Total votes: 349
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit
Concession.
Too much of Con's case wound up being dropped as a result of the poor conduct on Pro. The poor conduct came from Pro's several forfeitures. So conduct and arguments to Con.
Conduct because of more forfeitures.
Pro wound up dropping all of Con's case because of his forfeitures. Arguments to Con as a result.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Pro asserted that Science history ought to be taught in science class, and because Creationism is science history, Creationism ought to be taught in science class. The rebuttal from Con fell flat to me. He stated that Creationism isn't scientific, therefore it ought to be taught in another class like history or religious studies. Pro rebuts this well by pointing out that the geocentric model isn't scientific, but it still is a part of science's history, which is why it's taught in science class. Con then says that we merely address false ideas briefly, not teach them.
Frankly, Con failed to address any of Pro's arguments and analogies. Con's response fell flat as well, the extent to which something is discussed is largely irrelevant.
Conduct to Pro because Con forfeited.
Also, extra credit to Pro, I came into this debate agreeing with Con and now I must say I side with Pro.
conduct- Pro forfeits 2 rounds. Con wins.
Arguments- Both sides lacked any arguments, it's gonna have to be a tie.
Full Forfeit
Full Forfeit.
Pro forfeited less actually made an argument.
Conduct to Con-Pr Forfeited R3.
-----------------------------------------------------
Pro provides practically no evidence to support the notion that life during war time is the most hard core song ever written. The only thing he offers is the length off the name, which doesn't seem to prove it's really hardcore. Pro even concedes that there are no right or wrong answers. Con then lists a song that better fits the definition of hardcore, Pro never touches this new song.
Pro never meets his BOP, he just gives some fun facts about the song in question. Con presents a song that is more hardcore if we go by the definition of hardcore that was presented by Con and never refuted by Pro.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Pro's R1 fell flat, merely listing 3 nations with low crime and strict gun laws isn't enough to meet his BoP. Con in R1 was able to establish that nations with very easy gun laws have low crime rates, so at this point Pro is in a bit of a predicament. Pro tries to reflect this by noting how much easier US gun laws are when compared to the nations Con listed. However, con refutes this critique by pointing to America as a massive outlier, so even if Con's examples have stricter gun laws than America, Con's point is still sound. Also, Con's example countries have very easy gun laws on a world wide stage. Con continues by excellently pointing to America which has fairly low levels of crime but loose gun laws. Pro only funnily enough helps Con in R3 by conceding that America has loose gun laws. That wouldn't be too bad for Pro if he refuted Con's point about America's low crime rate, but he fails to do so.
To wrap up, Con gave me examples of nations with easy gun laws and low crime, including America, Pro never refutes this properly, so I'm left with a handful of nations that are safe with loose gun laws, meaning Pro's stance is faulty. Not only isn't their enough evidence to prove that ALL safe nations have strict gun laws, there isn't enough evidence to prove that America isn't safe, which Pro would have to do considering he conceded that America had loose gun laws.
Con drops all of Pros points in the debate, some of them key points include the cost and safety benefits of averting. Con states that in Ohio the wine industry will prosper. But as Pro points out, there will most likely be less wine production world wide, as well as production of other food plummeting, Pro has completely flipped this argument into his favour. Con also points to humans ability to adapt, but Pro again flips this into his favour by pointing out how obscenely difficult it would be to adjust to global warming which grows at an exponential rate. Then we see Pro's new argument about how adverting climate change may also stop natural disasters get dropped as well. Con wraps up the debate with an unsubstantiated claim that humans can't avoid climate change, which falls flat compared to what Pro offered.
Now for the point by point breakdown..
Food Production-Winner=Squid
Con looks to the new opportunities for Ohio wine production, even though Pro proved hat overall production of wine and other food like grapes would plummet world wide. Con never addresses this, Pro wins.
Cost-Winner=Squid
Dropped by Con.
Safety-Winner=Squid
Dropped by Con.
Indirect Problems-Winner=Squid
Dropped by Con.
Humans Can Adapt-Winner=Squid
Con lays out an unsubstantiated claim about how humans can just adapt, but Pro flipped this by looking to the exponential growth of global warming, Con dropped Pro's rebuttal. Pro wins.
5-0 in favour of Pro for arguments.
Conduct to Con-Pro copies his sources verbatim with no quotation marks repeatedly, this is poor conduct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments:For R1 Pro merely points to the danger of guns without tying that into the resolution at all. Con states that the methodology of Pro's source is faulty, and cites a source which observes the whole of the US which shows guns are useful at protecting citizens. Con ties this into the resolution by effectively stating, that the right to own a gun protects the right to stay alive. Pro largely just restates his R1 in R2, using the same study that was rebutted by Pro.
In short, Pro relied on 1 study that showed guns were doing more harm then good to prove his point, when a more respectable study was proposed that showed that guns were good for protecting citizens, Pro never touches this. Con largely stated that the right to own a gun protects your right to life, which also goes untouched. In order for Pro to win he must prove that the right to life is more important than the right to own a gun, he merely attempts to do this by citing a study that Pro debunked and with his counter evidence proved guns were useful for protecting people. Pro doesn't prove what he needed to in order to win the debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Arguments ✗ ✗ ✔
Better Sources ✗ ✔ ✗
Better S and G ✗ ✔ ✗
Better Conduct ✗ ✗ ✔
Concession.
FF
DS=Pro WP=Con
for my evaluation…
I feel as though it was a very close debate. WP points to the potential loss of jobs as a result of a course being replaced. But, as DS pointed out, you’re creating jobs by creating a new class. I thought WP countered this sufficiently by looking to many classes that will lose traffic from this new mandatory class, which may lead to a teacher being fired. So, for unemployment I felt it was a tie. Frankly, it appears the new competition may merely create jobs and get rid of jobs, making it neutral, or the introduction of a new class won’t drive enough competition, and it’s a net positive. Overall, it was too controversial at the end of the day and both held water but neither made an argument to prove the opposing scenario was less likely. 1-1 a tied point.
WP then argues it’s bad that students will now not be learning a different subject, but DS in R1 proved that economics were just as important as math, language, and science, so this new class is vital. But, you are limiting choice which mitigates the argument from importance but doesn’t completely flip it in his favour. Overall I deem this to just barely be a tie. I see no reason why the importance of economics ought to override a student’s choice or visa versa. 2-2 a tied point.
The point that really help seal the argument victory for DS is his contention about the positive impact an economic class will have for the populous. As DS points out, Americans aren’t doing great financially, so setting the class to grade 7 will help this. WP attempts to address this by stating that people in grade 7 shouldn’t learn the class because it’s too premature. However, DS flips this brilliantly to his favour by citing the positive impacts introducing money management early has. WP’s refutation of this falls flat, he merely states the impact is minimal from grade 7 to high school, even though DS cited how introducing economics earlier was good. DS must win this. 3-2 for DS.
FF
Frankly, Con concedes just too much. He agrees that the constitution is flawed, and that it's outdated. Con states that it has just been interpreted poorly which doesn't substantiate at all. The only other point Con brings up is the fact that the constitution an be amended, Pro states that this is faulty because it is very difficult to amend the constitution, leaving the document as too hard to edit for flaws. Con never touches this.
In short, Con drops/concedes all of Pro's points. Cons 2 points were unsubstantiated or sufficiently rebutted. Pro must win seeing how his case is valid and untouched.
"I resign the debate as I have broken my own rule"
this was stated by Con and seems to be a concession.
Conduct to con for forfeitures.
Pro never once tried to argue that the best way to stop global warming its to radically reduce the human population. he merely states that it is possible and can be done humanely. This means that Pro hasn't met his burden of proof to prove that the best way to stop global warming its to radically reduce the human population. He never proves it will be the best in any way.Con states that we ought to stop global warming via the media and how it is better because it is more subtle.
In short, Con provided evidence, Pro didn't.
Pro points to the rising support of socialism in America. While also stating how when old people die out, we'll be left with socialism in the form that Denmark/Norway have adopted because young people are socialist.
Con frankly never properly addresses this well enough in R1/R2, but in R3 he evened out the debate argument strength undeniably. He points out how in order for socialism to gain a foothold in America, America would have to shift it's cultural, religious, and political structures to accommodate it.
So arguments are tied because Pro brings up a valid point about shifting views and how the future/youths look quite socialist. When Con tries to address this he merely states it's a cycle with no citation or substantiation. But, Pro has an unaddressed point about how hard it would be for America to accommodate socialism, this leaves me with 1 valid argument each with both being equally important. As a result, arguments are tied.
S and G=Tie
Sources=Tie
Conduct=Con: Pro forfeited R3
So we have a 7-6 win for Con.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better arguments✗ ✔ ✗
Better Sources ✗ ✔ ✗
Better S and G ✗ ✔ ✗
Better Conduct ✗ ✗ ✔
Con forfeited less.
Concession
Concession via comments.
Pro must prove the "people simply vote their bias, not by fair merit."
He, at no point in the debate gives any evidence to prove this. He merely states his frustration with people consistently voting against him, when pressured to substantiate his claims, he fails to do so. Pro does state the improbability of being consistently voted against, his only real sufficient argument he made, but there are explanations for this that Con points out. When Con states it is possible that a person may just make inferior arguments in every debate, Pro fails to contest this.
FF
FF
FF
double FF.
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF