Ancap460

I vote Con simply because it's all in this definition debate of "does atheism constitute lack of belief or blatant disbelief?" In the end, I sided with Con because Con had a source for his definition and the two answers Pro had didn't win it for me. The first was that we need blatant differences in language, but Con brought up gnostic vs agnostic atheism, which is two different kinds that creates a linguistic difference. The second was that the description needs to be how we base the conversation but this ends up feeling unfair because your description was just your first speech plus a little. If we really held that as what the debate had to be, then you can't be challenged. I think that Pro just doesn't inherently know how to write descriptions.

Tips to get better
Pro - When you challenge his definition, give a laundry list of reasons why your definition is better for the debate in terms of fairness and education. At this point, it's a challenge of the definition, which is a pretty fifty-fifty debate and just depends on your technical skill as a debater.

Con - You post all of your definitions early in the debate, but you don't really tell me why they apply, so they just kind of hang there until your application of logic in the second speech. If you see that your opponent's points don't really answer your definition, use those definitions as important points early in the round to gain a good boost to the conversation.

First, even though conduct is a tie, I feel like they're both really low numbers. The really cruel descriptions of abortion, including terms like "vacuum" described by Con and then Pro's labeling of some people as inherently less valuable than others, not in the best taste. I feel conduct is a litmus of both treatment of each other, but also ensuring not offensive statements.

Second, the debate comes down to the issue of Pro dropping all of their arguments. By the end of the debate, there is no reason to prefer global warming, while all the impacts of Con have a risk through the unpredictability issue. Pretty much, abortion might be unethical now, but global warming is in a 100 years, and all of the issues were both refuted as worse under abortion and the numbers for global warming dropped.

Pro - Tips to get better, talk about how the numbers you bring up will get worse. It eventually leads to extinction, abortion doesn't. This then gives you a higher magnitude over Con. Also, justify abortion as a human right issue earlier in the round. The comment in the last speech is new and can't be evaluated.

Con - Don't paint yourself in the bubble of only illegalization. You could do also go for legalization in the countries it's illegal and all the reasons it's a human right. Con's job is to only prove the resolution wrong, so if you can prove that there's two reasons for abortion to change, then it's a double-bind on Pro. Make sure to only keep one till the end of the debate tho.

The entire debate came down to the ethical question of objective morality. Con does a great job at proving there is no objective way measure good and evil in this village, and Pro's response is "it hasn't burned down". Con does a great job at pointing out why this doesn't mean there isn't rape and murder still, especially since the protest against evil like this is hinged on the ability to identify it as evil. Since Pro never justifies them as not evil, Con wins.

Pro: Tips to get better, challenge the ethical framework set up by Con. Say ethics is defined by liberty or something, so the ability to drink is key to ethics. By letting his definition be the only one that stands, you shoot yourself in the foot.

Con: Tips to get better, I think you did fine. The only thing I might say is frame the argument about evil as, even if it isn't guaranteed that evil will happen, the chance that it could is reason to vote Con. That makes it a lot easier to vote if neg tries to challenge if it would happen.

I speak primarily English, and this website is primarily in English. The rules being in a different language means they don't apply. At this point, Pro's case is just nonsensical. That means Con is the only debater with something on the flow, therefore, they win the round.

Pro: Tips to get better, put the rules in English. It would've been a clear win for you.

Con: Tips to get better, follow the rules. If someone applied the rules, you win. If someone doesn't, then Con wins on presumption. It's a win-win scenario for you.

The entire debate came down to one issue, Con's definition of religious. This debate was completely focused on two definition based issues. One, do you have to prove all atheists or at least two. This issue was warranted on both sides, but it didn't end up mattering because of the second definition issue. Con defined religious as believing in a deity and atheists don't. Pro challenges this with satanism, but con answers this easily by saying it's the values of satan, not existence of satan himself. Easy Con vote at that point.

Pro: Tip to get better, if there is a definition given that is designed to exclude your idea, try to create a counter definition and then say why your definition is better for the debate and how their definition limits the fairness and education of the debate round.

Con: Tip to get better, don't just rely on this definition based argument, because it's a really easy point for Pro to win that religion is faith, not deity, in which case you lose because atheists have to have faith in the lack of religion. He didn't do that, so he lost, but you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Make at least one other argument if you have the word count.