949havoc

This vote will make no difference in the outcome, but I must judge considering the entire debate as engaged by both participants and the results of each round. Pro entered a sufficient description of the debate to demonstrate, apparently, sufficient knowledge of the subject to render argument in support of the topic, but appears to have dropped out of sight sometime before the deadline to offer argument in R1, two months ago without comment, and has not returned since. However, Con's R1 totally lacks argument, rendering only a comment in the round that "I don't think my opponent is coming back." This does not qualify as argument contrary to the topic, as is Con's BoP.

R2: Another forfeit by Pro.
Con's "Well I turned up" is not a valid, nor compelling, nor qualifying argument.

R3: Pro: another forfeit.
Con: "Compelling" is not a valid, nor compelling, nor qualifying argument.

R4: Pro: another forfeit.
Con: "..." is not a valid, nor compelling, nor qualifying argument.

R5: Pro: forfeit
Con: "Another 6 months to go" is not a valid, nor compelling, nor qualifying argument. After carefully reading the Voting policy on "disqualifications", I conclude Con effectively qualifies as a Voting Policy disqualification on the basis of foregone conclusion: "Someone conceding the resolution itself but insisting they won anyways because they are ultimately right, is a prime example of a forgone conclusion." Although Con does not declare victory, the lack of an argument against the topic where no rebuttal was necessary due to Pro's forfeit, a concluding statement relative to the debate resolution is totally lacking and therefore qualifies as a disqualification.

Result; Pro forfeiture, but Con disqualification: Tie.

Full forfeit by Pro

But, also, Con had the more insightful argument due simply to Pro's lack of sufficient defining of his terms, leaving Con, and me as a judge, believing that Pro's argument was that there is but one objective truth [and the definition of "objective" didn't sell well to avoid Pro's view of the topic. pro very successfully refuted the argument. Neither had sufficient sources to sway judgment toward either opponent.

Con wins

Full forfeit by Pro.
However, Con also successfully attacks the topic by sound argument that it is, in effect, a truism that ought not need debate.

This debate failed to meet the minimum requirements for valid voting. To wit: the Voting Policy: "The act of casting votes on DebateArt.com is not treated like common popular voting, but instead reasoned judgments. The offered reason for the decision must be publicly accessible." Since there are no reasoned arguments presented by either opponent, but merely the presentation of various rap songs, to vote would be just "common popular voting" which is clearly not allowed. I cannot make reasoned judgments merely on listening to songs, even in music to which I enjoy listening. IN this case with rap songs, yes, I can be utterly impartial, but the songs, themselves, make no argument as to their relative quality by which to make a reasoned judgment. I could only say, "I like this song," and "I don't like that song," but that is not reasoned judgment. if one opponent had offered any argument relative to the debate requirement to offer argument and rebuttal, that opponent would have won the debate. WHY is your selection of songs better than your opponent's? Where both fail to do so, I have no other vote possible. Tie.

Full forfeit by Pro

Pro forfeited 2/3 of rounds, sufficient to consider a full forfeit, in addition to R1 neing a non-argument seals the forfeit
Con committed a full forfeit

Unfortunately, this "debate" is really a futile exercise in addressing music preference, and not the topical "better than," on which there are no criteria offered to judge. and both participants do that, but neither successfully met their obligatory BoP, which I perceive to be shared.

Neither had a convincing argument, mostly because terms are never defined by either participant. What is classical music? What is rap? I know, but then Con claims America has no classical music. I beg to differ, Gershwin, for example, and Bernstein, but am not swayed to vote on that point, because Pro also distances other countries from rap, and I know of non-American artists, though I am not at all a fan of the music. Tie.

Sourcing is non-existent. Yes, Con offered examples of rap music, but the demonstration of rap does nothing to convince that it is "better" than classical; certainly not why it is. Tie

Legibility: I'm certainly glad the music, itself, on either side, is not included in voting this feature, because rap is, at times, so illegible, wheres classical music tells an idyllic story of no words, so syntax is not nearly as important as pure mood. Tie, as well, simply because music meaning transcends it element use.

Conduct: Here's where the rubber sticks to the road, and leaves it entirely. Pro loses the point, never to be recovered, in round 2. Simply horrible treatment of his competitor having nothing to do with the debate, but only Con, who is not topical in pro's topic. Point, and victory, to Con for resisting retaliation that is over the top.

BY rule, Pro fully forfeited.
Also, Con's arguments were sufficient even against Pro's singular round entry. Con wins by every category.

Full forfeit by Pro.

However, Con used R1 to argue his BoP, and offered good arguments. Then Con used R2 to actually offer argument for Pro, which were good arguments for that BoP, but not nearly as effective as the Con BoP. Con wins by argumentation.

Both participants had points of argument not assailed successfully by the other, such as Pro's claim of a trilemma of posits, and Con's declaration of the concepts of "I," and, therefore, not "I." Neither argument were successfully rebutted. Tie.

Neither offered sourcing supporting arguments. Tie

Pro given legibility to counter-balance Conduct.

Con's concession earns conduct for sportsmaship.

Con offered a sufficient argument in round one to carry the debate, and Pro fully forfeited.

Full forfeit by Con. Congratulations to Pro for well organized, sourced and justified arguments in round one; all that were needed. These arguments may have been overwhelming to try to rebut. Well done.

While not compelled by it, Pro did offer an argument in round 1, but otherwise rounds 2 - 5 by Pro were either nonsense [Greek letters assembled at random, not equating to Greek], or English nonsense [round 3] which I consider little more than forfeit, and essentially forfeiting the rounds as no further round contains and sensible grammatical construction in any language. I consider it a cheeky ploy by Pro not to be rated as arguments at all, and are not effective in extending the round 1 argument, therefore, the round 1 argument stands alone, which equates to Pro forfeit.

Con was a full forfeit. I consider the whole of the debate a loss on both sides, a tie.

Full forfeiture by Pro

Full forfeit by Pro, and a sufficient argument by Con

Full forfeit by Con.

full forfeit
Though I disagree, in principle, Pro did bring sound, sourced arguments to the table that have merit and ought to be considered and would have been compelling even had Con brought argument. Well done, Nevets.

By rule, Con loses by forfeit of round 1.
However, it is not a clean win [but a win, nonetheless] for Pro, who, by definitions in round 1, defined "law" as "a binding custom or practice," and "obligation" as "Something one is bound to do," and has, therefore, violated the Topic "we have no obligation to follow the law." Seems Pro completely reversed the Topic by definition, admitting that law is binding, after all. Too bad Con did not take five minutes or less out of an allowed two week deadline for argument presentation to observe this reversal, and the rebuttal would have left virtually no room for defense, and Con would have won the debate on that point, alone. But for the rule, which I will honor, I'd have given the win to Con had he mentioned the Pro reversal. Pro: be more careful, this was a sloppy error, and you're better than that.

Forfeiture on both sides [fully for Con], since, although Pro offered a round 1 argument, which is compelling, by the way, with the sourced stats reduction evident by several studies cited by Pro, Pro forfeited all following rounds, which scores a forfeiture. All Pro needed to do was enter an extension in all following rounds to score a win. However, by having a first round arguments, Pro wins the source and conduct points, thus backing into a win, overall.

Pro lost me in round 1 by defining 4 levels of ethical discussion, while stipulating a universal moral law. Pro lost me again by rendering a description of personal desires, then defining autonomy and heteronomy, then saying desires are heteronomous, not autonomous when desires, while they may be shared, are personal motivations. Pro's argument fails on that point in round 1 and never recovers. Con successfully demonstrates that universal law is not at work her, rebutting that
Pro's "universal" does not apply if pro insists, in round 2 "In conclusion, the Universal Moral Law I have presented indeed applies to all rational beings." This totally ignores that irrational beings exist, even though pro even discusses irrationality. Again, argument by pro at cross purposes.

Con wins on sourcing with sources that support his argument, while Pro's sources are as confusing as the arguments they attempt to support.

Win by Pro by full forfeit by Con., which makes the overall judgment easier to issue.

However, personal bias in the case presented by topic would have made judgment more difficult had Con actually presented argument because of my shock by the judge's decision in this case. Rape, in some jurisdictions, is second only to murder 1. I feel his removal from the bench was a positive step for justice in the jurisdiction; this judge ought to have been ashamed to render such a decision in a case of such personal, intimate violence. The victim's appeal for justice was slapped in the face. I'm left wondering why the judge chose to rape her a second time, by words, alone. If the judge's decision-making is that poor, I pity anyone having to deal with this poor excuse for a human.
That said, a personal appeal to Pro: why waive any round? You want a two-round debate, just specify a two-round debate. I view designed waivers in a debate by an initiator as cowardice. You want to have the final word in a debate, never initiate a debate, because reasonable protocol has the initiator offer the first word. Only cowardice wants to initiate, and then see what the opponent's arguments are before rendering one's own argument. Just because waivers are not formally prohibited is no reason to initiate a debate with that feature. In other words, get a backbone.

Full forfeit by Con. Pro wins

This debate resulted in full Pro forfeit following the first round; automatic loss of debate.

Con wins.

Argument: Myth is not a sufficient argument to explain ancient and not so ancient depictions of creatures not necessarily of earth origin. Con presents a valid rebuttal: if aliens demonstrating these fantastic physical traits have been here historically, why haven't they returned in so obvious a fashion as historically? Pro had not rebuttal.

Sourcing/Legibility: No vote tie

Conduct: Con by landslide. Pro's missives against Con were more convincing than his argument. By policy, such distinction loses, not wins the point for Pro.

I must first comment that in posting comment #5 I misunderstood the thrust of the topic, which I took to mean voting on. a debate, but the instigator did say in description that while debate is one of the options Pro indicated, it also included elections of issues and candidates. Others also had this impression.

Pro's topic is a blanket need to replace FPTP. The supporting Pro argument is that AV voting is preferable because in a condition where there are more than two choices, AV offers the better representative vote. However, Pro's thrust ignores, which Con successfully rebuts, that AV fails to have advantage in a two-choice vote, using the debate format, in fact, this debate, as example. Pro claims in the last two rounds that Con never rebuts the Pro argument, but this 2-choice example is used by Con in all three rounds, and Con's 2-choice argument is the logical conclusion with either FPTP or AV voting, so Pro's argument is successfully defeated.

Pro presents supporting sources in the first round, and abandons further sourcing in the following rounds. Con offers no sources at all. one might be inclined to give the points to Pro for sourcing, but those sources fail to support Pro's argument. Results: tie.

Pro's first round was very organized, but that organization disappeared in the following rounds. Large blocks of text made Pro's organization difficult to follow. Whereas, Con's arguments and rebuttals were short and concise and much easier to follow. But, this is an optional item, and I declare a tie.

Both opponents display good conduct to one another. Tie.

Pro had the upper hand on this debate from the outset, but won it appropriately in the last round by the blockbuster argument that SMC is not "the *sole* instrument to judge persons." It was a point Con never addressed, particularly given the opportunity having the final frame to rebut it. Pro offered good arguments otherwise that SMC had efficiency and cost-saving considerations that Con could not successfully rebut, choosing instead to argue points that SM can be a minefield for posters posting false information about themselves. However, Pro's final argument mentioned above settles that matter in many instances.

Pro also had the upper hand in supportive sources demonstrating the efficiency and cost effectiveness of SMC. One of Con's sources said 40% of employers say they find little use for SMC. Con does not explain why that is not even a plurality, leaving this voting thinking the majority of employers do find SMC effective.

Both legibilty and conduct were well done by both.

Pro never engaged the debate, fully forfeiting all rounds.

Pro has lost the debate by virtue of breaking the no forfeit rule.
Con has lost the debate for the incorrect argument, the only argument by Con, offered in both rounds, that Con is the instigator and composer of the topic statement when, clearly, the instigator is Pro.
This debate results in the unusual tied loss. No one wins.