Total votes: 1,362
S&G: Tied. Both were legible. Had there been a single spelling mistake, that would not warrant the point being assigned. The point is a penalty for severe problems. ... Related notes (presentation): Pro you should probably put your replies onto the next line from your quotes. Both of you should use bold or otherwise highlight opponent quotes.
Sources: Tied. Admittedly, I will not check tinyURL for what the sources really were. So my stylistic preference leans toward pro on this one (leaning doesn't get the point... both sides seemed to hold their own in this area).
Conduct: Tied. Both behaved in a civil manner. I do not consider mere faulty reasoning to affect this. Personal attacks or worse are required.
Arguments: Con. Talk of robots and the desire to start WWIII (attack allies of countries we don't want to fight...), were very unconvincing. Talk of 22% of our bases being useless, was alone enough reason to cast doubt toward a need to spend even more money (there's no way to assure that any increase would not go toward such bloat). The problems of our budget already radicalizing our enemies were wonderful additions.
Regarding the goalpost: Pro, take a sliver of the topic you want and start a debate on it. Your robot soldiers for example (I should note that in this one, the budget overages for known technologies pre-refuted you). Think of it this way:
P1, War against communism!
P2, Robots!
P3, whatever...
C, budget increase is the only way to attain all this.
The problem is that none of the premises are to be taken seriously without serious support. If none of them hold up, there's no reason within your argument to support the conclusion. However, if you make a debate just on the benefits to going to war with various countries (or even a debate that their allies would be unlikely to join in, I suppose WWI and WWII having not happened as a supporting example), you could then build up the skill needed to support this broader topic.
Forfeiture.
It seems the pro side was attempting to learn about the topic, rather than engage in a debate. Mistakes happen, but a win by default is still a win.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Arguments chiefly for not labeling this a humor debate (and within that, failing the bring the laughs).
Pro presented the idea that every American right winger today was fathered (and grandfathered etc.) by exactly one WWII POW (wow that guy must have slept around more than Genghis Khan)... While con chose ignore this, his arguments about the Jews hints at the key problem to such a claim of genetic inheritance. Really pro's arguments boil down to racism as we know it to be a genetic trait, to which the infected must logically be purged so that only the new ubermensch remain (sadly, it's hard to tell if he's just trying to be funny, given the number of people who believe things like black's are too genetically superior to be capable of racism).
Con's counter argument focused on how to literally use the English language, and pro's half-witted failings in that department.
At the end of it, unless pro is a right winger, he has not proven anything about even one of their number, let alone the average member.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Arguments as detailed below.
While the only argument presented was "Pro has BoP," it is indeed a strong one given the impracticality of proving the two clauses of the resolution. Were this debate to have been lengthy, I strongly suspect base proof of the claim being unmet would remain the core issue.
Should this debate be reopened, I highly suggest changing the resolution to presume the first of them; which leaves a massive challenge in proving raw meat as the main path to take for health, but at least it could conceivably be implied within the confines of a debate.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
PLAGIARISM: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_MSG_bad_for_you
With pro's R1 dropped for that reason, combined with one third of the remainder getting into cons masturbatory habits, this really was a case of no contest.