MagicAintReal

Pro had made a case, to which Con responded, however, Pro failed to post any arguments for 3 out of the 4 rounds either due to forfeit or not having enough time. This I view as poor conduct, and as such I will not be weighing the arguments, sources, or S&G, and I give conduct to Con for attempting to salvage the debate.

The RFD starts here and continues to Comment #20 and beyond.
Arguments:
Pro starts off by showing 4 things we generally consider to be key to a democracy - 1) civic participation, 2) fair elections, 3) protecting rights, and 4) equal laws. Pro links all of this to the resolution by saying, "the basis of mandatory voting is identical to the basis of proportional representation, if anything it is a purer form of that reasoning."

Pro is basically making a case for a hyper-democracy, which is precisely what he has to do to win, because by Pro showing mandatory voting to be a "pure" representation of democracy, one who concludes that a democracy is the best form of government would have to conclude that making voting mandatory would be the truest representation of that best government by taking democracy's benefits to their extremes.

While I find Pro's explanation for HOW this would be made mandatory very weak and sort of just an after thought at the end of Pro's round, it would serve as a means to implement this mandate, so at this point Con needs to negate the benefits of a hyper-democratic idea like mandatory voting or poke holes in the implementation of the mandate.

Con's a fightin' little devil, and he comes out with some great points that do both.
Con mentions that about 120 million people didn't vote in the last US election, there are those who are unwilling to vote, those who are uninformed, those who would choose to feed their family instead of vote, and that not having to vote is a democratic freedom as well, when Con says, "Can't we simply have the freedom to not vote as well as the freedom to vote?"

Con points out that by implementing the mandate, you would necessarily mitigate democracy by forcing people to do something, quite antithetical to the very keys to democracy Pro pointed out 1st round, and that by implementing this mandate, 120 million americans would be fined for making what should be a democratic choice, i.e. "the freedom to not vote" and if people choose their family over voting, they are punished for making a decision on something they are consenting to make a decision on instead of making a decision they are being mandated to make.

This speaks to a poor implementation of the mandate, which directly impacts the resolution "should voting be mandatory?" because if we can't reasonably implement the mandate, we probably "shouldn't" mandate it and if it is in fact antithetical to democracy as Con contends, hyper-democracy should definitely not be mandated.

Pro responds nicely with the caveat that there could be an option at the ballot to choose to abstain from voting, thereby realizing your freedom to not choose with the mandate, but as Con points out "Some people may not have the time for voting" so these people would make the decision to help their family instead of going to the damn ballot and marking that they abstain. Choosing your family and your time over a ballot with "abstain" on it is an easy decision to make, and being fined for making this decision would be antithetical to a free and fair election.

The discussion on dictatorship and democracy is moot because both debaters agree that democracy is good and dictatorship is bad, it's just that they disagree on how that democracy is realized in a society and whether or not certain actions lead toward that democracy that both debaters agree is good.
Pro was unable to respond last round, but even considering that lack and giving Pro some more ground, Con successfully negates this resolution because Pro is just simply less than sympathetic to the actual harms of mandating voting on people to the extent that Pro does not go to any real length to address why people would choose voting over feeding their family if voting were mandated, or how in a democracy antithetically fining 120 million people is possible to implement to those people or how fining those who choose family sustenance is reasonable or worth mandating voting for.

Arguments to Con for successfully negating the resolution.

Con stated "Guns provide protection against criminals and the potential of a tyrannical government. Guns also reduce homicide."

Pro never posted anything, so Pro never refuted these claims and as such I have to accept that reducing homicide negates that all guns should be banned for civilians.

Arguments to Con.

RFD starts here and continues in the comments at #95

-Arguments-
The definition in the debate description for god is the general 4'Os, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being who is the source of creation, but a) the definitions and rules of the debate are not binding on voters and b) how Pro decided to interpret and employ the definition of god is understood to be a request to voters to use Pro’s broader interpretation of god or as Pro puts it,
“for the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly” and that “Con completely misunderstands what we mean when philosophers say that God is Omnipotent…God is bound by his own nature and cannot do the illogical.”
This means that I’m weighing the 4 O’s with this definition that Pro obliquely requested voters to use.

Con tries to appeal to the definitions of the debate, but again, given Pro’s request, I’m overlooking things that Con says like “If you buy the arguments I present with in my case regarding the 4 O's, it is not possible that God, AS HE HAS BEEN DEFINED, exists.”
So what if he was defined that way?
Pro shows that philosophers look at omnipotence differently and so THIS is how I have to weigh my vote.

Con continues to stomp his feet, demanding that Pro is failing to meet Pro’s burden because of definitions.
Con said things like “Since God WAS DEFINED using the 4 O's, Pro must prove that a being composed of each of those 4 O's is probable,”
Pro already explained what he had to prove philosophically and Con just resorted to demanding certain definitions be followed rather than “broadly” as Pro requested.
Con persists to near nauseum “Moreover, it seems that the property which would allow God to be in all possible universes is omnipresence, SINCE WE HAVE NOT DEFINED God as "maximally great."
By this point it seems like Con was harassing voters to follow the definitions he finds suitable to his case, rather than the definitions requested by the debate’s instigator within the debate.

Here are more examples of Con simply appealing to definitions.
“If God is not omnipotent, then God, AS DEFINED, does not exist and Con wins…because my case shows that God's existence (as he was defined) is not possible, the ontological argument fails…Finally, on omnibenevolence, as I've said before, WE NEVER DEFINED god as maximally great…”

Since literally all of Con’s contentions with each of the 4 Os are based around Con’s desperate appeal to “agreed on” definitions of the debate to bolster an otherwise unsuccessful attack on the broader definition that Pro requests voters to use, Pro’s proof of god remains untouched and I buy that broadly, this philosophically 4 O creator of the universe satisfies a source of creation.

Pro's proof of probability of god is numbered.
1. Ontological Argument:
Maximally great is possible-->every possible world-->every actual world-->maximally great exists, contradictory entities impossible, contingent like humans exist in some worlds, necessary entities logic/math independent of universe
*Con, using an arbitrarily restrictive interpretation of god fails to combat that this argument in fact satisfies omnibenevolence (maximally great in goodness), omnipotence (maximally great in power), omniscience (maximally great in knowledge), and omnipresence (maximally great in existence) in one fell swoop, because given Pro’s interpretation of god and Pro’s request for voters to interpret god to be how Pro is employing god’s use in the debate, Con’s refuting shadows by saying things like “Would not a maximally great being be one who could render the ontological argument false?”
Con ignores Pro’s request to voters to view god in the philosophical sense, i.e. cannot violate logical arguments, and so Pro wins the ontological argument because Con basically refuted a strawman god, not Pro’s requested god.

2. KCA
All things that begin to exist have cause -->universe has a cause-->that’s god.
*Con AGAIN can only appeal to definitions not requested in the debate by Pro, “The first premise of the KCA is not analytically self-evident, because it is conceivable that something could begin without a cause, i.e. because "begin" is NOT DEFINITIONALLY identical to "caused."
I really thought Con would try to argue something different here, but no, just appeals to definitions.
This also leaves me buying that the universe did begin to exist and that its cause didn’t begin to exist and thus has no cause because to buy Con’s attacks, I have to accept only the definitions that Con uses, and this is very restrictive on me as a voter, especially since Pro already requested a philosophical interpretation of god.

Arguments:

Con's case for why god cannot make a stone TOO HEAVY (important) for him to lift is actually pretty good.
Con points out that god is actually very limited, can't do lots of things, and this is so understood and known that there's a term for it called "divine self-limitation."

Con mentions that god can't go against his nature, which isn't compelling in the slightest, but Pro drops it like a bowling ball covered in baby oil, and to me if I have to accept that god can't go against his nature because Pro drops this, then creating the damn rock is much more challenging for Pro at this point because the attempt at lifting the rock would violate the nature against which god cannot go, dropped by Pro.

Con also mentions that the logical paradoxes point to the impossibility of the paradox itself, i.e. the paradox isn't anything because it challenges why there isn't a square circle...it's an ok argument, because it's almost like a kritik of itself, but it's all rather immaterial because Pro again, drops it.
I've seen the argument before, but not with this spin, so props to Con for that.

Con's case is basically that being able to create something TOO HEAVY for oneself isn't a power.
Again, I don't find this compelling, but, Pro...man Pro came to this debate to...crap the bed?
Eat the soggy doughnut?
I mean, it almost seemed like Pro's account got hacked or something, but Pro debated like crap.

All Pro really says is that, well let me put it all here...thanks to the forfeit and back burner energy I can paste all of Pro's case here:

"Argument 1: God can not lie so all he has to do is say he will no longer lift a rock he created and boom the rock is unliftable .
Argument 2: God can put himself in human for like he did with Jesus and all of a sudden he is weaker and can't lift really huge things."

That's it.

The problem is that argument 1 says that god could say "he will no longer lift a rock" which does not speak to whether or not, by god saying that utterance, god COULD no longer lift the rock i.e. would the rock be TOO HEAVY for him is not resolved by god saying "I WILL no longer."
Maybe if god said "I can no longer lift any rocks I create because they will be too heavy for me," then maybe i see this working.

But, this was a crapping of the bed and Con even noted,
"If argument 1 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that God would never lift the stone"
Which were my thoughts exactly.

Argument 2 isn't bad because god's wont to do the old body switcharoo, but Con has a nice rebuttal in that TOO HEAVY for human form is not TOO HEAVY for original god form, or god 1.0 as I call it, so human body god is irrelevant.
Pro possibly could have responded in his last round, but didn't.

Pro's last round wasn't much either, just asserting that he should win and he did end up changing what god could say to "After this point I can no longer lift this 1 million pound rock because it is too heavy" but at this point it's too late and Con can't respond here anyway.

So, easy vote, arguments to Con, the semantics would have worked if they had been done right in the 2nd round by saying "Forever more, all rocks I make I can't lift, too heavy."

Sources to Con, because they all were used to support Con's successful argument and upon inspection the quotations were accurate and made Con's point about nonsense still applying to god and the idea of divine self-limiting that much more effective for their case.
The bible quotes were sourced too which made checking those quotes easier.
Pro had no sources.

I'll clarify anything if asked.

Spelling and Grammar: Tie.

Conduct: Con

Pro repeatedly called Con "desperate," claiming that he "lies" and claiming that Con somehow even insulted me, the reader: "My opponent repeatedly lied and insulted you."
This however, wasn't apparent to me while reading this debate and I felt threatened by Pro's angry tone to have me as the reader accept how much of a liar Con supposedly is.
Pro also referred to Con's arguments as "childish."
Since Pro's approach was so aggressive and abrasive, continuously insulting Con and telling me how to feel about Con's performance, and this misbehavior negatively impacted Pro's performance and tainted the quality of this debate, I must vote Con for conduct, because Con's conduct, while somewhat passionate and fiery, did not negatively impact the quality of the debate or Con's performance.

Convincing Arguments: Con

Con pointed out that by not getting ice, you slow down the orders that can get through, increasing wait times and eventually product cost because the loss of potential customers deterred by the long drive thru line will require the company to up the price of drinks.
Pro responds by saying "So my opponent himself is driving up the price of beverages.
Pro's response that Con, not long lines, is driving up drink prices is not very compelling and I don't know how this could even begin to be proven.

Con mentioned that warm, hot soda drinks taste like shit.
While it's not a great argument, it is never touched by Pro, and as Con pointed out, this resolution is a SHOULD resolution i.e. "should customers get ice?" so if it's the case that these warm drinks taste like shit, and Pro doesn't give me any reason to doubt that, that doesn't scream "one should get this."

Con also pointed out that less ice means more calories and this is unhealthy and Pro's only response is an argument from personal anecdote that Pro himself drinks these beverages and is not overweight, but this did not address whether or not these high calorie ice-less drinks are unhealthy i.e. should someone buy them?

Pro argues that by not getting ice, you get your money's worth, but not ever battling the tasting like shit point or the higher calories point doesn't really make it worth my money, if anything it's like I'm spending my money to drink warm shit.

At this point, I felt like Pro had too much ground to gain back from inadequately responding to Con's points and failing to provide a compelling reason to purchase a high-caloric, hot shit drink, that will increase my wait time, my waist line, and my wait over time.

So args to Con.

Sources: Con

Pro provided several sources throughout the debate and none of them seemed to support his argument and it was unclear as to what the sources were even used for.
For example Pro provided a source about getting too much ice at a bar and at Border's Books, neither of which have drive-thrus, so it was really unclear as to why Pro provided this irrelevant source.

Then Pro decided to provide Burger King's advertising wikipedia page which as far as I can tell Pro tried to use to support ordering pickles and lettuce...I couldn't tell it was really unclear, but upon accessing the source I saw nothing about ice or drinks or drive-thrus.
Another irrelevant source.

Then Pro provided another source from Yelp that had several people mention that they don't eat fast food, they think it's disgusting, and fast food makes them sick, so I haven't the faintest idea why Pro would provide a source that didn't support his argument or the resolution.

The source that both Pro and Con provide in the debate said that an ad hominem is when you have "attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument."
The problem is that Pro tried to use this and say that Con calling people who eat fast food unhealthy was an ad hominem, but people who eat fast food are not Con's opponent and they have no argument to undermine.

Con however, accurately used the source in his round 3 and showed that the definition, sourced by both debaters, only mentions that "if you use the insult as a way to dismiss an argument it then now sometimes become ad hominem" which matches the source way better than Pro's statement.
By Con effectively using this source and turning Pro's own source against him and the lack of Pro's other sources in substantiating his case or the resolution, Con wins sources.

Therefore sources to Con.
I'll clarify anything if requested.

Pro conceded and forfeited twice, but also failed to address that the money made by star wars' ticket sales could have been used on other things (Con's case) negating it being a "good" movie, and since this was Pro's only reason to affirm the resolution, the resolution is actually negated.