Budgies are cute

Arguments - Con actually says something in his opening argument that I agree with "However, as the premise ambiguously puts a generic idea about budgies being cute, I argue he has to prove budgies are generally cute.". This was the premise that Con agreed to and if Pro was arguing that only some budgies were cute then that should have been in the title. However Pro did produce at least three arguments in his round 1 opening that barely got touched upon by Con, and Con failed to counter much of Pros arguments with rebuttals or bring light to negative aspects such as times when budgies have brought negativity or harm to people et cetera. One such example is Pros argument "Budgies have aroused a lot of interest, to the point where they are sold all over the world and kept as pets. Pleasure means "a source of delight or joy", and budgies have indeed arisen joy and delight into people", which was met with little rebuttal or counter argument. In round 2 Pro produces five arguments, and are those arguments countered? No, instead they are met with a forfeiture. Con does not really make up for this in the final round either, by simply stating "but like, who really knows?". Therefore should the forfeiture in round 4 go down as an argument loss or a conduct loss? As Benjamin is already 16 7 ahead it seems unfair to punish Con twice for same crime, and therefore I will put it down as a conduct violation and will accept "but like, who really knows?" as saying that it is all a matter of opinion, which would be correct, and will call the argument a Tie.

Sources - Pro produced photos and other links throughout. They were not questioned by Con, and Con produced no evidence whatsoever, therefore Sourcing must go to Pro

S & G Neither stood out as typing under the influence of alcohol - tie

Conduct - As has been explained in my opening, it was either Pro wins by argument or conduct. Benefit of doubt goes to Con, and I punish the forfeiture only once, instead of twice.

Forfeit - Conduct plus Round 3 from Con was almost a forfeit too.

Only Pro uses sources effectively (only uses sources actually, from what I can see Con doesn't use a single external reference).

I think Pro makes a few significant errors with S&G in general.

In Round 1, Pro says "PRO can't make intellectual arguments to dispute my evidence since it's all subjective." That is one of quite a few strange errors (use of 'PRO' instead of 'CON' for starters) and keeps switching around words instead of cute, such as 'attractive' and 'pretty' that in a debate like this significantly matter because at times it's not clear what on Earth Pro is actually saying about the budgies in specific sections. Con even capitalises on this in Round 1.

Another example of very strange S&G is doing this to the resolution:

"Resolution: Budgerigars are attractive or pretty"

This is really dirty play semantically but more importantly it makes Con seem to be able to attack either resolution (the actual resolution or the new one Pro has strangely twisted words to be the resolution) instead of what it tried to do; force Con to attack only the new one and concede to the old one.

S&G is so significantly warped by Pro that I am positively telling you I could not process the points, I don't care how casual the topic is, if this were a more serious topic it would blatantly be worthy of the vote so I will vote here. Pro's Round 1 in particular was an S&G disaster.

Con is clear throughout, so S&G to Con.

Arguments go to Pro because in Round 2, Pro accepts Con's kritiks and attacks and starts to elaborate on what cute itself means and how budgies can be argued to meet aspects of it, though I feel 'childish' was really weakly defended, Con never replies to or attacks it.

More importantly, Pro turns the Kritik back onto Con saying that if it is subjective, Con can't prove they aren't cute, only that they aren't VERY cute in essence (end of Pro's Round 2 highlights this explicitly). Con never rebukes.

Not a very meaningful debate, but I'll put the five or ten minutes in (who am I kidding, I over think everything and double check my writing incessantly, it will be at least fifteen)...

Pro offers pictures of some birds, which I indeed find subjectively cute, and builds upon that with a good band wagon appeal of a source determining they are the most popular pet bird. And even offers a nice syllogism for how useless they are.

Con basically counters that pro hasn't proven enough of them are cute. I must give con some credit here, as he did not do the lame thing of saying every last one, but merely focused on the vast majority... The problem is that con has not offered sufficient challenge that there are any non-cute ones; there's got to be pictures of them, or some standard of beauty to which they do not conform to cute. Con does offer question of if they are beautiful does that mean they are not cute, but he did not show why these two levels need be mutually excessive.

Anyway, three round debate, to which con forfeited R2, and offered no arguments in R3...

Argument: Pro begins by offering definition of "cute", stipulating that qualities of cuteness are: "childish, youthful, or delicate." Pro further embellishes, without need, adding "attractive" and "beautiful." This is too much supporting definition, with all of it being subjective; there is no solid evidence declaring iterations of any of these words. Some think spiders are cute, others do not. Con successfully argues the subjectivity of the Resolution. Pro doubles down by declaring, in R2, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute..." This effectively cuts pro's entire argument, making it indefensible. Points to Con.

Sources: Only Pro offers sources for his arguments, but the R2 Pro argument against his own argument nearly loses these points. They are only held in Pro's corner for having any sources at all. Points to Pro.

Legibility: Tie

Conduct: Indeed, Con forfeits R3, but Pro declaration that Pro has thus won the debate ignores that by Policy, a single round may be forfeit without loss of the debate. Although Con's reply in R4 is not an argument, it cannot be called a forfeit, either. Therefore, Pro's declaration of forfeiture by Con is out of bounds. point to Con