Total votes: 55
Both sides presented a fantastic debate. However, my vote goes to the con side for the following reasons:
While the pro side made valid points about sleep deprivation, and while I agree some institutions overwork children at the expense of their well-being, the con side correctly points out that a two-hour limit is impractical and insufficient for adequate learning.
Second, while I appreciate the pro side's desire to defend and respect student autonomy, there's a limit to this indulgence. Schools are not democracies, and learning requires a firm but fair approach. Granting students excessive decision-making power can lead to chaos, lacking necessary discipline and order.
Third, the pro side's arguments, while not without merit, contain falsehoods and fallacies. For example, the con side accurately corrected the pro side's claim about Finnish school hours, noting they are five hours, not two.
In conclusion, I respect both sides in this debate, but the con side's arguments were ultimately stronge
I can't really give eitehr side a point. Here is why:
Starting with round 1
Pro's main weakness is that they assert that Atheism is a religion and use a you tube video to establish that just by having an individual atheist agree with them. That is anecdotal evidence at best and does not clearly define atheism as a religion. Con brilliantly counters by providing evidence that proves atheism is a disbelief ideology, which would cement the fact atheism is not a religion. However, Con then bizarrely agrees to call atheism a religion so long as agnosticism can be defined as such. This is a mistake because not only can agnostics fall under religion (agnostic theism) but also undermines the fact that atheism is not a practice of faith.
Round 2:
This round really irked me because pro simply just continues arguing (absurdly) that somehow you can an agnostic mindset and claim its rational but then turn around and claim that a similar mindset under atheism is somehow irrational. Con also doesn't sway me to their side since they argue that the concept of God would not exist if there were truly no evidence, which makes no sense to me. For example, there is no evidence for vampires and yet we can still understand the concept despite no evidence existing.
Round 3:
Pro just wastes time asking a question over again, accuses Con of an unfounded double standard that somehow is supposed to make agnosticism more rational. Con for their part states that there is evidence against god, but their reasoning seems backward to me. While I agree completely with Con that the one who makes the claim of God is the person who is required to show proof, the assertion that there is evidence against something that already is not established is inconstant. If your stance is: "Something is not true until it is proven" You cannot at the same time say, "Hey, not only is this not proven, but I have evidence to show it nis fake." You are then putting the burden of proof on yourself despite previously saying its not.
Round 4:
Pro's assertion that if people have no evidence then we can't argue God is real or not real has some measure of logic to it. It may be true that in the realm of theory one cannot say there is or isn't a God at all. However, when put in the scope of evidence vs none-evidence. It is completely valid to say, "I don't believe you unless you have evidence." Pro's twisted logic would have us instead say, "We have no evidence that what your saying is true, but we also don't have evidence to say its false either...SO...Well assume your telling the truth." The problems that come with that line of thinkin are obvious to all of us.
For Con, while I do find myself somewhat agreeing with them in terms of saying "If a religion claims God did it, and we have no evidence then there's no reason to believe in said God." However, at the same tine, I do not agree that its irrational to think something might be true even if there's no evidence. Speculation can be a completely reasonable position if one does it by clearly defining it as what they think and not what they know.
Round 5:
Pro unprofessionally ignores an analogy form Con and then moves on. I take that as a concession in my view. pros water analogy also lacks weight because they are again making the absurd claim that if something does not exist then there should be evidence for it and then yet denies that the lack evidence proves something does not exist. The reason why this framework is so out of whack is because Pro is essentially pulling a double standard where they ask for evidence that by its very nature physically can't be shown due to the fact it doesn't exist and then uses this physically impossible task to say you can't prove none existence. Its ridiculous and ultimately self defeating.
As for Con. I am again in agreement partially that if no one sees Bob or find evidence it would be completely reasonable to not take this "Bob" character seriously and maybe not believe he is real. What I think I can't agree with and think this ultimately negates this agreement is that Con takes its a step to far and calls it irrational to say Bob might exist despite no evidence of him. While certainly it would be absurd to be expected to believe when presented with the claim that someone or something for a fact is real despite no evidence. It is not absurd to believe someone might be real despite no evidence as long as someone clarifies its simply their opinion and not a fact.
Therefore, neither gets my vote despite me being in partial agreement with Con on certain areas.
Well, let me just start by saying that both sides made very interesting arguments. However, I think Con made the better argument when they emphasized the violation of human rights and pointing out that while divorce can be harmful, that is not enough to justify forcing people into unhealthy marriages. And while I do not think people have the "right" to just up and leave a marriage whenever they want, I certainly agree that keeping them against their will is a violation of both autonomy and their right to free travel.
Pro's argument that divorce causes harms to future generations does have its merits. However, claiming that the reasons people leave are weak and unjustified reasons is ultimately subject to ones views rather than a fact.
Con forfeited
This was an interesting debate. but my vote goes to Con for several reasons. The first reason is that I believe Con did an excellent job of pointing out that the catholic church has a great number of contradictory teachings. Con also correctly asserts that it is the pro's job to establish infallibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Pro tries to make a good argument by citing that Jesus made promises and that the catholic church is under a "principle of divine protection of err." Unfortunately, Pro never establishes this to be a fact. Plus, as Con rightly pointed out, authority is not the same thing as infallibility.
For Pro to have won this debate, they would have had to have shown that the Catholic Church has never been wrong even one time in its history. Not only does Pro fail to do that, but that would also go against Catholic teachings that dictate all humans are fallible by nature. I further appreciate that Pro tried to make a rational argument by differentiating Personal error from error in doctrines, but that is nothing more than a typical tactic for a losing argument. You cannot get out of examples of error by the church by saying it was the person's flaws and not the teachings. If the doctrine is flawless, it will be error-free no matter who is teaching it.
Having taken the time to review both positions. My vote goes to Con. While I do find the pro's argument about capitalism to be interesting, their argument that it predates humanity is both false and lacks common sense. While I am a supporter of capitalism myself, Con made great arguments when pointing out that capitalism is based on thriving rather than balance. Their claim their capitalism creates competition and destruction, while not entirely correct, had more bases in connection with reality than pro's "economy related to evolution" arguments.
After careful consideration, I have decided to award the "better argument" vote to Con. While Pro presented a very interesting take on the events leading to 9/11, they did not present an argument that effectively demonstrated that the responsibility for 9/11 rested on the US's shoulders. Con, on the other hand, presented very effective counter-rebuttals to what could otherwise be considered a conspiracy theory. However, I will be awarding the "conduct and better sources" title to Pro due to the fact that Con not only used ad hominem attacks against Pro, but also forfeited the last round. I also commend Pro for making the effort to actually include sources, even if they ultimately did not sway the argument. Additionally, I will be awarding the "legibility" vote to Con as well, since Pro's formatting was very incoherent and admittedly hard to read.
I did not give Pro the better argument award because they did not participate in the debate. Additionally, neither side provided more reliable sources, making it difficult to determine the overall strength of their arguments. The same applies for legibility, as neither side demonstrated a superior understanding of the requirements. Therefore, I did not award a point for either better arguments or legibility. However, since Con was the only one who actively participated, I awarded them the better conduct
I did not find Pro's argument to be the most convincing. While they emphasized the significance of their research, they failed to provide any concrete evidence to support their claims. In a setting where research is a central component of the debate, it's essential for participants to offer tangible proof to substantiate their arguments.
Although I wasn't persuaded by their argument, I did think Pro demonstrated good conduct during the debate. In particular, they showed a willingness to fully participate throughout the entire debate, which was something I appreciated.
Additionally, Pro's argument wasn't supported by any actual sources. They also didn't demonstrate a better understanding of the legibility requirements than Con. In the end, I didn't think either side did a good enough job in those areas to warrant a vote for either one.
I give Con the better argument vote because they provided more comprehensive and convincing arguments. Pro failed to adequately address the fundamental role of schools in society. Additionally, I award a conduct point to Con for maintaining a respectful and constructive tone throughout the debate, while Pro's participation was limited to brief and superficial statements.
"I side with Con. The opponent's argument that police brutality doesn't exist is flawed. By narrowly defining police actions within the confines of the law, they ignore the reality of excessive force used by law enforcement. Con effectively countered this by emphasizing that police officers can still engage in brutality while technically operating within the law. This perspective acknowledges the complex nature of the issue and the need for a broader definition of police brutality.
The debate was interesting as Pro, and Con made valid points. However, what made me choose Pro's argument is that their stance is that buying things indirectly buy happiness by getting you things that make you happy. While Con does try to say that buying things only facilities happiness, the argument itself is more in favor of Pro's position. Con Should have tried to argue from different angels; like claiming that true happiness is not defined by things you buy. They unfortunately did not in this case and that cost them the vote.
Concession, and Pro did forfeit a round so con gets a conduct point as well.
Pro forfeited.
full forfeit
Con forfeited.
The Pro side wins the argument due to their logical and reality-based position, highlighting the FDA's reluctance to approve certain types of transition surgery due to unknown side effects and emphasizing the importance of children waiting until adults to make life-altering decisions. The Con side makes little rebuttal and even discusses irrelevant topics like LGBT acceptance.
Con's argument that children should have the freedom to choose their bodies is absurd, contradicting common sense, law, and ethics. Con receives the reliable sources' vote due to their more medical and diverse stance, while Pro's conduct and legibility are a tie.
After reviewing the debate, my ruling is that Pro wins the argument vote because, although Con made a good point that lowering the drinking age can increase risks, Pro made excellent points stating that the law doesn't prevent teens from drinking underage to rebel against authority. Pro also backed up their statements with a source, whereas Con did not and expected to be "trusted" because they are supposedly from Europe where the drinking age is lower. Pro gets the source's vote by default. Additionally, I give Pro better conduct because Con forfeited in the last round.
Con was the only side to make a legitimate argument. Plus, Con backed up what they said with sources.
both forfeited.
The proponent did not provide a substantial argument or any sources. Additionally, I found their conduct to be somewhat unprofessional.
Pro doesn't provide any sufficient evidence to say that bigfoot exists and barely provides much of an argument.
After analyzing both Pro and Con arguments, I find the Con side more convincing. The reason is that Con presented more empirical evidence in the first and second rounds of the debate, whereas Pro provided none. Although Pro's arguments and rebuttals were logical, they cannot outweigh empirical evidence. Additionally, Pro made several claims that Con's sources were biased without providing evidence to prove such bias, which is disingenuous.
Regarding the reliability of sources, my vote must go to Con. Although Pro's sources do affirm the significance of diversity, they fail to demonstrate that public schooling actually offers exposure to diversity. On the other hand, Con's sources are more relevant, highlighting the issues of declining enrollment and increased exposure to drugs in public schools. Furthermore, Con accurately notes that Pro's claim—that most households uphold conservative values and instill Christian ideologies—lacks empirical evidence.
legality is a tie.
Conduct is a tie.
I have taken the time to summarize both sides of the debate. My vote goes to Pro because they offered numerous sources supporting their claim that free will is an illusion, while Con failed to provide counter-sources and spent much of the debate denying the scientific evidence presented by Pro. Con even mistakenly claimed several times that Pro had not substantiated their case.
I also grant Pro the award for better conduct. Although neither party behaved poorly in the conventional sense, I consider it improper conduct to persistently deny evidence and claim none has been presented when, in reality, numerous sources have been provided.
That said, I am not fully convinced that free will is an illusion. As the opposition noted, individuals can make decisions beyond what is considered determinism. Yet, as the proposition accurately observed, we do not have complete control over our actions, and external forces can compel us to act beyond our control.
Great debate from both sides.
While I disagree with the assertion that terminating a fetus constitutes 'MURDER'—since murder is a legal definition distinct from morality—I do concur that it involves taking a life. Additionally, although I understand the argument regarding the absence of pain, I align with the counterargument that the inability to experience pain does not morally justify the act of termination. The argument would be stronger if it addressed the potential suffering in the world that the fetus would be spared from by not being born.
Pro presented compelling arguments that Con failed to effectively counter, and Con lacked a clear plan beyond "Don't sell guns to the irresponsible." Pro was also the sole participant to provide sources and maintained a more professional demeanor, thereby earning the votes for better sources and conduct.
Con forfeited.
Pro made well-organized arguments, was the only one to both provide sources and participate so they get the better conduct vote and legibility
This was a hard vote to cast. I did enjoy reading both the pros and cons arguments. However, I side with Pro because they made a very strong legal case against Trump.
Trump has, in fact, been found guilty of Hush money convictions And is therefore unsuitable to be president from a legal viewpoint.
Con could have also strengthened their stance by pointing out Biden's age, which has been the subject of great controversy, and the high likelihood of Biden either suffering from or could suffer in the future mental health issues. Etc.
Pro also provided more sources than Con and, therefore, got the more reliable sources to vote from me.
I vote for pro for the following reasons.
Pro actually attempted a debate. They provided sources and arguments to support their stance.
Con did not. Con provided zero sources and did not provide much in the way of an argument.
Pro has forfeited the debate without presenting any arguments or evidence. This shows a lack of respect for the topic and the opponent. Con, on the other hand, has made a serious effort to engage with the issue. Forfeiting a debate that one initiates is unprofessional and unacceptable. Pro deserves an F, not only for failing to participate in the debate but also for using hateful language and being unprofessional. I urge Pro to reconsider their misguided opinions. Con deserves an A for being respectful and courteous, unlike Pro, and for trying to take the debate seriously. I praise Con for his professional conduct.
I vote for Pro in the debate about God's existence for the following reasons. First, Pro tried to present an argument with some sources, while Con did not participate and forfeited the debate. Second, although Pro's argument is flawed and based on misunderstandings of science and logic, I appreciate that they tried to engage with the topic and the audience. Third, I would award Pro more points for conduct and sources if this were a multi-criteria vote. Therefore, Pro deserves the win by default, even though they did not prove God exists.
Con wins the debate because, unlike Pro, Con gave a stronger argument by pointing out that the topic is not well clarified. Pro gives little to no argument and even forfeits at one point. Con also provided a source. Pro, in contrast, has no sources. Lastly, Con presented better conduct by actually participating in the debate.
The topic would have been interesting. However, pro forfeited the debate.
Con effectively proved that a college degree is unnecessary for a good Job. Pro Did make a good point that having a college degree will make you seem more favorable. Con counter this by defining a good Job as being able to provide for your basic needs and that a college degree is not required to have a good job. Even giving Bill Gates credit for his success despite lacking a degree. Pro also forfeited in the last round. Everything else was a tie.
Pro forfeited.
I can't give Pro or Con a better argument vote because the topic was about it not being justifiable to kill an animal because they don't lack any traits between different species. Neither side proved or disproved the case. Pro argued that no sentient being wants to die or feel pain, and to infect such a fate on an animal was cruel and lacked empathy. This had nothing to do with the topic. Pro also failed to connect this assertion with connection to the basis of the debate. As the Pro, they were supposed to support the issue and stay on point, but the Pro failed in this regard.
Con, while they did do an excellent job at rebutting Pro's unsupported claims about no Sentient wanting to die or feel pain since they provided sources about suicide and feeling pleasure from pain. They did not make an argument that proved that the topic was wrong besides claiming to follow subjective morality. I, therefore, cannot give them the better argument vote either.
However, Con provided some sources to rebuttal some of the Pro's arguments so I will award Con the source's vote. I will also offer Con better conduct since Pro seemed slightly hostile in response to Con's rebuttal, even calling them stupid at one point, which is immature.
Overall, I think the debate was an exciting topic with potential. But both Con and Pro squandered it by going off-topic.
I think That both Pro and Con made good arguments. Con argued that Abortion was a matter of human anatomy and not Morality and made a decent argument by pointing out that lacking the right to your own body due to pregnancy is a lack of ownership of your autonomy. Which Pro conceded to. However, Con made the mistake of claiming that Abortion was entirely devoid of moral discussion.
Which leads to why my vote goes to Pro. While Pro made several claims about the law, such as claiming Abortion is murder without sources. They effectively demonstrate how morality plays a factor in Abortion by pointing Abortion that unborn children should have a right to their bodies just as much as their mothers do. And while their claims of the fetus being Sentient are not supported, it is biologically true that since fetuses do have cells, they are technically living, and destroying said fetus is to destroy life on a technical basis. This overrides Con's denial of morality being a valid argument against Abortion since the logic makes sense.
Everything else was a tie. But once again, despite my vote ultimately going with Pro. Con did an excellent job in this debate as well.
Not much of a debate. I'm afraid I have to disagree with the claim of the topic and the Pro personally. But the fact is that They at least made an argument. Con forfeited the first round, only provided half of a dispute, and refused to participate further. Pro gets my vote by default since Con did not do much to counter their points.
Pro provided more evidence and had a more reasonable argument as they used statistics from around the world with multiple medical institutions to substrate their claims. Con on the other hand provided fewer sources and did not provide much in the way of counter-arguments other than claiming that the Pro's statistics were incorrect which they failed to establish. Pro also had better conduct since Con forfeited multiple times.
Pro made a strong argument at the beginning but did not make a good ending argument while Con did the opposite. since Neither used links nor made persuasive arguments. However since Con forfeited 80% of the debate, my vote goes to Pro on the better argument. However, neither get a vote on sources since none provided anything in that regard. Pro also gets a better conduct vote because Con did not debate until the end and gave no room for the debate to develop while Pro at least offered a starting argument. Overall both sides could have done better in this debate but in my view, Pro wins due to Con's continued forfeit's.
Con presented a stronger argument, highlighting the economic challenges of raising a child born from rape and asserting that forcing women to bear such children constitutes forced servitude. Pro failed to counter these points and, in fact, reinforced much of the debate.
Con effectively demonstrated the contradictory nature of the Quran, while Pro's rebuttals mainly attributed these issues to translation misunderstandings and did not adequately address the contradictions presented by Con. As both parties used the same material, neither can be awarded better sources, and there were no differences in legibility to warrant a vote in that regard. Con maintained a professional demeanor throughout, whereas Pro became contemptuous and disrespectful towards Con towards the end.
The debate was unprofessional, as Pro claimed that clinical abortion is homicide, a legal assertion. This means Pro should have argued from a legal standpoint to prove that clinical abortion is homicidal. Instead, they simply used the biological consideration of a fetus being alive without addressing any legal complexities on the subject of abortion. Con provided more sources and had a better format but still failed to address the actual legal rebuttals one would expect in a discussion on a legal topic such as abortion. Therefore they neither made a more convincing argument nor provided more reliable sources as neither Pro nor Con were on topic when it came to the Primus of the debate.
Pro and Con present compelling arguments, but I lean towards Pro's case for two reasons: 1) Ukraine is a sovereign entity, and 2) the invasion violates UN law, as evidenced by Pro's sources. Con's primary rebuttal is that Russia did not attack without warning. However, I personally disagree since Russia initially denied plans to attack Ukraine while gradually increasing its military presence along Ukraine's borders. Furthermore, Putin later enacted a law making it illegal to call the conflict a war under the guise of preventing false information. Even if Russia did issue a warning, the war was illegally planned and executed, violating the established norms of international law. Pro offers a better legal argument by utilizing the UN's legal interpretations of the war, which is supported by the fact that Russia is not only economically sanctioned heavily for the war but Putin himself has recently been declared a war criminal by the international criminal court. Con only claims that the agreements that they admit Russia violated have no legal bindings which are not proven to be accurate despite their claims.
The debate is undoubtedly intriguing, with both sides presenting compelling points. However, neither argument is sufficiently developed to be more convincing than the other, and neither Con nor Pro utilizes any sources. The framework could be improved for both parties, but neither side displayed rudeness or greater professionalism than the other. If the debate had extended beyond two rounds or if Pro and Con had used sources to substantiate their statements, a decision could be made. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I cannot support either the pro or con argument, as the pro side makes false legal statements about the Constitution. They falsely claim that women have the right to an abortion and privacy in the 14th Amendment, which is untrue. In reality, the 14th Amendment grants citizenship through birth within the United States' jurisdiction. Neither the 14th Amendment nor the US Constitution mentions abortion. Therefore, the pro argument is based on false premises and cannot be supported.
Con argues against the legality of abortion by inaccurately citing the Bible and claiming that the Constitution's authors based its laws on biblical beliefs. This is incorrect, as doing so would violate the First Amendment, which establishes a separation of church and state. Consequently, Con's argument against legal abortion cannot be supported due to a misunderstanding of the Constitution and religious bias.
Pro presents a well-structured and detailed argument, exploring various areas where indoctrination occurs, either intentionally or unintentionally, through appeals to authority or emotions. Pro also explains in depth how an individual's culture and social background can have indoctrinating influences, all of which appear to be well-researched and supported. In contrast, Con offers no such arguments, has poor formatting compared to Pro, and provides no counter-evidence to Pro's research. As Con fails to present a stronger argument or discredit Pro beyond hearsay, my vote goes to Pro.
The Pro's stance presents objective claims on a subject that the Con highlights as ultimately subjective. The Con provided sources, while the Pro offered no evidence and demanded proof from the Con to disprove their position without substantiating their own claims. Moreover, the Con demonstrated better conduct than the Pro, who appeared hostile throughout the debate.
Due to poor conduct, lack of evidence, and an unconvincing argument by the Pro, the Con should be declared the winner.