Nevets

Argument - FF - Con
Sources - Con produced copious amount of sources in Round 1. Pro produced zero sources - Con
S&G - Pro wrote enough in his description to prove he can type - Tie
Conduct - I have already punished Pro for his FF once and so will acknowledge the fact that his unwillingness to debate also resulted in refusal to engage in hostility - Tie

Argument - Con conceded the debate - Pro

Sources - Pro provides extensive sourcing in round 1, but Con forfeits 2 rounds and then concedes - Pro

S&G - Tie

Counduct - Conceding is extremely honest and gracious, and should be rewarded - Con

Argument - Pro opens up with an argument regarding Utilitarianism which at first glance may appear to have nothing to do with the debate. He/she claims that: "The overall conclusion is that Utilitarianism can be morally conflicting. How is this related to self-driving cars? They use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles. Therefore, morally unethical.", but provides absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Con - Con does not rebut anything Pro wrote, and therefore I must assume that Con does in fact believe that Pros argument about Utilitarianism being a guide for the moral principles of self driving cars, is true.
Worse, Con comes out with a damn good argument which supports Pros case, and probably a better argument than Pro produced.

R2 - Pro decided to skip round 2, which may have been an error considering he/she had not cemented his/her round 1 argument with any scholastic support, and Con actually came out with the best argument so far, pointing out that self driving cars are good because they can be used to take an injured person to hospital.

R3 - Pro does point out in round 3 that an ambulance would be better. And also points out that an injured person may not be able to get to the car, which is a good hypothetic. Con responds with his/her own hypotheticals, which did not refute Pros claim that an ambulance would be preferable and that an injured person may not be able to get to the car.

Given that Con failed to rebut Pros round 1 argument, and provided the best argument for Pro, and failed to support his/her round 2 statement in round 3, the argument goes to Pro - Pro

Sources - Pro does provide a couple of sources to support his/her opinions regarding Utilitarianism, and Con provides not one single source. However I am reluctant to award Pro any points for his/her use of sourcing, as what really required a source was the claim that self driving cars use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles. However as Con refused to rebut Pros claim, then I guess Con believes that it is a fact that self driving cars use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles, making Pros sources in to why Utilitarianism is bad, after all. P.S I do not personally agree with Pro. I would have been Con for this debate. But I am not voting on my own opinion on the subject - Pro

S&G - Both as eloquent as each other - Tie

Conduct - Both conducted themselves impeccably - Tie

Argument - Before casting this vote I checked the voting policy on Full Forfeiture.
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).". https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

It seems that even though Pro did submit a very limited round 1 argument, Pro was still guilty of full forfeiture by forfeiting every round there after.
However, Con did not even present a round 1 argument, and did not rebut what little was written.

In any other debate what little was written would probably have resulted in a foregone conclusion for the Con side. But given that "Lily was the most talkative....at first...." defeated anything that Con did not reply to, I guess that seals it.

And the voting policy does stipulate that a vote can be cast even in the event of what would otherwise be a full forfeiture - Pro

Sources - Tie

S&G - Tie

Conduct - Pros conduct was marginally better, at least posting one round 1 argument. Perhaps had it been responded to we would have further correspondence from Pro - Pro

R1

Song Name: Turn Left

Artists:
Snavs
WiDE AWAKE

V

Song name: Internet Friends

Artist: Knife Party
...............................................
Internet friends: The song entered the UK Singles Chart at number 89. The song was featured on the fifth season of The Walking Dead. In 2013, a "VIP" remix of the song was featured on the Knife Party EP, Haunted House.
0-1
...............................................

Song Name: Heads or Tails

Artists:
QUIX
Amba Shepherd

V

Song Name: Killin' It

Artist: Krewella
..........................................
Heads or Tails: Amba Shepherd, ""The number one voice on today's dance floor".
1-1
..........................................

Song Name: Bombay Dreams

Artists:
KSHMR
Lost Stories

V

Song Name: Breathe

Artist: Mark The Beast
...............................................
Bombay dreams: One of the most popular songs from a popular group
2-1
..............................................

Song Name: In Your Bones (Chiefs Remix)

Artists:
Crooked Colours
Chiefs

V

Now You're Gone

Artist:
Basshunter
...............................................
Now you're gone: "Now You're Gone" peaked at number one in the United Kingdom in January 2008
2-2
..............................................

Song Name: Tank Girls

Artists:
Apashe
Zitaa
8Er$

V

Artist: Hyper

Song: FCKD
.....................................
Tank girls: Not the best but good enough
3-2
..................................

Source - Both provide youtube. Pro provides spotify as well by Youtube is sufficient - Tie

S&G - No major errors from either - Tie

Conduct - No bad conduct - Tie

Argument - Con argues that distance in space ensures the invasion can't be quick. But where he got his information on what speed aliens can travel at is beyond me.
Con also argues that the aliens would face multiple extreme dangers. The aliens would fight humanity equipped with lethal weapons and with a massive defenders advantage. Though is it not easier to defend against missiles fly up at you rather than raining down on you?

Pro - Pro offers a rebuttal of Cons argument regarding distance, though how either can prove which is correct and which is incorrect is beyond me given the psuedo scientific nature of the debate.
I do kind of agree with this statement here: "We will be outnumbered and out of all the possibility, alien invasion is the least expected threat and merely a serious issue for humans which we will fail to detect.".. I mean, if black helicopters can fly under the radar in search of Osama Bin Laden, then perhaps Aliens that have the technology to travel light years in quick speed will also have the technology to remain invisible to radar.
I also agree that the military technology of Aliens capable of travelling light years would be a lot more powerful than weapons humans currently have.

R2 - Con opens up with talking sense and with rationality about how it might be impossible for aliens to even exist, though given that this is a psuedo scientific debate it is beyond me how he can support the accusation of Pro baing his argument on flawed assumptions, and I would have to agree with Pro that Aliens with advanced technology probably would be able to defeat humanity. But then is this enough for me to vote for Pro? Simply because I agree? Where is the evidence? I think not.

Pro - Pro makes a good rebuttal by reminding Con that this debate operates under the assumption that aliens do exist. I agree with everything else Pro says. However my simply agreeing is not what I am looking for. Evidence, proof et cetera

R3 - And here is a truism if I ever saw one "We are not sure that an alien invasion is even possible. However, we can know with absolute certainty that an alien invasion won't be quick and easy.". I completely agree and I would assume that this is general knowledge not even requiring a source. Humanity really is unsure if Alien invasion is possible.

Pro - And Pro forfeits, offering no rebuttal or argument

R4 - Con presents Pro with 8 arguments: "Earth is the perfect planet for life and rapid evolution -- meaning alien millions of Head start is implausible
Self-healing armour is neither sufficient armour nor possible in space without wasting tonnes of resources and manoeuvrability
Alien first strike isn't possible -- the energy of even the sun isn't enough to hamstring humanity, and we will surely have defensive measures in no time
UFO's aren't aliens not even in our scenario
Human local experience is better than the dubious experience of alien invaders -- and even the experience of aliens is limited by the travel time of the fleet
Technological delay is a fact -- developing technology in space is neither possible and especially not as efficient as on a planet
Pre-warning is a fact -- the alien structures and radio signals will be detected, as well as their fast-moving ships (especially when they are close)
Drones are useless because of space debris, nukes and misilles which destroy every single one of them before they can reach Earth".. I must admit that the facts come with a lot of presumptions. We are simply assuming, or imagining that this is the case. So perhaps not enough to defeat a Pro that went on to forfeit for a second time and leave a whole bunch of arguments unrebutted.

Argument - Tie

Sources - Con provides copious amounts of sources, yet his opponent appears from what I can see, to provide none - Con

S&G - Both are above average - Tie

Conduct - By the voting policy two forfeitures can result in an argument loss, let alone conduct - Con

Argument - Con starts out with presenting no arguments and simply passes the debate over to Pro to make the first argument. Not all that much better than a forfeiture really.

Pro - Pro starts out with arguing how God should be blamed for murdering Children and quotes 2 Kings 2:23-24, Exodus 12:29, Genesis 7:22-24, and then concludes that the god of the bible is overwhelmingly evil.

R2 - Con opens round 2 in better fashion, offering rebuttals, and responds to all Pros arguments with his take on the bible. So we have Pros opinion versus Cons opinion.

Pro - Pro begins round 2 in the same fashion. Pointing to how god is evil for killing children. Pro breaks down Cons argument bit by bit and makes understandable points regards to how babies can't have wicked hearts. There is then a dispute about whether or not children and babies were around at the time of Noah, and I do believe Pros argument for children and babies being around is probably more Scientific, though Pro does not produce any scholastic evidence. But never mind, Con argues that it is their own faults anyway because their parents should have listened to Noah. Pro offered no rebuttal to this statement. Though he does offer rebuttals to everything else.

R3 - Con opens round 3 arguing for why god murdering children is ok. in the second paragraph they get to crosswires over an issue which Con is actually correct about. Pro did take his statement out of context. Con then argues that abusive parents breed abusive children. A very extreme opinion, but an opinion all the same. Con then asks why god should listen to Pro? Which, is fair enough.
"Now", Con comes out with a "terrific" argument out of nowhere to explain why there was no babies at the time of Noah. "Child sacrifice". "You are half right but also wrong here is why I can’t remember the verse but I know that Babiloyians have human sacrificed(babies included) to their gods so imagend how bad it was in Noah's times that's why I don’t believe that there were babies because people are having sex and killing them in the process"
I am also extremely impressed by Cons translation of the Hebrew bible when he explains that the word used to describe those mauled by the bear can describe anything from children to adults. Con is now presenting arguments that do need rebutting, though he should have presented this earlier.

Pro - Pro offers rebuttals to all arguments by breaking down Cons argument in detail, bit by bit, but what I am really interested in is his response to those couple of great arguments presented above, and the first claim is rebutted by the pointing out of the carthaginians. Now I am actually surprised and shocked to find that despite breaking down Cons argument, Pro decided to not rebut the major argument about the translation, which leaves me wondering why? And is then Pro reading bibles that have mistranslations? He really needed to respond to this. I will go back over the argument once more to double check that he did not. And after checking, I find that Pro skipped over it. Pro wrote that he had refuted everything. " In conclusion, the god of the bible is overwhelmingly evil. Every example given has shown this to be the case, and my opponents attempts at justification for these horrible atrocities were soundly refuted".. In actual fact, Pro did refute everything, except the most important part, and that was the part when Con raised concerns over translation, and that children being killed could be a mistranslation. -I disagree with Cons philosophies in the instance it is not a mistranslation. However, however, however, if it is a mistranslation then that is Pros argument out of the proverbial window, and Pro done no research on this claim. Did not even respond to it.

Argument - Con

Sources - I am equally shocked, because I admit at first impression Pro had won this debate until I read about the mistranslations. Regarding sources, Pro only really produced three sources from the bible, which even in the voting policy is regarded as a not very good source. On the otherhand Con supported his bible research with a source regarding the mistranslations. I have not read the source to find out if it states what Con claims, but this should have been disputed by and refuted by Pro. - Con

S&G - Cons grammar went from extremely good to appallingly bad in stages, giving the impression there may have been someone else helping - Pro

Conduct - Pro was accused of strawmanning, without justification - Pro

Argument - R1, Who came out better in R1 is "almost" a foregone conclusion. With Con opening out with a couple of good arguments about video gaming addiction and how too much gaming can be bad for the eyes.

Pro - Pro responds with: "ahh yes see games don't hurt you or anything playing Minecraft is just is to find a way to survive like how to survive and the same for other games.", which is a little insufficient. It lacks real argument. Rebuttal. Or any kind of effort. A special argument is required to bounce back from this.

R2 - In round 2 Con acknowledges my sentiments regarding Pros response precisely, writing: "PRO has posted an argument with no regard to the framework. As you can see from the framework, PRO's responsibility was to disprove my argument and set up his own."... In fact, Con appears to even begin to offer arguments on Pros behalf. Arguments which Pro barely brought up with what little he wrote. "PRO argues the fact that games, such as Minecraft, don't contain violence and teach you how to survive. ".. The one argument that Pro may have brought up was responded to by Con

Pro - In round 2 Pro thankfully avoids losing by foregone conclusion by providing a more thorough argument at last. In fact, he makes some very good arguments by producing a list of Pros for video gaming. The one I agree with most is "careeres", as it is true you can make a career out of video games and gaming. and this is very interesting "Video games can improve reaction time, attention, and short-term memory in older adults, research shows"... In fact, given Pros bad start, I am surprised just how interesting and good his R2 argument is. He has done enough to draw even at this point, though I would like to have seen some source and citation for those studies.

R3 - It seems that Con also shared my sentiments regarding Pros sudden whooping of Cons ass, by writing: "At first I admired the speed of PRO's ability to improve, but I realized it was a little TOO fast." But then Con accuses PRO of plagiarizing, writing: "I called PRO out on plagiarizing a web page for his argument, and PRO admitted to it!! This will definitely affect votes, but nevertheless, I will rebut this argument.". and Pro does appear to admit to it, writing: "ok I made a mistake", so before voting I will have to check the voting policy regarding plagiarizing. For the rest of the argument Con acknowledges the good that may come from video gaming, but wisely points out that there are other better activities available where those skills can also be honed, and ends it by pointing out the negatives.

Pro - Pro admits his plagiarism, and does partially agree with Con that playing video games for too long is not good. He also points out that kids that play violent video games may act aggressively. So Pro ends the debate admitting to Plagiarism and partially agreeing with Cons argument.

Here is the terms regarding Plagiarism.

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
"Plagiarism is passing off the intellectual property of another as your own. Plagiarism poisons the very spirit of debate. Plagiarism is such an extreme offense, that even if identified outside the debate it may be voted with prejudice against the offender in all categories. While there exist minor cases that do not necessitate such grave sanctions, the determination of the degree of it generally rests with each voter.
An argument dependent upon plagiarized material lacks any leg to stand on once said material is dismissed.".

I have the option to view the plagiarism as serious, which means I can vote against Pro in all four categories. Or, if viewed as a minor case, I can use my discretion.

Argument - Plagiarism + ending the debate partially agreeing with Cons argument = Con

Sources - Pro produced "10 Negative Effects of Video Games | Healthy Gamer", and raised concerns about his opponents copy and psate tactics regarding source material - Con

S&G - I was able to get the gist of what Pro wrote - Tie

Conduct - Pro was courteous enough to admit to his plagiarism. And if we read the terms and conditions of just how big a violation plagiarism is, admitting to it is pretty much the equivalent of a concession. - Pro

Argument - R1 Undefeatable starts out by building a case for Utilitarianism then begins attacking the bible by pointing out some contradictions and then ends with an attack on God, and then leaving some facts for his opponent to rebut.

Con - Con spends a great amount of time on the definition of morality, which Pro disagrees with in R2, Con then goes on to give a bible lesson which is pretty much common knowledge, and ends it with providing his/her own opinion. However I don't see Con rebut Pros arguments anywhere, and this is also picked up upon by Pro in R2.. However Con does make a rather good argument regarding the desires of Utilitarianism "That, as long as we think think an action will make us happy, it is good. Of course, this leads to horrible decisions, such as the choices of the socialist dictators in Germany, USSR, and as well as the CCP and DPRK etc.."

R2 - I have already pointed out a couple of criticisms from Pro regarding Cons R1 argument, such as their failure to agree upon definition and also Cons apparent luck of any type of rebuttal.. Pro then provides a counter argument to Cons criticisms regarding desire. But this is a matter of opinion really, and what really stands out for me at this point, and undefeatable hits the nail on the head, is this: "But okay, maybe voters won't buy this. Let's continue. Notice how Logicae heavily fails to refute all my round 1 arguments, proving that the bible fails under his very system.".. And I think the operative word is "all", and he is quite right to extend those arguments.
Undefeatable then offers his opinion regarding the bible, and then accuses Con of heavily misinterpreting utilitarianism. I wonder if this gets rebutted? Pro then offers some insight in to why his description is not vague, and then provides a good argument for why the bible cannot make decisions regarding current affairs, and then ends it by making Cons opinion on Utilitarianism look rather extreme and fundamentalist.

Con- Con strikes back by attacking the desire aspect of utilitarianism and heads for the most extreme example, though his/her argument is also very comprehendible and easily bought. Con then offers a rebuttal regarding the definition argument, which is also good. And like it or loath it, Con does offer a rebuttal to Pros contradictions, stating "What gives Undefeatable the right to make that judgement? Why should we believe Undefeatable's moral judgement? This very attack of the Bible rears its ugly head.".

R3 - For me, Pro starts out R3 with a very bad argument which is worthy of a conduct violation for bad time keeping, stating "I have no time again due to bad time management", and then extends all arguments, though Con has pretty much already responded to most of his arguments, and Pro is actually wrong about Con not responding to the contradictions, as stated here: "Logicae still hasn't proved how the bible isn't self-contradictory."... Whilst Con may not have "proven" how the bible is not self contradictory, he did offer a rebuttal and did attempt to. Whether his attempt was satisfactory or not is a different story.

Con - I feel Con made an error in R3 and really could have taken the initiative by at least responding to what Pro actually did write. And whilst Con was correct that Pro completely failed to Rebut his previous argument, Pro did write enough to respond to, and Con ended up with an even less sufficient R3 than Pro, writing only, "No rebuttable of past round. Extend.".

R4 - Again, as far as I can see, Pro is wrong about Con failing to rebut his contradictions. Con did offer his/her opinion on the matter, as has been pointed out. Pro finishes with presenting his opinion, minus any actual facts. This opinion really should have been presented in R3 though, I must point out.

Con - Any chance Con had of winning this debate which I currently consider a tie, just went out of the window with his forfeiture.

Argument - I can find no way to seperate them argument wise, as it really is matter of opinion and both have responded just as much and equally as little as one another - Tie

Sources - Both provide roughly the same amount of sources as eachother in the opening round, and then never again throughout the debate. Also none of the sources are objected to by either party - Tie

S&G - I saw nothing which stood out - Tie

Conduct - Whilst I was initially going to award Pro with a conduct violation for bad time keeping, Pro did still present an argument. Perhaps Con was lulled in to a false sense of security by what might have appeared to be a forfeiture, but actually was not, and ended up presenting not even an argument. At this point I would still have viewed Pros bad time keeping admission as the more serious, but Cons Forfeiture in R4 sees Pro take it by a whisker - Pro

Argument - Con appears to have conceded, writing: "I...….personally agree with PRO. His arguments were better, I admit."... Con also asks the voters to vote Pro. "Vote PRO!!". - Pro

Sources - In round 1 Con does raise a concern regarding Pros use of source material, writing: "You have taken a definition from a dictionary, from which can be meddled with according to the writer's taste.". But Pro does respond to it, writing: "CON accuses me of using a cherry-picked dictionary definition of "state". In doing so he falsely calls Britannica a dictionary, while it is in fact an encyclopedia; meaning not only is it the more scholastic source but also more accurate factually, rather than being strictly legal -- and remember we are discussing factual statements rather than the law in this debate.", and agree or disagree, this argument appears to be dropped by Con. In fact, Benjamin actually made a counter argument against Cons use of Britannica encyclopedia which also went unrebutted. - Pro

S&G - Neither made copious amounts of mistakes, if any - Tie

Conduct - Con was too honest and gracious, which should be awarded with an acknowledgement - Con

R1 - Pro starts out disappointingly apologising for having no time, but there is no reason for anyone to take this in to consideration. He does however put forth a good short argument for why visual effects are more important, and it mostly resonates.

Con - Con responds with a history lesson in to how a motion picture was developed first. And then provides an explanation in to why visual effects are more important and after reading his argument I am left with an idea in my head that you can have a film without music, but can't so well have a film without visuals. For me Con may have edged ahead at this point. Con also produces copious amounts of sources which suggest Con has pledged a lot of time and effort in to research, whilst Pro was too busy doing other things.

R2 - Pro opens up round 2 in much more determined fashion than round 1 and accuses Con of offering a red herring, and Pro continues to give a history lesson of his own, complete with research and sources. Pro continues to accuse Con of producing a fallacious argument and offering no support for his opinion, but so far all we have really is the opinion of Pro versus the opinion of Con. Pro does make a very good point though which I hope Con picks up on "However, realize that landscapes and settings cannot give expressions, and the sound is still important for establishing the theme and mood.". I personally am looking for Con to point out that before you can have music to describe the mood in a scene when no-one is present, you do still first require the visual effects of the countryside scenery.

Con - Con opens up the next round making a statement which I believe to be true. "III.a The “movies,” by name and definition, are primarily a visual experience, in spite of adding a synchronized audio track. To emphasize the crucial importance of vision, as opposed to hearing, the scientific application of our typical human five senses has determined that of all five senses, when all five senses are functional, vision conveys 80% of our total sensory perception,[1]. leaving merely 20% to be shared by hearing, and the other three.". Due to some research I done recently I did find from just a simple google search that it is believed that we remember visual effects most. Con then goes on to criticise and accuse Pro of shifting goalposts. But Pros argument is there in black and white for all to read and voters can see whether or not he is shifting goalposts or not, and it would appear Pro is simply expanding upon what he has already written. One cannot expect him to simply repeat over and over his round 1 argument. Having said all this, I think Con wins a key argument here by pointing out that Pro is wrong about a crucial fact, and perhaps even wrong about what his own source says " the source, itself, declares visual effects, as Pro re-defines them, to have begun in 1895, not the 1920s.". I will have to keep an eye on what Pro responds with in later rounds. I am not actually going to read the source as a debate has a certain amount of characters and what is written in the source is outside of the debate. Con really should have brought the quote to the table so that everything is on the debate table and not relying on external sources. But certainly, if this is not adequately challenged by Pro then this is a key argument.. Con then does go on to challenge Pros landscape example, and does not respond with the response I was looking for, he instead responds with the someone elses opinion, which is neither here nor there.

R3 - Pro opens round 3 with an admission that he has slightly misinterpreted con's argument, and at this point it seems to be slipping away ever so slightly. Though he does still insist that his argument holds. He does not rebute Cons accusations of getting crucial facts wrong, and for me, this is crucial. Instead he offers a lot of conjecture and then announces once again "Anyways, sorry about short round, little time little time.".

Con - Con opens round 3 pretty much repeating his earlier round 2 opening. "when all five senses are functional, vision conveys 80% of our total sensory perception.[2]"... Con then continues to just be going through the motions, and gives some examples regarding apes and I am left wondering exactly what type of movie we are referring to here "the scene is the first ape hurling his weapon, the bone, into the air, twisting and turning up, and up, then down,", but seriously, he gives an overall good analysis in to the importance of visual effects. I am suspecting this debate is now fizzling out, and Pro has still yet to respond to the "fact" he was accused of being wrong about.

R4 - And, on top of not responding to his alleged factual error, and two rounds of apologising for bad time keeping, Pro forfeits

Con - The only way now that Con can lose this debate is if he poops in his pie. And he plays safe not offering any new arguments and simply presenting why he thinks he has won. - Con

Argument - Con makes a couple of statements: "They are HUMAN. Not objects from a menu.". Nowhere did Pro state they were not human, nor suggest they are objects from a menu and probably does not require enlightening to this fact, and so not a very good argument. Secondly, Con makes an admission: "I don't know Cam well enough to choose". Con has just admitted that Con does not know enough about the subject to debate, and therefore this makes Pros opening statement the more reliable of the two. "I think that they are equally good, they are in ap classes so they are smart and they are personable people.". - Pro

Sources - Neither produce sources - Tie

S&G - Pro remains professional regarding grammar, whilst Con decides that but is spelt buttttttttt, though I realise this is deliberate and so will resist awarding a violation - Tie

Conduct - Both forfeit, so one violation each - Tie

Argument - Whilst I disagree with Pros reasoning for quitting the debate, Pro did indeed quit the debate and made absolutely nor rebuttals nor arguments in two rounds and appears to have offered the equivalent of a concession, and writes: "I apologize for Forfeiting the 2nd round, as it is exam season. I will be quitting this debate on the front that I am a Christian, and therefore biased. I will pick topics more wisely in the future.". This is clearly a loss of argument. And even in the instance that an argument justification is still required to warrant a victory for Con, I feel it was "absolutely imperative" that Pro answer this question here " Before I even begin unpacking this section, I urge you to note that using the bible as a source without proving it's credibility is a disastrous move to make. How do you know the the bible isn't just some imaginative guys journal? How do you know it is actually Gods word? What makes it a credible source?", and completely failed to do so with his forfeiture and apparent concession- Con

Sources - I have already included Cons argument regarding using the bible as a source in my justification for awarding him with the argument points, and therefore I feel I must factor in that Pro used a good few other sources which were non biblical and not challenged by Pro. Con himself produced sources which went unchallenged - Tie

S&G - Nothing stood out from either participant - Tie

Conduct - A concession is extremely honest and gracious and I feel should be rewarded with a thank you - Pro

Full forfeiture. Not even present to debate whether or not Cons mentioning of the banned subjects was legit or not - Con

Argument - Pro made some pretty good arguments regarding how she would kick his ass and Con made no rebuttals and merely presented a pretty good poem which was nothing to do with Pros argument. Con also made no claims that the debate was not about who would kick the others ass in a fight, so that was pretty poor, meaning the argument must go to Pro - Pro

Sources - Neither produced sources - Tie

S&G - Both appear as literate as eachother - Tie

Conduct - One forfeited, the other called the other a fool, which means one violation each - Tie

Argument - round 1. Pro produces an opinion. "I think kids shouldn't be told to get off the internet. It hurts their feelings when they think that everyone doesn't accept them as a human.", then con responds with an opinion, "I ask you, reader, we have an individual who is said to be legally incapable of sharing their information online without their parents' explicit consent.

The very least the 13-year-old gatekeeper hypocrites could do is to upkeep the tradition and safeguard this shrine we call the world wide web. We must pressure the 12 year olds to cry to their parents so that they are saved from the greater pain of writing something they deeply regret and their parents as well as the website that enabled it aren't in legal issues over what the 12-year-old typed.", and neither has proven either wrong about anything, nor caught either out with anything unfactual.

rd 2 - In round 2 Pro responds to Cons COPPA source and presents his own opinion on the material and neither debunks the source nor gives it credit. "Well COPPA seems to not be a good law. It is called Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Clearly, they aren't concerned with privacy. They tell parents to check what kids do online, and encourage punishment for disobedience."... Pro then responds to Cons opinion and neither successfully refutes his opinion nor declares Cons opinion a hard conclusive fact. "Cyberbullying is one of the main causes of suicide among young people https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/cyber-bullying/. Also, your views are very outdated.Because of the internet, kids aren't snowflakes like you think they are. Perhaps you were, but the most that would happen when they get insulted is get mad. Nobody cries to their mommy or daddy anymore.
The way you said "safeguard this shrine we call the world wide web." almost sounds as if you're a white person excluding black people from a special place. Kids aren't stupid to write something they "deeply regret". They know very well what they're writing and the consequences. Whatever you think they would cringe at when they're older, is wrong. I've been told countless times that I would cringe at defending the kids. I know this is not true."
Also, didn't you read the discription? Read it again.".

Con responds by making an appeal to play dirty which is a rather strange appeal, and for the first time he goes in to great detail, however his case is broken down piece by piece by Pro who responds to absolutely everything from "Either the law intends to protect children/kids or it doesn't.", to "This should be almost self-evidently true, since the 13yearolds are the least experienced age group out of the lot who can freely type on the Internet, at life itself and at dealing with people." and then Con goes and forfeits and does not rebute pros arguments, does not provide his own argument and does not catch his opponent out as having made any errors nor anything else.

In fact, he forfeits two rounds and does not provide his opponent the opportunity to catch Con out on any errors or wrong facts as no argument was presented and this must look negatively on Con, not Pro. Benefit of doubt should go to the player which "did not forfeit".

round 5 - Had Pro written a round 5 summary then I feel he could have sealed it, but lost an opportunity and allowed Con to have the last word. "Pro established no basis for what should vs should not be done. Therefore, you cannot conclusively declare the resolution as proven true.

On the other hand, I established positives with 13 year olds creating deterrance for 12 year olds illegally using the Internet without their parents' permission (which is illegal for the parents, not the 12 year old but you get the idea, in fact it's illegal for the website itself in technicality but this debate isn't about law it's about the basis for the law).

We need a society where those that are deemed by the society to not be of age to use the Internet are dissuaded from doing so. That has been my case througout.".. However this is just Cons own opinion, and does not really matter if I agree with it or not. The fact is Pro responded to absolutely everything thrown at him and neither was proven wrong and any difference in arguments is a matter of opinion and borderline. What is not borderline was the forfeitures, and those should be punished with conduct, whilst the argument should remain at tie, given nothing factual nor conclusive has been established from this debate - Tie

Sources - Both produced sources and neither objected nor accused the other of misattribution - Tie

S&G I see nothing which stands out - Tie

Conduct - Two forfeitures - Pro

Full forfeit

Pro forfeited 40% of argument

Full forfeit

Over 40% of the debate was forfeited by Pro. Con was present for all.

Argument - I suspect Pro possibly thought he/she was Con, but this is what he wrote. "I actually agree now thanks for your evidence and good luck in your future.", and that is a concession. - Con

Sources - Con offered a few sources to support his case, whilst Pro offered none, and did not object to Cons - Con

S & G - Pro did write enough to suggest he/she was probably not under the influence of anything illegal whilst writing. And nothing horrific stood out about Pros typing - Tie

Conduct - Conceding is extremely honest and gracious and deserves a thank you - Pro

Argument - "Hi, BoP is on you Con." is not a very good argument and if Con points out that the burden of proof is on both parties that alone should be sufficient to get ahead in round 1, which he did. "The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim, as noted by Wikipedia.".. Pro then claims to have fulfilled his/her title by declaring that he/she has failed to read Cons argument and so this means that the statement in the title has been proven true. I believe this could have been busted by Con simply pointing out that Pro cannot prove that he/she did not read Cons argument, though Con did not quite say this. I am tempted to award the argument to Con, however if Pro is telling the truth then Pro has in fact defended the statement in the title, though this does not result in a win for Pro as Con did point out that the burden of proof also applies to Pro. So I will leave this at a tie. Neither proved the other wrong. - Tie

Sources - There can be no doubt about it however that Con produced the better sources. In fact, Pro produced no sources and did not offer any objections to Cons sources, such as the one here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) - Con

S & G - Neither appeared to be under the influence of anything illegal whilst typing - Tie

Conduct - Con at least made the effort to read his/her opponents argument. The same respect was not shown in return - Con

Over 40% of the debate forfeited by Pro pretty much means automatic loss - Con

Argument - Concession - Con

Sources - Neither bother with sources - Tie

S & G - Neither appears under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - Tie

Conduct - A player offering a concession is very honest and gracious and deserves sometype of acknowledgement - Pro

Argument - Over 40% of argument forfeited by Pro - Con

Sources - Both provided sources, neither objected - Tie

S&G - Neither appeared under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - Tie

Conduct - I already awarded Pros forfeiture as an argument loss and should not punish the same crime twice and instead acknowledge that his original argument contained no personal attack or insults - Tie

Argument - 60% of debate forfeited by Con - Pro

Sources - Both provided sources and neither objected - Tie

S&G - Neither appear under the influence of alcohol whilst typing - Tie

Conduct - Have already awarded Pro with the argument due to excessive forfeiture. Con does not require punishing for same crime twice, and made no personal attacks nor insults - Tie

Argument - full forfeiture

Sources - David produced two sources that met no objection by Con - Pro

S&G - Davids spelling and grammar was better, if only Con had wrote one word - Pro

Conduct - I have already punished Cons forfeiture by awarding Pro with the argument, therefore should take the opportunity to acknowledge that Cons failure to write anything also meant a refusal to partake in personal insults or other profanity - Tie

Argument - In the instance that Pro provided six arguments that went uncountered, that is good enough.
1.) The Universe can't be younger than the time it takes for light to reaches us.
2.) The speed of light in a vacuum has been consistently measured to be just shy of 300,000,000 meters per second [1].
3.) The distance light travels in a vacuum in one year is a lightyear.
4.) The distance to Standard Candles can be measured accurately, and is used to measure distance to galaxies.[2].
5.) The distance to the standard candle in this measurement is 8.1 megaparsecs, or 26,420,000 lightyears [3].
6.) Therefore, the Universe cannot be younger than 26,420,000 years.

Sources - Neither produced any sources

S & G - Pros S & G was better. If only Con had wrote at least one word - Pro

Conduct - Con did not make any personal attacks nor display profanity - Tie

Full forfeiture

Full forfeiture

Argument - in round 1 Pro argues why immigrants are good for the economy, and Con argues why they might be bad for the U.S. citing supposed facts such as the amount with criminal records, increased crime rates. Con then goes on to cite the negative effects regarding employment, and though I am reluctant at this point to decide who is winning, Pro then responds with this. "Not enough time to make proper arguments so will waive this round.". That means no argument and no rebuttal.. In round 3 Pro comes back with a decent argument one round late and his argument that poor people are more prone to crime than those with money is a good one. Pro continues to accuse Con of cherry picking and gives some decent food for thought regarding the lack of background checks being one of the reasons for the problem, and then goes on to even offer his own solution regards to health care.. Con responds with criticisms of his/her own regarding Mother Jones. Con then goes on to produce studies to support his/her case and on it goes, then, for a second time "Sorry, I ran out of time and forgot. Please vote on the arguments given." Pro barely made it in time to write that he ran out of time" and therefore Pro totally failed to rebut anything his opponent wrote in round 3 and did not respond to the critiques regarding the weaknesses in his own argument. I will however accept the argument he presented in an earlier round and the good points he made and leave it at a tie, and instead later punish his bad time keeping with a conduct violation - tie

Sources - Both criticised each others use of sources, but what I note is that Con was always present to counter the criticisms, where-as Pro did not counter the criticism. For example Pro decided to turn up late for the following round and made no rebuttal to Cons arguments nor criticisms of his sources. "The source Pro uses (his [5]) certainly goes through a lot of data analysis but fails to attribute any of these economic boons to sanctuary policies. In fact, his source only controls “for differences in the population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino”, leaving out the many policy differences between counties that have nothing to do with sanctuary policies. Both Pro and the paper attempt to attribute this to increased labor force participation, though again, neither examines why that increase occurs because of sanctuary policies. It is simply another correlation without any plausible causation. Illegal immigrants have just as much interest in being a part of the labor force in a sanctuary city as they do anywhere else because monetary incentives exist everywhere.". - Con

S & G - There was a couple of occasions when Pros keys stuck, but nothing drastic - tie

Conduct - As I have explained, I will punish Pros time keeping and failure to rebute the argument, rather than treat it as an argument loss. - Con

Argument - Full forfeiture by Con - Pro

Sources - 1. https://www.lawfareblog.com/when-leaders-override-term-limits-democracy-grinds-halt . Pro produced that and Con made no objection - Pro

S&G - Pros spelling and grammar was better given that Con wrote nothing. Write just one word and it's a tie - Pro

Conduct - I already punished Con for his full forfeiture by awarding Pro with the argument. As Con also did not conduct in any personal attacks or resort to profanity then I guess he should be punished only once with any positives taken in to consideration.

Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

Argument - Pro said this "What can I say? I agree with everything my opponent just said. As much as I would like to take a last stand and fight to the bitter end (these tend to encourage more interesting RFDs than just "full concession"), my opponent has exploited my failure to use precise definitions from the start., and I can't come up with any further arguments that wouldn't scream of absolute desperation. I find myself in a hole from which I cannot escape, and I must concede the win to Con.". Therefore if Pro believes he has lost the argument then he has lost the argument. - Con

Sources - Con provided sources throughout, and even provided quotes to save voters from requiring to read outside material. Example here "II.II Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian is crowned the most violent work of literacy fiction. The following is the review left by Emily Temple

We are informed, on the book’s very first page, when we have our first glimpse of our protagonist (only a child) that “in him broods already a taste for mindless violence.” The violence to come in this book is indeed mindless (for most), and constant and intense. The kid is violent, and so is the gang he joins, whose members are ostensibly collecting the scalps of Apaches, but are really happy to murder anyone and everyone they encounter, and so, of course, is the terrifying and hairless Judge Holden, the only character whose love for bloodshed is intensified by philosophical surety. “War is at last a forcing of the unity of existence,” he says. “War is god.”. Also the sources were not objected to by Pro - Con

S & G - Neither stands out as being under the influence of alcohol whilst typing. - tie

Conduct - Admitting defeat needs to be rewarded - Pro

Arguments - Con actually says something in his opening argument that I agree with "However, as the premise ambiguously puts a generic idea about budgies being cute, I argue he has to prove budgies are generally cute.". This was the premise that Con agreed to and if Pro was arguing that only some budgies were cute then that should have been in the title. However Pro did produce at least three arguments in his round 1 opening that barely got touched upon by Con, and Con failed to counter much of Pros arguments with rebuttals or bring light to negative aspects such as times when budgies have brought negativity or harm to people et cetera. One such example is Pros argument "Budgies have aroused a lot of interest, to the point where they are sold all over the world and kept as pets. Pleasure means "a source of delight or joy", and budgies have indeed arisen joy and delight into people", which was met with little rebuttal or counter argument. In round 2 Pro produces five arguments, and are those arguments countered? No, instead they are met with a forfeiture. Con does not really make up for this in the final round either, by simply stating "but like, who really knows?". Therefore should the forfeiture in round 4 go down as an argument loss or a conduct loss? As Benjamin is already 16 7 ahead it seems unfair to punish Con twice for same crime, and therefore I will put it down as a conduct violation and will accept "but like, who really knows?" as saying that it is all a matter of opinion, which would be correct, and will call the argument a Tie.

Sources - Pro produced photos and other links throughout. They were not questioned by Con, and Con produced no evidence whatsoever, therefore Sourcing must go to Pro

S & G Neither stood out as typing under the influence of alcohol - tie

Conduct - As has been explained in my opening, it was either Pro wins by argument or conduct. Benefit of doubt goes to Con, and I punish the forfeiture only once, instead of twice.

Argument - Pro opens with a conspiracy theory that Scientists are known to not like unrealistic answers and offers no evidence to support this statement, though surprisingly Pro does still win round 1 as Cons response "free round" is completely insufficient and not much better than a forfeiture.
Unfortunately Pro wastes two rounds asking Con to present his evidence first, and "One may wonder where the proof is of consciousness at all. Does Pro declare the Kritik that consciousness itself isn't proven in the first place?" what little Con does say is more than enough to draw even with an opponent that wasted two rounds saying nothing.
In round 3 Con actually went in to extensive detail, and not only was this not countered, but Pro actually forfeited instead of producing an argument, and in round 4 Con produced further arguments which again was met with a completely insufficient response "I said that there is no proof".
In the end, Con produced at least two arguments. Pro produced none, and did not even make any rebuttals, therefore Con must win the argument.

Sources - Con produced a ton of sources in round 3. Pro made no claims that the sources did not say what was claimed, and made no complaint whatsoever and therefore it would be unfair for a voter to make claims that were never raised by Pro. On the otherhand Pro did not produce one single bit of evidence nor cite any sources, so this has to go to Con.

S & G - No major errors from either - tie

Conduct - Con "free round" is not much better than a Forfeiture. However Pro spending two rounds insisting that Con must make the opening argument is also not much better than two forfeitures, and to top it off, this is followed by an actual Forfeiture, therefore whichever way one looks at it, Pro has forfeited more than Con.

Regarding the argument Pro highlighted some "serious" effects of non vaccination, and Con highlighted some rarer lesser effects of vaccinations. Unfortunately Con pooped in her own pie. Right after criticising her opponents use of citations. Con went and provided a Citation which probably constitutes to handing the argument to Pro on a plate. However Con did argue "well" for vaccinations in rare cases having side effects. Just aswell as Pro argued for the serious effects on non vaccination. So will leave at a tie. But Exile has admitted her error regards to the source issue, where her source said the opposite of what she claimed. I understand she says this was an error. it is an unfortunate error, and a bad one. But in sports and games errors do get punished. A footballer cannot turn to a ref, and say, oh please, bring that back, i made an error.
On the otherhand Pro did show some bad conduct. Towards doctor spy, and calling him an idiot.

Two heavy weight debaters. Pro puts Con on the ropes but Con comes straight back. Gets put back on the ropes. Comes back, and the process continues. So how does this get resolved? The debate thrashes towards what the majority of voters want, and what Donald Trump wants. What Democracy wants et cetera. The debate is not about anymore about the college. So it is Democracy that needs to decide this. Not me. So after reading the arguments i go back to where i read Con sourcing Donald Trump. Donald Trump himself never even called for it to get removed on twitter like those other democrats did. In fact, later on, he tweeted that:

The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!

It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4--

Campaigning to win the Electoral College is much more difficult & sophisticated than the popular vote. Hillary focused on the wrong states!

When i click on that Donald Trump did say that.

And just to be 100% certain that i am pulling the correct rabbit out of the hat. And that Donald Trump, who the people voted in to presidency, regardless of his IQ high or low, is genuinely of this opinion. I shall google it to be 100% sure. If he is not. I shall not vote. Or shall reconsider who i vote for. If he is. Then that solves it. the people of United states decided. The voters must be respected in a democratic system. So is he still of this opinion? As of 2019, yes he is.

I however given how much of a heavy weight clash of this was. It would be unfair for me to seperate them farther. Sources wise it was a tie. Spelling and grammar tie. Conduct perfect.

Being a defra license holder myself, this is not exactly easy for me. However, given the Con forfeited 4 rounds and then admitted a surrender, i feel voting for Con is out of the question. So the question is. Did Pro do a good enough job in presenting anytype of argument? Well he cited a UN study, which is a good source "Feeding the growing population requires pest management. By definition pests are animals. By definition, IPM is an iterative, and experimental process. Therefore the experimentation on animals is a fundamental necessity, and cannot be banned." and his argument unchallenged and appears to be legit.

And Pro stuck at the debate, did not forfeit.

Pro

This is an interesting one. it may have looked like Con was getting the upperhand. His point about Judaists during that period, that created the religious beliefs, probably have more understanding of their own beliefs than modern day historians, sounds plausible. Then again, Pro is looking at it from a historical perspective, the same as those from wikipedia, and not a religious one. And given Con forfeited the round, then got banned from debate.art by his parents, suggests the historical perspective is possibly more reliable.

I think also wikipedia is a better source than the Torah, for historical information.

And Pro obviously had the better conduct by continuing to debate and not forfeiting

Convincing argument - Pro offered an allegation, but did not produce evidence. Con on the otherhand did not produce a terrific defence, but due to the lack of evidence provided by the Pro, it was not required
Sources - Both conducted the debate using conjecture only
spelling and grammar - As pro pointed out, Con misspelled "argument". Would not a be a big deal if it were not for the fact that the post lacked quantity.
Conduct - Both conducted the debate as informal as eachother. But at least Con did not forfeit any rounds

Because Con made the better argument in my opinion.
Neither produced any relevant sources, but it was all conjecture and rhetoric anyway.
The Con also made better use of grammar. Not using caps lock when not required.
And the Con also had the better conduct. Not making accusations about other users.

Convincing argument - I believe Con has the more convincing argument, by default. It is hard to debate in favour of a Lion not having a soul, and a soul being exclusive to a body builder that can lift cars.

Reliable sources - Pro provided more sources than Con. However by default, i would assume any source that validates a Lion having no soul, but a car jacking body-builder having one, must be an unreliable source, and so i feel in this unique situation, Cons own opinion is equal to that of being the greater source, than any of the sources provided by Pro

spelling and grammar - both appeared to be highly literate

better conduct - I am actually going to give Pro a little tick here. You cannot argue against someone arguing for "love" and i feel, whilst ever so minor, the Cons final statement at the end of the debate where he "interprets" the motives, or reasons for his opponents forfeiting, just gave a remote air of over assurance

The con did not truelly raise an argument. Merely presented an unsourced opinion, which could possibly be construed as biased, and using just a few sentences which appeared to lack any type of effort, and while one or two grammar errors are forgivable, i felt given how short and to the point cons argument was, he certainly had more time to at least check for grammar errors, and typos, such as "cery opposite".
I felt Cons response at times appeared more like "text talk", than formal debate. "read mg and kickikg the ego of a wounded creature while it's down."

And regarding sources, i would say that "4 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 2, clause 5" and "5 Constitution of the United States, Article 1, section 5, clause 2" Is a reliable source, so long as it is being produced in an appropriate context, and as the Con forfeited the round and did not raise any objections, it would be unfair for me to raise any objections, and Pros sources were certainly better than anything Con provided.

And i also believe that Pro had the better conduct. He at least respected the nature of debate, and put in a good amount of effort.

I feel regardless of which participants argument i personally would have debated in favour of, and agreed with, is invalidated by the fact that there was such a huge gulf in both quality and quantity of argument.

If nothing else, fauxlaw wins overwhelmingly on scholarship alone.