Savant

Avoiding as many specifics as I can relating to this particular battle...

My inclination would be to go for whichever side has more "impact" in battling their opponent. Some rhyme schemes might make bars come across stronger than other rhyme schemes. Some references might hit harder than others. Some insults might just carry more weight automatically. (This may be somewhat subjective to each voter.) If I had to write the description over again, I'd have made a clearer scoring metric, but as things stand, voters can use whichever metric or system they think is best. I don't know if there's a typical metric by which rap battles are judged—when in doubt, just vote the same way you would score other battles/diss wars that don't give specific criteria for scoring (ERB and Eminem vs. MGK come to mind).

In the example you gave, I think Churchill does significantly better since the former is just random insults, but that's just my opinion.

I don't want to say anything that would unduly influence voters at this point, so I would say that it is up to each voter to decide which side did "better" given the context of the debate. However they would reasonably interpret the description.

All votes are appreciated!

I know it's not a traditional format, but plz vote if you get the chance!

Thanks for the battle!

Thanks for voting!

Thanks for voting!

Plz vote if you get the chance!

Let me know if this works for you. I kept the resolution the same but specified some things in the description. Just want to make sure we are on the same page with regard to semantics.

I would recommend defining healthcare and murder in the description to prevent someone from making a semantic kritik based on legal definitions.

No worries!

Thanks for voting!

Sure, I've got no problem with that

Thanks for voting!

5 days left! All votes are appreciated.

Bump

Plz vote if you get the chance!

Nonetheless, I will give you the topic so you can start in the first round...

"THBT: On balance, the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified."

Best.Korea is PRO. I am CON.

I assume you are arguing as Pro and I am arguing as Con for whatever resolution I pick?

Thanks for voting!

Bump

Thanks

Please vote if you get the chance!

Australia?

Done!

Done. Although I think they mean effectively the same thing in this context.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immigrate
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emigrate

In which sentence? Emigrants allowed into America? Or emigrants allowed to leave America?

Yes, just the amount. I'm arguing that we raise the quota (let in more immigrants); you argue for the status quo.

Otherwise, if you want, we can use a different definition.

How about we define the "Status Quo" as the immigration quota in the US as of the end of September 2023 (ignoring changes since then)? You would argue we should keep or decrease that quota, I argue we increase it.

Lmk if this format works for you

Humans are carbon-based lifeforms

Taxes paid by humans = carbon tax

Well, it's Best.Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually meant genocide.

That's advice for the first round of the debate, not a site rule that overrides the description of the debate. Favorable definitions are allowed. That said, pretty much anything can be kritiked, but voters are likely to default to the rules and definitions set in the description.

See “absurd special rules”:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

Kicking a pregnant woman is a crime.

You'd be best off defining murder in the description and holding both parties to that definition. Otherwise Con is likely to use legal definitions.

Every *single* mathematician
With a *bachelor's* degree

I see what you did there.

Thanks for the vote!

Forgot to say this earlier: welcome back!

Thanks for voting!

Thanks for voting!

Thanks! I know it's a long one.

Plz vote! Only a few days left.

5 days left to vote!

No I mean the account has to be x number of days old to have access to voting, not the age of the user. That allows mods to remove voted privileges from suspected vote bomb accounts before they can act.

I know mods can suspend voting privileges on certain accounts—is it possible to make account age a requirement for voting, or is that up to the site owner?

Voting will end Sept. 4 at 1:33PM. We will need to be vigilant about new accounts appearing just before then. Very difficult for a new account to show up and do three troll debates in only a few seconds, so that should serve as insurance.

Plz award all points to CON! Free credits for standing up to vote bombers.

whiteflame knows about my alt already. I promise this is not a trap, and if it is, the mods can ban me.

Since you're Con, I would change the resolution to "Transgenderism is correct" for clarity.