Total votes: 349
Full Forfeit
Pro seemed to think that 18 year old people would just break the law anyway, and that 18 year old people will manage their consumption of alcohol responsibly. Con dismantled both of these in my opinion. His shoplifting analogy was acknowledged but never rebutted by Pro, as a result I am left believing that Pro's first argument didn't hold up to Con's criticism. For point two, Pro pointed out the clear health drawbacks to consuming alcohol that Pro acknowledged, along with the increased risk for addiction. Once again Pro fails to properly address this point. Lastly, Con points out that choosing 18 as the legal drinking age was arbitrary, once again there was not a valid response to this point.
So, I see that alcohol deals tremendous damage to young people, along with Pro's 18 year barrier to entry being completely arbitrary.
ARGS
For one, I will see the resolution as-”The USFG SHOULD RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT as ONE POSSIBLE PENALTY for MURDER.”Pro offered this resolution and Con never objected. I will also view this debate as being centred around the United States of America, Pro stated that this debate should revolve around the United States and Con never objected.
How Realistic is Banning the Death Penalty for Murder?
It is clear that the American constitution endorses the death penalty. As a result of Con not responding to this argument, I am left believing that the American constitution would side with Pro. Moreover, the American people seem to side with Pro as Pro pointed out in R1 with his Gallup polls. Seeing as Con failed to respond to this point, I have to believe that the American people wouldn’t endorse Con’s position. Also, it’s clear that an inmate donating blood is not permitted in the United States of America. In short, it’s clear that the Americans and their constitution would not support Con’s position, as a result, I am left with the impression that Pro’s position would be much easier to implement in the United States of America.
How Effective is Banning the Death Penalty for Murder?
Con’s argument revolves around extracting blood from prisoners to save American lives, and to try to sell or donate this blood to foreign countries. But, killing the murderer instead of extracting blood would also come with its own monetary gains. Providing for murderers is very costly as Pro points out, costing tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner. Moreover, because extracting blood from prisoners would not be permitted, it appears that the potential monetary benefits would be very hard to capitalize on. We also see that killing murderers significantly lowers crime rates, this point gets dropped by Con. But, Con was able to establish that blood extraction could save lives. However, seeing that extracting blood from prisoners is illegal, this point gets knocked down a bit. So, crime sides with Pro because Con never contested this point. The fiscal benefits side with Pro because killing murderers to save money is much more practical than selling blood to foreign countries. But, if it could be implemented, Con’s position could save many lives.
I believe Pro won arguments because his position is much easier to implement, along with it deterring crime and saving money. Also, while Con’s position could save lives, it seems like that would be very hard to capitalize on as a result of the barriers to implementing Con’s position.
SOURCES
No problems from either side.
CONDUCT
No problems from either side.
S AND G
No problems from either side.
Con never makes an argument, or addressed any of Pro's arguments. Moreover, it is clear that any argument, however good or bad, beats no argument. As a result, Pro wins arguments.
Pro wins conduct because Con forfeited.
Double FF.
RFD in comments.
numbers 10-12.
Concession.
Full forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
It appears that Pro is arguing that poverty is worse for men because society prioritizes the fiscal health of women over men. This point is largely irrelevant to the resolution, so ultimately Pro fails to offer an ounce of evidence which supports the notion that "Poverty Exists Only for Men." Con was able to prove that women comprise more than 50% of people who are in poverty. Con even flips Pro's argument against him by pointing out how welfare goes to poor people and people in poverty are also poor. Meaning that if women are more likely to receive welfare, then they're obviously more likely to be poor than men.
In conclusion. Con's claims refute the notion that "Poverty Exists Only for Men." Pro never attempts to argue in favour of the resolution, and as a result, Con must win the arguments point.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
plagiarism and 50% forfeiture.
Concession.
50% of the debate was forfeited.
50% of the debate was forfeited.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
I don't buy Con's argument that pineapple on pizza is a waste of resources, Pro notes that Con would have to prove that too much pineapple pizza is being produced in relation to what's being consumed, he never does this.
The BoP for pro is to prove there is nothing wrong with pineapple on pizza. Con proved to me that pineapple on pizza caused unnecessary controversy for being so divisive. Funnily enough, it turns out that Pro's source intended to rebut this merely supported Con's statement. Pro's source also just says pineapple pizza is influential, this doesn't address the statement that pineapple on pizza is controversial as Con points out. So Con demonstrated that, despite how influential pineapple on pizza is, it's divisive and causes unhealthy controversy. Therefore I'm lead to believe that there is at least one thing wrong with pineapple pizza.
Concession.
Concession.
Pro forfeited over 50% of this debate.
Full Forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Concession.
Pro fails to uphold his BoP. Not a shred of evidence was offered to lead me to believe that Discipulus_Didicit loves, or at some point loved, open borders.
Full Forfeit.
Excessive number of forfeits.
Con stated that gender is biological, not psychological. Pro excellently offers several definitions from reputable sources that state that gender is socially constructed and not biological as Con claims. Con's response to this merely states that sex and gender are related but not the same, this doesn't necessarily support his case. Pro then offers some definitions of sex that demonstrate that sex is biological, while gender is philological and socially constructed. Con then just restates his R2 for the remaining rounds where they establish that sex and gender aren't the same, but related. Again this doesn't prove that gender is not socially constructed, Pro has already established by using definitions that sex is biological while gender is socially constructed.
At the end of the day, Pro offers sources which establish that sex is biological while gender is socially constructed. Con never really is able to contest this.
Full forfeit.
Con was able to prove that vote moderation wasn't rigged and that there were set standards that are enforced. Pro offered basically no arguments himself. Pro tries to shift the BOP on Con when, as he demonstrated it wasn't on him but his opponent. Pro never even tries to prove that the site is elitist BS, he doesn't even attempt to, therefore he doesn't meet his BOP.
I sadly only have 1 argument from each side, but I'll do what I can.
Both sides points---
Pro proposes that UBI will have amazing results economically. He states that giving consumers more money will help businesses and the economy as a result. He also states that America's poor need this money to get by, while also proposing that American jobs are at risk and this will presumably help the American workers who are no longer employed. The last key point brought up is UBI's success in Alaska.
Con replies to Pro's economic points by stating the fiscal irresponsibility of implementing UBI. Con proved that the US would need about 1.9 trillion dollars in tax revenue to pay for UBI. He comes to the conclusion that an implementation of UBI would be practically impossible without severe repercussions. Con then attempts to debunk the statement that giving money to consumers will help the consumer, the bushiness, and the economy. He says that as a result of inflation the consumer will merely have to deal with higher prices. Another point Con proposes is that people can abuse the system and not work. This would presumably have repercussions on the economy that Con stated relied on human labour as of now. Con then addresses Pro's point on Alaska. Con states that implementing something in a sparse state isn't the same as implementing nationwide.
My take---
Alaska----Slight win for Pro
Pro stated that UBI worked in Alaska, Con stated that Pro's own source conceded that implementing UBI nationwide would bring on far greater challenges. As a result, this point carries very little weight in favour of Pro.
Economy/Inflation/jobs/Exploitability----Con
Pro proposed that giving money to consumers will help businesses, lower poverty, and much more.
Con was able to prove that inflation would mitigate the impact UBI would have on poverty, Pro never responds. The poverty point has lost a lot of weight.
UBI will, when accounting for potential savings cost 1.9 trillion dollars. This goes untouched.
UBI is highly exploitable, he gave the example of individuals pooling their,oney together to avoid work, this goes untouched by Pro.
Pro stated that UBI would help workers who may lose their job, which was established to be fairly probable. Con’s exploitation point mitigates this seeing how labour may be lost to strategic individuals, but it appears that UBI could be a useful safety net for those who opt to continue working and lose their jobs.
At the end of the day for this point I saw that UBI would have a very small impact on poverty and may be a decent social safety net. But the point still stands that some labour will be lost, and UBI is a shaky system being easily exploited. This on top of the 1.9 trillion dollar tax burden which would presumably be deficit spending seeing how Pro never stated how he was to pay for this massive expense.
There are too many points that sway against UBI economically, Con established how shaky the system was, and how it would be a huge tax burden. Pro was only really able to prove that it could help workers who lose their jobs, but the inflation point mitigates this too much as I’m not convinced that it would greatly improve their purchasing power(because of Con’s inflation point). So I have a dominant victory for Con economically. The Alaska point was debunked sufficiently, Pro’s own source was turned on him to prove that UBI working in Alaska≠UBI working nationwide. After weighing their arguments, Con wins.
Pro largely relied on the fact that parents know their child better because they've raised them and such. Con flips this however by pointing to people not getting vaccinated dying, and presumably this wouldn't happen if a doctor made the choice. So despite parents knowing their child's emotions better, it's clear that doctors are better at saving lives. This point was dominated by Con at the end of the day. Pro then says that doctors may have ulterior motives with no source to back it up, Con provides me with a source that show how a parent's ignorance can kill.
Honestly it was clear that allowing doctors to make medical choices for children saved lives, while parents, however knowledgeable of a child's emotions, can be ignorant to what is medically best for their child. The ulterior motives point fell flat, this was because Con proved that parents can be just the same by linking a story of a Jehovah's witness denying their child proper medical treatment for religious reasons.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Con forfeited less.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.