Raltar

Full forfeit.

Conduct; Pro.
Con called Pro a "sneaky little bastard" and then forfeited several rounds, so conduct goes to Pro.

Citations; Pro.
Pro both linked to YouTude videos and quoted lyrics, which he utilized in an effective manner to support his arguments concerning the quality of the music. Con provided no sources.

Arguments; Con.
Pro's thesis was highly complex and nigh-impossible to prove, based most of all on the "EVER will be" part of his claim. The only way to conclusively prove this would be to either have the ability to see the future or somehow provide conclusive evidence that the subject of the debate has a level of skill which is impossible for any other artist to ever achieve. This makes his claim highly questionable right off the bat.

Pro's argument centered around highlighting the music talents of the subject. He made these arguments well and supported them with ample citations.

However, Con countered by keeping his points simple, brief and to the point. Con accurately points out that the burden of proof in this situation requires either foreknowledge of the future or the ability to prove that other artists cannot achieve the same level of skill as the subject. Con points out that Pro cannot know "what the best possible flow is" during round 2, and although Pro goes on to praise the subject of the debate, he never actually proves that he can know beyond any shadow of doubt that the subject's level of skill is unobtainable by any other artist. As such, Con's argument is valid and confirms that Pro was unable to fully prove his original thesis.

Conduct; Pro.
Con ended the debate by saying "End of the fucking line, boy." This was both rude and unnecessary, aside from not even being a valid point in the debate. Con also engaged in 'ALL CAPS' shouting during the second round of the debate, during a seemingly off-topic rant. Con's overall attitude during the debate was confrontational and borderline trolling.

Sources; Pro.
Pro provides a source in the description of the debate by linking directly to the location where the subject reportedly called him a racist. Further, Pro also indicates that he has further evidence in the form of a private message from the subject in which the subject admits guilt. Pro points to both of these sources in a way which effectively supports his arguments. Con provided no sources.

Arguments; Pro.
Pro makes a valid and succinct argument. He alleges that he was called a racist by the subject of the debate. He cites the location where the incident in question took place, as well as a private message in which the subject admits guilt. His argument is brief and simple, but believable and supported by his citations.

Con conversely approaches the debate in a trollish manner, indicating that he is defending his "client" (who never directly responds). His initial argument is to merely deny that the account in question in the originally cited discussion belongs to the "client" whom he is defending. Pro provides an effective rebuttal of this by referring to the aforementioned private message in which the "client" admitted guilt. Con then changes strategy and, while still attempting to indirectly deny his "client's" involvement, engages in a borderline incoherent rant where he claims that it wouldn't matter even if his "client" did do it. By the end of this rant, Con is actually shouting in 'ALL CAPS' in a very unprofessional manner. In the final round, Pro didn't respond, but Con still took it upon himself to close the debate with rude and insulting commentary.

Argument obviously goes to Pro for making a simple, direct and logical claim which was supported by the citations provided, while Con responded mainly by being rude and trolling.

Full disclosure; I received a private message from one of the participants asking me to vote on this debate. I was asked to vote fairly for whomever I felt was the better debater, which I will do.

Sources; Pro.
Pro provided both YouTube videos and cited lyrics from the songs, which he referred to directly to support his argument. Con only provided YouTube videos and in several arguments all he did was post untitled URLs with no explanation. Sources to Pro.

Conduct; Con.
Pro forfeited several rounds, while Con responded to every round without fail. Conduct to Con.

The rest I really can't comment upon, as I have insufficient knowledge of rap music.

Pro (Type1) forfeited the entire debate. Con at least made an appearance, although no actual argument.

Conduct; Tie.
This was one of the few debates where Type1 didn't resort to ad-hominem attacks or forfeit half the debate. RM didn't attempt to cite any rap songs or drop the mike. It was surprisingly good conduct on both sides, and thus a tie.

Spelling and Grammar; Tie.
Started out strong for both participants, and then gradually declined for both. Tie.

Sources; Pro.
Pro started out with a strong argument about probability and utilized a lot of legitimate sources to support his arguments, which seemed fairly rational at first. By the end of the debate most of that had been completely tossed out the window in favor of wild speculation about some unidentified deity-like figure that is all-knowing but somehow doesn't know it is all-knowing (which would not count as being all-knowing if you didn't know that you were all-knowing, since that would mean you didn't know something). Con never used any sources and made similarly crazy arguments without any support for them, so sources go to pro for at least using good sources and good arguments for the first few rounds.

Arguments; Tie.
What the hell happened after round two? Pro started out fantastically strong, citing great sources and making very rational arguments about probability in scenarios like gambling. But by round three that had all been tossed out the window in favor of entirely baseless speculation and impossible claims. Con was moderately crazy for the entire debate, but at least stayed consistent on it. Neither argument made any sense by the final round, so I suppose it is a tie.

Summary; A very slight victory for Pro for starting out strong with good sources, even though it crashed and burned by the end.

Another lame forfeit.

Con sadly forfeited the debate. Conduct to Pro for that.

I hope I wasn't the only person who felt it was a bad idea to let an avowed Atheist defend God in a debate?

I didn't see a terribly strong argument on either side for this, however, Con wins it by a small margin. Pro's arguments were confusing and unlikely, such as implying that chairs are somehow displeased with the current spelling of the word sock. Con rebutted this by pointing out that chairs have no emotions, and thus no rational opinion on how words are spelled. Pro also points out that the burden of proof is on Pro, since he is the one making the claim which needs to be proven.

Spelling and grammar to Con also, due to Pro kind of trailing off into unintelligible ranting during the final round.

But... aren't these the same two guys who debated the danger of ducks? They seem to have just reversed roles...

Definitely the most entertaining debate on this site, by far.

Most convincing; Con.
Pro claimed that ducks were the "most dangerous" animal, which was a point that got sadly overlooked. Although Pro made a few claims that could imply ducks are dangerous, even all these claims being true wouldn't make them the "most" dangerous. Con effectively rebutted these claims and pointed out that many of them were false or inaccurate, such as the flight speed of ducks and supposed ability to utilize poison.

Sources; Con.
Pro didn't use any sources until the very end, while Con began citing sources right away. When Pro finally did use sources, he seemed to ignore what the sources actually said, such as misquoting the flight speed of ducks.

Spelling and Grammar; Con.
This category goes to Con, hands down.

Conduct; Con.
Pro threatened to summon the 'Duck God' to smite his opponent. Oddly, that also brings up a question of why ducks are always attacking him if he is on such good terms with their deity.

Pro made a few points in round one, but Con provided rebuttals for all of them. Pro forfeited all following rounds. Nobody gave any sources.

I didn't see much of an argument on either side. But Con followed through on the whole debate and tossed in a few sources, while Pro forfeited the last few rounds without explanation. Conduct and sources to Con.

Pro offered no argument and forfeited all rounds.

Con never showed up.

I do not like nor listen to rap, so although the topic is considered to be subjective, I can only vote on the basis of the actual arguments offered. Con states that his songs may have poorer delivery, but the message they convey is superior. Pro counters by saying that message doesn't matter and his songs can be listened to while ignoring their message (or lack thereof). I feel having a worthy message is important in every form of communication, or the communication has no reason to occur. Hence, I believe Con has the better argument.

Pro never provided an argument and failed to even make an appearance.

Pro argued well, but the arguments still fail to convince me because the claim being made was very specific and most of the arguments were simply implying that Con (and by extension his sources) are lying. I'm no fan of NASA, but even if they are lying, that by itself doesn't prove Pro's claim. It seems he got too busy attacking his opponent to remember the original point of his claim. Plus, most of his citations were screenshots he took himself and I'm definitely not seeing the same thing in those screenshots that he was. Sad that Con forfeited at the end.

Pro has a very obvious typo in the title. Con forfeited too soon.

It is difficult to say who was actually right in this debate, since even the original claim and counter claim was rather subjective. What I can say was that Con definitely argued more poorly overall, forfeiting one round and opening their statements with the claim that a female god sung them a song by possessing a random person.

Pro provided a source by citing the dictionary, but Con never provided any sources. Con claims he has thousands of reasons not to believe in God, but based on the very small sample of reasons he provided, I can only assume that all of those reasons boil down to him being personally offended by the historical accounts of events surrounding the ancient Israelites. By the end of the debate he was just ranting about "retards" and "butt sex" with no obvious purpose, which was poor conduct.

If the statement made by Con is taken to be true, then Pro created this debate in response to an uncited discussion from elsewhere. Unless I've misunderstood the rules, I don't believe that is allowed. Furthermore, Pro's argument is a straw man, as I'm confident that most people who oppose immigrants illegally crossing our southern border aren't fond of Canada either. Lastly, accusing their opponent of "bitching" then failing to even follow through on the debate was poor conduct all around.

I remain unconvinced on the argument made by Pro, but Con failed to appear.

I would have liked to see more sources used in Con's rebuttal. However, Pro lied twice in his statements. Pro said that Hillary Clinton didn't break any laws and that she was cleared of all wrong doing. That is false, since her private email server was inarguably a violation of public access laws controlling government information and the FBI confirmed the violation did take place.