Trent0405

R1-RM's song felt very emo, but it was a bit better than Virt's song, "Pain" was just too powerful in my opinion, solid start by both however. 1-0 to RM
R2-RM's song was energetic an flowed well, despite the lead singers horrible piercings, Virt's song was fine, but a win none the less for RM. 2-0 in favour of RM.
R3- Virt's song is awesome, very catchy and some solid vocals to back that up, RM's song was okay at the beginning, but the ending was very nice, however Virt's song was amazing from beginning to end, my favourite song in the debate. Virt wins. 2-1
R4-Damn Dream on was strong, ended well and kept me entertained all the way through. RM's song was better though, loved the drop and lyrics, my favourite round in the whole debate. 3-1
R5-Despite the weird piercings and Virt's song being a meme, it was genuinely good, RM's song was very catchy with superior vocals however. RM wins the round and debate. 4-1 in favour of RM

In short, both offered solid songs, I generally preferred RM's songs though, one problem I had with a few songs was struggling to understand what was being said, although it didn't persuade me to change my vote for any of the rounds. Also, Virt's R5 in my opinion wasn't rock, but I opted to count it as rock anyway. Sadly there can only be one winner, but both competitors ought to be mighty proud, solid songs all the way through, a true pleasure to vote on.

FF

FF

FF

BoP-- Pro looks to anecdotal cases to prove the BoP is on Con, as Con points out this is faulty, the BoP is on P+ro because he must prove White people have officially been labeled domestic terrorists. BoP on Pro.

SP=CON MJ=PRO

MJ's whole case revolves around white people being violent, not that they've OFFICIALLY been labeled domestic terrorists, so even if MJ's main point is true, he loses as a result of him failing to that white people have OFFICIALLY been labeled domestic terrorists. MJ didn't meet his BoP.

FF

Double FF, both cancel each other out.

FF

FF

FF

Really weird debate, both forfeited 1 time so conduct is tied. Con does make a point about Ragnar having the right to vote, and this is dropped by pro. Pro merely points to something about Charles Dickens, entirely irrelevant to the resolution.

FF

FF

FF

FF

FF

Pro forfeited less.

Pro forfeited less.

NOTE: this isn't an FF debate, despite Cons forfeitures he made the more convincing arguments.

Conduct to pro because of cons forfeitures. 1 point to Pro,

Arguments- point by point. Also DF=Con and BB=Pro

Economy/bad budgeting/trade=BB
DF points out unemployment in the EU which appears to be dropped by BB. But DF winds up dropping 13 contentions in R4 which do much more for me seeing how they look at the impact Brexit has both nationally and internationally. To continue, trade was argued heavily until R3 where BB got the last word in and wound up winning trade in my eyes as a result Despite this, DF did prove the EU is bad at budgeting and this was dropped by BB. DF is beaten by a wide margin as a result of him dropping 13 points, even if I grant him victories for budgeting and unemployment his arguments are heavily outweighed clearly.

Note to BB for the future: Do not spend so much time on 1 point(in this case economy), the reason DF won arguments was because you dropped most of his case.

Migration=DF
DF points out how Europe can't cope large quantities of immigrants. BB makes a point about Jingoism which he could've tied into migration but failed to do so. So, this point was largely dropped by BB.

Russian relations-DF
Dropped by BB after DF points out the pressure EU nations have to hate Russia.

Demographics=DF
Dropped by BB.

DF wins argument because he won 75% of the main points.

DF must win arguments(3 points to DF), therefore DF wins 3-1(or 6-4 if we're talking about a 4 point voting system).

S and G/Sources=tie.

FF

AD=Avoid death BB=Billbatard

BB's R1 was weak, AD easily refuted his point about poor people being happy and rich people being sad by looking at suicide rates. At the end of round 1 I'm left to believe The rich are happier than the poor after seeing AD's evidence. On top of this, AD logically explains why money makes you happy.

BB points to shorter work weeks, which makes you less money in general being the cause of happiness. But, as AD pointed out, BB completely shot himself in the foot with using the Netherlands because they are incredibly wealthy despite a short work week. BB again makes a mistake by looking at Singapore which BB stated had a very long work week and very wealthy people, but they aren't happy. AD pointed out that Singapore was actually the second happiest Asian country. BB opted to completely neglect AD's logical point.

AD proved money logically will make you happy, and left BB's 2 arguments with no real weight to them seeing how they actually prove AD's point about how money does buy happiness with rich people overall being happier, and the two nations Singapore and the Netherlands being very wealthy and happy. AD wins arguments

Conduct to Batard because of Drone's forfeitures.

Arguments to pro because his arguments were entirely dropped as a result of Drone's forfeitures. Drone also didn't provide much of an argument in his R1 argument.

FF

Pro was the only debater to make a proficient argument, offer any sources, and forfeited slightly less. S and G was fine for both.

FF

FF

FF

Pro forfeited less.

Pro forfeited less.

Neither side made a convincing argument.

Pro R1- Huey was for the common folk(unsubstantiated).

Con R1-states his confusion with the resolution.

Pro R2- FDR was good for America, Huey would've done more

Con R2- Forfeiture, CONDUCT to Pro as a result.

Pro R3-Nothing worth noting.

Con R3- America did fine without Huey.

Pro/Con R4- No noteworthy points.

Neither side went deep into why Huey was or wasn't needed, both sides best arguments would be okay if they gave me a sufficient evidence to back up their claims, e.g break down why Huey would've done more than FDR, or why/how he would make the polices irreversible.
It's only the forfeiture that implores me to vote Pro.

FF

FF

FF

No extensive dialogue took place, so arguments are tied.

Conduct to Pro because of cons forfeitures.

FF

Not one side really offered an in depth argument, no extensive dialogue took place. As a result, arguments must be tied.

S and G

Errors from Pro.

"my feelings are self evident they dont have to be proven, we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created eqqual and endowed with certain inalienable rights so to say we dont hav rights is unamerican."

"i'm going to hold my breath and poop in my pants and then light your cat on fire if you dont let me vote! dont make me kiss your grandma with tongue."

So most of the time I can presume what Pro is referring to, like equal being spelt eqqual, same thing with have bein spelt hav. But, this kills the flow of the debate, I could work through Cons text effortlessly, but Pro's points continuously forced me to reread over a missed comma, or stop/stutter for a second to establish what he really meant by hav or eqqual.

Conduct

i'm going to hold my breath and poop in my pants and then light your cat on fire if you dont let me vote! dont make me kiss your grandma with tongue.

This is either a violent threat to Con or the moderation team, either way it is unacceptable to threaten somebodies cat, even if it was simply a joke it isn't an excuse to potentially make a user fear for their loved and appreciated pet.

Pro forfeited less.

Concession.

Pro is objectively wrong when he states that Ragnar always votes against him and Ragnar points this out when he refers to the debate “Standard of living and quality of life are different things”, and seeing how Pro must prove Ragnar always votes against him and that it is personal, he can't win this debate unless he could prove that Ragnar really didn't vote against him in that debate. Sadly, Billbatard fails to prove this in R2, he never even supported how it was personal either, he just dropped everything Ragnar stated.

Therefore Pro loses arguments because he doesn't offer any evidence.

Pro forfeited less

Conduct to Pro because of Con's forfeiture.

Arguments-----

Nem is really the only one to make a proficient argument, he states how climate change is as a result of humans because of how fast the planet is warming, and then demonstrates how this is because of humans use of fossil fuels(which releases more C13, this is a pretty sound argument. He establishes a reasonable cause for the planets rapid warming.

Sadly Con doesn't state anything relevant to the resolution, he tries to prove climate change isn't a problem, not that humans don't impact our climates change.

Nem is the only person to offer a single piece of evidence relevant to the resolution. Therefore, Pro wins arguments by a wide margin.

Pro drops a lot of what con brings up. Pro leans on shaky/old evidence to prove his point while Con gives me(the voter) great reason to believe prohibition increased alcohol related crimes which are backed up by reliable sources that also debunk the idea that prohibition was effective in lowering alcohol consumption as well. Con's sources that show the inefficiencies of prohibition at lowering alcohol consumption look at it's effect in the long-term, which show how after alcohol consumption fell initially, it rose sharply afterword, this really sealed Con's victory for the arguments point seeing how much better and in depth his evidence is.

At the end of the debate I see that Prohibition merely ate up resources and time while failing to achieve it's goals in the long-term. In a lot of ways prohibition achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to in the sense that drunk arrests increased, Con points this out and I can only side con at the end of the debate.

Con drops all of Pro's arguments. Con seems to misunderstand what he's arguing for, he points out how bad Trump is and why he should leave office in 2020 which merely boosts Virt's case. Some points Bill makes that do prove Trump is good are unsubstantiated like his claim about how crazy the Democrats are, this could be a decent point if he gave me evidence to prove the Democrats are bad, but he fails to do so.

If you're going to drop all of your opponents points, at least substantiate your claims.

Concession

FF

FF

FF

50% forfeit.

Pro relays several equations that prove 0.999...=1. Con fails to demonstrate how this is false, merely saying that Pro is "splitting hairs", and 0.999... is smaller because it must be even if only by a small amount, con doesn't back this up with any equation and doesn't provide me with a single reason why I should believe him.

So nem is the only one to provide me with any evidence at all to support his case.

Conduct to pro because of cons forfeiture.

80% forfeiture