vsp2019

Full Forfeit

In terms of arguments, based on all I have read, I believe PRO has provided ample evidence that CON has political views based on religion. It seems very strange that CON rejects this since CON themselves say they are religious. PRO simply had to point out that CON had religious beliefs that they were serious about and PRO did it. CON rebutted by pointing out how their religious belief and their political were different
> "The government should not get into marriage. Stay out of it. If you want to be gay and get married, that is fine with me.
>As a Christian, however, I am against it.
Then CON goes on to say
>NOTE: I am not homophobic."
The last two statements are obvious contradictions. More importantly, CON's political views align with their religious ones. CON is still against same sex marriage politically however they hate the government more than two gay people getting married(This can be deduced directly from what they say in the three above statements above)
PRO refuted that argument by saying > I specifically targeted Civil Unions because that was part of my argument. You instead remove that as something you need to rebut and add your own argument. Basically making a straw-man of me so that it suits you. This is not how you debate. I was given the burden to show how Religion is the basis of your beliefs and used civil unions. Not gay marriage. For you to simply add your own argument as if that is allowed makes it seem like that you are unable to rebut my argument and will do anything to change the argument I made in order to suit yourself. For this reason I will not be rebutting his straw-man of my position instead await him to rebut my civil union claims. This debate was about me showing something. Not you changing what I was showing so it is easier for you to comment on. It is not about what you prefer. It is about you rebutting my claims. Since you did not do that with my first argument.

This shows you have now done it twice but this time added a straw-man.
Though the rebuttal was not perfect since PRO refuted more than was necessary, they still refuted the argument CON made on gay marriage.
CON repeated what they said initially and brought nothing new to the table, making their response irrelevant.
That right there is enough to show that PRO had the upperhand arguments wise since the title of the debate is: Omar thinks I have political beliefs based on religion: NAME ONE

PRO failed to define their terms in the first round which slowed the conversation down. CON defined theirs right away. CON then gave examples and provided a nuance view on CNN in order to demonstrating the low percentage of "fake news" CNN has done and by putting the burden of proof on PRO.
PRO's arguments on objective reporting "Anyone who reads a CNN article or turns on their night cable news can tell everybody has a leftist bias", this is not a strong evidence. No one can argue against anecdotes and they are not worth much. PRO then failed to understand CON's argument on the differences between messing up on some details to fabricating news. CON then provided more evidence to support their side.

PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about.

PRO failed to define their terms and then forfeited a round which goes against debate ethics, CON defined their terms and properly made arguments the whole time, not forfeited any round.

CON began the first round by making an argument for free speech(If violence is justified towards Fraser then it should also be justified towards Will). PRO responded by explaining the difference between the action of Fraser and that of Will(Fraser has alt right views that, if carried out, would lead to a net negative impact on the Australian population because of alt right ideas etc). This is the difference that explains why Will's actions is justified(according to PRO).

CON never responded back to that and instead took the debate in a different direction by asking PRO whether PRO would justify violence towards CON if CON shared the same beliefs with PRO. PRO reaffirmed his belief that violence is justified if the end goal will lead to a greater social wellbeing. CON never responded to that but rather stuck to defining what Right wing beliefs he shared in common with Fraser. CON also went down a rabbithole of Immigration problem in Europe that has nothing to do with the theme of the debate. In the end, CON failed to challenge PRO's arguments justifying violence and thus PRO wins this debate in my opinion.
The debate theme was about whether the egg attack was justified on the senator, PRO explained that but CON responded on something else rather than that specific topic.

They both used similar sources with tweets and newspaper articles. Hence it is a tie on this ground.

Both seemed to have some tension before the debate with CON saying in the opening statement that he did now want to debate PRO again. However, CON kept making the debate more personal than was necessary. PRO was making arguments on the topic while CON kept making it personal(Would you justify violence against me?, insults towards the Liberals and labour party in Australia that was unnecessary for this debate that was simply on violence against the Australian senator). Though PRO did engage in arguing against CON's views(because CON challenged him in the first place), PRO did not really have to. Nonetheless, PRO had better conduct as they did not make it personal until after being challenged repeatedly by CON.

Spelling and grammar were fine throughout. Not much to say about this.

Con's memes appealed to me more