Total votes: 12
At the very start of the debate, CON shifts the focus to “results, not just efforts”, which gives their side an obvious advantage as Ukraine is in a state of war. Surprisingly, PRO does not contest this directly.
PRO successfully defends Ukraine’s wartime political repression as mainly anti-Russian, and they justify this by making references to past actions taken by other democracies at war.
In my opinion, CON does not focus enough on the “Could Another Leader Have Done Better” part.
CON blames Zelensky for not getting rid of corruption within his government, and yet CON also blames him for destabilizing Ukraine by firing corrupt officials. If PRO had called CON out on this mismatch, it would have been pretty bad.
Here’s what sealed the deal for me:
PRO says: Look at Zelensky’s strategic victories.
CON says: Those strategic victories were the result western aid, and Russian miscalculation.
PRO says: That is a testament to Zelensky’s diplomatic success.
CON says: No, those things would have happened regardless.
I had a debate like this once. I didn't say anything, and my opponent didn't say anything. We simply embraced the silence, because words lie.
The only truth lies in silence.
Excerpts from this debate:
cause' this ------'s like a pig fed on soy and corn pellets
while I eat dark leafy greens and increase my wellness
cause' Sun Tzu would focus on defense rather than seek violence
while you run full steam ahead into my trap to be silenced
PRO's verses are superior, but also super vulgar, so it's a tie.
Remember that this is just my opinion:
Round 1: CON wins
Round 2: PRO wins
Round 3: CON wins
Round 4: Tie
Round 5: PRO wins
This is just my opinion:
Round 1: PRO wins
Round 2: Tie
Round 3: CON wins
Round 4: Tie
Round 5: PRO wins
Although I don't necessarily agree with PRO's claim, I would say that PRO won this debate.
In my opinion, PRO successfully defended points A and B:
A: Trans women are not biologically female.
B: A 'real' woman must be biologically female.
Bella3sp, next time you should make it clear if your claim has to do with sex or gender. That would reduce ambiguity.
CON abused a technicality. That was bad conduct in my opinion, but I think that CON still won.
It's true that you cannot always put pineapple on pizza simply because you want it to.
If I take PRO's definitions as true, the PRO wins.
If I take CON's definitions as true, the CON wins.
Neither side brought out a dictionary, so it's a tie!
CON gave an argument, PRO did not.
There is something to be had in simplicity. PRO's poem was nice and neat.
Also, I do not consider rap to be poetry.
My opinion:
We can look at the material, and gather information about the immaterial: PRO brings this up. CON successfully disproves this.
Kalam cosmological argument: PRO brings this up. CON successfully disproves this.
Fine tuning argument: PRO brings this up. CON successfully disproves this.
Non-theist supernatural models exist: CON successfully proves this.
Naturalism can explain the start of the universe: I need to think about this one.
Occam's razor: CON brings this up. PRO successfully disproves this.
Painting analogy: PRO brings this up.
Conclusion: That debate could have been a lot shorter.