Instigator / Pro
8
1480
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic
#3826

China is the rightful owner of Taiwan

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
1
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Single round debate, combined with the massive amount of greater effort put in by con, reduced this to a foregone conclusion.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:

PRO provided a singular paragraph of an unsourced history of Taiwan. CON engaged in PRO's history and also supplied multiple sources to back his assertions that PRO is wrong about the PRC owning Taiwan after Japan invaded. Which PRO failed to prove with any sort of sourcing. He also supplied multiple sources to back his assertions that it was not the rebels who wanted to free Taiwan from the PRC, but in fact they wanted to free themselves from both the ROC and PRC and establish their own country in Taiwan. Because of the responses by CON to PRO's baseless assertions, including sources that agree with CON, and going into significantly more detail than PRO, CON wins the argument points hands down.

SOURCES:
Pro did not cite a single source. CON cited multiple sources. Therefore CON had better sourcing.

CONDUCT:
PRO did not direct any borderline insults to CON. However, CON did direct some borderline insulting rhetoric toward PRO:
"So, when discussing who owns who, please educate yourself"
To imply pro is uneducated based on a single paragraph is not a logical position to take, and also is insulting.
"Therefore, it is ignorant and outright deceitful to imply that the current PRC is what owned and ruled 'Taiwan' instead the China."
There is no evidence that PRO is being outright deceitful with his statement. PRO wrote a single paragraph that was unsourced. It is extremely difficult to determine much of anything PRO was doing outside of writing a one-paragraph, unsourced argument.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con handily disarms the arguments of traditional Chinese rule on the island of Taiwan, as well as the so called "independence" movement following Japanese withdrawal. The first by evidence that the Portuguese and Dutch have been active on the island for roughly the same amount of time as China, and the second by clarifying the order of events. The ROC ruled China brought the island under its rule, then the PRC took over all of China except Taiwan, which definitionally remained the ROC. Arguments to Con

Pro provided no sources for his claims. Con on the other hand provided sources for all of his claims. Pretty simple. Sources to Con.