seldiora

Pro must prove that the majority of people are objectively moral (as he claims) when it comes to a conclusion, but he did not do that. Con solidly interjected with "our morals are always evolving, there are no moral rules that everyone follows and believes that are immoral". The debate trailed on into whether morality only applies to humans, and though pro stood by his points, con argued that our beliefs contradict and change over time, and hence cannot be objectively moral. Pro conceded this point, which results in his loss in the end.

pro keeps asserting not to compare the relatively new DART to DDO, but gives little evidence to counter con's arguments about how there are as many users who could debate well on DDO as the total users as DART. The convincing nature of the forum interaction counteracts pro, and comparing the retired olympic athlete to the young boy seemed fair to show that DART was developing well but didn't have the same level of user. For pro to win, he would have to infer that the quality of debaters were equally bad around 2 years. I think both pro could've benefited from using Web Archive to show exactly what was going on two years into DDO (which admittedly looks worse than DART), but he failed to do so, and as a result con has the edge in this debate.

Tied for RFD in comments. In the end, I feel at conflict whether to accept con's different ideas and he brings up a lot of different ideas that bring doubt to pro's arguments. Tough call.

con made a good point, as long as he can point out a single exception, pro's case is defeated. I'm not certain that every single disease can be cured by a plant, at least, not from pro's meager evidence.

pro advocates for restricting guns due to amount of deaths caused as such, but glances over exactly how these precise restrictions would be made, wanting to restrict assault rifles and more dangerous weapons being unallowed (and harder to get), but not entirely pushing for the law's effectiveness and prowess. Con points out that the policies in other locations may not be the perfect solution for US, especially trying to take back the weapons already given to all the people. I'm not entirely convinced by pro's inability to precisely give the reasons WHY the policies would work in the US and the HOW the policies implementation exactly would prevent violent crime, as even foreign policies with UK and Swiss differ in details, as con seems to imply. Con's dropped arguments about illegally created weapons and UK's statistics being doubtful created enough of a hole in Pro's arguments that I feel con holds the edge, especially with US being a massive outlier in terms of gun ownership and violence within statistics. In the end, pro gives a NEED to stop gun-related violence, but fails to provide enough evidence to outwit con's refutation of cherry-picking and how US's case is unique and specific.

If pro wants, I could debate him over whether he lost this debate or not, but I'm pretty sure he lost this debate.

RFD in comments

Full forfeit

only con used sources.

RFD in comments

Full Forfeit

con forfeited.

pro was the only one who used sources, didn't act angry, and reasoned out with multiple ideas supporting his idea

pro's sources were doubtful and oromagi showed they were biased. Also he forfeited more than con.

I feel like pro kept con on his feet more than con could refute

full forfeit

con tried his best, arguing unknowns and the effects of other celestial bodies, but pro provided his claim relatively well (if only a little muddled... I've seen a video easily resolve the problem within minutes). Perhaps Con should've stressed the idea of the fact that there is an edge, the fact that centripedal force encourages the person to stay on that exact edge, that you are more likely to fall towards the center than off that edge. Regardless, he wins.

full forfeited

very difficult to judge; Con didn't directly attack Pro's ideas of contradiction and tries to prove due to hell not necessary, that God could possibly exist. However Pro asserted that Con moved the goal post as the title infers that the benevolent god is directly related to Christianity. In the end I feel like Pro slightly edges out especially with Con forfeiting the last round.

I feel like Pro begins with reasonably sound arguments but does not go forth to prove them; that DebateArt has serious problems with cyber security and phishing. He does assert that requiring everyone's name will help against crimes, but has only listed the one example of Wylted, which I feel is not sufficient enough. Con's confusion is understandable as Pro seems to be mixing up ideas, because it's two things to show the admin your real name vs show everyone your real name. Pro definitely lost the second, as privacy matters a lot and Con established the website as a friendly casual match rather than more serious websites. I feel like Con could have bring up how IP ban could still successfully circumvent Wylted creating multiple accounts, that the one exception was truly just that. Con does however state even the Admin himself has chosen to remain anonymous, a clear show of what kind of site this was. Unless they wanted to show themselves as an example ("I am willing to say who I am, so that I will take credit for my actions") then users shouldn't do the same, that's what con is implying. I think Pro's case could work for more formal sites, but DebateArt is just not necessary.

forfeited by con