Snoopy

Con opens by implying that law abiding citizens don't shoot people, and their argument is that criminals (many of whom do shoot people) will be less scared of law abiding citizens if the 2nd amendment is abolished. Additionally, leisurely activities like trap shooting and those participated in the boy scouts might be less enjoyable, or treated disproportionately to other sports.

Pro brought Cons first point into question pointing out that the role of government probably shouldn't be the promotion of fear, which seems reasonable. Cons second point is self defeating as it is common knowledge the US constitution does not mention any sports.

Pro's case suggests the government should ban guns, which requires abolishing the 2nd amendment. They justify the imposition, implying that it will lead to immortality and there will be no more murder, suicide etc... As well, "I think the government should be put in place to maintain the safety of their citizens not give them things that can only harm their well-being or cause unnecessary fear among others" So given the context it appears pro contends the guns with no recreational value or practical utility should be prohibited by the government. Being in reference to the Constitution of the USA, I'm going to assume that the people in that jurisdiction would generally be aware that some guns are already put out of production by law, and the 2nd amendment does not mandate that the government give people arms, so Pro's motivation for repeal is questionable.

Con forfeits, and Pro wins by superior conduct.

I don't know how to go about judging these, but here goes anyway

RM owned Gatorade from the beginning. Seriously? The king is weak, scared of pawns (and the whole game is his fault). Closing with the "insults" that he turned badass earlier was pretty cool, and his counter insults tend to have relevance. RM using his experience, and talking to him like a hotshot trying to get on his level was nice.

Then there's the parts that were pretty much empty. RM was consistently more engaging than these parts by Gatorade

"Your flow is shit, your rhyme scheme even worse,
I'll destroy you, murder you then put you in a hearse,
You're a lady, I'm a mugger and I'll take your purse,
You're so terrible at rap, you can't even write a good verse,"

I thought RM had flow in round one, and they were more dynamic, and then this guy goes into preying on the weak and bragging about his blunt, sounds like a puffed up puss cake already, then standing next to the Sun Tzu movin' through you.

And the way I puff blunts in the air
You ran into the attic, bitch you was in the chair
See the difference between you and me is that you look like Fozzie Bear
D.A. was on my dick but a real n-gga didn't care

See you cowards be in the club trouble, yeah when they clammer.
You're a baby, first grader, if you wanna rap, fix your grammar
You can't touch me, I keep my MC Hammer
So save that drama for your mama, and stop tryna slam her,
-Gatorade

More empty lines, while RM was throwing some weight. Grammar shot was weak.
"wait, who the fuck is Owen Clark?"
- RM
There was stuff like this. That was a funny and belittling tangent. I didn't really get that spontaneity from Gatorade.

" A democracy works best if voters are well informed. If we lower the voting age there will be less informed people voting on actual changes to America."

The description implies to me that "Being vegan is a crime" actually means living a vegan lifestyle can be thought of as criminal activity, not that it is literally treated as a crime at this time, but should be in principle. In lieu of Con's forfeiture Pro completely drops Con's attempt to frame the debate in round 1, but the argument doesn't appear to have integrity as Con is essentially arguing that they entered into the "ambiguous" debate without understanding what it is about. Pro argued that veganism isn't nutritious and therefore unhealthy but since I don't normally associate unhealthy lifestyles with criminality, there is a burden in my case to explain why poor diets should be criminalized in their view. As Pro didn't mention criminality they did not meet the threshold to win on arguments independent of Con's rebuttal. Con states that there are supplements for iron and protein, and so there is not really any risk for health in light of that. No further arguments are necessary.

Conduct against Pro for repeated forfeitures and I also didn't like that they did not really respond to Con's statements in round 1.

I think it is nearly impossible to win this debate as Pro. Even Christians would be warry of presenting the bible as a moral compass. Pro committed intellectual seppuku making no connection to using the bible as a moral compass other than it was formed. Of course the world was formed and all sorts of books were formed as Pro states but I wouldn't be able to write this if I didn't read them, and understand that we don't use them as a moral compass because they exist so I found that unconvincing. Con's arguments that "sexism is repulsive" from a potential interpretation of a passage about women being quiet in church goes unabated. Any fool can pick up the bible and justify all sorts of things to themselves, and that's an adequate example for these purposes.

Yeah, if you could just present an argument next time, that'd be great.

You have been annihilated