fauxlaw

What had potential to be a good debate failed miserably, and both opponents had issues. Forfeiting the first two rounds [and effectively waiving the third and fourth by entry of extraneous verbiage neither in support of, nor negating the resolution, is a virtual full forfeit by Pro in my book.

While Con does offer evidence negating the Resolution, and that evidence is actually plausible and viable in both R1, R2, and I therefore declare that, in Argument, Con has successfully defeated the Resolution, also providing valid sourcing supporting the arguments, and, therefore, wins the debate, Con also offends in R3 and R4. IN R3, Con declares victory with a round yet to be completed. An infraction in my book, but there is no actual voting policy to support that conclusion. However, in R4, Con steps over the Conduct line by taunt regarding Pro's next "3K debates." This was ill-advised and unnecessary, particularly in a debate in which it would be a stretch to say Pro participated. As these factors do not specifically apply in a declared winner vote, in these regards, my comments outside of argument stand as merely casual commentary as a cautionary tale for both participants in future debates. Con wins the debate.

Pro's argument lacked by considerable volume evidence that lockdown has been successful in limiting the spread of Covid-19, whereas Con offered significant evidence that the recommendations of social distancing, wearing a mask, and frequently washing/sanitizing hands has been successful to limit spread of the virus. Further, pro forfeited all rounds after the first round, yielding an automatic loss of the debate according to the DArt Voting Policy. Con wins the debate, both by argument and pro forfeit.

Argument" The entertainment value of Rick Astley's song, notwithstanding, which Con [Instigator] presents in R1, I see little. but nevertheless vague association with the debate Resolution other than that both concerning ending something obviously in progress. But this argument says nothing defeating Con's rebuttal, in R3, of Con's "should" [to wit: give up the debate] equating to "shall or will." Further, Pro discontinues argument after R1, declaring in R2 a quote from the song, which amounts to a repeat of R1 argument and not new argument, then declaring [with conduct-destroying contempt] that pro lost the "game," clearly meaning the debate. R4; Con's oblique reference to April fools accomplishes nothing, and R4 declares, obliquely, again that Pro has lost by virtue of Pro agreeing with Con, which is a baseless charge given Pro's successful R1 through R4 rebuttals. points to Pro.

Sources: Pro offers the only source, but it does not support Con's "argument"[?], which this voter concludes is worse than no source. Tie, at best.

Legibility: acceptable. Tie.

Conduct: I declare Con's win declaration in R1 to be a conduct killer. However, it is matched to Pro's over-the-top accusation of Con being "an arrogant fool" in R1. Tie.

Set-up. Pro provided no definition of terms in the Set-up Description, and suggested a number of countries which have engaged the Resolution that Holocaust deniers have been outlawed, as if, by consequence, it is a given the US should. Further, [in R1,] Pro still did not offer definition of terms, leaving that necessity [by this voter] to do so in the Con R1 frame. Most instigating debaters provide term definitions of Resolution keywords. Although there is no Policy suggestion that definitions are necessary in set-up [and, in fact, in the Cheating section of the Voting policy, there is a prohibition of offering favorable definitions to the instigator, it implies that unbiased definitions are appropriate. If only to focus the debate argumentation. This is not a point contributor, merely observation.

Argument: Pro begins argument by declaring Holocaust denial being xenophobic, assuming this to be true without offering supporting evidence. Pro did offer a source for the claim, but the source is, effectively, just as lacking in evidence; it, too, merely makes the claim, rendering the claim as mere opinion. Were there definitive evidence of the linkage, Pro should have provided scholastic evidence, but did not. Pro then argues limitations to the US Constitution’s First Amendment offer of freedom of speech, but that there are limitations to its universal application. Pro furthers this argument by declaration that other countries which have imposed legal criminalization of Holocaust denial do so in keeping with these free speech limitations, and, therefore, that the U.S. should do likewise. Con’s argument, by rebuttal, against the free speech limitation confronts the brutal reality that the sufferers of the Holocaust have the right to information regarding the Holocaust from all sources, even deniers. To lack all information by censorship is denial of free access to all knowledge available, even that which may, in fact, inflict emotional, spiritual damage. To be sure, the limitation of freedom of speech cannot harm physically, an effect to be avoided, even by law, but harm to emotion and spirit is by weak choice to convert to retaliation. Though Pro continued to press the freedom of speech issue throughout the rest of the rounds, pro could not defeat the Con rebuttal. In fact, in R2, Pro offered the prohibition of video in the Supreme Court, but this argument is not a limitation of freedom of speech, for the entire syllabus of SCOTUS decision are available in print, and available be free access on the Internet, thus satisfying the freedom of speech. Pro subsequently offered the Streisand effect, but his source for that argument actually supported the prohibition of censorship, which is a valid argument against the Resolution, as silencing Holocaust deniers effectively does. Con rebuts, “…unfortunately for pro, that is not a guaranteed right that the citizens of the US are allotted, and it's not necessarily known if only banning holocaust denial would achieve that goal alone.” Con thus negates the Pro argument that criminalizing Holocaust denial would necessarily stop the information flow to Holocaust survivors, or anyone else, for that matter, since it is a well known maxim that proof of a negative is an ineffective logic. There are more examples of insufficient argument by pro to prove the Resolution, but these will suffice. Points to Con.

Sourcing: Both sides use sourcing effectively, but the example of pro’s source in R2 of actually arguing against the Resolution [the Streisand effect] is sufficient example of a source failure. Points to Con.

Legibility: Both participants’ arguments were easy to follow and interpret. Tie.

Conduct: Ignoring Pro's repeated charges to Con to "explicitly deny" pro arguments, which bordered on unnecessary taunting, Conduct was equally civil on both sides. Tie.

Argument: Given Con’s full forfeiture, Pro’s R1 arguments of principle, cost, shooting, and bombs propelled the truth of the resolution’s accuracy over volume of fire a successful argument. Points to Pro

Sources: Pro’s sources adequately proved the Resolution,more than Con’s total lack of sources. Points toPro.

Legibility: forfeiture was not the specific argument by Con. There was nothing offered by Con of any legibility. Point to Pro

Conduct: Forfeiture is automatic conduct loss. Point to Pro

Full forfeit by Con. However, I must caution Pro for future consideration that declaring victory in the second round after Con's R1 forfeit is premature, and not good conduct. Yes, a single forfeit does lose the conduct point for the forfeiting party, whoever it is, but it is not an automatic loss of the debate per voting policy. There is no policy threshold for loss of the debate other than forfeiting all rounds, so declaration of victory ought to be reserved for the last round. Nevertheless, since Con did forfeit all rounds, pro is the winner.

Before describing my RFD, I must note the absurdity of both the Topic/Resolution, and how it was argued by Pro. I am to approach the Topic from a perspective of a best theory, and that theory’s validity by its virtue that the Loch Ness Monster was probably a worm. Qualification choices of best probability make too easy work by Pro to assume one can achieve victory in a debate when setting such a low bar for acceptance of argument, whatever that argument may be. Worse, in the Description, after snubbing what would normally be used to describe definitions, Pro declares he will not accept “absurd definitions.” Better to have offered, as Instigator, any definitions at all rather than declare definitions that Con may offer, lacking them from Pro, as “absurd.” Further insult is offered by Pro declaring “automatic win” should Con not understand “definition in the title,” which is, in fact, non-existent. If this is assumed to be a precursor to how this vote will proceed, consider this preamble to the Argument vote.

Argument: Pro’s argument contains such divergent material, [Cathbad, Twelve fathers, Fachtna Fathach, Two worms… all just in R1] that have little linkage to the Resolution subject, the Lock Ness Monster, other than Pro’s declaration of linkage [I am not convinced]. Trying to make the linkage borders on loss of legibility. Pro’s BoP ought to be simple to follow. Ought to be. I’m following the proverbial cow with its tail tied to a paintbrush, marking the road. The road is spaghetti noodles. This convoluted road asks me to find a best probability out of two worms swallowed by a young lass, making her pregnant, thus producing the son of a worm. It is common knowledge that two worms are necessary for worm coitus, but both worms carry male and female reproductive capability. It is a leap of probability to suggest that the digestive system of a human female and her reproductive system have any common tissue that would produce any offspring at all, assuming that there is even the most remote possibility that the two species, worm and human, have compatible genomes], is just a reach too far for this voter to grant the win to Pro, even if this tale is merely relegated to myth. Pro actually goes there in R2, R3, and discounts the myth, burying pro’s own argument of “best probability.” I cannot agree with Pro’s conclusion, “So, the loch ness monster was likely a worm.” Okay, it was not a declarative statement, but it does ask that I agree it is probable. No, not even remotely does it convince as a debate argument. Con capably rebutted the convoluted spaghetti-noodle exercise of historic dalliance of the characters noted above by Pro. Pro lost this argument in R1 if not in the description, and exacerbated the loss going forward. Points to Con.

Sources; Regardless of the absurdity of Pro’s argument, and the soundness of Con’s rebuttal, both used sources extensively. Tie.

Legibility: As noted above, Pro loses this point by the spaghetti-nature of the argument. I am constantly beset with inability to follow the sense of the Pro argument. It is, by another metaphor, a cat’s cradle. It did not need to be so complicated with a delirious history of characters, none of whom can be embraced, even, eventually, by Pro, himself. Pro loses this point to Con.

Conduct: By voting policy, which has a hard line relative to forfeiture, that even a single round forfeiture [while Con had 2 rounds of forfeiture, regardless of reason] requires a loss of conduct point. There is a 40% forfeiture rate rule in the Voting Policy [in this debate, 2 of 5 rounds forfeited is 40%], but that is not a loss of debate, but merely the threshold to decide to ignore argument points. I chose to engage the arguments anyway, which the Policy allows. Further, Pro’s conduct in the Description, which I found deplorable, I nevertheless regret to be driven by the forfeit rule to automatically offer the conduct point to Pro.

Argument: Pro’s argument is couched in the common misconceived justification for action: because we can, we should. Since Pro’s Resolution is not at all a construct of a non-live debate, there is no other justification for the Resolution but a matter of convenience, as Pro says in R1, to “stop wasting time of the debaters.” In fact, Pro further says in R1, citing Con [apparently from an earlier debate or forum comment], “just because the instant loss feature can be done, does not mean it should be done,” which is exactly this voter’s point in the Pro Resolution; it has not other compelling justification. Con’s argument that DebateArt is not a live debate successfully rebuts Pro’s position attempting another justification, “With the stronger push to write out your argument, you also prepare yourself for real life debating.” This may be Pro’s intent of being a DebateArt member, but not all members align with this justification, and Pro does nothing to support his claim that DebartArt should change its policy regarding forfeiture just to accommodate the Resolution.

Further, Pro argues in R2, “…it is hard to see why the virtues of being punctual and keeping your dedication would be frowned upon.” Con, again, successfully argues that since DebartArt is not a live event, whereas life does have a way of encroaching on one’s time availability [as mentioned in Con’s R1], it is absurd to expect that the conditions of online debating that is not live should yet impose life conditions on a non-live debate that literally can extend over days, weeks, and months. It is an absurd expectation. Con’s argument earns the points.

Sourcing: Neither participant engaged in sourcing that would support arguments, though outside sources are discussed. This is an optional voting feature: tie.

Legibility: Both participants offer understandable text. Tie

Conduct: Both participants offer reasonable treatment of each other. Tie

Argument: Pro starts his R1 argument with a generalization, “My stance is that white Americans really are domestic terrorists in the US” as if this is descriptive of every white American. Con’s R10 effectively rebuts the argument by demonstration that while white Americans are over 76% of the US Population, they are responsible for 108:1,000 violent crimes, whereas all other races, combined, account for 651:1,000 violent crimes; a rate of increase of over 6x compared to whites by population on an even playing field of crimes committed per 1,000 in the general population [thus the given ratios]. Although Pro’s citation of the FBI’s Table 43 source indicates that there are fewer numbers of violent crimes committed by all other races than whites, the other races commit the greater number of crimes than the white population when the relative populations are normalized as a ratio of crimes per 1,000 in the relative populations, comparable to Con’s source citation. Pro introduces sideline arguments, such as a Pew Research claim that Hispanics report as whites on the Census, and comparing hoop shoots, and the Covid pandemic, then charges “Con doesn't even realize that I'm speaking in general and not in absolutes.” Seems absolutes are what make a debate. Generalization is fine in Forum, but that’s not what this is. Con adequately rebuts Pro’s generalizations. To a rebuttal by Con in R1 that Pro has not cited sources, Pro offered an R2 claim, "I don't even need a closing statement at this point,” as if sources to support an argument are clearly not necessary to his cause since even an argument conclusion is unnecessary. It is necessary to this voter. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro’s own sources do not support his resolution, as Con argued against Pro’s FBI sources. One Pro source, when accessed [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in..] results in “This page does not exist.” Further, a Pro R3 source [https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/opinion/liu-study-hispanics-favor-whiteness/index.html] says in its title that it is opinion, not factual reporting. More worthless generalizations from Pro. Finally, an article on a Pew Research item featuring the allegation that Hispanics are “identifying as white” includes a curious confession: “The second point of confusion is that the new research did not in fact find a Hispanic flight to whiteness.” Whereas, throughout, Con offers arguments with sources that support his BoP, such as the sourcing of the rate per 1,000 population of violent criminals by race, the Catch 22 argument, and Con’s own FBI table 43 source Con successfully rebutted by demonstration that the data actually supports Con’s BoP. Pro simply misreads what the data is saying, dismissing ratios and percentages as inconsequential to whole numbers. Yes, in whole numbers, there are more crimes committed by whites, but whites exceed the whole numbers of all other races, combined, in the general population by a factor of 3x, so that whole number is expected, and does not mean that, on point, one white person is more likely to be violent than one person of any other race. This is the point of Con’s BoP, and he succeeds in demonstration of it by supporting sourcing. Points to Con

Legibility: Leans to Con with unforced Pro grammatical errors, but legibility was still maintained. Tie.

Conduct: Pro’s assertion in the Description that previous debates Pro has conducted on the relative subject of racial animus have been “easily won” by Pro in the past [and Pro claimed in R1 that his Description was argument he would “elaborate a bit more,” making the Description fair argument assessment], is countered by Pro’s 5 debates on the subject on this site on just the first page of his 3 pages of debates. Pro has lost all five of these previous debates relating to this subject. Though I do not assess Conduct points on that basis, it does present an attitude that is prevalent throughout the rounds that is, in my judgment, poor conduct. Examples: R1: “Trying to debate something that's obvious is utter insanity.” Given Pro’s smugness in the Description, the “insanity” is directed inappropriately to Con. In R3: “this is quite funny coming from a guy who's descended from people who've committed the most crimes in world history” Again, directed to Con, a vindictive charge against Con’s heritage [by which none has any say in the matter, regardless, and Con is not personally responsible for any of it, so the slur is as unkind as can be demonstrated]. R4: “SMH.” The Urban Dictionary defines this as, “’Shake my head’ or ‘shaking my head.’ Used in reference to something that's pretty dumb or so silly it doesn't even deserve a response.” “SMH” is the response. Any one, other than the R3 comment, may pass on merit of conduct, but, collectively, and in particular the R3 comment, go beyond the pale. Pro needs to clean up the language and leave the trash-talk in his locker room. Point to Con.

Argument: Con [initiator] presents 8 R1 arguments, all of which Pro fails to rebut in 3 rounds. Whereas, Pro offers argument “Gravity is not a force, in R1, but in R2 presents same argument with a citation that includes, “The force tugging between two bodies depends…” Tug, or pull, are forces, contradicting Pro’s argument that gravity is not a force. A non-supporting source of an opponent’s argument does not support, but combats an argument. Con may have used this source effectively, but as it contradicts Pro’s argument, the same purpose is achieved. Pro argued in R1 “P1: Moving in a straight line results in an orbit.” Con correctly rebuts that Pro’s source [1] does not say that, but the orbit is caused by a larger object’s gravitation pulls the otherwise straight-line motion of a smaller object [Newton Law #1] into an orbit, and not that the smaller object’s straight line inclination of motion creates the orbit motion on its own. Pro incorrectly argues in R2 the Con agrees in R2 “earth is flat.” Wrong interpretation of Con’s argument. Con said, “Earth *surface* is flat in space time, but does not prove that Earth itself is flat.” Con is clearly arguing against the flat-earth theory. Points to Con.

Sources: Con’s sources consistently support Con’s arguments such as Con’s 9 R1 arguments not rebutted by Pro. Pro’s conflict due to conflicting source use noted above, Con also wins source points.

Legibility: Both opponents had proper legibilty. Tie.

Conduct: Both opponents had proper regard for one another. Tie.

Argument: Pro was disadvantaged during the entire debate by: 1. Creating a too open-ended resolution; in effect, a blank statement of an assumed value judgment, and, 2. A total lack of any definitions of terms. As initiator, it is prudent to offer a measurable resolution, by which both opponents have the means to argue and demonstrate their relative burdens of proof. No such measurable elements are offered. It is also prudent for the initiator to define the key words of the Resolution such that each opponent has that grounding to argue Pro and Con, knowing such words have meaning in order to focus the debate. Lacking both essentials for a substantive debate, Pro effectively tied their own hands, while allowing, and never rebutting, points of argument by Con, such as the repetitive 4 points of rights, which pro totally ignored as necessary to rebut in order to present a valid case. It was left to Con to offer definitions, all of which Pro accepted without rebuttal. As a result, Pro offered very little in argument to prove the Resolution. points to Con.

Sources: Pro's solitary source is the story of one child, whose intellect is superior to most children, and adults. As such, this "proof" is anecdotal, and not descriptive of most children, which the Resolution assumes is the measure of its validity. Con's sources fully support Con's BoP, in particular, in R4, Con's source argues that highly intelligent children, such as Pro's one source describes, have inferior maturity compared to most children. This source thoroughly defends Con's BoP. points to Con.

Legibility: Both opponents' language is fully understood. Tie

Conduct: This could lean to Con due to Pro's lack of content in Description as noted above, but, such lack is merely counter-productive to the initiator's attempted BoP, but is not a necessary feature required by DArt policy, therefore, a tie.

Argument: Pro's argument that A.I. has brought about safer working and living conditions has plenty of evidence supporting the claim. Con's argument suggests A.I. should be avoided due to the possibility of humans falling behind in cognitive thinking, and in loss of jobs. Pro's argument has evidence all can see as beneficial to the human condition. Con's argument may have real examples, but they are outweighed by hte positive impact seen in utilization of A.I. Pro wins the points.

Sources: Neither side used sources to support their arguments when there are examples to be drawn upon. Tie.

Legibility: Both opponents' arguments were well constructed. Tie.

Conduct: Both opponents had respect for one another. Tie.

Argument: Con’s resolution is supported in R1 by a source claiming, “Nothing in the law prohibits painless killing,” and proceeds to describe this comment as patently false. It is a flawed logic forcing concentration on the adjective “painless,” when killing by premeditation, on one’s own volition, otherwise known legally as murder, has no legal qualifier to the act, such as painlessly or even mercifully. Con uses this contrary source to demonstrate that the law must prohibit killing. Con further argues that any qualifier of “painless” is faulty logic, as shown, and, therefore, cannot by condoned since the law does not allow for such justified consideration. Pro’s R1 argument that Con’s is a “slippery slope” is a failed link to Con’s argument. Ther fact of Con’s argument has no slip simply because Con’s argues against his source with purpose. It is the source that is the slippery argument, and Con successfully, and cleverly, demonstrates the fallacy of the source. Further, Pro argues, “Con wants to win with appeals to emotion.” Con’s argument, logistically, is the rational argument; it is Pro’s argument that is emotional, describing the “average woman who kills her infant is 24 years old, very poor, sane, and surprisingly normal,” ignoring that the attitude is coldly illegal. Con’s R2 rebuttal clarifies Pro’s argument with three summary statements, including the slippery slope, which Con successfully demonstrates are false by contradicting arguments by conclusion, such as demonstrating the fallacy of the slippery slope. Points to Con

Sources: Con’s sources, one brutally honest [R2, [1]] solidly support the Con argument against the resolution. Pro’s R1 sources demonstrate that infanticide does, in fact exist, and that some countries see the practice in alarming rates, but all fail to offer reasonable justification to support the resolution, and fails to offer sources in subsequent rounds, even forfeiting the last round [was banned previous to completing round]. Points to Con

Legibility: Both opponents’ arguments, though flawed on Pro’s side, were properly legible. Tie

Conduct. Both opponents treated one another with respect. Tie.

Full forfeit.
Further, Con'a R1 argument, even though ignored by Pro in R2, leaving Con without necessity to offer further argument in R2, gave an excellent argument in R1 if Hume's Guillotine to demonstrate that morality is subjective, thus denying the resolution with good argument by supporting evidence, Thus, Con offered a valid source for his argument, the argument was fully legible, and his conduct toward the opponent was respectful. Thus, all for categories of points awarded to Con by merit and not just by forfeit.

Certainly, the shortest-ever debate of 15 words deserves some credit. Extra points for sticking to the script.

I, too, forfeit

Argument: Pro’s argument is fully drawn from the text of the US Constitution in Articles I and II communicating everything the Constitution contains regarding impeachment and conviction, and from the Federalist Papers, composed to present the direct thinking of three of the Founding Fathers on the proposed content of the Constitution as it was being debated by the Continental Congress. Pro’s interpretation of that language is sound, particularly as compared to passages from the Federalist Papers. For example, Pro’s argument that only sitting officers, including the President in particular [the subject of this debate] can be impeached in the House [not the subject of this debate], and tried in the Senate [the full scope of this debate], can be tried is understood by specific language in the Constitution [Article II, 4]. Con’s argument that former Presidents can be tried in the Senate to prohibit their future attempt to obtain political office not only stretches proper understanding of constitutional content, but assumes that punishment of removal from office is still available to the Senate for a former holder of office, and further, that the punishment of prohibition from future hold of office can be applied separately to a former holder of office. Neither the verbiage of the Constitution, nor precedent of prior impeachments support Con’s claim. Further, Pro argues in R4 concerning the notion of removal from office, and disqualification from future office are two separate punishments that are necessarily sequential, that the second cannot be a single consideration void of the first, and that both are not necessarily to be imposed but by decision of the Senate, case by case. Con’s argument against these notions were not sufficiently proven but by Con argument, without sufficient supportable evidence. Finally, Pro argues for both Constitutional originalism, and Senate precedent, and that both figure into the subject of this debate, against which Con unsuccessfully rebuts. Con argues that Trump, having left office by term limit, is still a proper defendant in a Senate impeachment trial, ignoring that the Constitution clearly stipulates that currency in office is necessarily relevant to achieve removal from office as a consequence of conviction. Pro’s rebuttal is that the constitutional language is clear on that point, or, otherwise, George Washington could be a potential subject of impeachment and conviction, though dead over two hundred years. Con argues in R3 that Article II,4 does not point exclusively only to current office holders “only,” but Pro rebuts correctly that only current office holders wear those titles named; that being “former” office holders does not qualify by the language of the Article. Points to Pro.

Sources: The primary source for both opponents in the debate is the text of the Constitution, although pro also cites support by the Federalist Papers. Yet, Con argues in R1 that originalism is not relevant in the debate when the most glaring dichotomy of the opponents is over that very point, originalist vs, non-originalist interpretation of the Constitution’s textual interpretation. And for Con to thereby argue that removal from office need not be precedent to prohibit further seeking of office is not an originalist or non- interpretation; Pro correctly offers the appropriate syntax of Article II,4. An opponent's interpretation of a source is as necessary to an argument as is a cited source properly supporting an opponent’s argument. Pro wins the source points.

Legibility: Both opponents produce legible content. Tie.

Conduct: Both opponents display proper regard for one another. Tie.

First, welcome to both opponents to this site. Glad you're both aboard.

Arguments: Pro's R1 argument is supported by the comparison of putting down animals for violent acts, mostly against against humans, but does not draw a distinction between animal kills, and their limited justification - it is common knowledge that animals do not have morality as a guide of conscience - and the willful murder of other humans by humans, who do have the capacity of moral judgment and choose to ignore it. The comparison of animal kills to human willful murder cannot be made. Con successfully rebuts the argument in R1. Con's R1 rebuttal argument re: the prison executioner reviewing his moral standing by doing his job is indeed a personal moral dilemma, but it does offer support against the Resolution that the death penalty should not remain because Con's cited example turns against the practice on his personal moral ground. Con effectively rebuts this argument, pointing out that the moral decision draws the argument subject to Con's BoP. Pro is never able to overcome this dilemma of Con choosing a source that opposes Pro's Burden of Proof. Points to Con

Sources: The argument discussion of Con's rebutting source in R1 carries the day since Pro did have have any supporting soutrcing at all, but merely used Con sources and argued unsuccessfully against them. Points to Con.

Legibility: Both contenders offered adequate description to understand their arguments, but both have some grammatical issues not worth pointing out since understanding was still possible. Both need to improve writing skills, and I'm sure both will. Tie

Conduct. Both opponents were respectful of the other. Tie

This was, unfortunately, a flawed debate by Con by full forfeiture after the 2nd round. Had Con continued the argument rounds my estimation was that Con would have taken the argument points for a more sound argument of potential attainment of financial freedom in that, although a financially free individual still has financial obligations, even if only monthly utilities, mortgage, etc, the available finances on hand are more than capable of covering those revolving debts. Financial freedom is not freedom from debt, Con successfully argued, but freedom to cover them with funds left over. Pro tried constantly to equate slavery or penal system imprisonment as comparable to lack of financial freedom, but in Pro's model, no one is truly outside the slavery/imprisonment model when, clearly there are people who are not so "enslaved." So, by demand of forfeiture, the best Con can achieve is a tie in argument.

I'll pass on Sourcing as a true vote, although as a voter, I have no choice to pass. A tie is the best that can be achieved since Pro had no sourcing whatsoever, but wins the debate by default of forfeiture by Con.

Also by forfeiture, however, Pro wins both Legibility and Conduct.

Argument: Pro's resolution, description, and argument, call for mandatory [by law, at state level] implementation of video games in school curricula, and offers several sources of studies to demonstrate that video game play can be educationally enhancing. However, Pro does not demonstrate the point that education will be negatively impacted if video games are not part of the curriculum, and this secondary point is Con's major thrust. Video games can be helpful, but they are not a necessity enforced by legal mandate. Pro's argument never successfully overwhelm's the lack of necessity as Con's argument alleges. Pro's BoP was that video game play must be a necessity in school. His "should" argument fails, because he makes it a matter of imposed law to accomplish it. That carries the "should" argument into enforced school administration behavior; that video games must be implemented in the school curriculum. Pro, in effect, bit off more than could be chewed, and would likely have won these points, and the debate as a whole, had he avoided the matter of necessity by law. The Pro suggestion alone, leaving the matter to school districts to decide without the imprimatur of legal requirement would have carried the day. Therefore, Con's rebuttal succeeds. points to Con.

Sources: Pro fails to provide a source to support the argument that video games in a K-12 educational nevironment are necessary by enforcement of law, which is a key factor in Pro's argument, needing scholastic justitification. The argument alone, offered by Pro, does not stand up to Con's R1 sourced rebuttal argument that if a law is required to enforce video game use, it looses its own standing as being "fun" without being a mandatory curriculum feature. Further, while Pro's sources explain the benefits of a video game curricula, Con's rebuttal sourcing demonstrates there is no convincing loss of educational mastery if video games are lacking in the curriculum, because students have availability of video games on their own time. Points to Con.

Legibility: Both competitors offer adequate argument with full understanding.

Conduct: Both competitors demonstrated proper conduct in their arguments.

Pro has, in effect, created a truism for a resolution by attempt to demonstrate the debate turns on a single word: theory. This is as if any theory will stand scrutiny, ignoring that a theory sets up experimental criteria that, in order to pass muster, must be reproducible and repeatable. Science demands these qualities even if the debate is a “thought experiment.”

Argument: Pro’s resolution sets a standard that even Pro fails to uphold, losing ground in just the second round by claiming: “It is impossible for a machine to be identical to a human being.” Pro has thus discounted his resolution’s “theory,” admitting that, after all, the “thought experiment” cannot reproduce and repeat the experiment that “Machines can, in theory, think like humans.”
Pro fails to define what he mans by a “thought experiment,” and, by the lack, repeats the mantra that theory can accomplish anything one proposes, supporting the failure of the scientific method applied to a theory.

By contrast, in Con’s first round, his rebuttal applies the clear separation of mind and body function, which Pro ignores as a necessary factor [in fact, Pro challenges that “mind” is a “dualist” vs. “monist” feature, and that the monist feature considers mind “should certainly not make a difference to my analogy,” and even “fails to see the distinction.” Con further argues by philosophy, contradiction, free will, and logic against Pro’s resolution.

Pro counters Con’s argument in R2 that the resolution “…clearly states this is a thought experiment where we are discussing things on a purely hypothetical level.” No, it does not. Pro later makes the claim, but, as said, never defines his term, so, the resolution stands as a definitive statement as a theory that must stand up to scientific methodology, not mere hypothesis without physical experiment.

Pro rebuts Con’s philosophy argument by refuting the existence of mind, yet fails to see the distinction between a living and dead human body, ignoring that the living being thinks, and the dead does not.

Pro rebuts Con’s contraction argument [the mind must be discarded] by claiming “I have argued this is not the case, yet sides with the monist statement that mind does not exist.

Pro drops Con’s free will argument by the simple claim, unsubstantiated by argument other than that the free will does not exist by claim that thinking is like seeing. These are entirely different functions.

Pro buries his argument by two contradicting phrases: “With perfect technology, we can do quite literally anything,” which is followed by [a bit later] “this is not a debate about technological possibilities, but about whether theoretically, this is possible.”

Pro’s R3 violates his own rule against new argument in the last round by raising Descartes and Occam’s razor. Further, he offers “rest in peace” to his argument in R3 “I just feel that a thing like thought cannot be simulated.”

I conclude Con wins the Argument.

Sourcing: Pro offers very little in sourcing, claiming it unnecessary in a “thought experiment,” yet offers a source on the Kardashev Scale in R2, and summarily disagrees with his source that a Type III civilization, at a galactic level, is “impossible to conceive,” ignoring that Kardashev proposes two additionally advanced types. Sloppy and contradictory use of sourcing. Con’s sources systematically support his arguments and rebuttals, such as his rebuttal of AI-hard, and more particularly by his defining of neuron, cell, and think. Con wins the points.

Legibility: Pro’s reversals of argument [as demonstrated in Argument, above] loses his legibility point. Con’s argument, is consistent, growing, and crushing in consistent and followable language. Points to Con.

Conduct: Co duct was respectful on both sides. Tie.

Since the Initiator did not offer his definitions in the Description, which otherwise would have made them available to potential opponents to negotiate prior to the start of the debate, they become appropriately subject to rebuttal by Pro’s opponent, which is exactly what occurred in R1, and continued through the balance of the rounds. This debate became little more than a back-and-forth of definitions, thereby spoiling what could have been an interesting debate. It wasn’t.

Argument: Pro’s definitions listed in R1 were apparently developed as points pf argument since no sourcing was offered to sustain them as stated. Con took up the challenge as debate points offering sourced definitions. In R2, Con states: “My opponent’s argument rests on re-defining already well defined terms.” Pro ‘rebuts’ in R3: “First, I want to say that I agree with Con’s definitions…” thereby defeating his own argument relative to definitions. As the debate centered on definitions, this voter determines that Con wins the argument criteria on that pro admission, alone. However, Pro reverses his own argument in R1 by first stating: “…theism and atheism, if not specified by using the appropriate name, are not a part of a religion.” That’s debatable, but I do not judge on that statement, alone, but by what follows [again, by pro, R1] “…religions exist based on an impersonal ultimate reality.” In this statement, Pro does not use an ‘appropriate” religious name, such as Catholic, or protestant, or Judaism, or Islam, but is generic, but then offers in his definitions, “Theism; ‘The idea that the ultimate reality is personal,” but, again, considers theism in a generic sense. This is a contradictory argument, and thus fails. I need go no further; Con wins the argument criteria simply by his rebuttal of definitions.

Sources: Pro offers no sourcing for his argument points by his own attempt to convince by logical argument. This is a valid option to sourcing scholastic citation, but, as the above reversal describes, Pro does not present a consistent logic to his argument. Further, by agreement to Con’s definitions, which are sourced, Con wins the source criteria.

S&G: Both opponents offer intelligible arguments. Tie

Conduct: Both opponents offered good conduct to one another. Tie.

As this "debate" is a bit tongue-in-cheeky, I will offer first, in comments, my #10 as a thematic intercession of my composition. And now, the vote, just as cheeky, but with a bit of serious banter:

Argument: Sorry, Jasmine, but the creativity Zed displays is too good to be overwhelmed by a few words from you which were, after all, complementary to Zed. The poetry, Zed, as argument, is superb. points to Con.

Sourcing: Well, pro's sourcing was limited to to references to the same blog post, which did, I'll admit, graphically present the proof of the debate resolution: Jasmine did, indeed, cut her hair. As that was the point of Pro's argument, I'd have to say, in spite of Zed's clever use of sourcing material for his argument, a no-brainer. Pro wins these points.

S&G: a tie. Pro's graphics demonstrate as graphic grammar just as much left on the floor as Con's many strands of poetic grammar, and both spelled eloquently.

Conduct: A difficult choice. I, too, agreeing with Con, think pro's "before" was preferable to her "after," but I must admit bias toward more hair than less. However, Con's beginning stanza of R1 was a clever, if suggestive tilt toward "down there" a but further than pro's rebuttal suggests. Have to call this one a tie.

Conclusion: Zed wins by a hair.

Arguments: this element of voting was actually the only element that had measurable qualities by which to judge this debate for a clear winner given that the other three either had little on which to judge, or were too bland by both opponents to draw out a clear winner. That said, while Pro offered a resolution capable of a supporting argument, Pro's argument fell short when challenged by Con to offer measurable features of argument. Pro argued Disney should represent a wider scope of variant social groupings of people, but Pro fails to demonstrate, as Con challenged, to define his keywords of the Resolution; representation, and diversity. Pro even limits his argument by declaring "no semantic arguments," that is, definitions are not to be argued. Definitions; lack thereof, is Pro's failure. Con's rebuttal that "representation" may include such factors as requiring that Disney consider "...if a male child sees a male villain, it will hinder his development according to this hypothesis. Should we get rid of villains altogether, or should Disney have a list of groups that are acceptable to demonize by portraying them as villains?" This question is repeated several times by Con, using different parameters of social groups Pro suggests be considered for "representation" without adequate defense of his argument to quantify his argument. This quote from Con's argument also presents some of the vague features of Pro'a argument, such as by suggesting that child development is hindered by lack of more social representation in cinema. Child development is not the point of the debate. Nor is structural racism, financial concerns, or other social issues Pro mentions. Con's rebuttal held throughout all rounds. Con wins the points.

Sources: Mere count of sources is not a valid sourcing decision for voting. As such, even though Pro has sources [only in R1], and neither opponent for the balance of rounds, all 6 pro sources speak to issues not relevant to the Resolution [except one, explained below] just as Pro's arguments do not support the Resolution, and are, therefore, unreliable. Pro's second source comes closest to being a reliable source, but it focuses only on the LGBT community, and [as much as could be read of the source - it is necessary to have a library access to complete the read, apparently] there is no argument containing how the resolution would be accomplished other than the general assessment that films should have more representation, without defining "more" - which is Con's strongest argument. Pro's sources address: child development, LGBT, a list of movie production studios, a ban in Singapore of a Star Wars film, business interests, and narrative arcs -- none of which but one comes at all close to meeting the need of sourcing Pro's argument. As failed sources, this feature is a tie.

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie

Arguments: Pro's analysis of relative capability of fighting in both animals in terms of weight, speed, intelligence, and offensive skills was superbly defined, allowing a comparison that was not adequately challenged by Con. Con's argument, rather than demonstrating a gorilla's fighting skill, chose to argue that [1] the two animal habitats do not have shared space and, therefore, [2] would likely not meet to have such a fight, [3] introduced the improbable case of if/then statements. All Con three arguments fail to meet the opposing BoP of the resolution because the resolution must be read to suspend these realities for purpose of debate and debate on the necessary points of contending the resolution proposed. One must assume there is a fight and offer conclusion of a winner. points to Pro.

Sources: Pro sources all supported the arguments pro presented on weight, speed, intelligence, and offensive skills of bears and gorillas, easily giving the nod to a bear winning the fight, "on average." Con's sources were dedicated to Con's argument, but as the argument points fail to meet the standard of Con's BoP, the sources fail to support a needed BoP. points to Pro.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro forfeited R4, thus loses this point. Con argued all rounds. point to Con. The single forfeited round is not enough to declare Con the winner.

Argument: Pro’s trifold argument was ethics, health, and environment.
The ethical argument was defeated because Pro’s R1 claim was that killing animals is murder. That is wrong. It is killing, but not murder. Further, Con’s argument that breeding overcomes killing to maintain a population of animals used for food, which included food for animals. Con wins the ethics construct. Further, pro argued that “morality is subjective,” but did not support the claim. Since Pro contends that this “transition” to a vegan diet is a global necessity, that involves everybody, For everybody to embrace the ethic of a vegan meal, Con rebutted that it becomes objective. Pro further charged that Con has “standard moral values.” Con rebuts that his moral values are sourced in “God, society, or other greater force.” Pro singled out the God-aspect, making light of that source of morality. Bad argument since Con’s thrust was a trio of morality sources.
Health: Pro makes a presumption that Con would agree a vegan diet is healthier than an omnivore diet, however, Con rebutted that the only source of vitamin B12 is by supplement, to which Pro agreed. Pro’s own source indicated that supplements do not absorb as readily as do natural foods, which is a sourcing, and an argument failure.
Environment: pro alleges that almost one-third of available landmass is used for livestock grazing, but pro’s source says 26%. That’s barely over 25%, or one-quarter. Pro’s sources maintain that grasslands are being decimated “in part” by animal grazing. What are the other parts? Pro does not bother to substantiate a majority loss due to grazing. Pro argues that the environment is directly linked to meat production and consumption, but Con successfully rebuts that eliminating of the meat-producing industry would remove only 14% of our GHG emissions - Pro’s own number. Con wins on all three points.

Sourcing: Pro argued that gassing animals is immoral, but Pro’s source fails to sustain that argument by not even mentioning gassing. Further, that source indicated there were more humane options and that the food industry is starting to engage these options, rebutting pro’s argument. Con makes this rebuttal successfully. Con recognized his fewer sources, but voting is not a matter of counting sources and awarding on that basis, alone. Sources are to sustain debate arguments. I have noted just two of pro’s sources that fail to fully sustain Pro’s arguments. Pro further charges that common sense, common knowledge, and personal knowledge are not valid sources, and “You can’t use those as sources.” If such can be demonstrated in argument, the DART sourcing policy does not discount it.
Con wins the sourcing points.

S& G: tie

Conduct: Pro lost this point by accusation of Con’s personal morality.

Argument: This was a poor debate with nearly no sustainable argument on either side. With an issue that has become, in todays twisted social environment, if anything, confusing, the term "gender" has become more semantic than scientific. It is a view that gender, as opposed to sex, is "a social construct." Neither side bothers to seek a definition of "gender," and therefore, both argue to a null result with one solid difference. Pro's argument that "there are only two genders" aligns with a strict dictionary definition is a scientific sense of there being masculine and feminine constructs, unless one is speaking semantically [meaning of language]. Con's argument is perfect, if we speak of grammar, in which there are multiple genders of words. But this debate is not about grammar; it is about the science of human distinction of gender, which is clearly only two, by definition. points to Pro.

Sourcing: Con offers the only source, mentioned twice in Con's rounds. Eventhough the source uses the grammar definition of "Gender" rather than the scientific/biological definition, and, thus, the "social construct" argument, which is an incorrect use of the term when defining human sexuality, it is a source that many, today, agree is appropriate. points to Con.

S&G: In that pro remains true to the scientific/biological definition of "gender," and Con does not, point to Pro.

Conduct: Tie.

Argument: Pro's resolution and consistent argument was that all whites are terrorists, and claims, furthermore, that this claim is "official," i.e., that it is the conclusion of FBI investigation into the incident at the Capitol in 1/6, and that all participants in the incident were domestics. The FBI has not yet concluded the investigation, and neither conclusion offered by Pro has been determined yet. Con successfully refuted the claims, plus argued successfully that race is not a linking, determining factor with today's terrorism problem. point to Con

Sources. Pro offered sourcing only in round 2. The first does not link the attempt to kidnap MI's governor specifically to "white supremacists," although that subject is discussed. The second source claimed that in some 30-plus domestic terror incidents, "25 of 46" terrorists were white supremacists, yet pro's argument claims this is a 100% issue. pro's own source proves his resolution false. Con's's sources support his argument fully. points to Con.

S&G. Tie

Conduct: Pro's attitude toward Con is harsh and challenging throughout. Con remains respectful throughout. points to Con

First, I'll mention that this debate does not need another vote; the consequence is a foregone conclusion with a full forfeit. I'd just like to note the 4 of you 14 voters offered tie points, and I wonder why you think that is deserving. A full forfeit deserves no points in a four-point system that requires participation in each of the four point factors. A full forfeit has no participation. That is the definition of full forfeit. So, what's up?

My vote: All points to Con not only by full forfeit, but by:

Argument: Both rounds feature argument by Con by way of objection to Pro's stated position in the set-up. Pro offered zero argument of any kind. Description does not count as a debate round argument by itself unless at least referenced or repeated in debate rounds. Points to Con

Source: Con offered no sourcing. In fact, Con found Pro's source of the description as a cut/paste and used Pro's source against Pro. Points to Con.

S&G: Con wins by default as Pro had no S&G. Point to Con.

Conduct: Pro full forfeit, as noted. Point to Con

This became an easy debate to judge considering Pro's poor research and worse use of sources cited.

Argument: Pro's errors begin at the resolution and description. Pro's misuse of "babies," although "aborted" misses the proper definition. A "baby," as Con argues in R1, is a post-natal creature. Pre-natal is correctly defined as a "fetus." Pro's sources also make the mistake, and pro does not correct it in argument. Also, Pro challenges Con in R2 "Where in the article does it say they do not use aborted babies...?" Well, in fact, the referenced article does NOT refer to "babies" or "abortion," so Pro fails in his point. Con's argument, by contrast, are logical and well documented, such as in definitions, and refuting the ubiquitous use of fetal cells in all natural flavorings, when Pro's subesequent arguments deny this, conflicting with his own resolution.Points to Con

Sources: Pro's R1 Snopes source first agrees with, then denies pro's resolution, and Pro agrees, invalidating the source. Pro's mental floss source drifts from supporting Pro by saying that fetal cells are not directly used in product flavoring, but that an old line of subsequently re-engineered cells are used in testing product. The CBS News source, further clarifies that new fetal cells are being used, but rather re-engineered cells from a line first created in the 1970s. pro does not do sufficient research to clarify that his sources support his argument. Con,s sources, by contrast, such as PerfectKeto.com, clearly support Con's argument of the lack of fetal cells in product for natural flavoring. Points to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro loses conduct for several derogatory comments to Con, such as calling him "monster" [actually, anyone who agrees with Con], and accusing Con of "breaking the rules," by re-defining, when, in fact, pro had the "baby" definition wrong, not to mention his sources. Point to Con

Ful forfeit by Pro.

First I will say that I did not enjoy the read of this debate any more than I did the earlier fanfare/debate involving Oromagi and Fruit_Inspector [I will not weigh-in on my own debate with seldiora relating to this topic] for the simple reason that these debates pit one entity [Wiki] against another entity [FoxNews] which do not share objective existence and purpose. At all. To claim that they both distribute information is about as relative as claiming that both dragonflies and helicopters fly. So what? Therefore, I find the attempted comparison absurd. That said, I can still present an unbiased vote, in spite of my personal disdain for Wiki, and my growing disdain for FoxNews. I judge on the merits of the arguments, as I should; let these other concerns be damned.

Argument: Pro presented the evidence that Wiki has a low opinion of its own reliability, the measuring stick of this debate, and concludes that Wiki is not reliable. Pro attempts to explain that the Wiki statement, being 9 years old, for one, makes it a subjective, loose statement. Con successfully argues that the syntax of the Wiki statement is "absolute." This matter is argued through the balance of rounds, but Pro never successfully overcomes the Con rebuttal. Con is correct; the Wiki statement on their reliability is absolute and objective. Con's only BoP was to show that Wiki is not reliable by academic definition, and succeeds, and the presence of FoxNews in the debate seems relatively dismissive. Con also successfully argues that Wiki's method of verifiability does not meet academic standards, made worse because Wiki does not even reveal the names of "editors" in order to be independently verified by third-party observation. Con successfully argues that with that verification, Wiki's reliability remains suspect. Points to Con

Sources: In R3, Pro states, with a source, that "transparency is inherently related to trust," but Con has already defeated the point in R2 be declaring ands citing the many many instances of fraudulent and just plain wrong information on Wiki, which slays the transparency/trust relation relative to Wiki. Points to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie.

Argument: Pro presented a very convincing argument by comparison of democratic voting fore representation in government, and the more personally involved democracy of "voting" by choice of this or that product. It was a very cohesive, and, in the end, unassailable argument. Con attempted to defeat that Pro argument, but to do so, attempted to change both the content and the implication of Pro's resolution. Definitions may, of course, be offered ands rebutted, bt the language of the resolution is, to debate, sacrosanct. If the contender does not like the resolution as offered, it can certainly be negotiated prior to the launch of the debate, but, once launched, the resolution has been agreed upon be de facto acceptance of the debate. Con attempted in all rounds to argue according to Con's versiion of the resolution, and failed because of it. Plus, on at least two occasions, Con actually agreed with the major thrust of Pro's argument. Points to Pro.

Sources: Pro present zero sources, offering only personal, though successful argument without back-up. Con offered a single source, and it did comply with the Con argument. Points to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Tie.

Argument: I'll cover one aspect of the debate first, to get it out of the way, particularly since it had no mention in the resolution: Covid 19. Pro mentioned a two-prong argument: Pro-Covid-19, and during Covid-19. This matter was discussed in R1 by both participants, but was dropped by both in ongoing rounds. I'll consider it a dropped argument by both without ffect to my vote since it was not a related matter in the resolution. Pro's argument continued on the path he first launch by resolution, that cost of education is increasing while quality is decreasing. Con attempted to turn the debate to a matter of comparing quantity of education, i.e., more people in the world have access to education than before, and attempted to declare that, as a result, the quality of education is improving. Pro successfully defended the resolution that the two terms, quality and quantity, are not synonymous, and cannot be construed as such. Meanwhile, Pro demonstrated that there are five features of quality of education, and that overall, those quality factors are, in fact, decreasing. Con offered a UNESCO article to support his claim, but while the UNEXCO article featured greater access to education, it did not demonstrate that the inherent quality of that education was improving, and in fact, demonstrated that girls relative to boys do not even have equivalent access, let alone equivalent quality. Con's rebuttal fails. Points to Pro.

Sourcing: Pro's sourcing supported the argument of costly increase, but quality decrease, such as the source: HuffPost, which Con claimed was never cited by pro, but is clearly evident in Pro's R2 argument. By contrast, Con's sourcing poorly supported his argument, such as Con's UNESCO citation, which dismissed the quality of education, and, instead, featured the quantity, which was not the point of the resolution. Points to Pro.

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie

3 forfeited rounds by Pro after R1. All points to Con

Argument: Pro offers no distinction between "person" and "body," and thus dies not distinguish "nobody" and "no body." Con successfully rebuts this point, with sourced evidence that the two latter terms, ion particular, have distinct differentiation. Pro has several arguments which, by grammar, make them difficult to determine exactly what Pro is saying. Example: "organs fail to produce what's in their nature mixing with the wrong environment" Con rebuts the nonsense of this statement as organs do not have a calculated nature to them to accept or reject any though processed in the brain. The brain calculates; sexual organs merely act by their coded function. Pro rejects his own argument by stating later: "The body doesn't think, it just functions." Points to Con

Sources: Pro offers absolutely no sourcing. Con offers multiple sources that support his arguments. Point to Con

S&G: Pro has several instances of poor sentence construction making a challenge of understanding his argument, such as exemplified above. Another example: Pro states: "It's the same occurrence with things that are consumed that the stomach/esophagus ejects back up from which it entered. For whatever reason, the body doesn't allow a use of that consumption. Something doesn't fit, so therefore, the function is disabled." Pro is speaking of two separate functions of the digestive system; to digest, and to vomit. They are separate functions, and latter is not engaged due to the failure of the former. The rejection may have nothing whatsoever to do with the immediate digestive function, but rather, at times, due to a sudden witness of revulsion, a pre-existing condition of a digestive malady, or by intent to cause vomiting. Point to Con

Conduct: Con forfeited R3. Not sufficient to lose the debate, but a loss of conduct point.

Argument: Both Pro and Con offered compelling arguments in R1, but I found Pro's definitions to be conflicted with one another, with Pro basically arguing for his primary definitions in description, which held to an idea of "stretch x to y," defining a spectrum, which Pro then repeats in R2 while discounting Con's "x to y" which boiled down to measured values of maleness and femaleness, aligning with the binary argument. Con forfeited after R1 - Points to Pro

Sourcing: Both offered sources supporting their relative positions. Con forfeit after R1, Points to Pro

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Con Forfeited all rounds after R1. Point to Pro

Argument: Con's [the instigator] "argument" is a repetition of the resolution, without true argument of specific "proposal" from Con's perspective. Rather, Con spends four rounds prodding Pro to explain his arguments in further detail. Pro offers the requested proposal via legislative change, but also addresses individual thought and action as a significant need. Con never achieves a sound argument against these proposals, merely claiming it is not enough. Points to Pro.

Sources: Not much to judge on here. Con offers no sourcing whatsoever. Pro offers valid sources on education and systematic legslation in R1 & , respectively, to support his arguments. Points to Pro.

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie.

Argument: Pro's argument was virtually all consumed in syllogisms, none of which hold. The syllogism beginning "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is flawed because it discounts that whatever has always existed has no cause. Therefore, what follows falls. And the one "The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent" is also flawed because it discounts that a non-extant max great being is also self-consistent, so all that follows fails. And Plato's "All humans value things that are 'good'" fails because not all humans value goodness, therefore what follows fails. IN all three, P1 makes assumptions. Con successfully rebutted all three by Con's primary argument "Those that don't believe in God that aren't racist so called, why wasn't theism the answer for them to not be 'racist?'" Pro never adequately rebutted the argument. Points to Con.

Sources: Neither debater used searchable, verifiable sources. Tie

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Con very nearly failed in Conduct for an apparently incoherent [nearly non-existent argument], however, it was, essentially, an interrogative argument, which is a legitimate argument. Con even established a verifiable goal: to achieve getting along with one another [the antithesis of racism] Tie.

Argument: Pro makes a mistake in comparison of two differing entities in terms of their respective raison d'etre: why they exist. The entities, Wiki and Fox News do not exist on the same playing field. While each have elements of crossover, on the whole, Pro does not convince that they have sufficient nexus to be compared by an equivalent standard. In this regard, Con offered a better argument, with a convincing source, in suggesting source tiers: primary, secondary, tertiary. The two subjects, Wiki and Fox News, are simply, conclusively on separate tiers. Points to Con.

Sources: While Con's source of tiers of sourcing is compelling, it ends up being Con's strongest suit, whereas Pro had multiple sources of strength, such as mediabiasfactcheck, and pew research, which, on balance, outweigh Con's APUS. Points to Pro

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Tie

I am confused by the assignment of Pro and Con by the DArt system because Ancap460 left the choice of Pro/Con open, and seldiora chose Con, yet seldiora was assigned Pro, due to the resolution being a statement in favor of a world government, yet seldiora's argument is in the form of interrogatives, making it obvious Con was the chosen position, and Ancap460 then forfeited all subsequent rounds. It appears other voters have accepted the systemic assignment of seldiora as Pro, eventhough the choice was Con. Therefore, I will ignore the Pro/Con positions and proceed by screen name:
Seldiora posed some very good questions which, themselves, pose sufficient argument that, apparently, Ancap460 could not rebut, and, subsequently, forfeited the debate. Point to seldiora

Argument: Con's arguments were rebutted by Pro, such as that NASA's view is the only scientific offer for the global perspective, and that the video Con offered showing solar perspective as producing an angular path does not include a diminishing size of the sun. Equally, Pro did not defend Con's rebuttal that creationism is only an ex nihilo proposition. In fact, Pro acknowledges it when there are numerous sources that some scientists reject both this notion, and that creation and evolution do not co-exist. However, Pro misses a significant Con claim regarding the horizonal mirage demonstrating the diminishing perspective of ships and mountains when Con claimed in R3, "It's only obvious when it's sunny." Pro missed taking the initiative to clarify that the diminishing perspective is also evident at night, and there is no convenient horizonal mirage in that case, yet the diminish, or the augmentation is still evident. This was a significant miss. Tie

Sourcing: Con's sourcing was too easily rebutted by Pro's sourcing, such as the angular solar path, and the solitary NASA view by Con. Points to Pro.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: By Con's two forefeits, Pro wins the point.

Argument: Con’s rebuttal to Pro’s succeeds on at least two points: cost, poisonous soil due to. Best Pro could do on remaining arguments was a draw. Points to Con

Sources. Pro’s sources did not adequately overcome Con’s minimum 2 succeeding arguments. Cost should far exceed Pro’s estimate since Con’s first landing cost, alone, is nearly ¼ Pro’s total, and that is just cost of missions, let alone the habitat requirements, and Pro’s estimate of needed total compliment of settlers would exceed just 4 landings. Poisonous soil is mentioned in one of Pro’s sources, which acknowledges diminished growing capacity, but does not address that cultivated foods, as well, would be poisoned by the soil, rendering inedible “food.” Plus, the resolution of adding organics to native soil would be poisoned, as well. Points to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: Tie.

Argument: Pro begins an argument in R1 that s not. Inaction cannot be seen in any perspective as an action. The lack of action is not acting, but refusal to do so. The argument declines from there through the balance of rounds. Pro's resolution, successfully rebutted by Con in R1, R2, failed completely in R3 when, contrary to the resolution, pro did not waive, but offered argument. Con rightfully rebutted in R3 that Pro had thus failed to achieve a win. Plus, Con successfully argued in R2 that Pro's waivers met the condition of forfeiture. One might conclude that in R4, Pro actually offered an argument, relieving him of the Conduct charge levied by Con in R3. However, the sense of the quote, which Pro evidently believes, is that offering argument, by way of a question, is still a waiver." Unfortunately, an argument is not limited to declarative statements; questions do pose an argument. That Pro believes the quote, however, was evidence of believing to waive the Round. He must be given his due, as presenting a round of waiver. Therefore, Con's argument of conduct failure applies. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro offered a single source, but from an unrecognized and unverifiable source. Further, the quote presents a conundrum which is not true, but which Pro attempts, and fails, to demonstrate as true. which fails the notion of adequate sourcing. Cons' multiple sources firmly support his arguments. Points to Con.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro loses conduct points for waivers. Points to Con

Argument: Pro's initial argument featured a flaw that Con identified and successfully refuted: that AI exhibits personhood. As it represented Pro's only argument, which Con successfully rebutted, both in terms of lack of personhood by AI, as well as demonstrating that the founding fathers recognized both the status of personhood, and that all persons are endowed with rights, Con successfully presented winning arguments.

Sources: Pro offered no sources to underpin the single argument. Con's sources fully supported the rebuttal, arguments offered, plus provide definitions for the debate not provided by pro. Con wins the points.

S&G: Although Pro offered complete nonsense in R4, Pro had already conceded in R2, so the gibberish, though completely within the definition of "incoherence" is excused, Tie.

Conduct: Both parties exhibited good conduct. Concession not withstanding, which, itself, demonstrates good, not bad conduct, the conduct is considered as sufficient by both participants.

Argument: Pro had the burden of proof that even in excess, it should still be better that debate rounds be unlimited in character [and therefore, word] count, and used the rationale, supported by apparently convincing sourcing, that an argument of greater quantity of words is preferred by readers. Pro even demonstrated the apparent success of book-length readers adequately sustaining that market [book publishing]. Con had a daunting task to overcome that argument which apparently had sufficient insurmountable demonstrated evidence. Pro demonstrated t5he attempt to reinforce the concept through all three rounds. However, Con found the one fly in that soup, and successfully argued it in rebuttal while successfully arguing that there are issues in which limitation has merit, and even necessity. That necessary fly in thew soup came in the guise of reminding debate readers that voters are also readers, but not always. Con successfully parried the argument of "freedom of speech" by reminding us that it is Congress who is prohibited from limiting our speech, but other entities, such as DArt, have no such restriction. Con wins the points for elevating the necessity of voters to not just read, but assess what is written n order to produce what is produced here: a rational judgment of whose arguments are supported by the most effective sourcing, and use of S&G, and conduct. This added burden of assessment increased the time a voter gives to the voting process. Simply reading cannot accomplish that task.

Sourcing: Pro's sources did indeed demonstrate a public preference for longer written works, however, again, Con's sourcing supported the separation of readers and voters, and were, therefore of greater efficacy. Points to Con.

S&G, and Conduct: Both factors were equally demonstrated by participants. Tie

This debate is a perfect example of a little-used argument that while there is argument-a-plenty re: establishing a high limit on characters per argument [which ought to exist, but not unlimited - personally, I favor <20,000], there is little argument regarding a lower limit. 100 is absurd. A debate, and this one is a prime example, should allow participants a sensible ability to show critical thinking on a subject. This debate demonstrated an ability to throw sources at one another, with almost no thinking applied whatsoever. Were Conduct to allow voters to judge on the basis of an absurd debate set-up, Pro would lose the point. As no such call can be made, let my attitude suffice and hope I can still be fair. This was no debate, this was a little like "my dad can beat up your dad," which is a pointless argument because Pro and Con are the debate participants, not their "dads" [sources, in this case]. That said:

Argument: R1: Pro's deterrence and innocence argument were effectively rebutted by Con, with the add of jurors and appeals as solid Con arguments. Con wins R1
Argument: R-2 Pro argues source #2 "more trustworthy," but no substantiation of claim. Also argues Con dropped "impulse" argument from Pro source #1. Con reinforced deterrence by conflicting stats, but Con was able to note [by one example of c-thinking] that Pro has no argument that deterrence clearly has an effect, just not a majority effect. The data outweighs the impulse, as Con argues. Con wins R2
Argument R3: Pro offers source #3 re: cost benefit of eliminating death penalty. Con rebuttal: Cost vs justice is not a valid measure. Effective rebuttal. Con wins R3
Argument R4: Pro's source #4 offers justice is not revenge, then offers Pro's only example of c-thinking, but claims that execution is revenge, assuming the revenge is an equivalent action as the original crime, essentially an "eye-for-an-eye" approach, as Pro stated in R1. Con rebutted that the original crime of murder does not equate to execution since, in some States, execution is the legal punishment for crime, and cannot be defined as murder, itself. Effective rebuttal. Con wins R4, and Argument phase over all.

Sources: Pro offered "reliable" [broad acceptance of term] in all four rounds. Con abandoned sourcing after R1. Points to Pro.

S&G: Little to go on. Understood what ittle was offered. Tie.

Conduct: Ignoring my initial commentary, both participants conduted their arguments equally well. Tie

Argument: Pro's arguments were, hands down, more convincing than Con's, demonstrated by the error Con makes in round two, with regard to the battery vs. engine analogy as metaphors for instinct vs. learned behavior, that the two are a 50-50 split, when, clearly, that is not how automobiles function with regard to those two functions because, while the battery initiates a car's function, once the engine has started, the battery play's virtually only a minor role in any function; the supply of power is due to the alternator, which actually recharges the battery. It is not a 50-50 split. As Pro argued, learned behavior, such as language, while instinctual with regard to a baby's babble, represents only a minor role compared to the learned behavior of language as an adolescent and adult. Pro, therefore, contrary to Con's claim that Pro dropped the argument, fulfilled a proper rebuttal. Points to Pro.

Sourcing: Pro's sourcing went much further in supporting his argument, while even demonstrating Con's sources failing to bolster his arguments. Examples: Both in the battery/engine argument and the Ship of Perseus argument, Pro demonstrated Con's sources supporting Pro's position. Points to Pro

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal. point to Pro

Arguments: Pro erred in the beginning proposal by not offering finite definitions of his terms. Con replied by by offering that "atheist" and "agnostic" are universal terms that remain defined as a block of individuals [plural] of the same view. Therefore, the effort by Pro to then attempt distinction of specialization of beliefs of atheists and agnostics fails. Pro proposes a question in r2: "The logic behind it really has a lot to do with what religion is," but has not previously mentioned "religion," let alone define the term in order for readers to understand his point "what religion is." Pro further errs in r2 by asking, "Do these individuals now rely on faith..." making the same mistake of avoiding definition, let alone previous mention of the term. Con offered specific evidence of atheists/agnostics who have converted to the three most prominent religions of the world; sufficient evidence to refute Pro's resolution. Points to Con

Sources: Pro offered no sources whatsoever. Con provided valid and searchable sources to support his arguments. Points to Con

S&G: Only because understanding what Pro meant by substituting "their" for "they're," and giving CAPS when not necessary does Pro win a tie on this factor.

Conduct: Pro forfeited the last round. Point to Con

Argument: Pro had a number of argument that Con deftly rebutted successfully, such as the matter of the fetus feeling pain in early stages of development, which Con rebutted with a couple scholastic sources, and fetal consciousness, over which both participants had connection-to-the-proposal issues, but Con had less issues. Points to Con.

Sources Pro's sources regarding women's exhaustive mod swings were post-birth issues, and regarding consciousness missed the point of the proposal. Con's sources were relevant to his argument, such as the demonstration of sense of pain occurring much later in development than claimed by Pro. Points to Con. That said, Con had one argument begging for a source, but it was never given: the relevance of personhood; i.e., when a zygote/ embryo/fetus can be scientifically described as a person. There is a legal source, but Con did not present it. Points to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: Point to Pro for recognition of result of debate and subsequent concession