Total votes: 11
I can’t pick a winner. Both sides spoke so elegantly and made beautiful use of facts. I cried the first time I read this debate.
It could have been a good argument, but Pro screwed it up by randomly calling Con a chat bot, and sticking by that the whole debate. Accusing your opponent of being AI is pretty bad conduct, so I’ll have to side with Con on this one.
I didn’t even look at the argument; when you forfeit every round it’s an automatic loss.
Both sides had very good, thorough, convincing arguments at the beginning. I am not one to usually debate about religion or philosophy, but I do think that both of the participants did a good job at the beginning. But then, of course, Pro just abandoned the debate. So this one goes to Con. It’s disappointing, because if Pro actually participated beyond the first two arguments, this could have been a very interesting debate over religion.
Mall actually participated.
I don’t think I need to provide any explanation for this.
If I’m completely honest, I would usually vote in favor of public transportation at a small price, but Quasimoto failed to provide any good reason to support that. McMieky was the only one who actually participated in the debate, and I feel like Quasimoto was just trying to ruin a good debate for a good person. Congrats McMieky, you won my vote.
Con’s argument was more legible, provided good sources, and was much more detailed in their explanation.
I’m sorry Mall, but I simply could not understand your argument. Pro was much more logical and just made more sense overall.
Con actually participated.
Con actually participated.