Total votes: 31
It was pro's idea to have the debate and pro never showed up so it's pro's responsibility to take the loss
concession
con conceded
Pro starts his/her case by saying that just because children CAN do something, they should do it, to which con responds that if they do whatever they want and the people around them don't give them basic rules, they will all end up criminals so pro's argument doesn't really stand ( i believe that if pro made an exception for crimes it would have been a better argument). Pro then adds that adults have made many mistakes like polluting the Earth to the point where the world is doomed and it doesn't matter what the children do. While Con kinda drops this, i believe that argument can be countered.
Now let me explain the voting choices:
1) Argumentation: It's a tie because pro gave some arguments that didn't really stand but con's arguments were basically just rebuttals to pro's statements
2)No one used sources so its again a tie
3) I gave legibility to con because the statements were much more clear on his/her behalf and some of the examples Con gave to his/her arguments were kinda confusing, for example the argument about abuse and pedophilia (no child wants to be abused and the abuse won't stop if the child says "i don't want to be abused")
4) Conduct is a tie since both pro and con weren't rude or disrespectful
Pro had 1 argument: the innocent until proven guilty argument. This would be eligible but con debunked it saying that a state clearly found him guilty, using the necessary sources. While i am not fully convinced that Trump is fully responsible since we live in an era with free will, the tweets clearly show that trump encouraged the incident, which pro didn't really talk about. I will not address the argument concerning the spelling mistake which pro bases his/her whole case upon since it is outrageous and that justifies why i gave conduct to con. Pro could have simply made a reference to the mistake and continued but decided to make it his/her whole case so from that point on, they had lost the debate for me.
full forfeiture by pro
The debate starts by Pro explaining that trolling is harassment and in some cases illegal, showing that trolling can lead to suicide and mental damage and that it's immoral. Con agrees it's immoral, yet believes that trolling also referred to as bullying falls under the category "free speech", so it can't be illegal and the proceeds to say that we shouldn't care if it's mean. Pro then shows it could be considered a crime because psychological harm could be considered criminal plot. Con refutes this, bringing up the first amendment. However, con then proceeds to bring up an irrelevant example of the psychological harm his mother caused hm when telling him the tooth fairy isn't real. We can all agree this doesn't correlate to the type of mental harm brought up by Pro. Con then says that trolling is something that's simply "not nice" and we can't make everything that's not nice illegal accusing pro of dictatorship and censorship, providing no evidence for this statement. Pro shows for the second time that it isn't simply " not nice" and that it is very serious. Pro explains that trolling is harassment and harassment includes a lot of things including stalking... and is in some cases illegal, providing some sources too. Pro can't disprove that trolling is immoral so just drops the whole thing and the debate becomes a fight of legal knowledge, which pro wins because he both explains how it is illegal even though it isn't technically through the first amendment con brought up, utilising sources which was nice for a change. Then, the debate takes a turn for the worse because pro calls con a liar, to which con responds in a not so nice way again so the last part of the 4th round is why it is a tie on conduct. Both pro and con insulted each other so that justifies my call on conduct. Pro wins on arguments and legibility because he not only had two arguments,namely trolling being immoral and in some cases illegal, whereas con had 1 which was later rebuttled , he provided sources in the final rounds and provided all the legal background to deconstruct con's argument, namely infringement on free speech (censorship). It was an interesting debate nonetheless, if we can just erase the last part of the final round with the insults
concession by pro
full forfeiture
great job dudes
forfeiture
full forfeiture
full forfeiture
full forfeiture
Full forfeiture
2 rounds forfeited by pro but even before that i was leaning towards con
con participated more seriously. Pro's example about Adult A and Adult B was good but not enough for him to win the debate
disgusting debate
There wasn't a big difference, it's just that one conceded and i felt like the other had something additional to add
more argumentation from pro
more information generally from pro and elaboration on arguments
Both sides had arguments, yet what made pro the winner for me was the provision of sources and also the fact that con took the subject a little too religiously but pro explored more perspectives
full forfeit
The whole debate was based on one thing: Can you prove something exists without there being evidence of it? (ps there needs to be some kind of proof from pro to make this a debate in the first place)
Con could have just posted one sentence but decided not to so no arguments from both sides
I didn't even have to read the arguments. Pro just didnt show up
pro didnt do one round
There wasn't much to say and the arguments from both sides weren't that plentiful. I think pro takes the W since sources are provided