Theweakeredge

First, as someone who has participated in cross-examination debate, this was not at all how one would go, there would be a lot less back and forths and much more conciseness within the answering of each question. A simple yes or no with a source would suffice.

Arguments:

It essentially boiled down to a point of semantics, as pro ADMITTED:
-would a federal level reform of criminal justice be effective?
-would it be justified for the federal level to enact the reform?

First of all - Con does demonstrate that there have been programs that have started the process of reform, thereby proving that their effects in some regard, and, citing the agreement of Pro, that there should be criminal reform

Second - Pro delves into the semantics about how a local reform would be better, but Con rightly points out that the federal government could simply enact a law, requiring each state to reform criminal justice systems.

As both points are ultimately won out by superior sources and rhetoric by Con - Arguments go to Con.

Sources:

As to sources - Con provides 5 different sources throughout the affair, each backing up the point they were making adequately; however, Pro uses 11 sources, each of which does correlate to their point and provides impact. Sources go to Pro.

BS&G: Both debaters are adequate in this regard, tie.

Conduct:

Con asks to end the debate after it has dragged on, Pro has made self-admittable semantic points, each with the implied goal of slowing down conversation. Conduct to Con.

Arguments:

I will break the contentions into 4 major parts:

-The Geneva Convention
-Forced Labour
-War Interest
-Net Harm/Benefit Analysis

Mind you, most of this breaks down after R2, but regardless, they are the major contentions used to prove the justification of the war.

Geneva Convention - Pro's initial claim was actually turned against them, Con providing a citing of a Geneva FAQ that dismantles Pros notions. Pro even faultily rebuts this, not at all hitting the main point, but Con drops the point. I'm giving this contention a tie, Con made a good point, but dropped it and didn't answer Pro's simple rebuttal.

Forced Labor - Pro makes a compelling case, both in their first contention and their rebuttal, while Con simple argues that nations closer solving the problem will save money, Pro demonstrates why this wouldn't work, citing a source that precisely defeat's Cons arguments. Con also drops this point. I'm giving this contention to pro.

War Interest/Net Harm-Benefit Analysis - These two are kind of muddled after the second round, so I'll break it into R1-2 and R3-4

-R1-2: Pro essentially establishes the war provide support to the Vietnam War, and collected valuable intelligence. Con points out that a majority of the lives taken by the war were civilian and Pro responds that it was necessary so the American soldiers could survive (the bombing) Con shows a response by showing how they did actually lose the war, though this is not topical and does not fit within the resolution, or, at least fit the resolution. Due to Con's earlier arguments, I still mark this a tie.

-R3-4: While Pro does little at first to rebuke this aside from pointing out the obvious non-topical argument, Con does put a little work in. They bring up a point that they could have evacuated citizens, though Pro actually provides a source saying they did. Now, personally, 98% of 50,000 is way more than 160 saved citizens, but Con drops the point in favor of addressing a single point that does not ultimately save their response. This contention to Pro

Pro: 4 Con: 2

For the reasons above I give the argument to Pro.

Sources: Even in the round in which Seldiora was most active (Round1), they only provide two sources to supplement their arguments, whereas Sum1hugme provided 8. Not to mention that Seldiora only provides one more source, and Pro provides 9 more.

Pro easily get's this point.

BS&G: Both are adequate with regards to this category, this is a tie

Conduct: Both are adequate with regards to this category, this is a tie.

I hand my vote to Pro.

Pro Conceded

Pro fails the debate out of topicality - that their argument does not fit within the resolution or breaks the resolution. By not waiving every round after the first, they necessarily lost the debate.

Full Forfeit

Full Forfeit

Regardless of RMM's last-second objection, no arguments were provided to validly deconstruct Pro's reasoning.

Concession

Con: Had more sources, and used them more applicably

Full Forfeit

Concession

Full Forfeit

Concession

Arguments:

Essentially the debate is over whether we can reach mars by 2040, and several are immediately pointed out by Con on this subject. It would clearly not be economically viable, it would require tech that is only theoretical, it would require massive resources to get a base established, no way for long-term growth of food, etc..

Pro's win here is weighed on if they can prove that the harms outweigh the massive struggles the time restraint would cause and that other nations would be willing to help. Neither of these are suffciently argued by Pro, for example: Pro essentially dropping the point that the earth will end in a 100 years, and therefore the BoP of Pro has not been established.

Conclusion: Not only does Pro not fulfill their BoP, but what they do have has been properly rebutted by Con. Not to mention that Con has also established their own case and fulfilled their BoP. Con.

Sources: Both participants use reliable sources that are evenly distributed throughout their arguments. Tie.

BS&G: Both participants's grammar is satisfactory considering the character limits. Tie

Conduct: Both participant's conduct is matched by the other. Tie

Note: The absurd character limit makes it nearly impossible for either debater to get an elaborate point across, so I will instead be judging based on whose claims are backed up with proper sourcing and rhetoric.

Arguments:

They first argue over the deterrence of the Death penalty, but upon Con’s source bing used against them, they drop. Next is cost over justice, but Pro immediately agrees to justice as the value here, and argues that there is a distinction between the death penalty and justice.

Pro essentially makes an equivalence between executions and murder, and Con rightly points out that it is a false equivalence, though does not justify with proper argument due to space.

Conclusion: While Con does refute the specific claim made by Pro in round 4, they do not address the larger one with a source. However, rhetorically, Con does take the victory as their arguments have less logical fallacies. Thus tie.

Sources: Pro provides one in every round, while Con stops after round 1, therefore I give sources to Pro

BS&G: Very short character spaces, and sentence fragments are matched, Tie.

Conduct: Aside from the framing in general, both Debaters conduct themselves fine. Tie.

Arguments:

Pro starts with a constructive establishment of his argument detailing how it would be useful in detecting "stale" marriages, and manipulative "lovers". Con forfeits the next round and we get no new arguments on Pro's part.

In the second round Con establishes his own argument and puts severe doubt on Pro's argument. Con establishes two points, Honesty and other values, on why the love meter would not be beneficial. Con then presents several questions that puts said doubt on Pro's arguments.

In the next round, Pro essentially drops, or swerves around all of Con's arguments, Pro notices this and address it, even compounding on the argument more by providing more arguments.

Sources:

Only Con provides sources

Conduct:

Con forfeits, therefore Pro get's the conduct.

Full Forfeit, kind of disappointed, I was actually kind of excited to follow along.

Firstly to clarify - I've seen mentions of character assasination

Character Assasination: "the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation." Oxford Languages

Pro does not seem to maliciously harm Mall's "good" reputation, nor is the "harm" unjustified. Everything claimed by pro is backed up by a source demonstrating what they say as truth (some multiple sources) Therefore there is no character assassination on Pro's (Contender's) part.

To the actual debate:

It starts off with a pretty clear cut R1, Malls waives to wait for the criticisms, and Pro (Ragnar) provides a list of such. In R2 Mall either dismisses each claim without justification, or attempts to cite a lack of evidence for each claim. Pro comes back with the fact that they did indeed provide sources, and provides even more sources. R3, is essentially the same Rhetoric from Con, and it does as much convincing as it did the first round, and Pro simply lists off their contentions with some admittable questionable critiques of Mall.

R4 and R5 are simply back and forth with no rebuttals on Mall's part.

Therefore I give the arguments to Pro.

Con fails provide to any sources, while Pro provides a multitude, therefore Pro also get's points on sources.

While it is true that Pro does not character assassinate Con, they do provide some criticism that would be considered rude, but Con also continuously ignored sources provided in the text they cited. For those reasons, I will leave conduct in the middle, as it is more up to perspective/opinion who's was better.

Concession on Pro's part, with a lack of sources as well. Therefore the winner is con

From their last debate, Pro's argument has improved, but not enough to fulfill their BoP.

I agree with MisterChris, that the resolution does imply all, and a simple resolution name change would easily fix the debate. Regardless I am in agreeance with Con, they did indeed refute all of Pro's claims.

For this reason I'm giving the argument to Con.

By the debate terms themselves, the ban is a very contentious topic, and each point could have been argued easily. I.e The reasons for the ban.

Concession

To give an overview: Pro: Prove this, Con: This definition proves this, Pro: But does it?

Arguments:
I would separate them according to rounds, but each round is practically a repetition of the last. The two points argued that aren't entirely semantic would be the definition of religion and atheist, and the Laveyan Satanists religiosity. Pro provides no counter sources, or even definitions beyond vague statements (that, again, aren't sourced anywhere).
As for the religiosity of Laveyan Satanists, Pro provides a non-sequitur to justify their position, which Con points out (though not citing the fallacy) and rebuts.
The rest is an assault on Con's character and the usage of "boxes" .

Sources: Pro provides zero sources (aside from citing the source that Con uses), while Con does provide sources to justify their position.

Conduct: Due to the attempted hit at Con's character with regard to an unjustified claim of closed-mindedness, cursing, intentional shifting of the goal post, etc, of Pro, I will be giving conduct to Con.

A Forfeit would in-arguably lead to the PRO winning, but there was an entire debate before hand, only letting out one round, let's explore it shall we?

Arguments:
Round 1:
Con starts with a argument that's central points are as follows: BLM is ethnocentric movement, BLM will spread false information, and that BLM is a relatively small impact issues by comparing death statistics. The sources are promising, but a notably cherry picking of data is apparent, given sources later provided by PRO
Pro noticeably does not provide a case, instead critiquing Con's case. Pro does indeed respond to every point in Con's initial case, providing sufficient sources and reasoning to rebut these claims.

Overall I'd agree with some of the voter's below that Con would have been much more convincing had they provided clear definitions of the terms being used, and clarified the BoP for all parties sooner in. Pro was convincing, but it is true they would have had a much better start had they provided a constructive and not just a rebuttal.

Round 2:
Con starts out by correctly mentioning that Pro has not fulfilled their BoP; however, the straw man that follow is not nearly as correct. Not only are their no sources provided for any of the claims within the beginning of the argument, but some of their "points" are simply repeated gs from Round 1. Not to mention that half of Con's rebuttal's are simply a dismissal without proper evidence.
Pro does provide a case to support BLM, short and to the point, and well-sourced. This time Pro elaborates on a point that Con simply dismissed in their round, to most every point that Con brought up actually. Correcting some factually incorrect claims that Con had made, with sourcing abundant in their argument.

Overall- this is the last round of the debate, and as such, I'll critique it as such. Last we left off, Con provided very little sources, simply dismisses several arguments without evidence, and every one of Con's comparison's dismantled by Pro.

Bonus: Pro further summarizes, why they have fulfilled their burden, and ties up some loose ends that the round had left off at.

Sources: While Con does provide sources, they are relatively lightly spread throughout their first argument, and nearly nonexistent in their second. This is compared to Pro who provides a source for nearly every point argued.

Conduct: Lack of sourcing on Con's part, Forfeit on last round, etc

PRO concedes, and drops points or doesn't address them thorough out the debate. Not to mention that his refutations are, as CON points out, factually incorrect.

Pro conceded, and even admitted in a round that their rebuttal didn't hold all that much weight.

As specified in the description the winner was decided randomly, I assigned Bearman heads and Seldiora tails, then I flipped a coin 4 times. Here's the result:

3 tails, 1 heads.