Total votes: 141
Proceeded.
Moar Falafel
lufwaF lefalaF
2/3 of a falafel
Con ceded.
Panuto: Magkakaroon ng debate ang mga mag-aaral. Sa isang panig ang mga nagsasabi na pantay-pantay ang lahat ng tao, sa kabila naman ang mga naniniwala na hindi pantay-pantay ang mga tao Fateful Falafel
https://assets.sutori.com/user-uploads/image/6839a735-addc-420b-aa41-6791025dc5d2/c9ad0cf96f7c3fe1a694f0765a26d5b6.jpeg
Foul Falafel.
Fawful Falafel. Pro had two whole rounds to respond to con or extend his R1 contentions, to which he did neither.
Sad to see a good debater drop out completely, but fawful falafel.
Con ceded.
Good fight, but ultimately a procession.
This falafel is very fawful.
A good start, but ultimately a fawful falafel.
A very fawful falafel
A good start in R1, but ultimately a full forfeiture.
FawfulFalafel
Arguments:
1. The gist of Pro's argument is that the average argument does not go to 30,000 characters, describing those that do as "overkill". However, Con pointed out how the 30,000 character limit is simply a maximum, and that it is adjustable to whatever size needed. Pro didn't directly counter this point, only saying that debates usually do not exceed 10,000 characters. Con countered by saying that there can indeed be debates over 10 or even 20 thousand characters in length and provides the example of a research paper that is 2200 pages in length. Pro misinterprets this (either deliberately or otherwise) as Con wanting there to be a debate argument of that length, and that Con is also arguing for unlimited characters. Con points out that this is a strawman argument, to which Pro does not reply.
2. Pro uses DDO as a reason for why DART ought to lower its character limit but never substantiates why DDO should be used as the benchmark.
Overall, as neither of Pro's initial arguments stood at the end, Con wins the arguments section.
FawfulFalafel
FawfulFalafel
Concession
Concession
An FF in all but name
full forfeit
Forfeiting twice will merit a loss, according to the special rules in the description that Con agreed to when he accepted the debate.
Con forfeited twice, thus breaking the rules and resulting in a win for Pro.
Ful Forfeit
Concession
Full Forfeit
>50% forfeit
Concession (+ extra conduct points for Pro because Con called Pro racist)
Con ceded.
Ditto
(I like pokemans)
GG Outplayed
Concession. F for Virt
Arguments: One sentence answers.
Sources: Zero sources from Pro vs some sources from Con
2/3 forfeit by con
Forfeit + Plagiarism
F is for Frank, honest and forthcoming
O is for Original, refreshingly so
R is for Reassuring, a comforting presence
F is for Fantastic, you are amazing
E is for Endearing, so loveable
I is for Illuminating, a font of wisdom
T is for Thoughtful, considerate towards all
Arguments:
Pro got the last word. Therefore, the argument point goes to Pro.
Sources:
Con successfully countered Pro's use of totallynotavirus.xyz, arguing that it is Chinese Government Propaganda. Pro fails to counter this point, thus rendering this source void. However, Con did not counter the other sources that Pro used (definitelycentrist.com and communism.orgyz). For this, the sources point goes to Pro.
S&G:
It is common knowledge that BLARGGH is an acronym, and thus it should be capitalized. Pro wrote it once as "Blarggh", while Con wrote it as "blarggh". While Pro's spelling blunder is bad, Con's is worse. Thus, S&G goes to Pro.
Conduct:
"Support Taiwan, like you said in your other debate!"
Here, Con referenced something in another one of Pro's debates. This is cross-debate contamination, which is an egregious conduct violation. Conduct point to Pro.
Arguments:
Pro proved that hello is used for a greeting. Con countered this by saying that other languages don't use the word 'Hello' for greeting. However, this argument does not work, as 'Hello' would still be used as a greeting by some people (English speakers). Thus, the argument point goes to Pro.
Sources:
Pro used sources. Con didn't. Sources go to Pro.
Conduct:
"Poor debate topic, therefore I won't put any effort into it."
This is borderline, but not egregious enough to give the conduct point to Pro.
Pro made a few good arguments and defended them in round 2. Con also made some arguments but didn't bother defending them in Round 2. Also, poor conduct in Round 2 by Con.
Arguments:
Pro made two relatively strong arguments for why pineapple on pizza should be allowed (the health benefits and the fact that it is a somewhat popular pizza topping). On the other hand, Con only provided his own opinion ("Pineapple on pizza is disgusting") followed by a rant. Argument point to Pro.
Sources:
Pro provided polls and an article to substantiate his claims. Con provided no sources whatsoever. Sources point to Pro.
Conduct:
Con called Pro a 'dirtbag' and generally blasts Pro with insulting language in Round 2. This is bad conduct, thus conduct point goes to pro.
Concession
"My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined."
F(F)
Concession
On the first round, Pro waived his argument (essentially forfeiting it). On the second round, Pro merely said "Con didn't prove this" while not rebutting any points in particular. Con was the only one who really made substantive arguments.
Literally the only one who said stuff. Con's argument is weak, but it's better than nothing.
Concession + 50% forfeit
Con proved that there is some intelligent process that went into the debate (as given with his point on the translation).
More than 50% forfeit