Total votes: 16
It is with non-extreme seriousness,
"And a million other things".
That I conclude Pro's impropriety.
1.
BPD....Nope...Insipid thin sound....0
RM.....Better...More listenable........1
2.
BPD...Languid lyrics. Thin music....0
RM.....Better still...Good fusion.......1
3. Drawn
BPD...Typical Rap with monotonous backing.
RM....Willowy voice OK. Similar backing. But Rap not as good
4.
BPD...Already knew this. Catchy song..................0
RM.....Good vocals and sound. Preferred this.....1
5.
BPD...Nope. Would switch this one off.....................0
RM.....Better of the two. Catchy voice and sound....1
So RM wins 4 -0 with Round 3 drawn
Ok.
So this is really straightforward for me. I took time to listen to all ten tracks and voted solely according to listening preference.
Round 1....Draw.
RM. Didn't like this track...0
BPD. Didn't like this track...0
Round 2.
RM. Didn't like this track...0
BPD. This track was OK....1
Round 3.
RM. This was OK...0
BPD. But this was good...1
Round 4.
RM. Liked this....0
BPD. But this was my favourite overall....1
Round 5.
RM. Liked this. Second best overall....1
BPD. OK.....0
So BPD wins...3 - 1.
OK. Listened to all 10 tracks. Honest judgement as follows. Based solely on aural appreciation.
R1. Draw.....1-1
R2. Draw.....1-1
R3. Preferred BPD's choice...1-0
R4. Preferred RM's choice....(My favourite overall).....0-1
R5. Preferred BPD's choice..(Second favourite).....1-0
So BPD edges it 4-3
In order to win the debate both Pro and Con must lose the debate, sort of a double catch 22 situation.
Both violated rules, conduct was good and both presented with minor grammatical oversights.
And In the end, neither overcame the inherent dilemma.
So undoubtedly a tie.
Though Pro's proposition was actually correct, their argument never addressed the simple but fundamental fact, that though the man went around a monkey on a pole, he never actually went around the monkey. Perhaps this was what Pro was trying to say, but their unnecessarily complicated argument left me somewhat confused. Cons argument was simpler and therefore more effective in this instance.
Pro provided sources, but I don't think that they were necessarily relevant to the simple proposition.
Spelling and grammar was comparable, and good conduct was maintained throughout.
Neither debater actually addressed the issue in question...."Proof of COVID vaccination" and the requirement thereof.
As Con correctly pointed out, the basic premise presented in round 1, though imaginative, was based on a flawed and somewhat tenuous hypothesis. Round two therefore came across as a somewhat detached and separate narrative, and so limiting the debate to two rounds meant that Pro was never able to create a cohesive whole. All that Con needed to do was provide ongoing simple but pertinent responses and evidence. Pro's semantics card just came across as clutching at straws, so too did making too much of an issue over Con's spelling oversight. Grammatically though, Con's presentation was overall, more accomplished.
Not applicable.
Well debated Gentlemen. (Gender assumed).
Pro failed to substantiate their proposition.
Other than a few brief, somewhat racially biased allegations which were never properly addressed the debate thenceforth descended into a statistical contention/argument.
Throughout, Pro was overwhelmed by Con's Skill in all aspects of debate presentation.
The underlying motivation of Pro's argument was also self-defeating in terms of conduct.
Pro looses because of their poor conduct....Idiot....Fucking....Asshole....
Need I say more?
No-brainer.
Doesn't need explanation.
At least Con debated, albeit limitedly.