Total votes: 349
Concession
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
I do not understand Con's third world argument, the description says " I am talking about people in 1st world countries who are eating meat because of the pleasure meat gives, and not out of necessity."
So I interpret the resolution to be,
---"people residing in the first world that eat meat for pleasure, not survival, ought not support the meat industry."---
What is Meat.
I think this point was well aimed, but it fails to convince me. I think there was an implication of what the meat industry is. I do not believe the intended spirit of this debate was to talk about how ethical lab grown meat is.
Name that Trait.
Pro openly concedes name that he can't answer name that trait.
"We don't, but we have meat that doesn't unethically torture them."
Emissions/Environment.
Basically Con said...
-More emissions than the whole transportation industry.
-A lot of land and crop use.
-Could feed extra people.
-Uses antibiotics children need.
Pro does not truly challenge this, merely stating that his critique of the resolution is enough.
Plant VS. Animal.
Plants are indeed killed in Con's system. But, they don't have a nervous system or the capacity to form connections. I thought that this would be a great point to go back and forth on, but it seems like it stops at that. Seeing how Pro never revisits this and leaves Con's contention to stand.
In short, Con won more contentions, though I felt like he blundered a few points like the plats VS animals point, where he could've made a more persuasive argument.
Nevertheless, this was a fun debate, and I hope my vote is satisfactory.
Good debate, and whilst I find Pro's position rather unappealing personally, I felt as though She made the more persuasive arguments. But, I thought Con argued excellently himself.
Conduct for Knub's forfeiture.
Both sides agree that there are problems with prisons. Sel believes the problems can be fixed while Pro thinks the system should be dismantled.
Also, keep in mind that when say something is better or more useful, I may just be referencing one debaters point of view.
Recidivism.
It seems as though reform can solve a lot of the problems prisoners face, but Pro contends that prisons have been proven to reduce recidivism, although her source does openly call for the abolition of prisons. Pro also cited the fact that prisons were never intended to recidivise, but were rather there
to punish.
In other words, we can take steps to fix the system, but in the end your merely reducing the harms of a net negative. (My takeaway)
Slavery.
It seems as though this may be a problem, but prisons do not necessitate slavery as Con points out.
Anarchy/Chaos
Con is never really able to back this up, Pro time and time again utilized scholarly articles that demonstrated the detrimental impact of prisons, yet Cons just seems to be relying on the ever fallible human intuition.
Jobs.
Whilst prison abolition may require mass layoffs, Pro proves mathematically that prison workers could be compensated with billions being left to spend on more useful projects.
Crime.
Pro did prove that generally prisons did not decrease crime, but Con did prove that when done correctly, prisons can decrease crime. And although these methods of reducing crime might be possible outside of prisons, prisons may be the only place a lot of people can ever attain the knowledge needed to become a useful member of society.
It seems as though there are few benefits to prisons, and actions that seek to improve prisons seem to call for prisons to be less prison like. The evidence offered by Con only serves to prove that prisons can be made better,not that a prisonless society would be worse than a society with prisons.
P.S. My apologies for the unorganized and sloppy vote, I really hope I didn't miss anything important in it. If Con or Pro have any problems, feel free to contact a moderator. I have also only skimmed through this to detect any grammatical errors, I hope it is still legible.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Concession
Objectively TNB won this debate, the letter 'E' never showed up in his arguments, therefore he is the victor.
Concession.
Concession.
Oro demonstrated that a simple syllogism can be a very concise and persuasive, Pro's rebuttal actually wound up conceding the whole point by implying that 100 characters can be enough for some debates despite it being inappropriate for most.
Concession.
Concession.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Forfeiture.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Full Forfeiture.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
ARGS
It seems like the British blockade was still healthy after the battle ended. I know Pro pointed out how the Germans just wanted to destroy a portion of Great Britain's fleet, but his own source suggested that the main goal was to break the blockade. It further implied that destroying the British fleet was merely a means to an end. So, it seems obvious that breaking the British blockade was a big goal for the Germans that they did not achieve. Keep in mind that I will be weighting this point the most because both Con’s sources and Pro’s sources agree that this was the primary objective.
Also, Con suggests that the German morale had been slashed by the battle, but Pro refuted this with his own info. So I’m left with conflicting sources here, as a result, it appears that there is no clear consensus that Jutland worsened or bolstered the German morale.
Con also claimed that the German’s had been neutralized navaly after the battle, but Pro proved that the Germans were still sinking a lot of allied shipping later on in ww1. A proper rebuttal was never presented by Con on this point.
In short, the primary objective of the Germans was never achieved. Jutland was not a complete failure however, German morale appears to still be intact and Germany was also still able to harass allied shipping after the battle.
SOURCES
Pro used respectable sources of information, however they all seemed to disagree with his own conclusion. the Wikipedia article for instance fell in line with what Con was arguing if you extend the quote. Moreover, Con organized Pro's sources and demonstrated how they ultimately came to Con's conclusion. This did not happen with Con's sources though, they all seemed to point toward Con's conclusion in the end.
So the sources point will be assigned because Pro's sources fell in line with Con's end conclusion. I do appreciate Pro's effort to use respectable sources of info, however further inspection of the sources content may help Pro in the future when he selects his sources.
S AND G
Good on both sides, the abbreviation got a little confusing but it was still readable.
CONDUCT
Great job on both sides.
A good start in R1, but ultimately a full forfeiture.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Concession. Also, Con forfeited so he loses conduct.
Full Forfeit.
Sadly Con never offered an argument, Pro did, pointing to several reasons why saddam was not guilty. Con also forfeited more.
""Forfeiting twice will merit a loss."" Con forfeited twice, so he loses this debate, he agreed to the rules of the debate and violated them.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.