Total votes: 180
The arguments were irrelevant, but Con managed to express herself in a more professional fashion.
Nobody provided any "arguments", in fact I don't even understand what the topic is telling us to argue.
Arguments: Con put forth at least 6 defenses while Pro has put only one, which is about "saving lives", but Pro's argument about state laws and the 10th amendment would defeat this argument since a law enforced nation-wide would be irrational on this issue, and states could make their own laws.
Sources: Con had sources to support his stand, while Pro did not.
Spelling and Grammar: Tie
Conduct: Con tried to argue, Pro literally gave up on the first round and didn't try to argue again.
P1: The BoP, unspecified, would go to Pro on default
P2: Pro failed to prove anything applicable to the topic
C1: Thus, Pro loses.
Pro has no argument, Con has one. That is all.
Both arguments were not fulfilling their respective BOP. Tied.
Equal forfeiture and no sources.
The only thing is that Pro is more formal in word usage, a desirable attribute. 1 more point for Pro.
Nothing was achieved.
Pro has an argument without the specification fo a topic agreed upon beforehand, so it would mean virtually nothing.
Con’s “argument” was a poem and it argued nothing against Pro’s anything.
No evidence, adequate presentation, with one of the two insulting and the other forfeiting. This is the most disappointing thing I have seen all day.
Pro conceded and forfeited. Pro had no arguments. A W for Con.
Con has provided arguments regarding Physics to point out that the flat earth model wouldn't be physically possible. Pro hasn't got any arguments at all.
Pro gave up. Con didn't. It is all that is needed to have the win given to Con.
Argument: Pro has a reason(This debate wasn't worth going for), all Con has was implicit meme material. To Pro.
Sources: None.
S&g: In Round 3, Con failed to capitalize the first letter of the argument. To Pro.
Conduct: No forfeits, but Con didn't take it seriously, as he posted something not even tangibly related to the topic itself in R3. His entire case is built upon implicit things and I can't make sense of it whatsoever, to Pro.
Nothing was done by either side.
Either way, why do joke debates and FFs get more votes than, for example, the K-12 Video Game debate and other serious ones?
According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyways. Because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.
Pro opens R1 with basically what you would expect a normal person would argue: to our perception, earth is round. However, there is no mentioning that it must be to our own perception, and as a result, Con’s mentioning that the universe is a flat thing resulting in Earth flat in the spacetime continuum or something like that. Con has the upper hand as it reasonably defeats pro’s traditional stuff.
Pro after R2 says that Con’s objective perception is wrong as it is oddly similar to “simulation”, which I don’t find sound at all. Then, he says that earth’s surface being flat doesn’t equate to earth being flat, which I find completely absurd as objectively in the universe, anything traveling like Earth would be flat as a whole, non-rebutted by Pro.
Pro ends by still struggling with our own eyes’ view, despite taking a fallacy of appealing to tradition, as well as ignoring that the objective view of the universe is valid. Con drags this away.
Overall, Con wins.
Arguments are to Con. I generally have an extremely difficult time of not only comprehending what Pro is currently saying, but also what Pro is trying to express as most of Pro’s arguments are just unrelated assumptions.
The BoP automatically falls on Pro as no further specifications were made, and as long as Con points out that Pro did not fulfill it, Con gets the args.
Pro starts the first argument by being vague and not specifying who “they” are, then Con captured the ambiguity and argued that Con could be “they” and could have already got Pro since “they were out to get me” would be past tense.
In R1, Pro did not ever prove that “they were out to get me” since all Pro used as sources are conspiracy theories or unrelated stuff.
Pro’s R2 isn’t strong either as Pro did not ever rebuke the possibility that Con already got Pro. Same goes with R3. All Pro did is appealing to conspiracy theories and things that may support them and may support the possibility that somehow, something is out to get them. However, the term “they ARE” would imply a 100% certainty, so even if everything Pro imagined was winning, it is still a possibility that Pro loses, meaning that there is no 100% certainty to them getting Pro.
Con rather claimed to be one of the conspiracy theory’s subjects, further supporting his claim that Con already got Pro by manipulating what Pro says. “They were out to get me” was wrong as they already got pro.
In R3, Pro just gave up on proving that “they were out to get me” and tried to prove everything Pro said wrong, which doesn’t fulfill his BoP as it is a fallacy. The big argument for Pro is that it is unproven that they weren’t out to get Pro.
Con furtherly describes that Con already got Pro, which disproves the BoP. In the end, Pro did not prove the BoP, Con pointed out.
Sources: everything Pro used are confusing and conspiracy-like and generally isn’t enough for me to give the Sources point.
S&G and Conduct: tie, both did good
FawfulFalafel
Args: there are no args. Tie.
Sources: Con defined using a source, Pro did not
S&G: Readable, tie
Conduct: Pro forfeited 2/4 rounds and made nothing clear whatsoever, to con.
Args: It is to Pro. Pro has essentially given a source which proves that she had cut her hair(To Con: You missed an opportunity in which since Pro had never used a photo for a profile before, it is essentially impossible to prove that the person that had her hair cut is Pro). Con ADMITS Pro has cut her hair in his poems, while making no arguments. A foregone conclusion and concession.
Sources: Pro used sources, Con didn't.
S&G: Both persons spelled correctly and everything is readable. Tie.
Conduct: Technically Con had went great lengths admitting that Pro has cut her hair and wrote poems unrelated to his standpoint. This shows that Con doesn't even care about winning this debate. To Pro.
Argument: basically no args. Just a “he said” argument for Con and nothing for Pro. Nothing is achieved.
Sources: Con sourced, Pro didn’t.
S&g: uh...
Conduct: uh...
Con argued what Pro’s BoP would be, but that is better than having nothing at all.
Args: Pro simply didn’t prove that flys, on average, are drones. Points to Con.
Sources: tie, as Con’s are only definitions and Pro’s are not that strong
SG: tie
Conduct: Pro didn’t take this seriously and threatened to take someone’s game account away. That is bad conduct.
I guess something is better than nothing.
The winner is clear.
Args: SirA presented a solution that will 100% solve racism no matter what, and since it is 100% effective at solving its field, Mall's criticism falls short, as his argument is like when someone asked the smoothest-running game with best graphics and someone else offered such game, and then Mall popped up saying "Is it really a good game? It can't even smoothly run on my default stock MacOs Laptop!"
Sources: SirA presented some sources, vs Mall's nothing.
S&G: Tie. Both sides presentable, as always.
Conduct: Mall waived the 1st round without such rules by adding no new arguments at all and used an unorganized format. SirA used an overall more organized style of writing. Although not that much, I would award the conduct point to SirA.
I have nothing to appreciate raps, but forfeiture is forfeiture.
Con forfeited 2/3 rounds and then put the argument at a point where his opponent cannot properly respond. That is poor conduct. More than plagiarism, considering I see Pro using a rightful exercise of citing sources.
Con had no sources. Sources to Pro.
Concession
Con is the only one who did anything. Ff.
Pro stated that the benefits outweighs the expenses overall on a mars colony, but ignores that it is economically unrealistic in 20 years. Con put sources saying that a Mars colony would require too much money just for The initial flight, all that Pro only provided that a mars colony in the future, limit removed, would be beneficial, but even he put no dents on that it is economically dangerous to establish a mars colony in the NEAR future.
Args to con.
Sorry for deleting my vote. I voted the other side on my prior attempt.
Con forfeited 50%, conduct to Pro.
Because of the forfeiture, pro’s points have stood with no opposition, args to Pro.
By definition, Pro automatically loses. It is impossible to prove such a feat.
Con brought up definitions which disproved Pro. Pro then used "Satanists could be atheists", which does not account for all atheists and/or all religious folks. Con then used that satanists are actually not atheists so Pro will have no ground to stand on. Overall, Con won. No atheists are religious by definition.
Pro's entire argument revolves around "You cannot be born as a gnostic atheist", even if after RM refuted it already. And yes, a shoelace is a vegetarian simply because it consumes no meat. Not being able to consume vegetables does not make shoelaces non-vegans, just like removing religion is everything needed to make one an atheist, gnostic or not.
RM put up syllogisms proving that babies are born agnostic, which is still an atheist category. Pro never refuted the syllogisms ever. Args to Con.
Sources, Con is the only one using any sources at all.
S&G, tie. Nothing wrong either side anyways.
Conduct: Pro. Con forfeited.
Forfeiture makes Con’s point uncontended after r2.
"Randomly"
Pro is the only one who did any rap. Again, a non-moving rock shouldn't be considered the slowest-accelerating car. Anything Con brought up isn't even considered rap.
Both sides plagiarized, so I guess keep the sources and the conduct tied. S&G are presentable in both.
Con presented no case at all. He thus loses.
Arguments: PRO. Pro highlighted heavy rhymes with more liberal usages and he is the only one who illustrated not just that his opponent is bad, but How, with evidence. Con's claims are essentially baseless. Pro is more compelling.
Sources: Pro. Pro gave the only source.
S&G: Tie. Nothing else to say.
Conduct: Con. Pro is the alt of someone who is banned. That is poor conduct!
Overall, Pro won.
Konzeshion
Arguments: pro stopped trying after round 1. Con fulfills his BoP as no “e” is ever used.
Sources: con used sources to prove that he did not use the letter “e”. Pro used previous evidence. Can’t say either side is better.
SG: con proved his case with a massive handicap. Point to Con.
Conduct: pro. Concession is a concession.
100% ff. Disappointing.
Well this skewed vote certainly looks as weird as a living dinosaur in New Jersey.
Arguments: Pro literally gave up proving that Con won't use an E in R2. Even though Con used it for one single time, it is not until rounds after Pro had picked it up, which Pro never proved that Con won't, just that Con is more likely to use it than to not.
Sources: No sources needed, no point given.
S&G: Con failed to fulfill his expected S&G by saying a single E in one of his arguments.
Conduct: tie, both did pretty well.
concession
FFFFFFFFFF
Pro1: 9spaceking is better at skill thus he will win!
Con1: There are scenarios that prevent 9spaceking from winning
Pro2-3: You cannot prove that 9spaceking will lose or even tie
Con2-3: Neither can you prove otherwise.
Pro proved that it is probable that 9spaceking will win, but ignored that this resolution asks for 100 assuredness. Con brought this up and this leads it to victory.
Full forfeit cmon
Concession.
Con1: Nukes are destructive, they are dangerous to have.
Pro1: Countries should know when to use a nuke and when to not. What is a civil country without it?
Con2: Nukes are considered destructive and there are examples of so.
Pro2: Wars will happen whatsoever, so what is the difference with and without? Countries should be rightful to own weapons.
Con3: *whatever said earlier*
Pro3: *whatever said earlier*
Overall, Pro proved only that Con is incorrect and that wars will come. However, he did not prove that every country should have the right to have nuclear weapons. Pro dropped Con's destructive argument and responded with a nihilistic viewpoint(Wars will happen with or without.). Con is the only one presenting any evidence of anything at all while Pro gave no reliable sources throughout the argument.
Full forfeit. C'mon guys.
A concession is a concession.