Instigator / Pro
20
1498
rating
34
debates
66.18%
won
Topic
#5403

Canada Sucks

Status
Finished

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

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

After 3 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

WyIted
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
5,200
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

definitions

sucks- be very bad, disagreeable, or disgusting.

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:

Pro’s argument is right. Trudeau ruined everything in canada. Biden did the same to america but not as bad - not because he isnt as bad, becuase canada is parlimantry which is more corrupt.

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:

As a soulless Canadian, I'll attempt to grade this...

Con forfeited less, so automatic conduct allotment.

The description tag "canada sucks like your mom" tells me right away this is intended as comedy.

The Hitler card was hilarious, the frozen waste less so, the reeducation camps (or program) was quite alarming, and the Canadian women it should have been spelled out more that the act of smoking is to suck (possibly cross it with rates of other types of sucking?). The idiots bit with the resturant did make me chuckle, and I enjoy the cherry-picked facts for so few people living there per square mile.

...

Con misses the point, trying for pure rebuttals, without cracking a joke to engage with the arguments in good faith.

E.g., calling pro sexist for complaining about Canadian women... I mean do that, but also show some Baywatch clips or something to show that they're appealing (if memory serves they average a few pounds less than their neighbors, which results in more of them being attractive by conventional standards.

Details of the reeducation don't defeat the issue with overstep on jurisdiction.

So many of the comparisons push back but do not wholly refute pro's case; a little bonus outside of those is needed if they are not bolstered more.

...

Again, this is a comedy debate, so while I'm willng to look at it by another standard, you need to come ahead by a greater amount to get past so utterly failing at the comedy,

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:

Pro's argument: Canada freezes the accounts of anti-mandate protestors.

Con's rebuttal: That was a bad policy, but in Canada, you have democracy (so you can vote) for the bad policy and most people do.