Total votes: 91
Well, do I even need to explain?
As a voter, it is not my job to addbpremises. I will simply use premises given in description and in debate by debaters to form conclusion, conclusion which logically must follow from given premises.
Arguments:
Con starts by saying how most dreams are forgotten. He also says that some people can control their dreams.
However, Con says that personal experiences dont count as valid examples in this debate.
Pro provides a great counter. Apparently, the only way to verify dreams is with personal experience, as science has no way to record or observe dreams. Thus, all evidence related to dreams Con provided is based on personal experience.
So if we reject personal experience, Con's entire case based on personal experiences falls apart and he cannot disprove the possibility of dreams having divine or spiritual meaning, thus he cannot possibly win.
However, if we accept personal experiences as valid, then Pro's case is proved and Pro wins.
This huge contradiction in Con's case and basically "lose or lose" position is essentially what gives win to Pro.
Con uses personal experiences as only evidence for his case while claiming personal experiences arent valid evidence.
Con wants for voters to accept his examples which come from personal experiences, while he also wants us to reject Pro's examples because they come from personal experiences.
"it is absurd to expect others to believe you simply because you experienced something."
Personal experiences are either valid evidence or they are not valid evidence. Neither of these premises given in debate can make Con's case work. Con's case has no possible framework to prove his case, while Pro's framework supports Pro's case.
Pro further proves his case by explaining the limits of science. Logically, if science is in this case limited and incomplete, it cannot at the same time be complete and give complete answer.
This negates Con's case related to any scientific evidence, leaving personal experiences which Con rejects, so basically, nothing is left for Con.
These arguments about limits of science harm Pro's case a bit as well, since it concedes that evidence from general observation simply isnt there other than these personal experiences which are... personal.
However, debate is about the possibility, and Con has completely failed to negate possibility, even destroying his own case with his own argument.
With Con's case being logically negated, the only thing thats left is Pro's case where reported cases of personal experiences support (at least a bit) the possibility of those personal experiences being true.
This debate, as stated in its description, was about possibility, and to say it in a very simple way, undisproved personal experiences support the topic which is about possibility.
Con also dropped many of Pro's arguments, and to vote properly, I must accept as true every premise which was dropped. If the dropped premises had sources supporting them, then even more so. I would be incorrect if I simply ignored Pro's many unchallenged arguments.
So with the task of weighing arguments, Con's lack of case is simply outweighed by Pro's presence of a case.
Some other notes:
"If my opponent acknowledges that we cannot definitively determine whether dreams are divine in nature, then they cannot reasonably claim to disprove their divine origin either."
"If my opponent believes dreams are inherently unverifiable, then I must question the very premise of this debate"
This by Pro captures the essence of Con's case, where Con agrees that dreams exist while not challenging the argument that science cannot observe them. To put it simply, if you cannot verify something, how can you even make a case that it is not possible?
The argument of natural contradicting with supernatural is negated by argument that God can control both.
Added note: I have ignored the video argument Con gave. As a voter, I have no obligation to accept arguments in video form, as that makes it much harder for me to vote and might even be used to cheat and to break character limit.
This vote pretty much includes all of Con's arguments which were relevant to the point of debate, and Pro's counters to them. Some arguments went way off topic on both sides. This isnt a topic about Islam specifically, or about Christianity. I cannot accept premises which have nothing to do with the conclusion (topic) of a debate, even if those premises are in debate.
Arguments to Pro.
Legibility was a tie. Both cases were easy enough to read.
Sources are a tie, given that both debaters used sources. I dont buy the idea that "scientific sources" are more valid when it was clearly established that science cannot verify dreams.
Conduct was a tie. No significant insults, personal attacks or incorrect behaviors have occured.
Con quit the debate.
Con ran away.
Flawless victory.
Forfeit. Forfeit.
Mall winner
Cant win if you forfeit 3 out of 5 rounds. Debate must continue even if by just saying "extend".
Pro forfeited one round, thus conduct point goes to Con.
I am leaving arguments as a tie because this debate is a bit too subjective to even be voted on by arguments, plus some arguments are in video link form which I cant weigh as they are not presented in a debate.
Both used sources, so sources are a tie.
Legibility was mostly fine, even with one round from pro being just a link to video and not an argument I can read.
Only Con made arguments, thus his arguments cannot be negated.
The axioms stayed axioms. Con didnt make argument.
Forfeiting 2/3 of debate is a loss.
Pro made arguments. Con didnt.
Pro made argument. Con didnt.
Pro made arguments. Con didnt.
Forfeited 50% of debate
Pro wins because Con wasnt there.
Pro totally forfeited.
Nothing on both sides.
Con forfeited, didnt post any arguments.
Conceded. Conceded.
Forfeit. Forfeit.
Forfeited forfeit
Forfeit. Forfeit.
Con forfeited.
Concedes, con wins
Fuw fowfeit
Less fowfeits.
Full forfeit by Pro.
My vote goes to Con.
Round 1: Pro
Round 2: Tie
Round 3: Con
Round 4: Con
Round 5: Con
So whoever has best songs in voter's eyes is a victor.
Round 1 is for Pro.
Pro presents a song which for the first two minutes just caused me headache.
But somehow, after two minutes it gets really good and you even feel like dancing to it.
Con presents a solid song which is good from start to finish, but it is still outweighed by Pro's song even when we include that first two minutes of Pro's song are bad, because Pro's song rises to greatness later.
Round 2 is a tie.
This one simply felt like both songs were unmoving. I had to force myself to listen to both in hopes they get good by the end, but neither did.
Round 3 goes to Con.
Pro says his song is not repetitive, which is just one of the issues I find with it. The song seems to be playing 3 or 4 different things one after another and I simply cant bring myself to enjoy the fact that it abandons rythm in favor of some musical chaos.
Con's song was much more enjoyable, and far outweighs that song.
Round 4 goes to Con.
Con seem to have figured out the mistake from round 2, so he didnt post another song like from round 2. But Pro's song is almost same in quality from round 2 and 3. It fails to build mood. It never takes you on the path of excitement. While Con's song wasnt exactly great, it at least caused some joy while listening it.
Round 5 goes to Con
This was a very slight win, but Con's song has female voice and singing, where Pro's song doesnt. Con's song brings more joy while listening to it and I am far more likely to be willing to dance to it, which is an important quality in a song.
Based on that, I give round 5 to Con.
Overall, Pro's best rounds were 1 and 5, where Con's best rounds were 3 and 5 and 4.
I can say that Pro's song from round 1 is about as good as Con's song from round 3.
Pro only gave 2 good songs, and Con gave 3, and Pro's both best songs lose to Con's best song given in round 5.
When I read the debate for the first time, I was left with impression that both debaters are saying different things about same sources.
After looking at the debate in more detail, I can give one example why this debate is a tie:
"Con's third study.
Con says that long term study shows no significant difference in psychiatric morbidityย or mortality, and that it shows how GAC (surgery variant) is not effective in treating gender anxiety.
Pro responds by saying that the study doesnt talk about gender anxiety.
Con responds by saying that study shows psychiatric morbidity and mortality.
Pro says that all Con's studies say how GAC is efficient, and that third study measures psychiatric morbidity in general, not gender dysphoria specifically like CON is insinuating.
Con says that Pro has resigned answering to theย third study, so they accept the conclusion "no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity" following GAC.
Con adds that on the basis of these studies alone, it is evident that theย longest, most comprehensive and population rich studiesย all find that GAC is not a treatment with long term success in alleviating gender dysphoria."
So as a voter, I am not really left with conclusion which favors either side.
Both make claims about sources, and the claims contradict to the point where its impossible to judge who is right.
In this case, Pro says that this source and all other Con's sources actually says how GAC is effective. Con says that source says(shows) how GAC is not effective.
As a voter, I cannot weigh what source says, unless I go look at it myself, which would be wrong.
So I am leaving it as a tie, as the claims about what every source says contradict each other, and I have no way of judging that.
Sources are tie. Both sides provided sources.
Legibility was okay. I managed to keep track of individual arguments as they developed through rounds.
Conduct I am leaving as a tie.
Good debate.
Pro is a good debater, but he made mistakes which simply made it difficult for him to win this.
Pro opens up with a classical argument of unborn being denied of life and experience.
Con counters that by saying that abortion means no loss and no suffering experienced.
Pro counters that suffering in the world is outweighed by desire to live, and that life is precious to people.
Con counters by saying that abortion doesnt erase existence but sends unborn to heaven.
Pro states that unborn is human, and implies it is equal to a born baby.
Con opens up with facts about abortion indeed being a healthcare for the woman.
Pro counters by saying its not healthcare for the baby, but the death for the baby.
Con counters by saying that there are pregnancies where woman would die, so abortion is obviously healthcare for the woman in those cases.
Con points out that something doesnt stop being healthcare just because it harms someone else.
Pro claims that we wouldnt kill people with disabilities, so we shouldnt kill unborn either.
Con counters by saying that world is not kind to disabled people, and abortion would prevent suffering.
Pro claims that unborn is killed against its will.
Con asks pro to prove his claim about unborns being killed against their will.
Con explains that unborn has no will, and therefore, has no will which could oppose to abortion.
Con claims that women would be forced to give birth against their will.
Now, this debate was spinned a lot around one single claim:
"I know that when these babies die, they will go to heaven"
This claim was completely unneccessary, as not only it doesnt help Pro's case, but is an argument against his position.
Con built position that its better for baby to go to heaven than to be born and have good chance of going to hell.
Pro tried to counter by saying God banned murder, thus banned abortions.
Pro provided verses which explain that life begins at conception.
Con provided challenge for this claim, apparently God himself doing abortions.
Con provided additional challenge, apparently that definition of murder in the Bible is circular.
Pro counters by saying that God has right to commit murder, where we dont.
Con counters this further by saying that definition of murder in the Bible has nothing to do with definition of murder in this debate.
Pro says that Ten Commandments determine whats morally wrong.
Con counters that abortion was never shown to be murder.
Pro said that people should be Christians so that baby doesnt go to hell.
But this claim doesnt make me think people will actually be Christians if they dont abort, or that baby will certainly go to heaven if being born.
Con points out again that great majority of people arent Christians, and even Christians cant be 100% successful in raising children properly.
Pro conceded that non-Christians go to hell and that there are much more non-Christians in the world than non-Christians, and that due to that, baby will likely go to hell if not aborted and surely go to heaven if aborted.
I get the clear feeling that abortion is not "morally wrong" in many cases where parents arent Christian,
but I also get the feeling that abortion is morally good in those cases.
There is nothing which makes me think its better for baby to go to hell than heaven,
And the point of no suffering being experienced by the unborn didnt get any challenge either.
I end with conclusion that abortion is healthcare for the woman in some cases where woman will die
And in all cases most beneficial for the unborn.
I can see the point of plants and animals with human DNA being killed not being treated as murder, and therefore challenging the claim of what Bible actually considers murder and what not.
The last round argument of animals being eaten and suffering should have come sooner, but regardless, its a win for Con.
Sources were present on both sides, even tho Con presented much more, where Pro only presented Bible verse.
Conduct was good on both sides.
As for being easy to read, it was easy enough to read both sides of the debate.
Con was the only one to make an argument.
I can kinda see the point that with eternal life, abortions arent really abortions in a sense of destruction of life, but then again Pro talks of second death indicating that there is an end to life for some, but doesnt explain if fetuses are included or excluded from this particular claim.
The only challenge which I find to abortions caused by God in the Bible is that they are not actual deaths of fetus, but that fetus just goes to sleep and will awake again.
And the claim of fetuses being people went mostly unchallenged, which leaves me wondering if fetuses will be awakened or not by God after abortion.
Plenty of unknowns in this debate.
The arguments were equally non-existent.
Given that I am the only voter left, I leave it as it is.
Tie was agreed upon.
Pro forfeited
Well, this was a fun one.
"According to a working calculator 1+1=2"
This went unchallenged by Pro.
"They'd agree an incorrect calculation would get an incorrect number."
This went unchallenged by Con.
With both sides not touching each other's case, I have no way to vote either way.
I can believe that working calculators say that 2+2=4.
I can also believe that every single Mathematician in the world agrees that 2+2=61738383, because they agree that when you add numbers incorrectly you get that number.
I am not going to give conduct points, because it does seem like topic was only established after that one forfeiture.
Legibility and sources were somewhat equal on both sides.
Well, at least one side didnt completely forfeit.
Forfeit 3/4
Con forfeited 50% of debate. Win goes to Pro.
Better get at least 10 votes on this.
Both were funny. I never understand what these debates are about.
Eh, what? Well, Pro says that he has IQ of 300. Then says he is dumb.
Con challenges the claim by saying that someone with 300 IQ wouldnt make dumb arguments.
Con provides a source. Since Pro didnt provide source, sources go to Con. With burden of proof on Pro and Pro's arguments negated, Con wins the arguments.
I dont think I need to explain my vote much. Con didnt present any argument. No reasons, no case, no structure. Pro actually presented reasons.
1. Most widely spoken
This stands as obvious fact. It was undisputed by Pro. However, the importance of being most widely spoken was disputed.
2. Fastest
3. Most efficient
4. Easiest to learn
Points 2-4
I really feel there was lots of struggle on both sides. On one hand, it was not "English vs one language.". It was english vs lots of other languages. On the other hand, English doesnt come up on top in all classes, but also beats all other languages in some classes. English may not be easiest to learn, but esperanto doesnt have many speakers.
5. Most native speakers
This stands undisputed by Con.
6. Important works
I would say that yes, many important works are written in English, but some are written in other languages too.
Guys, I am gonna leave it as a tie. There were plenty of good points on both sides. I am not really sure how to compare properly since the definitions were too broad.
Only one side gave an argument.