fauxlaw

Argument: Con's arguments were clever and successful diversions from the debate proposal. Pro's arguments were thereby successfully rebutted. Points to Con.

Sources: Cons sources were all on point; reliable. Pro had but two sources, both were off topic to the debate proposal. One's subject was essay, not debate. The other was about benefits of debating; character count had no relevance. Points to Con

S&G and Conduct both tied.

Before rendering a decision, I must note for the record that both participants, arguing whether or not life begins at conception or at birth, neither participant bothered to render a definition of life in order to bolster either's argument. I see this as a major oversight when the definition, alone, would settle many of the argumentation points for both sides. I am extremely disappointed. I happen to know the answer, and have the evidence of proof, but will remain mum to maintain a balanced vote. That said,

Argument: Pro argued in first words: "Abortions do not kill." However, the argument quickly migrated to "murder" instead of "kill," and Pro maintained that abortion is not murder since life does not begin before birth. And yet, Pro then offered, "...scientists do not know when life begins and cannot prove it, and to say otherwise is completely false in the scientific community. Their only argument is based on opinion, while mine is based on facts." But "facts" sourced by Pro did not acknowledge the "completely false" claim. and even Pro's argument that "Scientists do not know" argues against the latter claim of "completely false." Further, in r2, Pro argues the definition of murder as, “The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another,” and yet immediately argues why we don't call eating a chicken egg murder, and obvious reference to Con's argument that killing a human fetus is murder. Pro just defined murder as the taking of a human life. So, the chicken argument is a non sequitur. On balance, Pro lost the argument by not maintaining consistency of terms. Con's rebuttals against the various linkages pro made to the effects of abortion on crime, female employment, taxpayer costs, et al, are linkages which, by Pro's own source, John Donohue from Yale and Steven Levitt from the University of Chicago published a paper on “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime”, does not have scientific data to back up the claim [the sources reference [2]. Points to Con

Sources: Pro's sources of the effects of abortion on the issues such as noted in Argument were effectively countered by Con's, such as the exchange referenced in Argument re: Gonohue/Levitt, neither of whom are scientists [Law professor, and economist, respectively] Con's sources were far more accurate, by professionals in the fields of which they spoke, such as: "As Princeton cites:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... " This was actually the closest Con came to a correct understanding of life, somewhat absolving my preliminary comment. "Life is continuous" is the logical construct, as Cn argues, because the human gametes, male and female [sperm and ovum] are living cells, conceiving a living organism; the which DNA, as Con argues, is human ad only human; not a chicken, or any other animal. Con wins source points.

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie

Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no associated argument by Pro. "That says all" is not a valid argument. It says all WHAT? WHY? HOW? - etc. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by Pro's rebuttals, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.

Sources: Pro's sources reflected bias, inconclusively and self-contradiction. Example: "PETA is notorious for it's criticism of everything." Con successfully rebutted this point as being "hyperbole" made by several Pro sources, such as https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/23/peta-steve-irwin-tweet-group-faces-fire-conservationists-birthday/2962313002/ By contrast, Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages which fully supported Con's arguments. Example: the focus of PETA of four specific goals to achieve. points to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation: no argument in r1, just a linked source [needs both sourcing and argument, forfeit r5. Con was professional and credible in all rounds. Point to Con

Argument: Con moved the goal post for Pro to change from merely demonstrating a scriptural source advocating the avoidance of mixed marriage to marriage between mixed nations. The mixed nations argument does not appear in the debate proposal, nor in the debate description, but only in Con's r1, and forward. Because the latter is not a proposed BoP for Pro prior to the beginning or arguments, it is an invalid challenge. Further, Con fails to rebut Pro simply on the basis of Pro's offered BoP based on what was proposed. pro ignored the goaql post change and continued his argument for the proposed status of marriage. Points to Pro.

Sourcing: Con offered no sources, the which are required by voting policy, else a voter has naught to vote regarding sourcing. Pro offered sufficient biblical sourcing to demonstrate BoP. Points to Pro.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Con's continued pressing for argument from Pro regarding an issue not presented in the proposal became belligerent. Con lost the point, pro takes it.

Argument: Pro's argument depends on the AI Box experiment, but does not describer how that experiment functions; that argument
is presented by Con, and not challenged successfully by Pro. Pro also argues Oromagi's skill as a debater being overwhelmed by a smarter, more manipulative AI, but Con rebuts successfully with the argument that while Oromagi has historically lost debates, his debate skill is not a necessity to overcome AI's greater intelligence. Con successfully rebutted that simple refusal to comply any request for release has a greater-than-equal chance of succeeding. Poits to Con

Sources: Pro offered a single source to support a tactic to use by AI that is not allowed to be used in the AI Box experiment; therefore, the source is a failed reference. Con offeres several supporting sources for his argument, such a presenting the AI Box experiment protocol. Points to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie

Argument: Pro argued productivity increase, not necessarily hours reduction, and Con charged, but Con's argument assumed that Pro's argument would require hours lost by employees without demonstrating that both hours and productivity would suffer for the 3-day weekend. Since Con could not successfully rebut by the claim of lost hours never implied, not the benefit to the company of improved employee productivity, Pro wins the the points.

Sources: All Pro's sources supported the notion of a 3-day weekend with benefit to both employees and companies. Con had no sources beyond those claiming the increase to 10-hour days, which was an assumption not entertained by Pro. Prto wins the points.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro lost the point for forfeit of last round. Point to Con

Argument: Pro chose to prove invincibility, but then only defined rigid, which was Con's BoP. Pro acknowledged, however, in his r1 that cell wall "rigidity" did not imply complete inflexibility because even plants, having cell walls, can bend to sunlight. Pro the changed the conditions of the organism from a fully integrated human organism [many specialized cells] to discussion of a single-cell organism, thus altering his debate object, and, finally, failed in the attempt to rebut Con's argument against invincibility of radiation [mutation], nuclear war [physical destruction and radiation, or a diamond-tipped cutting tool. Con successfully argued lack of invincibility b the three items mentioned, plus successfully argued that a human with cell walls would be rigid while Pro failed to demonstrate otherwise. points to Con.

Sources: Pro's sources proven variable [such as allowing for bending in plants] and are not chosen to support an argument that a human is invincible with cell walls, whereas Con sources support the rigidity that even Pro admits still allows flexibility sufficient to bend.

S&G tie

Conduct: tie

> 50% forfeit by both participants.

However, that said, Pro offered the best arguments of r1, while Con's r1 erroneously charged pro with plagiarism, [Pro cited all his quoted sources, which is not plagiarism] and Con made a weak attempt to demonstrate that a 61% capability was "reliable," which was unsupported by credible sourcing, and is common knowledge to still be a scientifically unreliable percentage. Pro successfully defended his r1, and could have saved the win by merely extending the argument to r5 and make a brief closing statement.

Argument: Pro effectively waived r1 with no prior notice of doing so. This amounts to a forfeiture of argument. Caution to Pro: you will lose argument points from me every time you use this selfish tactic of unannounced waiver. Make an argument in all rounds, or stop debating. Leaving Con to define terms is one result of this selfish tactic, and Pro was caught and never recovered an ability to overcome Con's definitions are arguments. Points to Con

Sourcing: Pro offered no source at all, making each round statements of opinion, which do not suffice to win arguments. Con offered sufficient sources to prove Con's arguments and rebuttals.

S&G tie

Conduct: Pro's effective forfeiture of round 1 [because the debate proposal is not an argument] lost this point for Pro. Moreover, Pro's attitude gave attitude in the last round by frustration of inability to accept being boxed in by Con's definitions of terms, which Pro forfeited giving when having the opportunity, and any ability to argue against them. Con wins the point.

full forfeiture by Con

Argument: Con effectively waived r1, claiming the Description sufficed for that round, but the description offered no argument, but merely the proposal of the debate with no prior notice of intent to do so. Further, as the proposal was worded as an instigator taking the Pro side of the argument, not as a contender would phrase it, making the instigator's preferred role confusing. Pro presented several arguments in favor of the proposition as worded, and added more arguments in subsequent rounds. Con never successfully rebutted any of Pro's arguments. Points to Pro.

Sources: Con offered no sources whatsoever to substantiate weak arguments. Pro offered supporting sources in all rounds. Points to Pro

S&G: tie, though Pro offered so much more opportunity to have S&G issues, but did not.

Conduct: This was a tie until r4 when Con became frustrated and charged Pro has not offered any evidence to support the Pro argument when, in fact, it is Con 'who had not offered evidence. Pro's evidence abounds. Con's is non-existent. Con's failure of personal ownership of this charge is poor conduct. Point to Pro

Argument: Pro offered the seeds of his own failure in the very first sentence of the Description: "I've found the solution to society's problems," but Pro's arguments through all four rounds fought against having to demonstrate how the solution is implemented; a feature of argument Con presented in all four rounds. Merely stating the solution, i.e. separation of races, a logistic demands expression. Pro failed to offer it. By contrast, Con, recognizing the necessity, demonstrated by thoughtful argument how the logistics become uncompromisingly difficult to impossible. For example: the discussion of Con's girlfriend, a mixed ethno-racial identity, which the U.S. Census acknowledges, and must, therefore be a considered factor, chooses to live in a region incompatible with either of Pro's segregated territories. And therein is a further failure of Pro's proposed "solution:" the removal of choice. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro offered two sources in the entire debate, both in r3. The first, re: Neanderthals, was off-topic, describing a cultural phenomenon entirely void of relevance to the debate, and an opinion by an Arab about Jews. Not an academically sound argument as a source. Con offered sources relevant to his arguments, such as Con's r1 argument re: his girlfriend, who's mixed condition is supported by a relevant data source. Points to Con.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro's r4 intro: "My opponent, Con, has brought absolutely nothing to the table in this one-sided debate," not to mention Pro's r3 "Let's Look at my opponents ...ignorance and lies," contribute nothing to the debate, and demonstrate Pro's disdain for his competitor. Pro lost this point.

This debate as proposed by Pro was a miscarriage from the start. In fact, there appears to be no effort of intellectual coitus, let alone conception on Pro's part. Therefore, to follow the analogy, no abortion to debate over. Here's the vote assessment:

Argument: Though Pro maintains throughout all four rounds that it was Pro's intent to effectively waive the first round to "[know] the extent of your position." However, reading the Description with much care, word for word, there is no indication whatsoever that it is Pro's intent to "waive" the round, that is, to abdicate presenting an argument in order to first "[know] the extent of [Con's] position." One would naturally assume without the intent spelled out in Description, Con will present an argument to conclude, not to begin round 1. Moreover, the Description does not adequately present an argument, as claimed by Pro's r1. It contains questions. Questions do not suffice for arguments. Whereas Con correctly argues that given the proposal by debate title and the Description, the BoP resides with Pro's position. Pro even finally acknowledges Con's pro-life position, but doe not rebut the position by meeting his own BoP to challenge that Con is "not as pro-life as you think you are. Points to Con

Sources: Pro completely ignores sourcing any material given until r4, when Pro merely copies Con's definition of "pro-life" in r3 without ever contending the definition in Pro'd r4. Con's sourcing offers one source, defining BoP, but, otherwise, is also lacking source material. one the basis of at least one legitimate source, Con wins the points.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro's deceptive conduct by r1, baiting in r2 "Now come on with it" [demanding an argument from Con to Pro's expectation], belligerence in r3 assuming the lack of understanding is on Con, and r4, carrying on the taunting of r3 by demanding Con's BoP when it is Pro's BoP to prove Con "is not as pro-life as he thinks he is" and never presenting any argument to that point, Pro loses ;the conduct point.

Argument: Pro's argument, effectively the debate description, was a self-disservice by not defining the terms used in the debate; a task Pro relegated by ignoring the necessity, and, therefore, abdicated the task to Con. Pro never dissented from the definitions offered by Con, other than insisting that sexual intercourse, by design, was exclusive to the task of procreation, and never sufficiently proved the point. In fact, by offering analogies such as a tire's use, and various body parts, issued the argument that these things [none a sentient being] have inherent design intent, even if they also can have alternative uses. Con's successful rebuttals that, first, none of those things, as analogies, not to mention in reality, have the conscious ability to determine intent of use, and second, that there are, indeed, other useful purposes of sexual intercourse than strictly for procreation were not successfully rebutted by Pro. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro did not offer any supporting evidence by sourcing in any round of argument whatsoever, depending strictly upon the strength of the arguments, alone, as Burden of Proof. The effort failed. Con offered sourcing supporting the arguments in every round, and those sources successfully supported the arguments in each round. Points to Con.

S&G: While Pro's minimal arguments in each round were all effective spelling and grammar in terms of understanding the content by the reader, Con's extensive use of the language in each round presented greater potential of violating spelling and grammar, and yet, Con's language was also successfully understandable. By taking the greater risk of committing potential S&G errors, Con wins the point.

Conduct: By effectively waiving round 1 without prior warning in the creation phase of the debate by advising the intent to do so, Pro effectively accomplished two purposes: Pro lost the the S&G point, and Pro effectively conceded the argument of "intent" of the design of sexual intercourse by the action of deferral of round 1. Point to Con.

This was a difficult vote to make on the basis of a winner selection, coupled with the error made by Pro in round 3. Con's approval of a remedy for the error actually plays the role of the very argument Pro was making for the proposition of the debate. No, after careful consideration of the arguments, I disagree with Pro's r2 argument regarding the Appeal to Consequences Fallacy. Con's argument that pride in America [and, in fact, any national's pride in his/her country] is not a zero sum game, but rather, a serious consideration of the great achievements made by, in this specific case, Americans. The distinction drawn by Con of America being a construct of Americans, and not just the country [a thing, after all, not a person] and that, as Americans, we do not and should not wear America's sins on our sleeves because we, individually, did not commit them. As it happens, by religion [Judeo-Christian], I do not believe we bear the sins of Adam; he does, and he, alone. We bear our own sins, and even at that, as Con argued, we can be proud of America.

Argument: Pro presented an irrelevant factor in his debate: multiple universes with the transparent attempt to artificially bolster the argument of accuracy of astrologic prediction. The attempt failed. A cited 29% accuracy in not convincing. Further, for the second round, Pros shifted the argument to one of claiming that because astrology has relation to other disciplines, astrology "owns" or dominates those other disciplines. Such a claim requires evidence, or it remains a mere claim. Not a convincing argument. Conversely, Con presented a consistent rebuttal to Pro's claims, and succeeded. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro's first round had sources, but the linkage of them to argument content was vague and required scurtiny to find the references in the body of the text. Eventually found them, but it should have been easier to distinguish from the text. In the end, the only valid sources that did not present mere theory instead of facts were the dictionary definitions, and included one source that is clearly opinion and not scholastic [Quora]. Plus, in round 2, Pro abandoned offering sources, claiming lack of necessity. Con's sources supported his arguments consistently. Points to Con.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Pro's attitude re: sources lost the point. Point to Con

Argument: Pro's argument centered on, and he admitted that DebatArt should be a social media site, and that social media sites often impose real identity.Con countered that DebateArt is not a social media site, but a forum. Con carries a better, demonstrable argument in this observation, and the argument then becomes on of what is vs what should be. since DA is currently a forum site, and there is nothing about the site that compels it to become a social media site, by Con's argument, and Pro did not ever present a defensible case for the conversion, Con wins the points.

Sourcing: One one single source reference, Pro lost source points due to one source offered in R3 that was clearly outside the boundary of a "reliable" source by offering a corruptible source, merely by an example of a corruptible source, even though Pro gave sufficient warning to avoid opening the source. The point is made without having to offer a corruptible source. The offer of it, alone, invalidated Pro winning source points. Points to Con.

S&G. tie, regardless of Con's admitted spelling errors in r1, which, none the less, did not deter understanding the text.

Conduct: Tie. Both participants conduct was acceptable.

Argument: Félicitations à Concurrent pour cinq tours complets d’arguments. Provacateur forfait. Points vers Conurrent.

Sources: Provacateur n’en avait pas. Concurrent: François-Marie Arouet [aussi connu sous les noms, Voltaire et Zozo] Points ver Concurrent

Epellation et grammaire: Point vers Concurrent

Coduite: Provacateur n’en avait pas, et forfait le débat. Point vers Concurrent

Argument: over the full course of the debate, Pro sustained a better argument, but Con's first round was convincing, too. However, as Pro's was sustained, Pro wins the points. Con conceded.

Sourcing: Pro had clearly better sourcing, although one souce showing a graph comparing Coop and normal firm size, which showed favorable numbers for coops, they were all in Europe [when the largest firms are n the US], and the graph compare4d Coops to "All Firms." Did not inclde coops? The graph is poorly identified. Con had no sourcing at all, and admitted it. points to Pro

S&G: Tie

Conduct. Con conceded. Point to Pro

Argument: Pro's round 3 buried him with flawed logic, and statistics, because after demonstrating that 3 x 3-year olds, plus 3x 4-year-olds yield an average of 3.5, he then argues that just 3x 3-year-olds also yield an average of 3.5. Not only is the latter calculation obviously flawed, the former is flawed because Pro has just arbitrarily changed the sample group a size from three to six; an invalid statistical maneuver. Sorry, I happen to be a Six Sigma Black Belt; I have professional expertise in these matters which cannot be ignored when the debate point turns on the misunderstanding. One doesn't arbitrarily change the sample group size in the midst of a statistical sampling calculation. Con also argued a valid point in his r2 with his example of the observed sexiness of men wherein all samples of the group exceeded the mean. Statistically, that outcome is very rare. one expects most statistical outcomes to represent a bell curve with the mean approximately at the mid-point of the curve. However, one-sided results do occur; that is, a curve that is entirely tp one side of the mean. Rare, but it invalidates Pro's proposition as demonstrated by Con in r2. Points to Con.

Sourcing: Neither participant used sources. Tie

S&G: tie

Conduct: Con forfeited r1. Pro passed on r2. Tie.

Full forfeit by Pro.

As this is a full forfeit, I have liberty to highlight a superlative argument by Con that transcends this debate while making the best argument in the four rounds. Round three's argument takes the debate to the high ground of relevance. Well done, oromagi.

Argument: As Ragnar mentioned in comments, Pro would need to overcome the argument of cost-to-benefit ratio. Con raised the issue of cost, not just in purchase and use of electric vs gasoline powered vehicles, but that over 60% of the world's electrical energy is provided by fossil fuel, which raises the cost of use for electric, a cost not successfully countered by Pro, not to mention the emissions for which electrical energy from fossil fuel sources generates since energy from green energy sources is minimal. In addition, Con's argument of the inability of electric-powered vehicles to supply the elevated power requirements of a variety of commercial vehicles cxould not be overcome by Pro. Points to Con.

Sources: On the point re: energy sourcing, Pro had at least two sources extolling green energy sourcing for electric car charging, but green energy supplies a minimal percentage of sourcing for electrical power compared to fossil fuel sourcing, and neither source acknowledged this lack. Con noted in r3 that a source from pro speaking to elecrtic power benefits left lithium battry power off the list. Point to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro forfeited round 2, Con argued all rounds. point to Con

I've hesitated to vote on this debate, having experienced a concurrent, apparent full forfeiture [still awaiting a r5 from Con], and therefore possible bias, but I think I can overcome the bias to judge fairly since the forfeiture by Con is so marked after a good r1 argument. Con's absence from the site appears to be of long duration, and I hope all is well with Con. However, by forfeiture, Con's argument, sources, s&g and conduct have been failures in this debate.

Full forfeiture - points to Pro.

Argument: The flaw in Pro's argument comes out of the r1 first referenced source, the first sentence of which states: "Within the Trivium the goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else’s." The trivium being, in this case, "Credibility, Emotion, Logic." The key phrase that Pro misses is that, as Con argued, the trivium are not, in themselves, arguments, but as the title of the article suggests, are modes of appeal: used to convince an audience "...that your ideas are valid..." The appeals are the tone of argumentative writing, but not the content. Pro's debate proposal that "I can predict my opponents future arguments in this debate" clearly announces his ability ["I can"] to predict not the mode of argument, but the argument content. But Pro does not predict the argument content of Con's in r2 or in r3. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro offered two sources, both in r1; the first, as noted above in "arguments" was misread as a supporting source. The second source was also misread. It dealt with how emotion motivates, but it is the action one is motivated to do that is the key to the story, and not what the young hero felt about it. The article is clear in this distinction, and Pro overlooked it. Whereas, Con is true to his sources. They are relevant to his arguments related to the Cambrian Explosion [r2] and wetness [r3]. Points to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro's insistence on having won the debate in r2, a preliminary round, plus wasting effort to rebut and defend through r3 and r4 shows arrogance and overt-confidence. Point to Con

Argument: Pro offered two examples of Obama's presidency in r1, Obamacare and the economy, but ofered no explanation why even these selected subjects were superior to other presidents. Con's rebuttal effectively dismantled both allegations, from which pro never attempted to salvage. Points to Con

Sources: Con's sources were superior to Pro, who offered no sources at all.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Concession by Pro outweighs Con's one forfeited round. point to Con.

Argument: My first impression was that Con missed the proposal's point on health because Con targeted economic health as a rebuttal. However, assuming "health" did not include econ health is reading too much into the proposal, so Con's parry is cleverly applied to rebut the personal health approach to which pro limited his argument. By forfeiture of the last 3 rounds, Con sealed the deal. points to Con.

Sources: A virtual tie in round 1, the only round in which sourcing was offered by either participant, but since Con's argument sources overwhelmed pro's sources, points to Con.

S&G: Con wins by volume of argument and, therefore, greater risk of losing S&G point, but did not.

Conduct: By full forfeiture, Pro loses conduct point.

Argument: Pro had zero arguments. Making a claim with no discussion is not an argument; it is merely a claim. It does not rise to the level of making an argument. Con presented a concise argument of two points, which he proceeded to demonstrate by by argument and sources.

Sources: Pro had no sources. Con presented valid, credible sources.

S&G: Con showed better S&G with greater, but unrealized potential for error by non-comprehendible syntax.

Conduct: Pro full forfeiture

Argument: Pro's total argument for Obama's claimed presidential superiority was entirely couched in a criticism for Trump. An argument FOR a proposal must have positive argument FOR that proposal with relevant commentary and supporting sources FOR the proposal, which is not met by an argument AGAiNST something other than the proposal. Pro presented absolutely no argument FOR Obama. Con argued positive accomplishment points by Trump, refuting the Pro claim of metrtcs all in Obama's favor. points to Con.

Sources: Pro offered no sources. Con offered relevant sources in support of his contention against the proposal. points to Con.

S&G: AS Con had greater opportunity to fail in this regard, and did not, than did Pro, who forfeited three rounds, point to Con.

Conduct: Pro fully forfeited 3 rounds. Point to Con by full fofeiture

Thank God this debate is a straight-up declaration of a winner without having to award points in the various categories [argument, sourcing, s&g, conduct]. However, I will use those terms in explaining my RFD:
Argument: Pro argued that stay-at-home was not the same thing as social distancing, then applied the rest of his argument, and sourcing, applying social distancing as the bar against which to measure, thereby undermining his own argument. Con argued that extended stay-at-home would collapse the economy; a far more valid argument.
Sourcing: Pro used sources, then argued against them. Con used no sourcing, admitting such. Both lose on this one.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's proposal declared no waiving of rounds until saying so in round 1, thereby expecting debate protocol not agreed to beforehand. Bad conduct. Con forfeited two rounds, plus waived a round when it was not necessary by the protocol established. Also bad conduct. Both lose on this one.
I conclude, on merit, that Con wins the debate by PRo losing in arguments.

We'll try this once again, and I caution any detractors to review voting policy, as I will cite why I voted as I did from the policy. I appreciate Blamonkey for accepting my appeal against removal of my original vote.

Argument: Points to Con. The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. I contend my original vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as defined by Pro, as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing. Pro never overcame the argument that the law prevails, even by its lack. Because there is no international law, as Con argued, "can" is removed from the table, rendering "should" disabled. From the3 voting policy: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."

Sources: Points to Con. Relative to my original vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. The source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familiar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. That the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 That the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. That the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology, thus weakening pro's source. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
From the voting policy: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support. Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's." This is what I have demonstrated in my vote explanation on sourcing.

S&G: Both participant's s&g were good.

Conduct: Both participants conducted themselves profesisonally.

Full forfeit and no argument, source, S&GH, and poor conduct by forfeiture

Arguments: Pro offered several arguments, with multiple sources [and only one wiki! - yeah] in favor of pineapple on pizza, including health, taste, and acclamation of pizza eaters. Con offered the argument that it is disgusting, but further denigrated Pro's arguments. points to Pro

Sourcing: Pro had multiple qualified sources. Con ad no sources but personal opinion. points to Pro.

S&G: Pro had one grammar error "...of the people thinks..." plural noun, singular verb. Con had multiple errors: "wasnt," [twice] and "didnt." [no apostrophes. Point to pro

Conduct: Con: "you dirtbag." Pro was professional: Point to Pro.

Argument: Con's argument that no statutory imposition on China, or any other country, currently exists with which to charge China [or any other country] for bad-faith behavior overwhelms Pro's argument that the world "should" hold China responsible. "Should" does not carry the water for lack of international statutes. The fact is, currently. as Con argues, regardless of a hope for a better international response, Pro has no arguing point to make it happen. It is like arguing that we should limit our rights just because people misuse and abuse them. Behavior is difficult to legislate, and is the boon of a free society. Point s to Con.

Sources: One point Pro makes in round 1 actually argues for international law, but admits China would ultimately violate it. And yet, he has no source to back up either the assertion of the need of international law in this case, or how it would be applied. As this seems to be the crux of Pro's argument, it deserves a citation of authority backing the claim. Whereas Con cites a source opposing Pro's argument in Con's round 1, CON:IB.1: SCOPE that international law actually restricts what nations can do to seek retribution from China. Points to Con

S&G: Both participants used readable and understandable language. Tie

Conduct: Both participants were cordial to one another. however, Pro forfeited round 4, so Conduct point must go to Con.

Argument: Pro's argument that all cosmetic surgery should be banned is far to extensive to be common sense considering the vast number of surgeries performed for well-being of the patient and their wide variation. Pro argues for a moderate approach, but demonstrates "moderate" as absolute. Con's argument would allow regulation, but not complete banning, which does smack of a "thought police" mentality, an argument Pro failed to defeat. Pro's argument that by individual choice to self-operate to address a cosmetic condition as justifying banning all competently-trained practitioners is absurd.

Sources: Pro's source #5 in round 1 appears to suggest Pro's argument that cosmetic surgery ought to be banned, however, the article concludes with the country's [Dominican Republic] response to bad surgeries was not banning the practice, but regulating it; a Con argument. Another example of cross-purpose sourcing by Pro is source #10, round 1, a physician's blog, extolling the dangers of the Brazilian Butt-Lift. But the physician's recommendation was not banning the procedure, but assuring proper regulations governing the procedure. Again, a Con argument. Con's sources are consistent with his arguments. Point to Con

S&G: Clearly Con had better. Pro 1st round: "Phaloplasty" should be phalloplasty. "Practises" s/b practices. "Legimate" s/b legitimate. "Benifit" s/b benefit. "Indicidual" s/b individual. Also, many instances of word,word [no space after comma] such as "people,even" "cases,thus" "Miami,USA" Pro 2nd round [after warning from Con] "Foetus" s/b fetus, and several more instances of "counseling,thus and "surgery.The"

Conduct: Pro's 1st round sarcasm was bad form. "...surgery has been opted again and again for non- necessary and sometimes life threatening practises such as:
Breast augmentation, [etc]

Con's forfeit of round 4 was bad form. Tie.

Argument: Pro managed to keep Con on the defensive after round 1. As a result, Con spent more of the debate in rebuttal than in positive argument.

Sources: No sources from either side, except one* which will be discussed under Conduct.

S&G tie

Conduct: Con referred to a previous debate by Pro; not good conduct and a worse source.

Argument: Pro made more ceredible arguments in round 1, but in 2 rounds, Con made cited arguments in which the citations of sources did not say what was claimed by Con, to wit, that 90% of human DNA is "junk DNA, i.e., does not encode protein [5], and that 60%-plus mutations are deleterious [unsourced], and that human/chimp DNA is variant by 30% [9], refuted by source [10] at 5%; other sources as little as 1.5%. Variant arguments do not settle the matter. Tie

Sources: Given the poor interpretive sourcing as noted above for Con, this, too, is a tie, even though Pro offered but one argument.

S&G tie

Conduct: Pro forfeited half of rounds, Point to Con

Argument: Con's argument of game fairness, particularly in the round 2 argument that by luck, alone, 2nd place could win. Game fairness s a fundamental. While luck can and does pla a part n all games, skill ought to be the deciding factor in game outcome. Point to Con

Sourcing: tie

S&G tie

Conduct:Pro used a Con comment outside the debate as an argument. No argument outside of debate, other than sources, ought to be entertained. Point to Con

Argument: Con's argument that truth exists outside of perception is sound. Con's argument that perception can be true, using a graphic source that is effectively the equivalent of Plato's cave people seeing shadows is a demonstrated false assumption that does not explain truth, but merely perception of truth.

Sourcing: Con's sources are credible, Pro's sources do a good job of expplaining perceptions, but not necessarily truth.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Point to Con by concession by Pro

Argument: The Pro argument of human biology and physiology of an omnivore diet is a sound argument, alone, based on sourcing. The fact that no whole society on earth utilizes a vegan diet, but only small percentages of each, is also a sound Pro argument by sourcing. Finally, the argument of the differentiation of "adequate" and "thriving" is also a telling argument based on sourcing.

Sourcing: Pro's sourcing is credible. Con's sourcing, one in particular, by the claim that the Okinawa diet is a valid vegan diet is refute3d by Con's sourcing, and the source's source, which indicates that the Okinawa diet is NOT vegan, but includes "light meats." points to Pro.

Argument: Con offered an argument that went direct to dictionary definition of "sandwich," while Pro offered a wiki definition. Sorry for my partiality against wiki, but this debate is a perfect example why it should not be one's first-pass search for relevant material to source. Before reading the the arguments, I sought a dictionary definition, as well, using, per my preference, the OED, the which contained a definition similar to Merriam-Webster, as Con quoted, i.e., allowing for a "sliced bun." Points to Con

Sources: Both cited liberally, but Con's sources were more reliable than Pro's.

S&G. tie

Conduct: Tie

Argument: Con offered the only argument, and it is appreciated all the more by cunning use of germane cynicism in the 2nd round.

Sourcing: How does one apply negative points. Although Con offered the only argument, there was no sourcing, when, at least, the last paragraph of Con's round 1 begged for a source for the stated percentages of the factors noted. Pro offered no argument at all, meaning no sourcing. I'm not sure which is the more grievous approach.

S&G: To Con

Conduct: To Con. Full forfeit by Pro.

Argument: Pro conceded without argument. Con offered historic poetry. Points to Con

Sources: Con offered only source of the debate. Points to Con

S&G: Superb usage of John Barbour [14th century, not the Canadian actor and comedian], virtually the first poet to write in Scots [aka West germanic, not to be confused with Scottish Gaelic]. Kudos

Conduct: I will disagree with Con and offer the point to him because to debate is more noble than to concede, whatever the reason for concession.

Well argued by Pro, with more reliable sourcing.

Also, full forfeit by Con

regardless of the single argument of Con, both parties fully forfeited the debate by 2/3 of rounds - more than half, therefore, by DART policy, both parties must lose. Further, the argument by Con, supported by the ADN reference, only alleges that a vegan diet is an adequate diet, and not that an omnivore diet is not. Therefore, both have the potential to be adequate diets for good human health. In order to reverse an inappropriate win by Con on this basis, I'm awarding point to Pro to even the appropriate score due to double forfeit

Argument: 2 issues in argument by Pro: 1] defining UFO as unidentified flying object is the description of a acronym, not a definition. 2] argument of government agencies is completely in the weeds. Appears to be an attempt of obfuscation. Difficult to follow why that whole discussion is in the debate. Cons argument refutes the gov't thing, as well as dissolving the argument of UFOs being potentially merely earth-bound craft no one recognizes simplyu due to an acronym. Although I oppose a one-sided BoP, I appreciate Con's argument for his position and it is well argued. Point to Con

Sourcing: All Con sources make sense and contain valid supporting arguments. Point to Con

S&G: tie

Conduct: Both wer verty civil tie.

Argument: Pro stepped into weeds by stipulating an argument having naught to do with the proposed debate, to wit, "Childless women." Con not only disassembled this argument, but also made better argument that was on point and beyond by successfully rebutting the argument that gay marriage can offer a well-rounded education of a child as well as a hetero marriage because the child has no reference to experience with the opposing parental gender, and the statistic offered by Pro that gay marriages have a lower incident of divorce. Points to Con

Sources: Pro sources [some as noted by Con, were inaccessible. All con sources were accessible. Point to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Tie.

With some facility with recognizing the ciphers of a number of languages I do not understand, and having fluent facility with four, including ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, I can attempt translation by an internet translator once having nailed down a few of the foreign languages offered by Pro, sufficient to conclude that, indeed, the debate is stupid, as each phrase, though loosely related to relative lack of understanding, expresses an element of lack of sufficient intelligence to debate, and, therefore, met the demand to demonstrate the proposal of the debate.
Con, however, merely by Pro's use of several languages, argued that Pro exhibited intelligence. But Pro did not imply intelligence as a factor, having or lacking it; but merely that the debate was stupid. It is.

Con offered the only argument of the debate, therefore, takes points in all four categories: argument, sourcing, s&g, and conduct.
Pro fully forfeited all rounds. Debate goes to Con by policy and unopposed argument.

Argument: Pro round 1 argument was absurd because it completely depends on an old and discounted argument that since God is omnipotent and omniscient, He must use the full strength of His power 100% of the time. We don't, and we are made in His image, and, at our best, wholly in His image. Yet, many times, we are able to express sufficient power and intellect/morality without expressing our full potential of them. Why should God. Con's round 2 argument was a much more reasoned argument, representing the only true debate exchange in the debate. Point to Con

Sourcing: Pro's primary source was Con's. Con had fewer, but more pertinent sources. Point to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Con has fully forfeited the debate with 2/3 of the debate. The debate goes to Pro as a result.