fauxlaw

Over all, I find this a useless debate. Arguing a format of a site that allows flexibility is restricting in a very real sense that I find unnecessary and ill-advised. So, one does not like a broader spectrum of what is and is not allowed, either deal with it, or make your own debate site, and good luck.

Argument: Con had a good first round, and Pro had a good, and unopposed second round, and both suffered the reverse in the relative rounds. On the basis of argument, alone, on merit, and not considering the forfeit factor, which must be considered, this feature of the debate is a tie.

Sources: Pro offered the only source of the debate, but I call foul relative to the circular reference; a new debate form. That is not a supporting feature of Pro's argument, it is merely evidence everyone who opens a debate can see, and it does not favor either Pro or Con. If I could withdraw, rather than merely assign points, I would. Unfortunately, I can only call a tie. Not to mention the forfeit factor, except I just did.

S&G: tie

Conduct. Con had the bad form to forfeit half the debate. Therefore, a foregone conclusion: point to Pro

Full forfeiture by Con

Although Pro offered argument in all rounds, and although I disagree personally with the debate posit, kudos to Pro for debating both rounds. Onewonders why Con agreed to the debate.

Argument: Con provides adequate argument that while UFOs [or UAPs] may not be evidence of alien visitations, which is a common interpretation, he argues successfully that UFO's, as per definition, merely indicate inability to identify what the UFOs actually are. Pro is never able to prove otherwise. Points to Con

Sourcing: While Pro offers more referenced sourcing, it is difficult to track which source belongs with which statement in argument because there is no linkage of source to commentary; hence, Pro's sourcing is virtually worthless. Point to Con, who has direct linkage.

S&G: tie

Conduct: tie

Full-forfeiture against Con with half or more rounds forfeited.

Argument: Both participants spent more time arguing the issue of God's existence than on the subject proposed, and both make the error of ignoring that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, He is compelled to use these powers to the maximum, always. Why should that be so? I cannot think of a single reason why He should. And to conclude, as both do, that God must use all His powers, always, and declare He does not exist on that basis, because, clearly, He does not use them as such, always, is a ludicrous conclusion that does not hold logic. In fact, however, Pro had some very convincing arguments in the first round against the actual subject of the debate, and woiuld have awarded point for argument to Pro on that basis. However:

Sourcing: About even, however, Pro made the error of referencing an earlier debate on the existence of Jesus, and used the referenced debate as substantiation of her argument, but that debate ended in a tie, negating the whole argument. Tie.

S&G: tie

Conduct: Since Pro forfeited the second round, and voting guidelines indicate that a person who forfeits the balance of the debate after the first round s declared having forfeited the entire debate. Point to Con, the winner of the debate.

Con had a spelling error: "empathisis" point to Pro
Con forfeited 3 rounds - more than half - automatic loss according to DART protocol regardless of other points earned by Con

Argument: The flaw in Pro’s argument that "all machines must be able to reduce human effort" as needed to be proved by Con is the imperative "must" that was not part of Rancho’s definition. For example, a Rube Goldberg machine [a machine designed to perform a simple task by extravagant mechanical operation], certainly does not reduce human effort in the making of it, let alone reducing the time involved in accomplishing the simple task, yet it meets Pro’s definition of "machine."

Further, that non-machines can also reduce human effort is a red herring because Pro never implied the difference, let alone the mention of "tool" as opposed to "machine." Therefore, the mention of "non-machines" is irrelevant.

Finally, that Rancho did not mention direct, or indirect contribution to effort cannot be implied either way. We don’t know Rancho’s mind on the intention.

Whereas, Con’s argument of definition of machine, i.e., "The machine is defined by human purpose and the purpose of the machine is to reduce the effort of and/or increase the ability of, the human purpose" is wholly accurate, and, it supports Rancho’s definition. Points to Con for the better, cohesive argument.

Sources: Tie. Although Con offered no sources, Pro's sole source, the video, did not support Pro's argument.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Both were courteous to one another. Tie.

Argument: Pro demonstrated viable argument from both human and animal moral value. Con, in disagreement, did not argue against moral weight to animals, which Con acknowledged, but by disagreement with the proposal of the argument, that it represented a "truism," something Con argued did not deserve debate because Con believes everyone believes the truism [making it a truism]. Though I disagree with the truism, and would have taken the debate just argue a point with which I disagree, which is both possible and doable, Con could have taken the same approach. Challenging; yes. A debatable point? Absolutely, with a little creative thought. Instead, Con accepted the debate, then complained for two rounds, and forfeited two rounds. Point to pro.

Sources: neither pro, nor Con offered sources. Tie points. [There sould be an option to award no point since neither side complied with the debate necessity of providing sources.]

S&G: Points to Pro for having the greater risk of failure to not have better S&G.

Conduct: Con forfeited half of rounds. Points to Pro

Argument: Con 2-1 by forfeit

Sources: Con 2-1

S&G: Con 2-1

Conduct: 2-1by forfeit

Argument: 2-1 to Con by content and forfeit

Sources: 2 - 0 to Con

S&G: 2-0 to Con by content

Conduct: 2-0 to Con by forfeit

Argument: 2-1 in Con's favor by forefit

Sources: neither side 0-0

S&G: Con had greater risk of failure Con 2-1

Conduct: Con 2-1 by forefit

Argument: Con had the far better argument, which appeared to baffle Pro even though expressed and repeated by Con: Being part owner of a company in an employee-owned enterprise does not mean one has management duties, but some of the owners must do management. However, not all owners are managers,

Source: to Con, who had the only source. Ironically, it was Pro.

S&G Tie

Conduct: tie

Full forfeiture

Argument: Pro's argument was virtually contained in the debate title, then confused it by then stating in round 2 that "our" dead in Viet Nam amounted to over 1M deaths, as if "our" meant the world's loss in Viet Nam. pro would have self-advantaged by filling out their profile, but, instead, every entry is "unknown, so we do not know whether Pro's "our" is the U.S., another country, or the world. Vague does not win points. And, pro forfeited effectively half the rounds. Meanwhile, Con offered cogent argument. poitns to Con

Sources: All points to Con

S&G tied

Conduct: Pro forfeited a round. points to Con

Full forfeiture

Argument: Pro offered virtually no argument, but for libelous attack against Nunes. Conoffered reasoned arguments. points to Con

Sources: Pro offered no sources. Con, well eresearched and cited sources. Points to Con

S&G: The sheer volume of Con's arguments offered greater risk of S&G error. Points to Con

Conduct: Pro: disrespect to Nunes, for wasting Con's time with a debate Pro clearly instigated, but to which contributed noting of a positive argument to support his case, and to me for having to review childish slurs.

Full forfeiture
However, even in the face of potential forfeiture, Con provided superbly offered clear, concise, and sourced arguments. All points to Con.

Argument: Con's arguments are thoughtful and thorough. Pro offered fluff of pundits. Points to Con

Sources: Con's sources were reliable; Pro's sources were non-existent. points to Con

S&G: Neither had issues, but with greater opportunity to have errors, Con's usage was more at risk. points to Con

Conduct: Pro had little to contribute either way, but managed to make the meager attempt by contempt, only. Points to Con, whose conduct was unassailable.

Argument: Con not only skillfully refuted the arguments by Pro made in comments section, he offered additional argument above and beyond the scope of the debate. By comparison, it appears Con though the debate should be argued in comments. Con wins by forfeit, but by so much more.

Sources: Ditto for Con as above. points to Con by more than forfeit

S&G. Con takes points.

Conduct: Con debated, Pro abstained. points to Con

Argument: Con's arguments were pre-occupied by one: the definition of "car," which, given its restrictive interpretation, discounted many vehicles that are road vehicles with the express intent to travel over roads used by public and private utility. Pro, by contrast, gave many more cogent arguments routing the debate subject as given. Points to Pro

Sources: Although I do not give much credence to numbers of sources given, Pro was clearly deficient, not only I number, but more importantly, quality. Con missed offering the one source that wold have supported his primary argument: the definition of "car." He quoted a definition, but never offered the source other than by generic reference: "the" dictionary. Which dictionary? I happen to use the OED, but Con's offered definition is nothing like mine, are I would have expected some correlation. Points to Pro.

S%G: Use of S & G much moe consistent on Pro's side, along with better syntax.

Conduct: About the same. Tie.

Argument: Pro cites sources, which is good for the second judging point, but offers little critical thinking by argument, whereas Con has valid argument to support claims. For example, Pro's sources are expected to provide the discussion for both Pro's debate objectives, that vax are safe, but that anti-vaxxers are dangerous. It does not help that pro attacks a non-participant in the debate. points to Con

Sources: Both pro and Con provide adequate sourcing. Although more sources are given by Pro, they are expected to also provide Pro's argument, whereas Con actually uses sources to support his argument. points shared.

S&G: Pro drops the F-bomb in round 2; to me, automatic failure, but other profanity scattered around Pro's argument do not help her cause. point to Con

Conduct: I have two issues with Pro: 1. pro treats Dr.Spy, who is not party to this debate, with contempt in the debate title, and round 1. 2. Although I do not typically consider any comments in that section as relevant to the debate, Pro apparently engaged in vote rigging by the claim in post #3, "I already have votes lined up against you purely based on the topic!! HAHAHAH" point to Con

Argument: Pro repeated arguments in each round. Con's arguments successfully rebutted all Pro arguments. Points to Con

Sources: Pro had no sources. Con presented multiple, reliable sources. points to Con

S&G: Con had fewer S&G issues points to Con

Conduct: Both treated one another respectfully.

Arguments: Pro offered multiple, credible arguments which Con allowed to stand without rebuttal. Points to Pro

Sources: Pro had many sources. bot for argument and rebuttal. Points to Pro

Conduct: Con forfeited two rounds - automatic fail

Argument: in the first round, pro argued that pigs chew the cud, but ignores the verse, 11:7 which specifically states that swine do not chew the cud. pro further stated that the Torah meant, in the regard, that eating grass constituted chewing cud, but there is no reference cited for this claim, and is, therefore a fail. In Con's argument, there was no rebuttal of the "eat grass" claim, however, Con rightly argued that the "Black Hog" Pro argument was irrelevant. Points to Con
Sourcing: by Pro was nearly exclusively wikipedia, which is fine for 1st level research, but is, by its own admission, an inaccurate source. Con used much more varied, and on-point deeper sourcing. Sourcing decision should be based on "relaible" sourcing. Points to Con

It is genuinely a shame that this subject did not capture either combatant to debate the subject, and the lack of commentary indicates a general dismissal of the subject. It indeed appears to call for denominational favoritism, but it could have been a lively debate. Given the general dismissal on this site, I'll not raise a new debate on the subject as I noted in comments.

Argument: I look at the debate title and conclude, by the arguments, that Con did a better job of staying on point with regard to vaccines, the subject of the debate, whereas Pro wandered into "Big Pharma" in general to discuss diseases that are not treated by vaccines, making a point that "Big Pharma" is profiting, which they have a right to do [this is, after all, the point of busness] and is the direct cause of world sanitation issues [which pro did not prove regarding direct cause]. Points to Con

Sources: Pro virtually limited sourcing to Wikipedia, which says of itself that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Pro even calls Wiki his "savior." It's fine to begin with Wiki to put one in a ballpark, but it is always better to go to their linked sources to draw conclusions from them. It may require further digging than that. If I am thirsty, I want to get as close to a supply of fresh water as possible. There's water in my gutter right now, but that's not my best source. Conversely [no pun intended] Con used varied sourcing; better sanitized water. Points to Con

Women's Health: Pro argues, with citation, “Of all abortions, an estimated 55% are safe (i.e., done using a recommended method and by an appropriately trained provider)..." This is not a convincing percentage to argue that abortion is "safe" since it acknowledges that there are degrees of safeness. Con argues, with citation, ""CDC...confirmed that there were more than 3,400 pregnancy-related deaths over a five-year period in the United States," and that, "The estimated abortion deaths, same time period --> 3,156,876 - 5,335,59" The two citations indicate that there are a thousand-fold more abortions than pregnancy-related deaths, which suggests that "women's health" is, at best, a relative term, along with "safeness" and not a credible leading argument for abortion.

Person: Con is consistent in the definition of what constitutes "person" as being human, whereas Pro vacillates in that definition.

Rights: Con argues that the unborn, being acknowledged as "persons" and humans, have rights afforded to human. Pro, due to the above vacillation, cannot argue from form both sides of the table and maintain credibility. Example: Pro argues, as a definition, that "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status." It's the "any other status" that hangs all other Pro claims that the right to life belongs only to the woman, and not the fetus, since "Every person has a moral right to control their own body," when Pro also argues, "Freedom, justice, and peace rests on fundamental human rights such as ‘freedom from slavery, freedom from torture, equality, and the right to life." Pro has not successfully argued that a human is not human at conception, even though arguing that a "person" is not established at conception, hanging "person" on a nebulous hook of "consciousness." Pro has not demonstrated by evidence that a fetus has no consciousness, and must do that to deny a fetus the right that freedom and justice demand.

S.L.E.D. depends on a value being "taken" from the pregnant woman by the fetus, that value being nutrients, even if, in the transfer of nutrients, the woman's body is deprived of them to the degree they are "taken" by the fetus. What in the process specifically requires that "give" is not at least an equal to "take" in that the "give" is not a conscious act by the woman any more than "take" is a conscious act of the fetus? After all, Pro argues that consciousness is not a feature endowed to the fetus.

Con offered legitimate4 debate points. Pro complained of voting bias in all 5 rounds of argument, without presenting evidence in any round by sourcing, or by investigative argument. Con wins the points and the debate.

Argument: Con provided better arguments, but one missed, favoring Israel's right to exist is references in II Samuel 24: 18-25, and I Chronicles 21: 21-30 which documents David's purchase of the king's threshing floor for 50 shekels of silver. The King, Arauana, of the Jebusites, was willing to give the site, on Mt. Moriah, to David, but David argued to pay for it. No transaction since has paid David's descendants for the site .

Sources: While Pro offered sources in round 1, they were debunked. Further, Pro forfeited, losing any points otherwise.

S&G: Forfeiture

Conduct: Forfeiture

Forfeiture of Pro, regardless og apparent good beginning. However, Con adequately debunked argument sources. points to Con

Full forfeiture by Pro - points to Con

Argument: Pro never defined "soul," specifically, but related it to the ability to love. In addition, Pro wandered into an area of demonstrating, if not love, then the ability to adopt another father's litter in animals, which is a diversion from the debate subject. It was left to Con, which was not challenged by Pro, to define the germane terms in the debate. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro had sources, but none spoke to the direct debate subject. Con had no sources. Tie

S&G: Pro: lack of spacing: true.It, heard.It
slang: by like several...
spell: heard [should be herd]. Points to Con

Conduct: Pro: Forfeit debate. Point to Con

Argument: Pro's sole, legitimate first round argument was contrary, not favorable to the position held in the debate. Each subsequent round insisted a point that, on its own merit, failed to be justified. Satire has naught to do with whether a position held is right or wrong. Satire does not justify right or wrong. Whereas, Con argued his position with forthright debate points. Con is awarded the points.

Sources: Pro offered a single source, and that source quoted four to eleven-year-old data. Con offered two sources, one of newer data, but the other was merely to support definition of a wrongness concept that had little to do with the subject at hand. I call this point a tie on relevance.

S&G: On the basis of greater volume to assess spelling and grammar, the points go to Con

Conduct: Pro's insistence on a point of debate style [using satire] having naught to do with the subject, and indeed without evidence that the point had merit, point goes to Con.

Arguments: Considering the premise, "Debate art is lazy," there are no arguments, pro or con, which discuss the relative activity of Debateart at all. No points awarded to either side.

Sources: Neither side presented any sourcing at all. No points awarded to either side.

S&G: Con misspelled "Argumetns" in round one, an error of commission. Pro forfeited round one and round five, making two S&G errors of omission. I judge to two types of errors as equal faults. No points awarded to either side.

Conduct: Both sides engaged in poor conduct, taunting one another rather than making arguments relative to the debate proposition. In order for points to be awarded to Con due to forfeit by pro, half or more arguments must have been forfeited, but only 2 of 5 rounds were forfeited by Pro. No points awarded to either side.

Concession.
I would like to see the subject re-introduced in a new debate

This vote is entirely backed into because throughout the debate, only the Pro offered any argument at all, and since there was no Con argument, I still don't agree this debate is a "win." Maybe the lack of scoring points by a sports team is a loss for that team, but in the absence of a competitive struggle in a debate, is that a "win" when there is no opponent but by acceptance but by allowing a debate to proceed in which the Con determines to offer no argument? That's a cheap win in my book.
Besides, Pro's argument in round 2 that:

P1: If a god exists, then objective morality is true. (This is because the god would be the definition of good itself. i.e. that god's "will" would be standard for "good" conduct.)

P2: It is likely that god exists.

C1: Morality is likely objective.

Is a logical flaw given the simple acceptance in P1 of the if, then statement because it entirely ignores the possibility that there may be an evil god, or even a god that daily changes as one to the other. See https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/religion/why-must-god-be-good/article3258184.ece

I personally disagree with the reference, but pure logic must consider the possibility; therefore, the if, then does not hold. Therefore, the balance of the argument, depending on a flawed step, cannot merely dismiss the misstep.

I vote holding my nose.