DrSpy

ARGUMENTS (PRO) for the reasons see the comments. (23 and 24)
SOURCES (PRO). for relevance and depth. See comments.
S&G (TIE) Con had some mistakes, however, nothing notable worthy of point reduction.
CONDUCT (PRO) - Cons arguments had significant relevance issues. Con also stated in RD4 that they did not need to focus on that actual topic of the debate. I had asked about the focus of Darwin in the comments prior to the debate. The focus was clear, and specifically ignored by Con.

After Protest, I supplement my original vote and apologize to the parties.

Pros position on Womans Health, and Human Rights were far more tangible, especially when taken into consideration with their opening argument being illegality does not necessarily reduce the occurrence. In addition, Pro did a better job of staying focused on the issue at hand and repeatedly tried to bring the conversation back to that point. It is something that I appreciate.

Con attempted to change the definition of the woman to woman and unborn in stats framing. This for me was an area of no return. Con had just argued about the independent personhood of a fetus. Con then argues that a woman and fetus are one, for the pure purposes of trying to misapply CDC statistics on the acquisition of abortion to woman health, at which point it could be argued there was an adoption of the Violinist theory.

Con also miscategorized the rights differences brought yup between a man and a woman and how they use their body, Their application of the term inalienable does not meet legal standards (inalienable does not mean irrevocable as Pro pointed out)

Finally, credibility is substantially eroded when Nazi's are brought in for comparative purposes. It just undermines the entire argument from Con.

This took a while to get through. Hats off to both participants, An interesting debate for sure.

The debate required

PRO must prove why it should be abolished.
CON must prove why the system should stay.

PRO says faithless electors, misrepresentation, republican bias

CON says Doctor v Candyman, better distribution than pure favouritism

--------

Pro, was much better organized. They had a clear structure and clear reasons why they wanted abolishment. It was easy to see the points they made, and why they made them, Their questions and retorts were well-founded. In short, they made it easy for me to remember their position. Pro made great arguments.

Con, was not as clear or organized. Con's strategy was to focus on Pro's arguments, and Con did not really develop an independent thesis. there was a lot of potential with the Candyman v Doctor analogy. Bringing it to a Trump/Sanders did not help.

Therefore I found Pro to make more a more persuasive position than Con, even though I agree with some of the theory behind Con, I just did not get a sense it was developed and designated as effectively as Pro. Point to Pro.
=====

Now to the sources. For Pro some of the sources did require registration for a free account. One of the shortened URLs did not work. I do not think it is appropriate to provide sources that require registration. If there is an adblocker or something else that impairs access, the onus is on the user of the source to find a way to provide access. the least amount of confusion, and maintaining copyright laws. If that can't be done, then the source can't be used.

While the quality of the sources was exceptional for Pro, and their use was exceptional. the mistake was not having sources that are more accessible. Having some links not even work is an issue as well. Points to Con.

S&G - No issue. Tie.

Conduct - I do not feel it is fair to penalize Pro twice for the same issue. (sources) I do see Pro tried to make them accessible thereafter. I do feel Pro was more civil, had a clearer presentation, and rebuttals were clearer. However, it was not enough to warrant more points.

Summary, I do think that Pro deserved overall a larger point differential win than this vote shows, I am restricted by the categories.

Concession. Community standards dictate that a conceder should never get the most points, no matter how strong their argument is.

This was an interesting one, and I really felt that if this progressed the Con could muster out a win. You could certainly see he was on the right track especially when we had Pro agree to definitions based in the Torah.

Con made a few mistakes, notably the anatomical assumption of pigs, and other animals, no references to that.

He is feisty and has good logic. I hope his parents let him back here. Both made good use of references, S&G was nothing worth points, and the forfeit was not his fault.

This debate had potential and developed into a double paddy nothing burger.

The forfeiture was clear.

While this is a forfeit there are a few things I would like to point out.

The debate is a clear assertion "Justinian I did not blind Flavius Belesarius."

Pro took the opening approach to dispute the origins of the story. A very powerful move, if the references were present. They were not. However Pro made a partial redemption by putting the onus on Con to provide evidence that the blinding did occur as contended.

Pro is still alive in the debate at this point.

Con starts by a systematic sentence by sentence dissection of Pro. One of the first lines Con says he will point out an error in the description, but never does. Con spends significant energy discussing if John Tzetzes was a monk. Con never addresses if this is material to the question.

Con then later admits that the theory cannot be properly established I quote. "Also, In truth, the origins of the theory cannot be properly established as it is a Theological belief."

Con has admitted that the blinding is a theological theory.

Con brings up some valid points about the logic of a blind begged being used for political purposes, and the state argument presented by Pro. Con then proceeds to present a reference from the House of Lords. Con does preemptively partially impeach his own source by referencing a conflict of interest with the Church of England, which turns out to be the only real reference to support the claimed blinding.

Con then argues that while he cannot prove one side, Pro cannot prove the other.

Based on the evidence presented by Con, and his own admission that the retire theory was theological in origin, Pro made a better case. Unfortunately Pro specifically stated they would forfeit, and "willing to give victory". He did not give full victory.

For that reason, I will give Con the warranted victory, however not because of arguments.

Con provided extensive references and was providing links to first sources. Albeit there was no real argument that the blinding occurred, which is central to the debate.

It was very noble of Con to let the issue rest, and not try to belay the issue. Both parties showed polite demeanor, and there was nothing notable in S&G.

If I have erred in my voting strategy, and reasons pursuant to the rules on this site, please let me know and I will make the corrections, and learn from the mistakes.

Unreferenced arguments and plagiarism. Even still Con provided effective arguments, worthy of the points.

FF^2. .

I hope Con views the comments as a learning experience. The debate topic was about voting with bias vs merit. If you do not vote on merit, you vote on bias. Con's assumes bias yet gives no evidence of merit that was worthy of a win.