Total votes: 17
Pro's Victory:
Binary Framing Hits Hard: Pro clearly frames the debate into just two stark options: defend the weak or don’t. That automatically makes the moral urgency sharper.
Anticipation of Opposition: Pro preemptively counters two possible arguments (weak deserved it / survival instinct), which weakens the Con’s ground before they even build on it.
Philosophical Depth: There’s an ethical bite here — dying for what’s right vs living in obedience. It adds emotional and moral weight, which is persuasive in value-based debates.
Power Eats Itself: The point about the powerful eventually turning on each other if not checked is logically sound and sociopolitically relevant — self-destruction of unchecked power is a solid extension.
Con’s Loss:
Darwin Misapplied: "Survival of the fittest" is a biological concept, but Con tries to stretch it into moral and societal reasoning — this weakens the philosophical rigor of their case.
False Equivalence: Comparing weak humans to domesticated dogs trivializes the issue. Dependency due to kindness isn’t the same as structural weakness caused by oppression.
Contradictions:
Con says, “No one is born weak” but also says “They become dependent and weaker”. This inconsistency softens the punch.
The idea that "the best help is not helping but inspiring" doesn’t address situations where the weak have no means to even reach that “inspiration” without basic protection first.
Lack of Refutation: Con never directly counters Pro’s point about power eventually destroying itself — a missed opportunity.
Pro won by sticking to a tight, morally compelling framework and cutting off counterarguments before they even grow. Con has moments of good rhetoric, but lacks strong rebuttals and leans on oversimplified analogies.
THIS IS ALL FROM ME, IDK WHY BUT UH PRO'S ARGUMENTS SEEM MORE APPEALING TO ME ... MEOW
∧,,,∧
( ̳• · • ̳)
/ づ
Why Pro Wins:
More Free Time: Pro argues that Farm Communism requires less work (2 hours a day), giving people more free time compared to the longer hours in Capitalism.
Environment: Pro shows that without factories, Farm Communism benefits the environment by preserving forests and grasslands.
Healthier Food: Food produced on personal farms is fresher and healthier than processed food in Capitalism.
Green Spaces: Pro argues that reducing factories leads to more land for forests and grasslands, which is better for the environment.
Why Con Loses:
Free Time: Con claims capitalism gives more free time, but Pro counters that capitalism requires more work to sustain the system.
Environment: Con’s point that consumers can choose environmentally-friendly businesses doesn’t address the systemic environmental damage caused by capitalism.
Healthier Food: Con agrees that Farm Communism offers healthier food but argues it limits choices, which doesn’t counter Pro’s point on food quality.
Freedom & Choice: Con’s claim of capitalism providing freedom doesn’t address the exploitation and long working hours that limit personal freedom.
[sigh] another forfeit to be judged, it;s the third in a row yk/ meowww
well, yk i could hv dropped smthin good, but uh seems like con didn;t want me to, so uh forfeit ofc/ meow
Pro’s Victory:
Key Strength: Pro consistently stayed on the definitions provided and argued that animals meet the definition of "persons" based on consciousness, learning, and pain.
Weakness in Con’s Argument: Con struggled to provide a clear, counter-argument and forfeited the final round, which resulted in Pro’s victory.
Why Con Lost:
Unclear Counter-Argument: Con did not effectively argue that animals lack consciousness in a way that contradicts the given definition.
Lack of Rebuttal: Con’s argument about understanding animal emotion (emphasizing differences between human and animal responses) didn't directly challenge Pro's claim that animals have consciousness, learning ability, and pain sensitivity.
Forfeiting: The forfeited round left Pro with the last word and no opportunity for Con to further develop their argument.
Why Con Lost:
Weak Defense: Focused on hypothetical scenarios like reoffending and escape, not addressing core flaws of the death penalty.
Missed Systemic Issues: Didn’t tackle racial biases, wrongful convictions, or its failure as a deterrent.
No Evidence: Lacked solid data showing death penalty effectiveness or safety benefits over life sentences.
Why Pro Won:
Addressed real-world flaws (wrongful convictions, bias, lack of deterrence).
Used strong evidence (statistics on innocence and crime rates).
Focused on systemic issues, showing the death penalty's risks far outweigh its benefits.
Pro Won because:
Pro consistently explained how grades impact real-world success (jobs, degrees, opportunities).
Gave a practical "safety net" view—it's better to have good grades in case other plans fail.
Addressed work-life balance, saying you can enjoy childhood and study. This showed maturity and nuance.
Every reply brought it back to why grades matter, no distractions or irrelevant rants.
Acknowledged that most people don’t enjoy work either, but grades make future work more tolerable or better.
Why Con Lost:
Arguments like “I wouldn’t ever want to study” and “nothing I learned in school helped me” were just opinions, not universal or evidence-based.
Didn’t strongly refute Pro’s key point: that grades open opportunities. Just said "there are better things" or "studying is boring."
No clear alternatives or solutions were presented (like “self-education” or “skills over grades, Entrepreneurship, Mental Health & Burnout, Portfolio-Based Assessment, Holistic Evaluations”).
Leaned on personal standpoint instead of analyzing the broader system or giving smart counterexamples.
Pro (Israel has the right to defend itself) focused on self-defense, but completely ignored:
The decades of occupation.
The ongoing blockade of Gaza (since 2007).
The disproportionate civilian casualties.
The settler violence in the West Bank.
The fact that Israel is the powerful occupier, not a powerless victim.
They cherry-picked October 7 and erased everything before and after it.
Con (Palestine deserves justice and Israel is the aggressor) called out:
The apartheid system (even Human Rights Watch uses that term).
Ethnic cleansing in Gaza right now.
Historical context: 1948, Nakba, settlements, and colonization.
That Hamas doesn’t equal all Palestinians.
That Israel is not defending itself, but waging a brutal campaign.
They framed it not as terrorism vs. defense, but oppression vs. resistance—and backed it with decades of history and international law.
Strategically:
Pro used emotional appeal (hostages, Hamas terrorism) and repeated the "right to defend" mantra. But they collapsed morally, because they couldn't explain:
Why that "defense" includes bombing refugee camps and hospitals.
Why civilians are paying the price.
Con destroyed that framing by:
Exposing double standards (like how colonizers often use “defense” to justify violence).
Showing how resistance is the only option left when all diplomatic channels fail.
PRO'S Direct point: He makes a clear, relatable argument: you can always add more layers in winter, but you can’t peel off your skin in summer. That’s solid logic people instantly vibe with.
The argument is short, sharp, and universal.
Why Con loses:
He drops abstract words like “resistance to change” and “stagnation” with zero backing.
Saying “hibernation” as a diss? Most people actually love winter for that cozy vibe.
He doesn’t tackle the clothing issue or anything practical. Just moodboard vibes.
Pro used logic + relatability. Con used opinions + vague mood.
Pro's Strengths:
Pro proves civilian harm caused under Netanyahu’s command.
Pro uses reliable data showing intentional tactics that harmed civilians (e.g., blockades, denial of aid).
Pro references relevant international laws that match war crimes definitions.
Pro cites Save the Children and other rights groups to back up civilian suffering.
Pro meets the broad definition easily and arguably hits the specific ICC-related one too.
Con’s Misses:
Con never refutes the basic definition of war criminal (which was agreed upon).
Con doesn't effectively challenge the claim that Netanyahu is responsible for civilian harm.
Con never disproves that Netanyahu could fall under ICC-level scrutiny.
Pro met the agreed-upon standard and then went beyond it. Con failed to dismantle even the lower-bar definition and didn’t bring strong enough counterevidence to undermine the ICC claim either.
thou there is some truth in the existence of such stuff, but well accord. to the debate, ig con got it b8r.
cz well there should be some info on the assumptions n stuff.
besides that 50% aint big than 50% also puts an end soooo/ meow
forfeiture
Pro gave a clear reason: reform is needed to avoid a ban, which Con never fully denied.
Pro showed Best.Korea has empathy and dedication, proving change is possible and worthwhile.
Con nitpicked definitions but failed to refute the core argument about sustainability and community impact.
Pro offered a practical, step-by-step reform plan—Con didn’t give any alternative.
Overall, Pro addressed the real issue with solid reasoning, while Con stayed in semantics.
Forfeiture.
7000series (Con) had a stronger argument overall, as they successfully challenged the definitions and provided alternative religions with significant contributions. While FishChaser made passionate points, many were based on faith-based assumptions rather than objective comparisons.
Pro (FishChaser) argued Christianity as the ultimate fulfillment of Judaism with its positive societal impact (charity, hospitals, etc.).
Con (7000series) argued that Judaism is foundational to Christianity and emphasized Islam's contributions to various fields like science and philosophy.
Convincing arguments: Con (7000series) – More balanced and logical.
Reliable sources: Tie – Both lacked specific citations.
Legibility: Con (7000series) – Clearer structure.
Conduct: Tie – Both maintained respect and professionalism.
this is wht i felt, so
Con had the stronger debate strategy because they:
/ Focused on logic and research methodology rather than overwhelming lists of claims.
/ Successfully debunked Pro’s argument style (Gish gallop, correlation vs. causation issue).
/Used more structured rebuttals.
Pro had strong points but lost because they relied too much on quantity over quality and failed to engage with Con’s direct criticisms.