Total votes: 264
Two hours left and no votes. Guess I should take a look at this.
Since the resolution only deals with the "divine establishment" of the papacy, the specific powers of the pope aren't the main argument here. Even if Con is right about the pope becoming corrupt or not having as much authority as the Catholic Church claims, Pro makes a decent case that the office itself is said to be divinely established. So even if other offices of bishops have comparable authority, it would not negate Pro's case that the office of pope was also ordained as the successor to Peter. Con makes a good attempt to frame the debate, but as a voter, I can't veer too much from the description.
The main thread of the argument deals with succession, since it's generally agreed upon that Peter was selected by God, even if the other apostles were also selected by God. Pro cites Acts 1:20-26 where the apostles appointed successors. Con makes a point of the pope not being singled out, but they emphasize the role of bishops and deacons. Since the Bishop of Rome is a bishop, bishops being divinely established would seem to imply the bishop of Rome was as well. The term "pope" wasn't used, but I don't think the semantics are the sticking point. Pope here just refers to the bishop of Rome, and I think Pro could make the same case for really the bishop of anywhere. Given the agreement on general church authority, the pope just being a bishop at all is enough to satisfy the resolution.
I think Con's strongest case is when they argues that Pro must show "the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches." They focus on arguing against that specific statement, and if the description were different, they might have won this. However, Pro's case that "papacy is a direct and God-ordained continuation of apostolic authority" gives them a lot of leeway, since they don't have to defend every claim the Catholic Church makes about the pope, just that they have a continuation of apostolic authority. Con makes the case that "Rome AD 325 does not yet have full authority of all churches," but in this case, that's not what Pro has to prove.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Two sentences against a fleshed-out argument about paradoxes. Foregone conclusion.
Basically a concession at the end by Con, not to mention Pro is basically the only one who participates here.
Con argues that true communism has never been tried, and Pro argues that the US is not capitalist, citing government intervention in healthcare and lack of bodily autonomy. I can grant both of those, which seems fair, since neither proposed system mirrors any country exactly. Pro argues that capitalism is synonymous with individual sovereignty. Given that Con doesn't really flesh out Marxism or dispute individual sovereignty being good, I think Pro did better here.
Concession
Con highlights a lot of potential issues with the resolution but still falls short of negating it. I think the phrasing "everything christians believe in and practice" leaves some leeway for Pro to make his case, since a practice of only one denomination arguably isn't something Christians practice collectively. I'm inclined to agree that the resolution is probably too broad, but Con missed the opportunity to really show this with examples. Most of the verses he cites are playing defense, even though many of Pro's arguments that the Bible endorses some bad thing or other go unchallenged. Pro even gives a list of what things are the opposite of what Christians believe.
If Con had given an example of something Christians practice where doing the opposite is clearly bad, they could have won. If Pro had given a specific practice where doing the opposite is literally impossible, they could have won. I could give this to Con if I really push semantics, but the examples Pro gives were enough to fit the resolution in my view, especially with the clarification that "different denominations share core beliefs and values." That seems like the most fair way to interpret the resolution, and it's really the only way that's fleshed out.
Pro links sources but doesn't do much analysis on them. Con cites verses pro linked to and argues they support his side of the resolution. So source points to Con.
Full forfeit
Pro's case relies on each premise of his ontological argument being correct. Con argues that the mind does not prove things and that Pro has not justified assuming that it does. Since Pro's entire case relies on this premise, and since Pro holds the BoP, this is a win for Con.
The resolution states that opposite-sex platonic friendships cannot exist, but by Con's second line it's clear he's arguing for rarity, not nonexistence. Since both debaters don't agree to change the resolution to something else, and since Pro emphasizes exceptions, I vote Pro. This debate was a bit like if Con was a monotheist trying to defend atheism by saying that there's only one god, so it doesn't count. Those are two different positions. In addition to the resolution just being too bold of a claim, I wasn't convinced that Con's examples were more common. Neither side cited any sources, so what makes Pro's examples more rare than Con's examples?
Yes, I changed my decision. WF messaged me and said the reasoning for sources was insufficient. I looked back over the debate to elaborate on my vote, which is what changed my mind on how to evaluate this. I'll stick to the points that made me change his to a tie, which should be sufficient per voting standards. However, my old vote is in the comments, so you can see more detail on my thought process there.
Pro did actually make a non-circular argument for the Quran's reliability, specifically the predictions made in Daniel from a supposed dream. There's room for Con to argue the book was written after the events that are described (a lot of scholars make that argument), or that it's not specific enough, but they don't address this at all. So dropped argument in favor of Pro.
Con on the other hand argues that making men out of mud violates the laws of thermodynamics. There's room for Pro to argue that Allah can violate the laws of thermodynamics since he performs miracles all the time in the Quran, but they don't address this at all. So dropped argument in favor of Con. This isn't relevant to the personal experience argument, but as I addressed in my previous round, the only argument Pro makes outside the Quran and before the last round is their own experience, and a single anecdote could easily be luck as Con points out.
Since both sides drop significant arguments for and against the Quran's reliability as a source, I'm leaving this as a tie. Other arguments largely boil down to Pro and Con each asserting what is and isn't commonly used in scientific discussions, but I don't care as much about precedent as about which sources can be shown to be reliable for and against the resolution. And as I showed above, both sides drop arguments on that front.
Con gives an example of "1% everyday" working in practice. Hence, the quote seems practical when applied to The British Cycling team's performance. Pro argues that it's hard to measure the improvement, but Con's example shows some measurable criteria, and as long as the quote yields positive results, that seems to makes it "practical." Pro never comes back to argue against this example or to dispute that it is enough to negate the resolution.
The description says "accurate," but the resolution says "practical," and I don't see any rule strictly holding Con to the description. So even if the strategy isn't an accurate descriptor, it's practical for achieving desired effects.
Pro's argument is a lot more focused here, and they start out citing a lot of sources to support their claims, while Con cites none. I also found a lot of Con's argumentation confusing, as he would make references to things like the unemployment rate without defending how Trump's policies affected it. Pro instantly comes to the table with a source and argumentation to dispute this argument.
By the end, Con leaves basically everything on the table except abortion, beyond a few rhetorical questions that don't compare to all the sources Pro is providing. The description states "a better quality of life for all people," so this depends on whether or not the fetus is a person. Both sides are kind of vague here and agree the fetus is a life but not a human. Then Pro calls it a baby, which seems useful to Con's case. There was more room to go into detail here, especially on the latter claim, but that's what I'm left with. Pro compares abortion to not saving someone from a burning building, but the description only talks about better quality of life. So as long as forcing people to save others from burning buildings raises the average quality of life for persons, then I should presumably favor Con on the abortion topic. But Con doesn't argue along these lines beyond stating that abortion destroys life and thus reduces aggregate quality of life. Neither side really weighs all these costs against each other beyond Pro's comparison to "a law mandating all people must become doctors and dedicate their lives to curing cancer."
In the end, I vote Pro. Personhood was the deciding factor for the abortion topic, and Pro makes enough analogies to house plants and non-persons that Con doesn't really dispute. Con's case for the immorality of abortion seems more to hinge on the fetus being a potential person, and regardless of whether we should normally care about potential persons, I can't weigh their interests in this debate. While Pro's analogies could be a lot more in-depth, Con leaves almost every other topic on the table without showing abortion to be more important than those other topics. By the end Pro decisively wins on everything except abortion, and Con doesn't decisively win on abortion (I think Pro even comes out ahead there by a bit.)
Pro doesn't give any arguments, but they at least participate.
Pro doesn't defend P1 very strongly, which gives Con room to come in with a counterexample. Mostly this debate is Pro making sweeping statements and Con pointing out exceptions.
Almost a full forfeit
Pro conceded
Pro gives "bachelors are unmarried men" as an example of a justified true belief that is also knowledge. This is a debate-winner on its own unless sufficiently countered by Con. Unfortunately, much of Con's case only tangentially relates to this, and they never make a strong case that bachelors might not be unmarried men. Con references "rules that underlie thinking itself" but does not show how these rules are flawed or how Pro's statement about bachelors relies on them. There was a lot of back-and-forth where Con wasn't totally clear, but at the end of the debate, I'm left with an almost uncontested statement that bachelors are unmarried men and that Pro has upheld their burden. Pro doesn't have to show anything about rules that underlie thinking, just that bachelors are unmarried men, which they justify in the first round. Further weakening Con's case is that they admit parts of it haven't been proven, and that it's essentially self-defeating (it would mean I can't accept any of their premises as knowledge.)
Conduct goes to Con for Pro's forfeiture.
I don't love that Pro won this late with a round Con couldn't respond to, but tech issues happen, and I'm already penalizing Pro for forfeiting the second round with a conduct point.
The reason Pro wins this in my opinion is that they were able to reaffirm their case without adding to it, mainly by showing how Con had made some assumptions that weren't very well supported by what Pro said. For example, much of Con's case relied on the premise that "Under moral subjectivism, every obligation is descriptive because it describes peoples' moral attitudes." But that's not subjective morality, or at least the version of subjective morality Pro is advocating; they're saying that ought statements do exist to the extent that they match someone's value (i.e. if I want to achieve well-being, I ought to do something that will achieve that). I do think Con had an opportunity to cast a wider net in responding to Pro's case if they weren't sure whether or not Pro was advocating descriptive ethics—and if they wanted to argue that subjective morality must be descriptive and cannot be prescriptive, they could have fleshed that out with more than a single sentence and even had an extra round to do so. There are also secondary points I haven't addressed here, but the debate really comes down to Pro not advocating descriptive ethics.
Given what Con says is allowed at the end, I don't think this is a final-round blitzkrieg, even if I would have liked more rounds to settle the dispute. Pro cites the source Con provides, and nothing at the end seems to come out of nowhere. It's mostly clarifying how Pro's first round case doesn't fall into the box Con puts it in.
Con generally does a better job of backing up their arguments. I found Con's case that defense necessarily involves offense to be compelling, and Pro seems to agree that defense involves offense in order to be a "full defensive position." Con's case holds well here, since they are defending "any offensive position" rather than a "full offensive position," so this can include part of the process used in defense. Pro made tangential statements about proof that didn't seem that related to the resolution and which Con did a good job of responding to. Saying "Examples are a form of evidence" was more concrete than anything Pro was throwing out, and this seemed like a theme throughout the debate.
Forfeiture
Concession
Full forfeit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dDhvbeFqNs
Full forfeit
As with most religious debates, both sides come in with radically different points of view and standards for evidence. I will do my best to judge this objectively, which means looking for points of agreement and trying to use those to determine what burdens either side has for evidence. I do think it helps Pro that the standard is "more likely than not" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in that case it's on the voter to determine how evidence can be considered sufficient while being fair to both debaters.
Pro gives a lot of documents attesting to the resurrection and attests to non-Christian scholars supporting certain historical conclusions. Con argues against this case on two fronts: first, that someone rising from the dead is medically impossible, and second, that Pro's evidence is weak or insufficient. The first point establishes what was kind of clear from the outset, in that Pro is arguing for a miracle. There doesn't seem to be a dispute that miracles are at best rare or unlikely occurrences, though it's never really proven that it's impossible for God to exist or for a miracle to happen.
That leaves Pro with the case of providing enough evidence for the resurrection to overcome the low initial probability of a miracle occurring. What's never really settled is how much evidence is enough. The reliability of the Gospels as historical sources gets a lot of back-and-forth and it's not entirely clear which parts of them we can and can't trust. Pro's case seems to boil down to "not everyone agrees that Jesus rose from the dead, but the disciples experiencing Jesus is a historical fact that even atheist historians agree on." Con had more room to push back on this, but from what I can tell, Con doesn't really dispute that the disciples experienced Jesus. That makes this a little simpler to judge.
There are two possible explanations raised for the appearances: the resurrection, or hallucinations. This comes down to the last round. Pro argues that there has never been a recorded instance of synchronized group hallucination, while Con argues that there has never been a recorded instance of someone rising from the dead. Con did have an opportunity to respond to the hallucination counter in the last round, but they never do.
What breaks the tie in favor of Pro is that they present an explanation (however strange) for a resurrection, while Con doesn't present any explanation for a group hallucination. Pro argues that Jesus was a religious figure, and religious figures might perform miracles. I guess Con had room to argue that a hallucination miracle would be just as likely as a resurrection miracle, but it's never established why Jesus would make people think he rose from the dead instead of just rising from the dead. Since natural laws don't really account for either the resurrection or group hallucinations, I'm forced to go with which "miracle" is more likely, and that ends up leaning Pro.
Pro argues the resolution. Con brings up fictional characters and doesn't dispute that canonically they are attracted to high-SMV men.
Full forfeit
Concession
Full forfeit
Concession
I strongly suspect that Pro just wrote out all of their rounds in advance, because they keep bringing up new points and don't respond to anything Con said. Not to mention they posted each of their rounds in just a few minutes.
Pro says schools are a waste of resources. Con responds that the benefits of learning and getting a job make it not a waste. Pro repeats what he said earlier, and Con elaborates on his response. Pro drops this.
Pro says that being forced to spend a decade of one's life in school outweighs the benefits. Conn responds that not going to school subjects someone to a "living hell" of slavery in low-paying work. Pro drops this.
Pro says that abuse happens in schools. Con responds that those teachers should be replaced but the school system should not be blamed for the abuse. Pro drops this.
Pro says that school is slavery and brainwashing because it is forced. Con responds that not everything forced is slavery and school allows people to have more labor options long-term. Con also says that teachers should be blamed for brainwashing, not the school system. Pro doesn't get a chance to respond because they waited until the last round to bring up these points.
40% forfeited by Pro
Concession.
Concession
I agree with this being a foregone conclusion of very close to it. Pro argues that human beings are inherently valuable and should not be killed. Con doesn't engage with this in depth until the last round. Con's argument of forcing someone to be born lacks significant weight when Pro points out that he is not making an argument against euthanasia.
Pro is also the only one to provide sources.
Full forfeit
Normally, I'd be hesitant to consider arguments that are only referenced vaguely, rather than elaborated on in the debate text. Had Con challenged Pro's case on that basis, they may have won. However, Con drops, and even agrees to, a lot of Pro's points, dropping everything Pro responds to in the last round. This is enough for me to give credence to Pro's case.
Con seems to argue for the Pro side and vice versa, but I'll just judge the debate based on the arguments each side presents.
Con's points are far more detailed. They offer a rebuttal to each of Pro's points and provide sources to impact out the benefits they are giving. Pro argues that guns will increase death, but Con argues that if trained people own firearms, they can defend themselves. Neither side brings out a study to support their position on lives being saved or lost, but Con goes into more detail and also brings up a lot of other points that Pro eventually drops, like hunting or recreational shooting. That's enough for me to vote Con.
Full forfeit
Pro cites a lot of sources defending their interpretation of indoctrination and showing that any way someone comes to believe in God would necessarily involve at least one of them. Con disputes this without providing enough opposing sources to negate Pro's interpretation.
Pro forfeited 3/5 of the debate, while Con kept coming at them with complex rhyme schemes and biting imagery. Con would consistently rhyme 8-10 lines in a row, while Pro's rhymes didn't seem as solid.