Total votes: 141
F for Virt
User_2006 demonstrated that even with a 100-character limit, he could make a point that had some intelligence/common sense
50+% forfeit
Con did not fulfill the BOP of the debate (showing evidence for DD loving open borders). Therefore, the arguments go to Con
Concession
FFFFFFFFFF
60% forfeit
Con
Cession
Fall Forfeet
Concession
Full Forfeit
Four fifth
Four fit
It rhymes
..-. --- .-. . ..-. .. -
This is what Ragnar said my previous RFD was, so if it says anything inappropriate ;)
Lol jk
Con
ceded
Concession
Pro started off strong, but unfortunately forfeited 2 of 3 rounds. Therefore, debate goes to Con.
50%+ forfeit
Con did not even attempt to rebut the relevant topic at hand, instead choosing to vaguely point out fallacies without explaining how Pro committed said fallacies.
Neither side provides evidence for their claims.
50% forfeit
Forfeit forfei
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Forfit
Con forfeited less
..-. ..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. ..- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- .-. ..-. . .. - / ..-. ..- .-.. .-.. ..-. .. - -.-.-- -.-.-- -.-.--
Concession.
Argument:
Pro put forth a syllogistic argument that was valid (Children ought to be taught the history of scientific theories, and that creationism is part of the scientific history of how the theory of evolution formed). Though not bulletproof by any standards, this argument is enough to stand on its own. Con's sole argument is that Creationism is unscientific (which Pro acknowledged). This does not address, let alone refute, either of the premises that Pro established. Thus, arguments go to pro.
Conduct:
Con forfeited the final round. Thus, conduct goes to Pro.
Argument: Pro didn't even try to present an argument
Conduct: Pro forfeited 2 rounds
Fullfitted.
Fullfitted.
Pro presented the claim that one song was the most "hardcore" out of all of them. He follows this up by saying that taste in music is subjective, which undermines the entire claim. Con notes this by presenting a counter-example which at least one person (Con) finds to be more hardcore than the one Pro presented. This is perfectly valid, since both sides agree that musical tastes are subjective.
Conduct is for Pro's forfeit in the final round.
Fullfit by DonaldT
Pro presents no evidence whatsoever that people vote against others simply due to not liking them, that debates should be decided by elite/respected elders, or that his "mistreatment" is as the result of him being socialist. The only thing pro stated was that he was "smart", and that this was enough to justify the shifting of the BoP to Con.
"your rules are absurd why should i have to explain why i voted a certain way?"
Yes
Forfeit (apparently spaces don't count as characters anymore so Imma just put this in)
"If a debate is publicly designated as a troll debate, or if both sides present arguments that are done for the sake of trolling, then the debate is not moderated."
-DART COC
Concession
/ˈfôrfət/
Con actually provided an argument
"i believe that god is not a force because a force with no mind cannot do anything except for the what it is meant to do... and we have found no proof of a force designed to make sure everything is working in a way to create humans. if god is a force then we wouldn't call him a god."
"God is a living force with a mind of its own"
This complete contradiction presented by Pro (which Con addressed) basically killed whatever point they had to begin with. Pro started out with three premises: that god is not a person, system, or force... and then goes on to conclude that god is a force. That and the fact that Con rebutted the points presented by Pro gives Con the win in the argument category.
Neither side used sources, the minor S&G mistakes made by Pro don't dramatically impede the ability for the audience to understand the main point presented, and Conduct is tied, since they both forfeited 4 rounds.
Wow I feel like Ragnar with the amount of stuff I put into my RFD. <--- Compliment to Ragnar ;)
1. "No Forfeits" + "Violation of these rules will result in full points awarded to the opponent of the rule breaker"
2. Con conceded in the comments
lel
Another one bites the dust, ooh
Another one bites the dust, yeah
Another one...
FF
As Trump would put it: Sad.
50% forfeit by pro
Argument: Pro provided evidence that human activity is causing climate change. Con failed to refute any of Pro's points. Furthermore, Con's argument that plants will return average global temperatures to normal is completely irrelevant to his claim (that climate change is not caused by human activity).
Conduct: Con forfeited final round
Con forfeited more than half of the rounds, therefore it is an FF debate