Total votes: 349
Concession, but Con forfeited more.
Concession and forfeiture.
Poor performance from Con, despite hello in certain parts of the world not being seen as a term used for greeting, it certainly can be and is used as a greeting.
Concession.
Eric T got outplayed in this debate.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Pro was the only person to offer an argument and Con called him a dirtbag. That is really bad conduct.
This debate came down to Con outlining several issues with pvz 2 while Pro either agreed or replied with his own opinions. Basically, both sides should've looked more into objective sources, if Con and Pro give me 2 opinions that conflict I can't side with one over another unless one can appeal to the opinion of gamers as a whole. This locks down several contentions, basically making them tied. But, Pro conceding the graphical point and the point about legacy really turn the tides against him. Moreover, he never properly refuted con's points about the monetary burden of pvz 2. He seemed to appeal to his opinion rather than the totality of gamers, some of whom spent money on the game when they may not have needed to in pvz 1.
Pro spent a little too much time talking about his own personal opinions. The value I get out of this is very limited because if the majority of the free-to-play text based computer game community disagrees then that opinion is practically meaningless.
This was highlighted when Pro's assertions were countered with reviews of gamers that clearly preferred the options Con brought up. I know Pro tried to counter Con's source but never provided links to the reviews of the games, and he never said that Fallen London had better scores on the sites he brought up. So, it seems pretty clear that Fallen London was liked much less than the alternatives Con brought up.
Moreover, Con finalized his victory by highlighting how his options had reached a wider audience and pioneered the genre. This proves that Con's options had a much stronger legacy, and although Pro had many strong opinions about the alternatives of Con, they were not backed up by much strong evidence.
In short, gamers seem to have reached a consensus that Fallen London is worse than games like Zork. Also, Con was able to prove how his alternatives had a much stronger legacy.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Concession.
Con suggested that voters assign conduct to pro, so I will. Pro conceded the debate though, so he loses arguments.
Full Forfeit.
A full forfeit.
This debate was quite entertaining, but it is clear the debate was merely satire, as a result I am uncomfortable assigning the arguments point. Both sides had good conduct so that will also be a tie.
Despite a double FF, one forfeited less.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit
Full Forfeit.
It was strongly implied that this debate was about soccer, not animals. As a result I will see the resolution as "Pele is the greatest soccer player of all time."As a result, Pro must win arguments purely because he was the only person who engaged with my personal interpretation of the resolution, talking about Pele's statistics and prowess as a soccer player.
Pro did indeed offer the better points and did not forfeit, but because he won, that makes Con correct, which then makes Pro correct, which makes Con correct, which makes Pro correct...In other words we are stuck in an infinite loop of both sides winning and losing. As a result they both have won this debate an infinite number of times. As a result, I declare it a tie.
Full Forfeit by Pro. He also wound up dropping all of Con's points.
Pro conceded and forfeited. By accepting the debate he agreed to the topic, whether it's a truism or not.
Full Forfeit.
My main problem with Pro here is his inability to meet his BoP.
To put it simply Pro never seemed to argue that God was the cause of the corona virus. He would have to do this if he wanted to win the debate, but seeing that he failed to do so, his BoP is not fulfilled. As a result, Con must win arguments.
I guess Con answered the question so he wins args. Pro also forfeited.
No arguments presented from either side. But Pro did forfeit.
Pro dropped Con's points. He also FFed.
Con dropped Pro's points without offering any arguments of his own. As a result, Pro must win arguments.
Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Pro drops Cons arguments without offering a worthwhile argument of his own. As a result of this, Con must win arguments.
Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Not much of a debate sadly. I will have to call it a tie based on the each side full forfeiting.
Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited.
Con was able to destroy Pro's position by calculating the improbability that the death toll will top our loss in the Vietnam War.
So Con wins arguments.
Full forfeit.
Pro dropped all of Con's points without making a legitimate argument himself. So Con wins arguments.
Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited.
Full Forfeit.
Not much to say here. Pro dropped all of Con's points without offering a single argument of his own which is backed up by any evidence.
Conduct to Con because of pro's forfeit.