Should the Columbine Basement tapes be released to the public?

Both produced equal arguments, from my perspective. No sources. Pro used slang. Con forfeited two rounds.

.

Forfeiture

The instigator forfeited almost all Rounds.
The contender's argument is based on if the tapes are corrupted. The problem here is that it is an unfair position for the instigator to defend and an easy position for the contender to defend if corrupted. The problem is we don't know and that hypothetical makes or breaks this debate because it revolves around it. It is a hypothetical so it can't be right or wrong and since he was using it in that way I will vote for Pro for most convincing argument for not using cheap tactics.

Conduct for forfeits

Con FF half of the rounds, this is poor conduct on their part

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture (2 out of 3, no debate could even form).

Pro reasons that the tapes should be released for 3 reasons. 1: Other tapes aren't censored. 2: could censor out how to make bombs that are mentioned in detail in tapes. 3: Psychological studies.
Con argues 3 counter points: 1: Possibility of tapes being corrupted and make others look guilty. 2: would stir up controversy and make family re live the experience. 3: Appreciate the children of today (reference to now day shootings i suppose?)

Con does not refute Point 1 or 2 or 3. He simply argues the moral considerations and implications involved in possible corruption of tapes or rehashing of a bad circumstance to upset the family.

I feel neither side weighed the other evidence including the 946 page report released in 1999 nor considered availability of information to the local people, However, Pro has made more convincing arguments for tape release than con did in moral denouncement of it.

Both had acceptable grammar
Con forfeited on round 1 and 3.

This is basically a full forfeit with con forfeiting all but one round.

Pros major issue about psychologists being able to study the tapes for understanding and research purposes was unrefuted by con - this is a major unconverted benefit which appears to be an excellent reason even were I to buy all cons other claims.

Arguments to pro.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Argument Point:
Pro made 3 shallow but highly intuitive points in the opening and con replied with an intuitive non sequitur.

Pro:
1. There was precedent (pro cited sandy hook)
2. Reasoned that we could censor some of it.
3. appealed to the value it could have in the psychology community as far as studies.

This seems like a sufficient practical appeal assuming there are no counter arguments for it. Lets look at Con.

Con said:

"The tapes could be corrupted. You never know where those tapes have been. Also, if someone that would like them to look guilty to prove some sort of point they are easily manipulated. This would also stir up more controversy and bring up bad feelings for the families involved. Why bring that up? Such a horrible occurrence that day. This is like having them relive this again, and I don't see any point in doing that. Why not just appreciate the children of today?"

First con says the tapes could be corrupted. this argument seems like a non sequitur and did not move me to reconsider pros initial appeal.

Con appeals to propaganda by saying that somebody could misuse the tapes for their own end. This was not intuitive because we obviously don't hold this standard for other tapes so con did not explain this enough for me to accept it.

Con appeals to the families involved but the argument was short and provided no support for itself. At best, this was enough for me to consider a possible extra factor but Con did not take this to it's logical conclusion so I couldn't accept it even if I wanted to.

Overall, Pro made a barely sufficient practical appeal which seemed reasonable to me and Con's arguments did nothing to diminish this.

Grammar Point:

Spelling was roughly equal. My motivation for awarding this point is due to the vastly different structures of the arguments. Pro's argument was arranged in bullet form with each premise properly separated. This made it extremely easy to read and comprehend.

Con's entire statement was in one paragraph and mad no effort to separate points. This required me to do extra leg work to ensure that I was reading the correct amount of points on con's side. This was actually so bad that the last few sentences are ambiguous as to whether they're one consolidated point or a bunch of mini points. This was extreme enough that it had an effect on my ability to understand con's argument so the grammar point goes to pro.

Conduct goes to pro based on the forfeits from Con.

Sources Tied.