Total votes: 25
WHAT A DEBATE LADS! ITS A FULLLLL FORFEIT!
Con conceded
Con argues that the living beings have the right to life, while Pro tries to argue that forcing people to be born can result in a horrible life, so it would result in living in pain. However They fail to weigh this against the potential killing of the living being. Also, Con says that the Person themself can always choose to end the horrible life rather than prematurely ending the life for them (outside of their decision). Pro tried to argue that Early abortions led to lack of pain, but still failed to address the killing of the person. Also, Pro did not use any sources. Therefore, argument and sources to Con.
Pros main assertion doesn’t make sense — why does the Bible’s existence necessitate its truthfulness? By all accounts it doesn’t make sense. Con has a lot of reasonable counter arguments especially listing other fictional books that don’t have proof of being true. Source to con due to having better relevant articles while pro uses a blurry imgr link.
pro's argument is confusing, first he tries to say the exception found within the 13th amendment is slavery, then, he says the discrimination is also slavery, moving the goal posts. Con refutes the former by saying it is still overall prohibiting slavery and the criminals are not "property", merely following new regulations established in the prison. Con refutes the latter by saying the discrimination does not match the definitions of slavery laid out by the dictionary. Thus, Con wins the debate.
full forfeit
forfeitssss
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13UhOss4xN4Zmw9bLL2qu4q5Aj3ave2HCqEIx171UPqM/edit?usp=sharing
Pro's case is extremely confusing. I do not buy that the relative motion of "going around" as needing to bypass the monkey's own perception. Coal's example of the moon rotating the earth despite us continuing to face the moon landed the coffin in the nail. Pro needed more succinct or clear explanations for why we have to take the relative motion of what the monkey sees, rather than the common sense of the absolute locations of the man and the monkey.
RFD in comments. In the end, I accept that Pro is winning scientifically, but the societal case is too ambiguous, and Con's reducto ad absurdum actually works better than it seems.
full forfeited
full forfeiteddd
concession
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IKDKPzVG80lBbKrmZiDY2DDsEvbm0HVXQ2oBmMP9FNc/edit?usp=sharing
Other points
Both used same ish sources
Both had decent spelling/grammar
Nobody had bad conduct
Pro's position was unclear and contradicted himself. He doesn't refute that human lives are worth more than animals, and furthermore, that death penalty makes you just as much a monster as the criminal (as Con highlights). Hence, Con wins.
full forfeited
this debate... this debate was very confusing due to the way pro argued. It's ambiguous whether the topic was about the actual existence of "women and children first" policy for the Titanic, and pro seems to go that way. Con shows the results where the vast majority of women were saved while the men died merely due to their sex/gender. Pro keeps saying that the policy was not the true policy used, that the officer's command was misinterpreted. But regardless, Con has the impact of unjustly choosing people to live or die under specific conditions. (Because the interpretation was "women and children first") Pro never justified this beyond the idea that 25% of women already were mistreated and died (lessening the impact of only women saved). I'm not sure how this overturns con's argument that implied about equal treatment. Therefore arguments to CON.
this debate was frustrating because Pro was arguing for how the physical locations of where the brain allowed men to think made the mind obsolete. However, Con's truisms highlight the idea that even the vague idea of "mind" can prove non-physical ideas, and that only the physical proof can give evidence for the physical material. Pro thinks the immaterial mind is too arbitrary and ambiguous to grasp at, but Con has all the evidence he needs. He shows that the actions generated by whatever mind still results in physical things that can be shown. Yes, Pro argues that the chemical reactions that allow for these thoughts are still from your brain, but Con shows that more abstract processes with idea of holding concepts feels like it can hold equal amount of understanding in it. Pro doesn't address the missing link from the Harvard research, and as such, Con puts substantial doubt in that the mind is not relevant any more. The idea of the personal identity is still upheld by Con due to showing that he stores information in an arbitrary and not completely known way. Very confusing debate.
One of mall’s best debates. He shows people are shackled to money one way or another (Though more clarification in the description would certainly help). The opponent forfeited half the rounds do conduct to mall.
It's easy to see that Con gave many sources and reasons behind why Egyptians build the pyramids, with historical accuracy and archeologists supporting his claim. Pro however, only suggested questions and small flaws with no reasoning behind how the Gods built the pyramids and why the evidence is wrong. In addition, while Pro's sources are relatively okay for the topic of mysteriousness behind the pyramids, he still fails to debunk that they built it in the first place. His own sources admit that the Egyptians likely built the pyramids while not knowing the exact methods -- as Con points out. As such, Con wins the debate by a landslide.
concession
In comments. Essentially, even if I apply pros self defense case against him, the retaliation ironically hold little water. I know that war is bad but even con explained nothing about comparing to violation of private information. I buy that defense is good at deception but con needs to bring this back to defeating pros first argument. pros case presented the war as a bit of a squabble in comparison (electrical grid problems? Please tell me why this is bad) and his Chinese standards case went widely unstopped. The reasoning behind stopping hackers is explained thoroughly and thus I can only vote pro
I scratch my head over this debate, especially how Con says illogical things downright don't exist. Con argues that God can just create the vague definition of the words that refer to them. Con argues that "circular square" is similar to saying "asoierhoaeihr a...". But anyways. Con said that that God's immaterial nature makes it so that he cannot move, he cannot lift anything, among many other actions. As there are things outside of God's power, Con basically gave away this debate. I need to see why God's transcendental nature makes it so that even the contradictions that cannot exist may result from God's power. But Pro poked a lot of holes in con's argument, especially with lack of physical impact of God's being. I can't buy that "X while not X" is not a thing and just gibberish, because omnipotence seems to infer that even illogical objects can be produced. Con tries to display that the concepts are contradictory instead of objects, but it's difficult for me to understand his muddy explanation.