Barney

Pro: This is not an endorsement of you being right, merely of the debate outcome being akin to full forfeiture.

Con: Always do your work in a text editor (Google Docs for example saves itself as you write, so no data loss even if your computer crashes), not on the webpage.

Were this a single round debate, or even a two round debate, I would give this to con. Even while both sides forfeited in R3, that round still happened; pro left off with his defenses (weak as they were) unchallenged, whereas con left off having dropped everything (not the same as a forfeit, it was more like a waived round, but still not ideal... the simple phrase 'still not proof' would have gone a long way).

So pro tried to prove God didit with a bunch of numbers (largely false numbers, but such did not come up in the debate arguments), and carbon based organisms having some success at eating carbon based plants. Con said it doesn't prove God and that bad things exist, but then effectively dropped out for R2 and R3.

I don't think I would have voted on this due to my bias against the pro position, but full forfeiture...

Full forfeiture.

Pro, this will help: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

Interpreting the resolution:
The moon is not a naturally occurring object.

Gist:
I hate to say BoP, but pro never attempted to prove anything, merely point out that the moon is pretty neat.

1. Stability
Pro concedes this point (yes, them saying they would if they could not find a counter argument, and then forfeiting, I am giving them the benefit of doubt to their stated intentions).

2. Eclipses
That we can calculate when they’ll occur was pretty meaningless, and pro missed con’s counter that if eclipses were the goal they would be aligned so much better.

3. 237
Pro offered coincidence as proof, con explained that it’s not coincidence with sources, and pro said “I don’t know why.” ... The next point was just the logic of this one repeated.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.

Sources:
Was not going to award this, but con found con using faulty numbers, which was verified within the links. This happened before contentions 3 and 4, which were both based on numbers, causing them to not be able to be taken seriously. Another example was the Waltham source, which itself disagreed with pro’s case for using it as evidence (as con identified with quotations from it).

Conduct:
Two rounds of forfeiture.

See comment section:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1032/comment_links/17398

Gist:
Technically the right poisons in low doses heal, which pro misses is the opposite of harm... Anyway, if pro ever met his BoP, he hid such inside the Gish Gallop.

Full full forfeiture.

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1198/comment_links/17329

Gist:
I learned more about intersexed people than I ever thought I needed. While I disagree with pro, he makes a strong case.

Effectively full forfeit (every round after the first, with the exception of a single sentence of off topic commentary designed to disrespect the other debater)...

Concession.

67% Forfeiture.

I would have been tempted to award conduct for the R1 insults of blasphemy for initiating this debate... It could have been a somewhat valid claim later by lowering God to the standard of Michael Jordan,

This was a disagreement over if Christians define God as omnipotent anyways, and maybe should have just been a debate on if Christians define God as omnipotent or not, since pro clearly does not (well at least not without a healthy dose of moving the goalpost).

Concession.

If debating this again, I would not push the Empire as the "good guys" but as morally better than the rebels. And again, pre-define which edition is considered factual (and presumably the rest as New Republic propaganda...).

Concession.

Full forfeit.

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1197/comment_links/16641

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1127/comment_links/16560

Full forfeiture.

See comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1066/comment_links/16483

Gist:
Pro bet the farm on the known and named uncaused cause, then failed to try to imply that God (as defined by the four O’s) would be that cause; which resulted in neither being suggested. Con on the other hand outlined a case for why those O’s are actually contradictory, which while challenged, was not successfully refuted.

Full forfeiture.

Full forfeiture.

Pro, I advise opening this one again to find a real debater.

Concession.

The affirmative case was countered with "xtra peanut butter sandwich at lunch" and "Flintstones vitamin," which says even more than the forfeitures. While the negative case was layered, the core argument on cost without benefit sums up everything important about this debate.

On BoP, even were we to add the word 'should' into the resolution or talk about crime in the non-legal sense, someone needs to be the victim of said crime; and no victims were ever identified.

Full forfeiture.

While cats are objectively superior, pro failed to demonstrate that in any way opting to instead FF.

See comment section: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1072/comment_links/16053

Gist:
Two great men, but unfortunately the comparison stopped with the negatives of Roosevelt uncontested, and all positives of Nixon unchallenged by any negatives.

Interpreting the resolution:
On average of power dimensions to be listed, X>Y

Gist:
Both agree money isn’t the only type of power, and Y was shown to excel at more dimensions of power (even if a greater number in any doesn’t prove they would utilize it better).

1. Money: Pro
“1.2 trillion dollars richer by nominal GDP” or “7 thousand dollars richer per person”
Con counters with an example of rich people having power not determined proportionally to their money (oddly the Israel example from pro furthers this).

2. Might: Con
More or less conceded anyway, but the “as of now” qualifier undermines pro’s own arguments that X could overtake Y if they wanted to.
That they would be ruined by a conflict does not change this, rather it seems to question the weight of economic power in comparison to what could easily destroy that.
Some credit to pro for the Israel reference (size isn’t everything).

3. Soft-Power: Con
I momentarily considered dismissing this as per the description of the debate, but that would equally apply to non-military might such as money. Culture is as much a power as money if leveraged.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. With a tad more data I could run a math program, but there would still be the subjective elements of either assuming they are all equal or trying to assign weighted averages... With none proven to be superior or to override the others, it is unlikely to create a different result than just lumping them all into the three dimensions and counting them.

Sources:
Sourcing could have been done better, but both sides seemed to put the effort in (if there’s an issue I don’t mind reviewing the sources, I am just a little sleepy right now, and they look like they’ll fall somewhere near the mean).

Interpreting the resolution:
As best I can make sense of it, pro started a debate to try to prove that the USA is not a nation.

Gist:
Pro has a problem with social science, yet wants to complain about societal aspects on the basis of having cognitive dissonance (dismissing math due to disliking the results not being what he or she wants them to be...).

1. Racist Phone Calls: tie
Pro says it happens, con agrees it sometimes happens, to which pro attempts reverse psychology to insist it either does not happen at all or that every white person is always doing it. The latter makes no sense given the employment rates.
Labeling this a tie due to zero impact on the resolution (as was revealed, some statistically negligible number of people have made bad phone calls, which says nothing of the nation other than there are people in it).

2. Jobs: con
The president of the nation promised to create thousands of jobs, con points out he outperformed that promise, and pro insists it does not count as honoring a promise (to use a quick analogy, if your friend borrows $20 but pays you back $1000, pro would insist they still owe the $20). It gets pretty funny from there, such as pro insisting that Trump and Obama are secretly the same person (that would be a good debate topic)...

2. Blue Lives Matter: con
Basically, pro tries to prove not knowing the definition of fraud... Back and forth, but no attempt to reach BoP for this (if a fraud, who is defrauded and in what way?). Pro insists if a police officer is black, they don’t care, but con literally shows on their website them paying respects to a fallen black officer, to which pro insists that never happened due to pro’s cognitive dissonance not allowing it...

3. Con did not answer questions: con
“my opponent is still refusing to answer the (specific) questions that I've asked” which was pre-refuted by the questions being answered, and further refuted with this summary: “Just because you do not like my answer doesn't mean that it's not there.”
This was basically just pro asking to be penalized on conduct.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.

Conduct:
Pro tried to end the debate by lying about the debate content. I see this happen a lot online, seemingly because people think what actually happened in the text format can’t be verified with CTRL+F.

As a non-moderated non-debate, I'm just giving a conduct penalty for pro attempting to cheat in the comment section.

I am marking this as sources instead of conduct to honor the request of pro, that interruptions to flow be deducted on sources, to which this conduct violation most closely resembles within the paradigm. ... Additionally (would not be enough for the point by itself), con made good use of a source to bolster his case (it enhanced the burn, even while not needing to be understood in the middle of his argument).

Countering the suspected friend or alt account's vote.

Con offers three key rules of morality from the bible, which within the context they are objectively horrible. Pro tried to counter with an appeal to the cosmological argument (I suspect he meant to use Divine Command Theory), but failed to suggest any reason why it's relevant to this debate, or that we should use the bible, or any way con's offered counter evidence against those morals should be rejected or reinterpreted.

So con's argument stands wholly uncontested, and pro never makes one (a vague assertion is not an argument).

50% forfeiture, and rule violation with the stipulated punishment of it meriting a loss. Further this rule being executed as such was brought up as a debate argument and left unchallenged when there was opportunity to challenge it. ... I would not be comfortable doing this for any single infraction of the rules (particular K had that occurred, as it's such a varied thing), but repeated ones, and dropping every single point, there's no likely recovery from that.

...

Advice: Got to say it, the resolution likely confused validness with soundness. Proving that MGB indeed exists is an impossible BoP, but one to which pro insisted on taking the full weight.

See comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15335

Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.

Note:
I can see how arguments could go either way, I can see how sources could be tied, but there's no case for conduct not favoring con if the debate has been read.

Concession.

Concession.

FF

FF

FF.

Con: Good luck if you debate this again.

Pro: It's an understandable bit of confusion, but not grounds to forfeit the remaining rounds (when the mistake became clear, con probably would have been willing to have the debate deleted, had such been requested in the comment section). In future if stuck on the wrong side, just take the opportunity to explore that viewpoint; it will help you make your own points more strongly if you've really searched them for weaknesses.

I feel like this debate may have been because they both like to dress up as masked superheroes (KKK cosplays as Wizards in white robes with red trim, Antifa cosplays as fascists in black with red trim).

Interpreting the resolution:
As someone who dislikes their protection of violent masked criminals who go around mugging people (I live in Portland where this happened. They had the means readily available to self-police; instead, they chose to allow those actions to represent them), this is still a huge ballsy claim. To say they are a hate group comparable to the KKK would be one thing, but outright equivalent seems hard to prove to say the least. Best of luck to pro in trying to uphold it.

Gist:
Pro argues they have striking similarities. Con reminds us this does not equal equivalency.

1. Violence
Con counters this with disparity in scale of violence, and showing in logical form why it doesn’t rise above begging the question. Pro defends by insists Antifa would do all these things if given that chance, which is an assertion which can neither be proven not disproven. Pro insists if any member of a group intends to harm and kill, they are equivalent to the KKK, but con has already at length shown the false equivalency fallacy, making this pre-refuted.

The first video (you can set timestamps on YouTube links, please do that to the relevant part in future), con counters with the kidnappings failing to happen (his own source verified that one of the maniacs was arrested, but for other violent crimes). And follows up with a KKK bombing (thus if Antifa has not at least attempted any bombings, they are not equivalent).

Comparing available information related to the vox article, I am leaning with pro on the objective nature of what happened (when there’s a video of a protester assaulting a cameraperson, it outweighs someone saying that doesn’t count as violence), but that doesn’t mean the violence led to anyone hospitalized. Con does well on the comparison, showing a black newsman brutally murdered by the KKK.

“PRO’s specific examples fall far short of physical violence,” going to disagree, as firing bottle rockets into crowds of people is by definition physically violent.

2. Claimed moral superiority
“...KKK was doing. They wanted to bring a government where black people are segregated or are slaves in society. This institution is the same hate that ANTIFA wants to spread...” please be more careful on your words, as you haven’t even proven Antifa wants to do that to any racial group, let alone black people.

3. 1st Amendment
WTF? As con points out, so long as Antifa is not the government (side note: WTF was with the Rebellion in Star Wars still calling themselves that once they were in charge of everything?), they cannot violate restrictions upon the government.

4. diametrically opposed
Yeah they’re not the same group, this did not need to be hammered home.

---

Arguments: con
See above review of key points. With pro dropping out in R3 and trying to extend the non-victory he had in R4, I am not going to review each of con’s counters... Overall I’d say pro managed to prove they function as a violent hate group (not to say everything they do is violent or hateful, but then again, the sports fans rarely get violent either and by con’s own description are also hate groups). This does not bridge the gap to making them at all comparable to the KKK who have killed thousands.

Sources: con
This debate has the expectation of evidence, which hurt pro going in when he could not find one killing (heck in the preamble of this vote I mention what could qualify as at least attempted murder, but I did not spot it or any other similar cases presented in the debate), when that became the golden standard of comparison.
Worse, pro did not understand his own evidence, as con made very apparent with the constitution subpoint. Admittedly, con did fumble a bit on a couple as well. Credit to both for challenging each other’s evidence.
Oddly con’s best source was Wikipedia’s article on the thousands of lynching’s. Otherwise both used various news sources, I’m somewhat amazed con managed to pull off a Fox News source for his side (Fox News has become a right wing fake news engine, so when they have information siding with the left it speaks volumes...).

Conduct: con
Missed round... That did not end the debate, but not coming back with a strong conclusion did (this is in reference to the argument point... the addressing of points sometimes overlaps)

CVB against the abstract mathematician (he's so good at math that he thinks 0+1=0).

FF.

FF.

FF.
I advise relaunching this one for another opponent (or even the same one if it's a better week for them)

Obvious K to the topic, which anyone should have been able to counter (the debate was obviously meant as a contest between the two), but pro did not challenge the K that they're cartoons thus not hot at all.

Further, pro repeatedly conceded that Zelda is better looking (he brings Bowser into this, proving that size is trumped by quality).

See comments.

Gist:
Pro’s whole case could have called for Zeus or Ra having done it (names he brought into this debate), with equal certainty to one of the other thousands of fictional beings did it. Con cast strong doubt on any of them, chiefly by reminding us that none of pro’s models actually calls for any God to be involved, and even if they did there’s no reason it’s God instead of the FSM.

In the final round there’s a list of five major things pro dropped, but he concedes them as not mattering (this includes that God is fictional!).

FF.

First of all: Again, gross!

Gist:
Gross. In fact, about 20% more gross than the previous debate on this (they expended a couple of their points slightly, almost nothing is really changed). To match them, I’m going to include at least one extra instance of the word gross in this elongated RFD…
Got to say it, con tried to dismiss harm to animals from consideration, which leaves harm to willing humans as his only line of attack, which doesn’t make any sense; the logical leap would be mental illness (a skip and a hop away from proving a law is needed), but such was not done.

1. consent
Great apes are smart enough to communicate, and dogs initiate sex. Some back and forth, a livescience article proving animals enjoy orgasms (con tried to end the debate by denying the existence of that evidence, wtf?)…
“A person masturbating a horse might cause the horse to ejaculate. Just because this physical response occurs, doesn't necessarily equate to "pleasure". Who knows, maybe the horse feels regret and remorse after such an encounter? Of course, this all PRESUMES that animals have "feelings" as humans do.” Was a particularly weak point for con, as it bases the damage on mental anguish, then outright attempts to dismiss that animals can be mentally harmed from consideration.

2. purpose
This was the more palatable of pro’s arguments, as it showed no point to duplicate animal protection laws. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle was a very smart inclusion (particularly its role in legalizing deviant sex that could not lead to children), as it ends up pre-refuting con’s objections.

3. Masturbation
“I would argue it's unhealthy, much like having sex with a tennis racket…” what actual harm was shown? Some articles on hospitalizations could have gone a long way.

4. Non-selfless acts
This fell flat to me, probably because I don’t believe every sperm is sacred. All men who jack off should go to prison, same with women… This needed a massive amount of support which was not there. BrotherDThomas could have done better on this, in fact I if I scroll through the comments, I suspect I’ll find just that.

5. Unnatural
“Bestiality is not natural to humans” wholly agreed, but this debate is about if we should have specific laws about it (as predicted, pro caught this). Bad food is a poor comparison given that the harm is known, but con insists within the comparison that it should be legal…

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro won by every legal standard raised. Con did well in the entertainment area, but probably lost his potential audience with the puritan thou must not masturbate talk (and if going that route, don’t forget to at least mention the harm of millions of souls flushed down a toilet)

Sources:
If numbering sources, I suggest including either a list at the end of the round or the end of the debate.
I was going to leave this tied (due to not wanting to look at them), before con attempted to challenge (via an argument by assertion) the validity of them.
So pro had a bunch, con had none. The book about sexuality in animals was well leveraged, showing 450 animal species actively partaking in sex for non-reproductive purposes (God’s will? Probably God's will, to test us.).

Conduct:
Con choose to break the rules for round order, even after being told previously of this error. The other debate had a confusing remark about this, but this one had it spelled out clearly what happened. Further, con dropped this when it was called out.

First of all: Gross.

Gist:
Gross. The better part of pro's case was that laws exist to protect animals from harm, which makes trying to punish humans for things not shown to harm animals pointless (a good case could have been made for con by just citing some of these laws). Con did better on the entertainment side.

1. consent
Great apes are smart enough to communicate, and dogs initiate sex. Some back and forth, a livescience article proving animals enjoy orgasms (con tried to end the debate by denying the existence of that evidence…)…
“animals operate out of instinct and urges and do not have the capability to keep those urges in check.” Was a particularly weak point for con, as it removes mental anguish to animals from consideration.

2. purpose
This was the more palatable of pro’s arguments, as it showed no point to duplicate animal protection laws. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle was a very smart inclusion (particularly its role in legalizing deviant sex that could not lead to children), as it ends up pre-refuting con’s objections.

3. Jokes
Some credit to con for making me laugh (Poe’s Law says he might have been trying to insult San Francisco, or genuinely joking… I try not to assume offense where none might be intended). The context to which talk of someone’s slutty leg also made me chuckle. “Bagehimian Rhapsody” nice!

4. Non-selfless acts
This fell flat to me, probably because I don’t believe every sperm is sacred. All men who jack off should go to prison, same with women… This needed a massive amount of support which was not there.

5. Unnatural
“Bestiality is not natural to humans” wholly agreed, but this debate is about if we should have specific laws about it (as predicted, pro caught this). Bad food is a poor comparison given that the harm is known, but con insists within the comparison that it should be legal…

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro won by every legal standard raised. Con did well in the entertainment area, but probably lost his potential audience with the puritan thou must not masturbate talk.

Sources:
If numbering sources, I suggest including either a list at the end of the round or the end of the debate.
I was going to leave this tied (due to not wanting to look at them), before con attempted to challenge (via an argument by assertion) the validity of them.
So pro had a bunch, con had none. The book about sexuality in animals was well leveraged, showing 450 animal species actively partaking in sex for non-preproduce purposes (God’s will?).

Hard resolution to prove due to the “need” qualifier. In order for anything to be a need, there must be a consequence. E.g., I need coffee before I drive home tonight, otherwise the drive will be less safe (“I need coffee” would work as a resolution, with the driving as a contention towards this).

Gist:
Con set the real debate in motion with an outline of actually relevant points, giving pro some chance to meet BoP. If pro does this again, they should base it around their actual reparations plan, with con helping them identify faults to be improved on it.

1. Ad Hominem
Pro’s case for this contention started in the description “If you don't agree, then you are simply racist.” Went into R1 “anyone who's trying to logically deny it is an illogical thinker as well as a hypocrite.” … This should never be in a debate.

2. Truism
Pro insists their case is a documented truism, which absolutely cannot be argued against. … If it can’t be argued against, you would not have a debate, which is literally asking someone to argue against it.

3. Efficiency (I’d call this feasibility)
Con brings up that it would be impossible (or at least cost prohibitive) to determine the payment ratios, and gives a cost estimate of $59T after that. After some back and forth on this, pro said this amount would be outrageous, but could not set a minimum acceptable amount (he or she could have gained serious ground here, but suggesting a 10 year tax return scheme or somesuch). Con defends the farmers bill (first of all, not reparations, it’s a whole other class of thing), due to us having an actual need to keep them in business feeding us, in addition to the very low comparative cost. … An additional problem here is reading the description, pro specifically says “American needs to cut the check” which does not equate to them saying it could be done over time, as it implies a one time payment.

4. Consistency
Con started strong here with a fairness angle (ironic that if this resolution makes sense, various African countries needs to pay the reparations too), but drifted off topic into other slaves around the world. Pro caught this. Pro brought up that the USA gives money to other people, which was equally off topic (a source to prove we’re paying holocaust reparations would have gone a long way).

5. Morality
I feel like con thought this was a slam dunk, but it (at least initially) fell flat. We all profit off the work of those who came before us, some of us more so, some of us less. … Reading into R2, I’m impressed that pro knows the term “Generational Wealth,” which describes this process (which was a much better reply to this than the actual intended one).

---

Arguments: Con
See above review of key points. BoP is never met for the resolution in question, and if “should” were substituted in, the feasibility angle defeats it as it strongly implies the USA should not. All other contentions combined did not reach the magnitude of this one.

Sources: Con
How interesting it was that there were black slaveowners (poisons the well effectively, as the source discusses different types of slaves and slavemasters, muddying the waters…), but the real checkmate here was using an African American propaganda site to prove a point directly against its own views (the cost calculations, making it impossible to implement). Comparatively pro had no sources, even when referencing various material which seemed to come from one.

Conduct:
Leaving this tied, even while it leans in favor of con. It never got too ugly, even the ad hominems did not feel personal (weird as that is to say).

Arguments: Con by catching the plagiarism in both posted rounds, causes them to be dismissed with prejudice.
Sources: Plagiarism caught.
S&G: Complete plagiarism, means there were no writings samples from pro.
Conduct: Plagiarism.

Full forfeit and plagiarism.

I'm very confused, but using my standard rule for intentional concessions of a debate (arguments to one, conduct to the other).

I am very unsure what a yelp review on plastic even had to do with this debate...
I am also unclear where con plagiarized from (I believe it due to both debaters seeming to agree it happened, so pretty much automatic loss, but it was still weird).

Waiving a round is not in itself bad conduct. Forfeiting involves forcing someone to wait out the clock, waiving isn't comparable on a conduct level... Like forfeiture, it still hurts arguments, as it is dropping every single point for a round. I've seen it done as bad conduct to try Final Round Blitzkriegs, to which I discount their BS and award arguments as if they had nothing, but he conceded instead of trying to make a last minute case which could not be responded to.