Total votes: 12
Pro has provided more logical arguments, therefore he is more logical and sensible, the arguments made makes his potential for getting more points higher.
I vote for Pro because he made a very logical argument compared to Con.
At round 2, Pro "pussied" out after when Pro used very "hazardous" and scary numbers. Pro then decided to "rest his case" when the debate was not even over, afterwards providing no more coherent or logical arguments than Con but rather personal whims and unsportsmanlike arguments.
Before Round 2, Con had the most advantage in arguments, also for the words used in the arguments and letters (especially numbers) that are backed up by data and evidence.
This debate is very ambiguous, yes. But Con's empirical support overweighs the bullshit Pro has already spewed that already lacks logical sense.
I have explained more of my current vote in the commons, check them out for a clearer perspective on why I chose Con.
Pro provided better arguments and arguments that are more convincing than Con due to the points they made within their arguments supported by applicable sources (to the argument/arguments made).
Pro provided sources whereas Con provided no source for their argument. Pro provided strong Christian based sources.
Pro appeared to have understood the writings that Sophia has written and then responded in accordance with Sophia's arguments, except with more beneficial detailing to themselves, which is a great move in a debate.
OK. It's okay.
Pro's just forfeiting and doing some random stuff. Con's just being unsportsmanlike hitting those 😜😜-like emoji's within his arguments.
Full forfeit, the debate has a topic to follow yet Pro had put in no effort whatsoever, despite the poopoo-face responses that Con has.
Previous explanation within my arguments hath being made in comments.
Pro made arguments, Con did not make arguments. Con would've had advantage if they didn't just remain as stagnant as a chicken frozen in their own place in response to danger; which is a bit ironic and because of that it's quite funny.
The explanations Pro had in their own argument are pretty strong when compared to the explanations that Con had in their own argument; the reason of how Pro powerfully opposes Con's argument is that the explanations Pro has strongly opposes Con's explanations by logical means. Pro has provided sources that are more reliable as compared to Con's sources where Con had provided no sources (allowing Pro to have a more reliable source, especially in the absence of Con's sources). Pro has provided sources that are more reliable in fit to the context as observed within this page. Pro's arguments are more logical sounding than Con's arguments due to the opposition of explanations; therefore Pro has had significantly better conduct (overall).
Description says "Vote PRO if you think that Best.Korea should leave DebateArt.com."
I think that Best.Korea can stay on this website for as long as Best.Korea wants. My thought, I claim, should be against the description thereby I state that my thought is against the description.
He's just fun to have around and can be very reasonable at times.
Pro appears to be describing the situation more than Con. It is not wise to determine that morality is both subjective and objective, but, it is wise to consider that morality contains subjective and objective parts within itself.
However, Pro in a particular way was more descriptive and much closer (in a way) to the consideration where morality contains subjective and objective as parts of "Morality" amongst other parts that are outliers in the 'valley of consideration'.
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "subjective".
It is not logical to determine something that has both subjective and objective parts to it to be deemed as "objective".
The constitutes do not equal either parts and that is generally due to the inherent complexity of that something, especially morality.
Here's a highlight to see considered objective parts of "Morality": "From a behavioral perspective, the study of morality is necessarily the study of behavior, including the contexts in which it occurs and the environmental events of which it is a function. Analysis in this framework may allow the successful identification of the variables that control moral behavior, and, ultimately, the development of cultural practices to increase its occurrence." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/
Pro didn't seem have to have cited anything to back up his claims, Pro also didn't clarify his points reasonably by backing up his claims with logical proof, Pro didn't use anything except semantics and the usage of his own reasoning aided by semantics that also does not sound reasonable enough to be considered effective in supporting his own standpoint and framework.
Pro's argument doesn't seem to be showing most of what is relevant to whatever words he had used in definition.