Total votes: 40
Moozer made great arguments first round, followed by Korea giving 0 effort. Pro wins arguments because con had no real arguments, and pro wins conduct because con just screwed around.
FoeForfeiture
ARGUMENTS:
Pro ended up dropping some points, and argued that Con should be eliminated for not publishing their arguments in the order they wanted them to. While Pro's goal was indeed to argue why Harris would be a bad president, more specifically worse than Trump, they didn't end up achieving that because they were not able to show that Trump would be a good president in the first place. Con won by showing how bad another Trump presidency would be, worse than a Kamala presidency would be. One of the key ways they did this was coming out on top in the exchange regarding tarriffs.
SOURCES:
Pro might have had more sources, but they were significantly worse in quality, as Pro rightfully pointed out:
"Continuing on the theme of misused sources, they cited a source from 2017 back in round 2, which misrepresented the data about the ACA, and then they cited one biased source that also misrepresented the data about the ACA. Some of their sources about Climate change also didn't even relate to their article, and had nothing to do with Kamala's specific climate plan."
Con had reliable, trusted sources, which Pro tried to refute with totally biased sources. Like the Washington Post vs. JustFactsDaily. I feel like those two sources represent well the paths that both debaters took when debating.
Pro didn't counter any of pros points, and only provided one point of their own, which con did rebut.
This is a vote cast by Yesterdaystommorow:
In my interpretation of what Moozer intended by saying a "Christian God", he means "A god as described by Christianity" (As described by the bible, effectively).
Moozer then argues that something cannot be defined by contradictions.
We can look to math to help us understand this: anything divided by zero is explicitly 'undefined'. Mathematicians will refuse to define X/0 solely because contradictions lie in any definition.
F(x)=X/0
Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (-) = -infinity
But, Lim X of F(x) -> 0 (+) = +infinity.
A contradiction.
After reading the arguments, it is apparent that Moozer successfully proved this. Namely, the death of Judas sold the point for me.
However, I will note that demonstrating evolution is pretty much a certainty would not suffice as evidence for this argument. This is due to the nature of the contradiction, where it is one view contradicting another. In other words: "You are lying! No, I'm not!" Even if we were 99.999% sure evolution is real, there is the slimmest of chances still that creationism would occur, which is enough of a point for Mall. This is different from what Moozer needed to show more of, where one view contradicts itself. In other words: "I am lying!" Since we know here that whichever point is true, provable, or not, the person stating it is still contradicting themselves.
I am representing
On this basis, Moozer would have my vote.
**HOWEVER**
If we wanted to go further into math, we would learn of Kurt Gödle. Kurt Gödle managed to demonstrate in his Incompleteness Theorems that there exist true statements in math that cannot be proven true. Using only math, he effectively managed to write a true statement stating, "This statement cannot be proven." Which upended countless mathematical assumptions at the time.
What I am getting at with this is that there does exist one niche spot in math that is in itself still up for contention which demonstrates even the slightest possibility for 'true contradictions'.
On THIS basis, if we truly wanted to cherry-pick for a single cherry in an entire field of cherry trees, there exists one way in which Mall may have grounds to say he won this debate.
My vote is for Moozer, but if we wanted to jump 1000 hurdles, there is one argument I see that Mall could still fight for.
Forfeiture
It's hard to judge this, considering taste in poetry is subjective. Both poems were great, but I feel drawn to the short, strait forward poem the Ana wrote.
I really liked the part about "pretending to not see." It really makes you look inward.
So by a bit, I'm giving the point to Ana.
Forfeiture
The point that "you buy things for the purpose of making you happy" is true. Even though it is indirect, it makes you happy; therefore you are buying happiness.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Complete forfeiture
Con Conceded
Forfeiture
I hate rap music and I can't stand anime covers.
Con conceded.
Pro did not take the debate seriously, and didn't actually make and counter arguments to cons points, whereas con did a great job of countering every one of pros points, which weren't very good. Their last argument was literally just "my system is best" with no evidence provided.
Pro didn't counter any arguments, and didn't actually make any valid arguments themselves.
Concession
This debate is not about evidence, it is about if big foot exists???
Forfeiture
Concession
Forfeiture
My argument points are the same as itsnotago's.
I had an easier time reading Cons, it was just shorter and simpler.
The personal insults were still present on con's arguments, but were stronger in Pros. Honestly, both of you could have done a far better job keeping conversation civil.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
AmericanDebater refused to debate
The forfeiture is what's influencing my vote most.
Considering the first round, Gugigor makes some valid points about Trump's crimes. He opens with a strong argument with several different points. Itsnatago responds with three main points. I find the first of which to be by far the best. It encompasses the largest reasons people will vote for Trump. The second argument is valid, although Biden's (controversial) immoral behavior doesn't really compare with Trump's two impeachments and thirty-four felony counts, though it was stil la valid point to bring up. Itsnatago's third argument I find weakest, as it's completely subjective and every voter has a different view on the issue. While it's true there are only technically two genders, things like banning them from the military are extremely controversial.
Throughout the debate both sides make some great points. I feel like Gugigor could have used some dropped points from the first argument, like the one about climate change. I think the debate got a little too focused on the LGTBQ aspect. Itsnatago should have kept away from opinion and tried to keep the discussion more about Biden himself, and to bring out more of Biden's faults.
The argument category was the hardest, and I think it's a tie. Both sides had good arguments.
Itsnotago used sources well, except for the one time he used tictoc. However, Gugigor simply had a lot of sources from reliable places, especially in his opening argument. Close again, but Gugigor wins.
Itsnatago is just a really good writer, so legibility goes to him here.
Finally, neither side had any bad conduct, so it's a tie.
Full forfeiture
Full Forfeiture
Pro created some very strong counter arguments, which con did not respond to, giving him points for arguments. The forfeitures are the reason that pro gets the conduct points.
Looking at round one, Korea's argument doesn't make sense to me, and Mall comes back with a good rebuttal. Going into round two, Mall is definitely ahead.
Korea's argument in round two is far more coherent than in round one, but in substance is still the same argument. Mall again rebuts it well. Criminals don't follow the rules. That's why they're criminals. Treating them with respect isn't going to get rid of crime.
Throughout the rest of the debate, Korea's largest issue is the lack of counter argument. They only point out good things about Taoism, but not strongly addressing the bad, and more importantly, the fault with other religions, and why Taoism is better than them. For these reasons, Mall wins the argument points.
Mall and Korea both did a good job writing legible arguments, so that's a tie.
Korea wins the conduct points because of round five, where Mall said only "I rest my case." While it was true that he had already refuted the arguments Korea made, he could have provided further elaboration upon them, or created another counter argument. Mall basically forfeited the last round, other than that, they did great.
Good debate you two, in the end though, there are a few reasons a chose Korea, even though I agree with Mall on this situation. Both of you had good arguments presented, and there weren't enough sources used in this debate to pick a side, which makes sense because it's mostly opinion. As for legibility, Korea's arguments were just easier to read and comprehend. Conduct definitely goes to Korea, as Mall used personal attacks in the debate, though not often, they were definitely there.
Really great debate. I struggled to reach a conclusion. I think Con wins just by a very little.
Forfeiture