both Pro and Con showed professionalism and knowledge of their side of the debate and did a wonderful job of arguing that side.

I am honored and humbled to submit my vote...

Better Sources:
-Both Pro and Con had good sources
-Vote: Tie

Better Spelling and Grammar:
-Both Pro and Con exhibited good spelling and grammar.
-Vote: Tie

Better Conduct:
-Both Pro and Con showed good conduct.
-Vote: Tie

Better Argument:

-The Resolution: Physicians are Scientists
--My understanding (from the description section) of what was needed to win the debate was either Pro had to prove that all physicians were scientists or Con had to prove that no physicians were scientists. The resolution was absent of any constraint; an all or nothing for both sides. Therefore if neither side could prove conclusively their side of the all or nothing resolution then the Better Arguments criteria would end in a tie.

-Usually, I like to boil down my analysis by round, but I thought it would be best to make a list of important points that are made throughout the debate and why I think they are important.

--Point 1: Even though Con would rather propose their own definition of a scientist, which they grabbed from a source called, "sciencecouncil.org," I thought that the official dictionary definitions brought up by Pro could not be dismissed. So which side should win the definition argument? Even though both sides argued well, my opinion is that the official English dictionary definitions should be the standard.

--Point 2. Con brings up an argument that "Physician-Scientist" are in decline since the 1980's, which at face value would appear to show that Physicians can be non-scientists. Con also answers a question, "Can a doctor be a scientist?" where their next three words are "Yes, of course." This brings up a very important point and one that bears a lot of weight in my vote. That point is can a physician be considered a scientist even though they may not currently be exercising the scientific methodology that Pro and Con agreed to in round 1. In other words, If a physician is not 100% actively involved in the scientific process are they still considered a scientist? Another way of saying it is is a Physician-scientist a scientist because who they are or what they do? I think Con would say the later and Pro, the former. It really does boil down to who has the mo0re accepted definition for a scientist. And what could be more accepted than the common English dictionary definition. Therefore I believe Pro has a stronger argument here.

--Point 3: The next criteria and the one both Pro and Con agreed to is the scientific methodology. Pro and Con again argue over the definition of the word hypothesis and the word experiment. Again Pro counters with common English dictionary definitions of which Con counters by questioning whether dictionary definitions should be used because they are "more record keepers then authorities." I continue to have problems with Cons disregard for dictionary definitions. If there is not a standard English dictionary definition than anyone can define whatever word they want and claim their's is the authority. I believe Pro has the edge here.

--Point 4: Numerous other arguments were brought up; the No true scotsman argument, the arguments about x-rays and bone settings, etc. All these are irrelevant to the main point that a Physician is a scientist because of who they are not what they do. A point that is supported by Pro's dictionary definitions and Con's sources about the Physician-Scientist and Con's admittance that a Physician can be a scientist.

-Final Point and Vote: Pro's dictionary definitions on scientists state that a scientist is an expert in the natural sciences, which means that a Physician is a scientist and a scientist may or may not utilize the scientific methodology. Therefore all Phycisnas are Scientists. Vote goes to Pro.

I humbly submit my vote.

Better Arguments:
-Pro laid down the framework by arguing that Creationism should be taught in science classes because it is part of Science history (An intriguing concept I must admit.). Con rebutted by saying that Creationism isn't science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. Con, however, did not rebut the fact that Creationism was indeed taught in science classes in the past, whether it was based on scientific fact or not.
-Vote goes to Pro.

Better Sources:
-Pro supported their position with sources. Con did not.
-Vote goes to Pro.

Better Spelling and Grammar:
-Tie

Better Conduct:
-Con FF last round.
-Vote goes to Pro.

I humbly submit my vote:

For some reason, Con Forfeited each round which is a shame since I was looking forward to this debate topic.
-Each vote goes to Pro.

I humbly submit my vote.

Better arguments:
-Pro needs to prove the resolution "No one needs an ar 15" which is a daunting task due to 2 all-encompassing terms; "No one" and "needs."
-First arguments-
--Pro states that there are 3 societies that have 'well-regulated militias" of young citizens that when their tour of duty is over they return their military-grade weapons. Pro further states that no one needs military weapons in the hands of non-military citizens.
--Con is tasked with providing the definitions in the debate since Pro did not provide them in their first argument. Con rebuts Pro's 1st argument and accurately states that all they need to do to win the debate is show "1 person is needs an Ar-15" Con points out 3 reasons why there may be a need for an ar-15, military, responsible usage, and U.S. Constitution.
-Second Arguments
--Pro argues that semiautomatic weapons are similar in function and accuracy to automatic weapons and are just as dangerous. Pro fails to rebut Con's arguments.
--Con rebuts Con's argument about the accuracy similarity between semi and fully automatic weapons. Con rightly calls Pro on their lack of rebuttal to their previous argument.
-Third Argument
--Pro concedes Con's argument that semi weapons are more accurate. Again Pro refuses to rebut Con's 1st round arguments.
--Con refuses to rebut Pro's argument and I don't blame them because Pro's argument doesn't flow with the rhythm of the debate. Con rightly finishes with the claim that Pro refuses to rebut their arguments.
Vote: Con wins.

Better sources:
-Both provided sources. Some sources were more reliable than others but nothing that takes away from the debate.
-Vote: Tie.

Better spelling and grammar
-It was obvious that Con had better S&G than Pro. But even though Pro's arguments were difficult to read at times, I felt there was nothing so bad that I could not understand the point Pro was making.
-Vote: Tie.

Better Conduct:
-Both sides conducted themselves well enough.
-Vote: Ties

Final comments:
-Con overall had a better debate.
-Constructive criticism for Pro, do better on spelling and grammar.

Which participant provided the most reliable sources?
-Both provided sources during their arguments.
-Tie.

Which participant had better spelling and grammar?
-I saw no egregious violation of spelling or grammar.
-Tie.

Which participant had better conduct?
-Both sides conducted the debate with good conduct.
Tie.

Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
- There were no term definitions or debate framework provided by either side. For example terms like God, Intelligence, design, animals, etc.
- Since the resolution is "The colors God chose to design animals with were made with intelligent choices" and no defined terms or framework were introduced I was making the assumption that both sides believed in God and therefore the argument for proving God exists is not pertinent to the burden of proof.
- The burden of proof is on Pro. So what is the burden of proof? To show that God made intelligent choices in designing animals, specifically their color.
- Since both sides assume the existence of God and God by definition is intelligent, then all Pro has to do is show convincing examples that prove the resolution.
-Con's burden would be to provide a counter example to disprove Pro's examples. If Con would have shown, for example, an Arctic animal that was not White that may have been enough for me to change my vote but Con did not provide these counter-examples.
-Therefore my vote is for Pro.

Pro appears to have conceded the debate in Round 4 by forfeiting and then again in Round 5. Con also forfeited in Round 5. Had Con not forfeited in Round 5 I would have given them the better score, but since both sides forfeited ultimately in Round 5, I am casting this Vote as a Tie across the board.

Pro forfeited. Plus apparently Pro attempted to sway the voters. Votes go to Con. Love the debate topic, though

Concession, sadly. I was looking forward to reading this debate.

Round 1

-Pro opens with a good framework to begin their side of the debate, which it appears will be strong circumstantial proof of a divine being or.as Pro puts it, a "Theistic God" I would have liked to hear further defining of how Pro will coalesce the evidence to prove that the theistic God is one god and that he is the God of the Bible. I did not see that, but I am giving Pro the benefit of a doubt.

-Con also opens with a good framework to try and punch holes in Pro's theory that there is even a diving being and that being is the God of the Bible. Con does this by questioning the institution of religions and the lack of evidence of a divine being. Con's rebuttal of Pro's first argument is premature since Pro has not defined the elements of their framework yet.

-Round one goes to Pro. (under the assumption that Pro will ultimately define the resolution). Merit goes to Con for their sources.

Round 2

-Pro elaborates on their opening argument points. Pro's argument lacks distinct rebuttals to Con's opening argument. Pro's sources are too vague they need pointed attribution and/or block quotes. Still no defined goal of reaching the resolution.

-Con calls Pro out on their lack of rebuttal. They also accuse Pro of Plagiarism (probably due to Pro's; lack of defined attribution to their source)

-Round 2 goes to Pro. (but just narrowly. Pro needs to define their resolution asap.)

Round 3

-Pro finally issues a rebuttal to Con's arguments but does not further their own position. Nor is there any movement on proving the resolution.

-Con clarifies their own points against Pro's rebuttals and still calls out Pro on plagiarism. Con rightly points out that pro as not affirmed the resolution.

-round 3 gore to Con. (still waiting on a Pro's defining of the resolution. That is their burden of proof)

Round 4.

-Pro is getting flustered and is, in my opinion, falling into Con's hands. Still no affirming of the resolution. Sounds like Pro is ready to give up, "There I think I am done. I love the 20th century way of debating, " Hastily throws out sources with no clarification of content.

-Con attacks the biases of Pro's sources. I personally have no problem with Pro stating sources that are biased toward their position, but they need to do more than plopping down source links with supporting statement..

-Round 4 goes to Con. (Still no defining proof of the resolution by Pro)

Round 5

-Pro offers some good arguments here. I especially liked the Flood evidence, which Pro gave sources for. Again though no defining or affirming of the debate resolution.

-Con restates their position and also highlights failings of Con's arguments as far as lack of source attribution, conduct, and plagiarism, which I agree with all except the plagiarism (was not intention, just laziness.).

-Round 5 goes to Con.

My Comment and Vote; This was a hard vote for me. I am a Christian as is Pro and I believe as they do that the God of the Bible is the one true God. So, I was rooting for Pro and gave them the benefit of a doubt in the first 2 rounds. But Pro did not define their framework as it pertains to the resolution, which was "The God of the Bible is the One True God" Nor did they prove it or affirm it. Con also did a good job of keeping Pro off their "game" and guiding the debate away from the resolution. Nicely done Con.. Therefore my vote is for Con

Round One

-The burden was on Pro construct the debate, but they provided nothing but a commentary on racism and other stuff (Jeffrey Epstein?) in the news. I was expecting some type of constructive argument with sources but Pro did not provide this. Therefore Con was forced to fish for some type of argument or source. The best Con could do was go to the Debate description where they found some mention of the FBI And in the last line Con was promised "rock solid facts." Again, which Pro had not provided.

Advantage - Con

Round Two

--Pro starts out in their first line by throwing an insult at Con. This is a pet peeve of mine. Whenever a debater starts making ad hominem attacks it usually is evidence that they have none. Pro then provides two links that they clam was just "sh*** & giggles," when it's clear that Pro's burden is to support the Pro side of the resolution - it's not just for "sh*** & giggles." Con, on the other hand, did not lower themselves to ad hominem attacks but attempted to bring some organization to the debate. Con shows that the sources Pro provided were not specific enough to prove Pro's side.

Advantage- Con

Round Three

-Pro opens up with an appeal that they cannot be expected to rifle through the source they provided to find specific evidence. Pro then brings up irrelevant data from decades ago that are pertinent to the standing debate. Pro keeps trying to make Con prove that the FBI is not 100% factual when that is not their burden to prove. Con admits as much in their response.

Advantage - Con

Round Four

-Pro argues that since Con cannot prove that the FBI is 100% truthful that means they can not be trusted and therefore should win the debate. Con counters that "Pro failed to present any evidence indicating that the FBI lacked credibility." This true and it was on Pro's burden to provide, which they did not.

Advantage - Con

Reason for my vote:

1. Arguments clearly go to Con, since Pro had none.
2. Sources go to Con, since Pro had none.
3. Spelling and grammar is a tie, even though Pro didn't write much.
4. Although I appreciate a bit of levity, I think Con went overboard. Conduct goes to Pro.

My overall vote is for Con, because Pro appeared to have "given up."

Though I am on the Con side of this argument, I feel the Pro side did a better job.