Total votes: 3
PRO has the burden of proof by affirming the resolution. CON does have the burden of proof by trying to demonstrate the opposing resolution: "My Rebuttal: Why Zelensky Is Not One of the Most Effective Presidents."
As 7000series mentioned, CON has moved the goalpost to the point that it is virtually unprovable. At the very least, PRO had to show Zelensky is an overwhelmingly efficient president. However, when CON changed that into Zelensky having to achieve overwhelmingly good results, it became unprovable, especially in hardship.
Zelensky being behaviorally perfect would still make the claim unprovable because a flawless person cannot achieve any result. While helpful, it is not a direct relationship since reality constrains people. So, they should have focused on whether Zelensky is doing their best despite adversity as a president as much as a human can, which PRO does for the most part.
That said, to preface the debate's framing and be clear, anytime I say "argument," I mean an example that reasonably implies an efficient president. This debate is essentially flinging examples of ineffectuality or not.
Argumentation -
PRO's uncontested argument is the preservation of the country's sovereignty against the aggression of a power.
CON's uncontested arguments are that Ukraine is still at war and key officials' frequent removals demonstrate unstable leadership
CON's leadership argument alone is more substantial, as doing something negative will always be a mark against his efficiency. Furthermore, preserving a country is a bare minimum—not to say it is not hard.
CON's contested arguments are that Ukraine is not self-reliant economically or militarily - and they violated democratic principles. Regarding the former contention, PRO argues there are excessive constraints on Zelensky for self-reliance. CON counterargues that Zelensky exacerbated these constraints while giving examples. Regarding the latter contention, PRO argues that these violations are necessary for wartime. However, CON argues that these violations are excessive even during wartime. When getting into the details, it seems like CON was able to point out numerous examples where Zelensky's actions were excessive for any justification, so their argument is more decisive than PRO's. These examples were also unanswered.
PRO argued that the land market and "Diia" were good things that Zelensky had done. However, CON argued that these are merely examples of prioritizing tiny improvements when they could have focused on more significant things. CON's argument is not very good compared to PRO's, as it is a typical fallacious thought pattern: the fallacy of relative privation; people can do both consequential and less consequential things.
PRO argued that the Kharkiv operation, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Kyiv and Chernihiv regions, and the liberation of Kherson are examples of Zelensky as an effective president. CON argued that these are not due to Zelensky's efficiency but Russia's incompetence or withdrawal. PRO argued that these are due to the president's ability to get aid and maintain morale. CON is not refuting what PRO is saying; an efficient president, regardless of whether the enemy allows them to take advantage, is still an example of them being efficient. PRO's argument here is slightly better.
PRO argued that Zelensky established unity in Ukraine. CON argued that establishing unity does not mean a president is effective, and to support that, they bring up how Zelensky has not made Ukraine self-sustaining. The claim is unsubstantiated, so PRO's point still seems reasonable. Honestly, I do not even see how uniting a nation is not a quality of an efficient president.
The arguments left were that Zelensky established unity, effectively took advantage of Russia's incompetence or withdrawals, and made diminutive improvements. However, Zelensky excessively violated democratic principles, exasperated a lesser ability for self-sufficiency, and destabilized leadership.
While PRO has established acts that imply an effective leader, CON's established acts qualitatively dwarves PRO's examples. Therefore, CON's arguments or examples were more persuasive.
Sourcing -
The two sides do not offer comparable source utilization.
Legibility -
Only minor illegibility present: "thx 4 hvin me, b4 anything..." is the only instance of obvious illegibility unrelated to any argument.
Conduct -
Misbehavior is not present or too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic.
There is a clear pattern in PRO's argumentation: bad abductive reasoning. In the case of the "harm principle," what constitutes harm, coma analogy and so on. Each of these share a similarity: they all do not offer other explanations of the principle or reason for a given phenomena. For example, PRO tries to establish what constitutes as harm (explanation) from one example - in which - there could be other explanations. The coma analogy, PRO states only two reasons why killing a person who is in a coma is wrong when there can be other explanations for it being wrong - then - tries to analogize it to a zygote even though the similarities has been essentially forced. The harm principle wasn't even established well; the establishment of the principle was framed as an analogy when truly it was an abductive argument: from a few examples (unborn and questionably dead person) there was a conclusion that in cases where there it is unclear if someone has person-hood they have moral consideration. Which, justifiably, prompted CON to argue against it as if it was an argument in of itself rather than an establishment of a principle. For an abductive argument to be effective it needs to consider other explanations from a few facts and then an demonstration why those some other explanations are not as good, but in this case, it seemed like PRO gave the best explanation that was first thought of or seen and ran with it. Which becomes obvious when CON gives a valid alternative explanation for why someone in a coma has moral consideration while the analogized does not: they would want to live. Essentially, every step to arrive at a conclusion is poisoned by how ill-formed the arguments were.
CON's only sin, when arguing the affirmative case, was using a dictionaries to establish what makes a person have person-hood. The establishment of person-hood, or when a human becomes a person, is a matter of debate that needs to be established - not - something that should be deferred to a dictionary. Which PRO, at the very least, admittedly poorly, attempted to do. However, the only reason why CON's argument is slightly better is due to it being the entire argument being not ill formed. CON essentially "established" the standards of person-hood, zygotes did not fit that criteria, which CON argued that means zygotes do not have moral weight.
The difference here is that PRO's affirmative argument is essentially entirely faulty, while CON's affirmative argument is somewhat faulty.
In terms of rebuttals, no one really does better than another. Firstly, the harm principle was merely a principle - not - an argument in of itself that establishes zygots with person-hood. Which CON seemed to be under the impression of, which is not entirely their fault considering how PRO framed their establishment of the principle. That is to say, CON did not actually dispute the principle and really couldn't due to not knowing that it was a principle that was suppose to support a future argument: the coma argument. In that case, CON did actually attack what was wrong with that argument: another explanation for why it is wrong. PRO, albeit not directly pointed out the flaw of CON's argument, was hinting at the right direction by questioning the definitions in which CON gave for person-hood. The difference here is that CON sometimes aced a rebuttal and at other times completely missed, while PRO was close to giving a valid rebuttal but not quite there.
In terms of reliable sources, both parties seem to give acceptable sources to demonstrate concepts. While PRO's arguments were ill-formed, they are not so ill-formed that is significantly less legible than CON. In terms of conduct, neither side was significantly worse. The only time CON has actually attacked PRO's character is when they have accused them of lying. Every other time has been a characterization of PRO's argument or how PRO has argued. At most, CON is very aggressive with expressing how bad they think PRO's arguments are or how they are arguing, which is not bad conduct as long as they engage with the arguments at those points. The conduct criterion I would tentatively argue for.