Total votes: 135
eff eff!!!!!!!
.noissecnoC
Extend
Extend
Extend
FF but also wtf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeXj4Z1gIrk
Concession.
r/the_yangbang
Pro asserts that Utah is what happens when hipsters infest a red state. Pro explains this by showing a movement of younger people into the state, making the state vote much more left wing than it has in a long time.
Con asks Pro to prove it is an "infestation" and to prove that Utah "happened", in a semantics argument.
Pro *admits* that he was using loaded language and talks about the progressiveness of Salt Lake City.
Con pokes holes in pro's resolution by explaining that Utah did not "happen", that the word "infestation" has negative connotations and in this case there is nothing necessarily negative going on, and that the people who did these things are not really "hipsters", negating Pro's points about leftist leanings in the state since people leftist leanings do not equal hipsters
Pro drops all of Con's arguments and makes a case that Con has already rebutted.
Con should have restated Pro's mistake but insults Pro and drops the bad argument; this is a mistake but ultimately Con successfully muddied the waters of Pro's case via semantics and Pro dropped all of Con's points.
F
ull
F
orfiet
"There is no failure except in no longer trying" - Elbert Hubbard
after reviewing the arguments for roughly 420 hours i have made my decision this is my first time voting ever please tell me if you have an issue with my vote im very sorry
Con's forfeit was an amazing argument, but I'd give the slight edge to Pro overall because of her great responses to Con's Contentions. The part where he said "Extend" was especially intelligent.
`1234567890-=qwertyuiop[]]\
asdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm,./
`1234567890-=qwertyuiop[]\asdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm,./
"I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation."
- George Bernard Shaw
Pro makes a (honestly) very poor argument generalizing Antifa's radical actions as those of the Left, then generalizes that Leftists want to ban all guns, and then insults them by calling them uneducated, all without source. Pro rebuttals Pro's generalizations by pointing out just what they are: generalizations. Con then FF's the debate. :(
After much deliberation on the complicated content of this debate and the interesting points made by both sides, I have decided (after thinking really hard) to award my really hard-thought points to Pro.
"If I Had A Nickel For Every Time I've Cried In The Back Of an Uber, I Wouldn't Have Another Pair of Yeezy's" - Jaden Smith
Pro was the only debater who presented an argument. Since Con did not rebuttal it at all, the argument passes.
mayonnaise colored benz I push miracle whips - Kanye west
Arguments: Pro asks Con why Star Wars isn't good. Usually, Pro would have the BOP in this debate due to his position as the instigator, but he forks it over to Con. Since Con essentially rolls with it, I'll disregard it. Con points out Star Wars has otherworldly life which is similar to humans, which he thinks is a coincidence, which isn't really a great argument since he provides no evidence besides conjecture that this is unlikely. Pro counters in a different way, by pointing out that it's meant to be entertaining. This is a fair point on it's own, but it also has no evidence; Pro could've supported his reasoning or explained it given how easy it is to justify, but he doesn't. The point still initially stands though. Con drops this point, (1-0 pro) and says it's violent, but gives no evidence that this is a bad thing, but also says it has bad lighting, which is a fair (though unsupported) point. Pro drops the violence argument (1-1), conceding it, and his rebuttal to the lighting argument is poor, saying it's in space, which still doesn't justify it. If I filmed a film inside of a shark's large intestine people could say it's bad because you can't see anything. If I said "but it's in the shark's large intestine so duh" I would still be wrong. Con points out that the ISS has good lighting, but Pro says that this is because it's more recent, which has no evidence to support it again. (I'll give this to Con 1-2) In the last round, Pro says that Star Wars grossed a lot, which has no weight at all because that provides evidence that people liked it, which is conceded by Con when he says that the books are good (2-2). Overall, I just wrote run on sentences and lost brain cells simultaneously. I need a break. Speaking of breaks, here's the breakdown: 2-2. Overall, I'd give the args to Con, because by tying it he has the advantage since Pro did not fufill his BOP.
Sources: Pro was the only one who used them, although both provided so many assertions that had no support.
S+G: I understood Pro's "meant to be entertaining" point. I only detract points when incorrect S+G detracts from the readability of the debate, which is a policy I firmly stand by.
Conduct: I'd say that Con's FF was poorer conduct than Pro's new args in the last round, since there were no rules on this policy but also Con completely disregarded it.
my head hurts
"I heard that life gets hard when you're older
And the fun stuff's just for kids
But what I realize as I grow up
Is that it's just a hit or miss"
- Rolf
All you guys voting tie: Con doesn't have to present an argument. Pro did not meet his BOP.
FF and concession. But pro, do not lose hope in debating. Keep going.
Truly one of the greatest debates of all time.
Arguments: Pro presents the argument that the Electro-Dragon is good because of it's ability to reset, strike up to three units, and do large amounts of damage. Pro then gives a detailed example of how to use the Electro Dragon effectively. Con posts in the last round and concedes 2 of Pro's points, instead choosing to make his own case. He goes into how it does little damage, how it can activate king tower, and how easy it is to kill, which is incredibly non specific. Overall, Pro wins arguments because Con drops almost all of them and only presents 3 arguments, only 2 of which are decent points.
Sources: Con's source "Clash Royale" is fair enough. I'll tie it.
S+G: Fine on both sides.
Conduct: Con forfeits more rounds, and posts new arguments in the last round, which is generally poor conduct.
Win for Con.
Arguments: Pro introduces the short case that we should bring back extinct species so we can research them. Con introduces his own case that extinct species, if they were to be brought back to life, would go extinct again, and how our resources are low enough that it would be pointless. Considering that that argument itself isn't especially strong (it doesn't address how we could just bring one animal back to research on it, as Pro said) it's a shame that Pro completely drops it and just adds to his unsourced list of arguments. Con then rebuts these arguments. Let's go over his final rebuttals:
"First off, I would like to say that poaching is never a good thing, so even if we bring back animals by cloning them we should never poach."
Con's rebuttal is poor here, because he just says that poaching is bad - he never mentions why. Pro's argument passes.
"Secondly, it will take a lot of clones to have enough to reproduce, and even once they do have enough clones so that they can all start making more of them, it will take very long for a large amount of time for the animals to make enough of them to not be considered endangered. So if all this works the species will still be considered endangered for a long time. Also, most of the clones that get successfully made have really bad defects by the time they grow up so they might not even be able to reproduce and the species would die of again."
Both sides did poorly here. Pro makes the very weak argument that we can make less endangered species. This argument is just ridiculous because Pro does not explain why this has any intrinsic value. Con somewhat successfully rebuttals this by showing how ineffective and short this method would be, but inherently concedes that there will be more non-endangered species. Since he doesn't explain why this is bad, the argument passes.
"Also, most of the clones that get successfully made have really bad defects by the time they grow up so they might not even be able to reproduce and the species would die of again. Once we bring back species, to research on them wouldn't work out well because there is always some kind of defect so we will be getting false information on the species if we tried to study the clone. "
This rebuttal isn't great, but it's sourced and it works against Pro's claim. This argument is won by Con.
Overall, both sides did roughly the same but if I had to strain my brain muscles would give the edge to Con here because Pro completely drops his case and Con at least attempts to rebut (and successfully rebuts once) Pro's points.
Sources: I don't give points for sources except for when a lack of sources detracts from the case at hand, which this time it does for Pro. Most of Pro's points are practically weightless like: "we should bring back extinct animals to research on them" simply because he uses no sources. Con doesn't do a great job with this either, but does use sources for some of his points, like his case with animals with birth defects. Con wins this point as well, although I recommend he detail in his case which parts of his argument have which sources. So like: animals have birth defects [Source 1] and put the source below.
S and G: Fine on both sides, nothing gave me trouble.
Conduct: Both sides forfeited an equal amount of rounds, but Pro dropped Con's case and introduced new arguments in the final round, the latter of which is poor conduct.
Arguments: Pro presents arguments about Pekka having a strong attack damage, good defense, and Pekkas' ability to be used as a meat shield. Con only somewhat rebuttals one of these arguments about Pekkas' ability to defend by showing that the Inferno Tower can kill it in one hit, but drops the rest. Con's arguments on the Inferno Tower concern it's attack damage, ability to move units to the side of the field, and it's elixir cost. These arguments cannot be addressed by Pro because Con posted new arguments in the last round, which I will go more into detail about in the conduct point. But overall, since Con drops most of Pro's arguments, Pro fulfills his Burden of Proof and thus wins the argument point.
Sources: Neither side used sources, so this is not applicable.
Spelling and Grammar: Both had some comma mistakes which did not detract from the debates' readability, but I'll give the edge to Con here because Pro has several bizarre sentences which detract from the readability of the debate such as:
"can also be used as a meat shield for other troops such as a wizard or so."
Conduct: Since both sides forfeited an equal amount of times, no conduct points can be addressed there, but Pro overall has better conduct because Con posts new arguments in the final round which Pro cannot rebut, which is generally considered poor conduct.
All things considered, this debate is a win for Pro.
aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye
Pro FF'ed the debate
Full FF by Pro. By not forwarding an argument, he didn't meet his Burden of Proof.
I should be doing my homework right now.
Pro FF a round, so conduct to Con. Both had good alliterations.
Con forfeits almost every round in the debate, conceding his case.
Con conceded the debate, FF´ed all the rounds, and he did not present an argument, so arguments and conduct to Pro.