The Instigator
StephyeeLove
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
esisCOA
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Can anything be debated?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
esisCOA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,444 times Debate No: 20192
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

StephyeeLove

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent ahead of time if he so happens to accept it.

The topic is simple: "Can anything be debated?" As the pro, the Burden of Proof lies heavily on my claim since all the Con has to do is find one claim or example that cannot be argued or cannot be debated upon.

Although this challenge is directed, I would like the first round to be that of acceptance and any guidelines and or definitions the opponent would like to go by.

As for my guidelines/conditions, I ask to please refrain from providing any further evidence/ new arguments in the final round.

Thank you again for your time.
esisCOA

Con

I accept your challenge to this debate. I have no guidelines to add and will comply with the guidelines you specified. I would like to thank you for this challenge and I look forward to see where this goes.

enlighten me.
Debate Round No. 1
StephyeeLove

Pro

For ease, I provide the following definitions for this debate:
(supported by and derived from Merriam-Webster.com)

Debate (Noun):
a contention by words or arguments:
: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure


Debate (verb):
intransitive verb
(1) obsolete : fight, contend
(2) a : to contend in words

Undebatable
: not subject to debate : indesputable

Debateable
(1) : claimed by more than one country
(2) : open to dispute : questionable
: open to debate
(3) : capable of being debated

Right

(1) : righteous, upright
(2) : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper

Wrong
(1): the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong:
a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect
b : the state of being guilty

Bias
(1)
: to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to <his background biases him against foreigners>
(2) : to apply a slight negative or positive voltage to (as a transistor)
----------------------------------------------------

The question is, can anything be debated? As the Pro, the answer is "YES".

The meaning of a debate is a contention by words or arguements, meaning that as long as someone has an opposing viewpoint, anything is debatable. This also means that any subject can be an object and topic of debate.

Contention one: Definition
The definition of a debate is a contention of words or arguements, like a volley of arguements between two sides that think differently. In order TO debate, you need to one subject, resolve, or claim--and have someone of opposing viewpoints try to prove their point, claim, and viewpoint correct or favorable to judges or voters. My opponent may suggest that facts cannot be debated, and if one is to make an attempt to debate a fact they may be seen as ignorant. This point will be further explained later on as my opponent presents his claim.

Contention two: Those who debate
One necessary part of debate is having two sides, one for and against, pro and con, or positive and negative. People who are involved in debate are not only lawyers or those who compete at a local competition (Such as UIL LD and CX debate competitions) but also in everyday lives. In example, a couple of men in traffic can debate about whether or not honking like a maniac is going to speed the traffic up, a woman at a store may argue with a cashier about charging a shirt that she found on the clearance rack at full price, and perhaps someone may debate with someone else who states "The color of the sky is blue". What all of these situations have in common is that each one of them has a mindset that they are correct, this gives them reason to debate, and gives them a side to take and prove. In a debate, the outcome will be one winner, one who proves their claims, disapproves the opponents claims, and makes more convincing arguements against their opponent. One will 'win' and one will 'lose'.


Contention three: Bias
People may mistake debate to be an arguement to which the winner is 'right', and the loser is 'wrong'. This is a very common misconception. The point of debate is to prove your claim to be "right" but not in the sense people often think. To be 'right', is to appeal to the part of the audience that is biased or make them become biased in favor of your arguement. The mentality of what is right and wrong shifts from any individual on this planet, therfore your point will not always be "right" in one single mindset. What you must prove is that even if the judge, or audience has a biased opinion--one that does not match yours; you must convince them that yours is at least better than that of your opponent through evidence, contentions, values, criterions, and or logic, pathological or ethical values. "Right" and "Wrong" does not exist, it is only words whose meaning differenciates between the population. In short, Right and Wrong's definition is unique to the user. This proves that although one side may not be as lucky to have as much evidence, sources, or popular 'belief' the other side of the topic, it can still be victorious if the "correct" points are debated.


Socks, Gummy worms, answers, questions, facts--any one of these things may be debated two people should choose to. Debate isn't something that is relied upon by subjects that can be debated. People make debates, not topics. Therefore anything is debateable so long as there are two opposing viewpoints. Although it may seem ignorant to argue against a versimiliatude to the community and general population, it does not necesarily mean that it is not debateable. One may be seen as ignorant to argue against such topics, but in the end--the voters or judge vote between the most convincing arguements--at this point it does not matter about the ignorance (or willingness) of someone to debate a certain topic, but the arguement itself. At this point, when the side that was seen as ignorant in the beginning, may not seem ignorant in the end based on arguments made between the opening and closing statements.
-------------------------------------------------

For ease, here is a link to find the definitions I cited above.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
esisCOA

Con

This should be the easiest win ever since you actually did all the work for me. In your opening statement you defined several words. One of them being :

"Undebatable
: not subject to debate : indisputable"

so here is one of many undebatable topics - You will one day die. (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable)

here is another - You have a birthday (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable)

also - The Sun is the closest star to Planet Earth. (you cannot dispute this, therefore it is not debatable)

all three of those topics are indisputable, and therfore (by the definition you gave) UNDEBATEABLE.

BUT I'M NOT STOPPING THERE!!!!

The very next word you defined was -

"Debateable
(1) : claimed by more than one country
(2) : open to dispute : questionable
: open to debate
(3) : capable of being debated"

PLEASE REFER TO DEFINITION NUMERO THREE -"(3) : capable of being debated"

Now this is all I should have to say, but for some strange reason I feel this just isn't enough. Might as well stick the steak in the heart while I'm here, right?

In order for a topic to be debatable, both sides MUST HAVE A EQUAL CHANCE AT WINNING THE DEBATE. The topic MUST be disputable. Otherwise one party will have NO BASIS or PLATFORM in which to run their argument, because the winning side HAS ALREADY WON BEFORE THE DEBATE STARTED.

In other words IF YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THEN A DEBATE CANNOT EVEN BE INITIATED DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS ALREADY BACKED BY INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.

And last but not least, just to kick a dead horse for the sake of kicking a dead horse -

If a boxer becomes the UNDISPUTED HEAVY WEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD that means he became the champion by not losing a single professionally sanctioned fight. Which further translates to his champion of the world status is undebatable because he has not lost a single professionally sanctioned fight. (You cant say "he isn't the champ because he lost to ?" he didn't lose to anybody, and that being undisputed makes a debate about whether he is or is not the champ impossible.
Debate Round No. 2
StephyeeLove

Pro

Now, now, there is no need to be so excited—which also exemplifies my claim. You believe you have already won although the debate is hardly over.

In my rebuttal I will defend myself from all the attacks my opponent has contributed as examples of “Undebatable” topics to support his claim.

I will begin by proving every single one of these example topics as debatable.

He begins with the declarative statement:

“You will one day die.”

Someone may refute with the idea that death in the future may be avoided, and may not even exist. A very “out of the box” claim, yes, but an opposing claim nevertheless. They may state that the human-like robots that have been manufactured and created in the east may be integrated with the human vitals and therefore eliminate the aging (frailty) of the bones. They may say that they may expand this research for the whole human body and therefore create immortality. Now the “Day” component of the sentence may be rebuttaled with the fact that the future is unpredictable, therefore anything could happen—and in this instance it would be the cure to death, or the stopping of death. Although it seems like something from a sci-fi flick (such as In time, where life is based on a time availability and can be bought) it is a valid argument although it is out of the box, and may be seen as something impossible. But then again, if you look at amputees—I am sure they never thought they would walk again or touch something again, and with the invention of prosthetic limbs, they were. Although something is a long shot, it doesn’t mean it is impossible. In addition the definition of “death” could also be interpreted in many different ways, especially in the claim that “you will always live in memory”. Jesus Christ had died and lives on in memory. If life is defined as existence, then therefore nothing ever really dies such as Abraham Lincoln in the way he lives forever in books. This raises the question, if someone is dead, are they really gone? This topic has now been proven to be debatable.

Next is the phrase

“You have a birthday.”

Now in this instance, one may argue that they are in a religion that does not celebrate birthdays. Therefore they do not have a birthday. However they may have a “birth day” emphasis on the space between the two words. “Birthday” is the annual celebration of the day they had been birthed. Someone’s “birth day” is the day they were delivered, but since you did not mean the day they were born and referred to the celebration—it could be debated upon the fact that not everyone believes or celebrates “birthdays”. However, on the off chance that you did mean “birth day”, it could also be debated upon the fact that some religions do not believe you are born through the meanings of excretion of a vagina. For some religions it means to develop a relationship with god. For some it means killing your first animal, finding your spiritual animal, or by other spiritual methods and for these peoples, being created from their mother’s womb is not being born but rather—being part of the process of being created. This topic has now been proven to be debatable.

The next phrase is:

“The sun is the closest star to the Earth.”

Now, although this seems to be a scientific fact—this can also be taken out of context to become a debatable topic. All topics of this sort is debatable in a certain context. For example, this one could be interpreted by someone from a different language who is learning English as a secondary language. This could mean it is not actually the terrestrial definition I am sure that you imply. This would mean that a foreigner may interpret this as the star in the sky, or even the shape of a star. This could lead them to believe or argue that the closest star to Earth is Venus because it is the brightest in the night sky. They could interpret the sun not to be a “star” but just “a sun”. Laughably, in the shape interpretation, one may argue on how silly that they would believe that the sun is a “star” in the lack of points and vertices. They may say that the closest star to earth are the ones drawn on the earth or even a star necklace, decoration, or plastic toy that is driven into the ground for some unnamed reason. Yes, this is a very naïve argument, or naïve thought to say in the least, but it is still debatable. This topic has proven to be debatable.

The final example he used was:

The title of a boxer to be an, “UNDESPUTED HEAVY WEIGHT CHAMPION OF THE WORLD”

The most recent “UNDESPUTED HEAVY WEIGHT CHAMPION” as of 2000 was Lennox Lewis who was stripped of his belt because he did not fight who he was directed to fight. The undisputed heavy weight champion before that was Riddick Bowe who refused to fight Lennox Lewis. Now in Boxing, the throwing of fights is almost inevitable and profitable to everyone. This is when specific fighters (through fiscal intentions) throw a fight so that they can have a rematch and earn money on the fight alone. In example: Manny Pacquiao earned millions of dollars on one fight alone, and several millions on others. Pacquiao earned $3 million against Juan Manuel Marquez in March 2008; $3 million against David Diaz in June 2008; $6.6 million against Oscar de la Hoya in December 2008; $7.4 million against Ricky Hatton in May 2009; and, $7.5 million against Miguel Cotto in November 2009. (A) This would give any boxer quite an incentive for getting a broken nose that another match could pay for. Therefore are they really a champion? Depending on the definition of “champion”, is it fair or right to call them a champion if other players threw matches just to get a rematch? Would it be right if his managers paid more money that the opponent would earn, to throw the fight and then beat them later on?

My opponent revised the definition I supplied for “debatable” with “both sides MUST HAVE A[n] EQUAL CHANCE AT WINNING THE DEBATE.” In this definition as long as both sides are capable of winning the debate, it can be debated. Let us say, for the sake of the example that an opponent said Y=X whereas Y=X is a commonly known fact. If debater A has chosen this specific debate and fails to defend and proive his claim (i.e. he or she trails off and provides no evidence supporting their claim or does not debate at all) the opponent will win not because Y=X is not true, but because they supplied a better understanding of the debate procedure and made an effort to debate.

Further dissecting my opponents claim he stated:

“IF YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THEN A DEBATE CANNOT EVEN BE INITIATED DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS ALREADY BACKED BY INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE”

Aside from the “caps-locked” text I have cited above, this seems to be a very valid argument—however when a debate is made, the “indisputable evidence” is not considered until the opponent proves it to be relevant and cites it in their case. He also states that you cannot argue this because you would have lost because the “winning side” ((or rather the widely believed side)) “HAS ALREADY WON BEFORE THE DEBATE STARTED.”

Here, I will restate some of the points my opponent fails to comprehend.

As a pamphlet at amabilis.debating.net cites

As with many other technical complications, you will notice that statistics create around itself an aura of authority. It has to be right! It is important, when working with statistics, to remember that it is you that who makes coaching decisions, not the numbers, and that the numbers, at the end of the day, only show you, with some accuracy, what IS THERE, not what it MEANS.” (B)


In a very brief form, I will restate my stance. It is not the TOPIC that makes a topic not debatable, but rather the person who perceives it to be.

(A) http://www.abs-cbnnews.com...

(B) http://amabilis.debating.net...

esisCOA

Con

I had a feeling you were gonna grab at strings and try and make everyone of my topics debatable by using variables I didn't incorporate into the topic. Its okay because I think you realized you were wrong and are now just resorting to whatever you can to try and win the debate.

No problem, give this one a try =)

Topic - It is an absolute truth that no absolute truths exist.

with every word only to be defined as described by the topic creator (meaning your variables don't count) Given the inherent logical incorrectness of the statement, there are no actual arguments for the affirmative, and therefore no way to debate it.

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
StephyeeLove

Pro

Before I begin my closing statements, I would like to point out that this is a debate. My opponent, perhaps In his last line of defense for his case, expected my rebuttal to be just that, a rebuttal. The point of debate is to disassemble your opponents case case after all, so I could not just have given up, especially because my stance and case can hold an ocean. While yours on the other hand relies on saying that I am defending myself as my last line of defense, as if I "knew that I had lost" when its quite the opposite, I do not rebuttal because I feel like i'm wrong and need to, I rebuttal to show the parts of your case that act as holes and do not hold water. If you must resort to insulting my case or questioning my conduct so your case can seem better instead of supporting it, so be it--that is your choice.

As for your last example, I would like to point out that taking someone elses case is very unoriginal and shows your lack for making your own arguements. I would also like to point out that your source was from an unfair match due to the fact that the other person had presented new arguements that the instigator could not rebuttal against.

Also, it is too late to apply a restriction as in taking your topic into a different context. (Also, with your revised definition of debatable was out of line since the definition I provided was for your usage.)

And with that I will rebuttal to your last example.

The statement:
"It is an absolute truth is that no absolute truth exists."
You say that it is not a debatable topic because there is nothing for the affirmative to make their case on. However the stances for and against are very clear.

affirmative: "Yes there is no such thing as an absolute truth"
negative: "Yes, an absolute truth does exist."

You may say that it is a paradox, but the use of the first "absolute truth" in the statement can be interpreted to be only an ironic statement. Therefore the division of pro and con is apparent, and does exist in that topic.

You had commented before about the example of 1+1=2, and I will take that and reaffirm my arguements.

The equation: "1+1=2" is said to be undebatable. However, it is quite debatable because of the fact that it can be interpreted differently. 1+1 can equal 3 in terms of reproduction, when a man and a woman make love, they produce another being therefore 1+1=3 (in total) or 1+1=1 (child) One dozen eggs plus another dozen of eggs equals 24 eggs, 1+1=24. Numbers are only what you make them to be, they are simply variables that we attach meanings to.

along with my expanded arguements in the past round, I add and restate that anything can be debated so long as there are two people willing to debate the topic. Being that there is 7 billion people on this planet, one will oppose your viewpoint.

I would like to remind the opponent to please refrain from presenting new arguements as it will make it unfair for me to defend myself or rebuttal against it.

I believe my point has been made and I will leave the voters to decide who made the most convincing arguements overall.
Thank you for reading and voting, VOTE PRO! :)
esisCOA

Con

oh wait so did you think I was going to let your cheap technicality ride? especially when I knew you were going to do it so I kept my own cheap technicality to ace you with?

and clearly you live in your own world, since all of your rebuttals have been some crazy made up stuff, especially your last one when I clearly defined my statement to defined specifics, and you just decided to break my topic up into 2 statements and call it your rebuttal, LOL.

and you need to take up a math class little girl! 1+1 = 2, 1women + 1man = 2humans (a couple) 1ec + 1ec = 2ec (egg cartons) one dozen = 12 not 1 hahaha

I didn't want to say this but you are quite possibly the dumbest person I've ever met. I will pray for you.

dear voters - thanks for reading this debate, please vote however you feel you need to, just remember who said what in the beginning and who did what in the end.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by StephyeeLove 5 years ago
StephyeeLove
Somehow, I hardly believe that people understand my rounds. Just because they were idiotic points doesn't mean they were mine. Anyone could have made those arguements and they would nevettheless be arguements.

The topic was "can anything be debatable", not "can everything be argued sensibly".
I can't say i'm not disappointed with the votes. Especially for one obvious vote bomb -_-
Posted by StephyeeLove 5 years ago
StephyeeLove
I did not forfeit those roundd, nor did I provide any new definitions in either the 2nd or 4th round.
Also, if I had, you could have stated them as inadmissable if you felt like they did not count.

Also I stated that you could not make any new arguements in your final speech because it would be unfair because not only do you get the final word, but you (had you made an additional arguement) wiuld have the advantage of making points I could not defend against.

You had full capability to rebuttal against the two plus two arguement, which you did.

Even if I had done the things you accused me of, is it necessary to make a personal attack? I don't think so. I know debate can be intense, but there is no need to be harsh in that manner.

Thank you again.
Posted by esisCOA 5 years ago
esisCOA
um you forfeited the second and and 4th rounds - you added definitions to late in the second round, and you added new evidence in the 4th - You had commented before about the example of 1+1=2, and I will take that and reaffirm my arguements.

The equation: "1+1=2" is said to be undebatable. However, it is quite debatable because of the fact that it can be interpreted differently. 1+1 can equal 3 in terms of reproduction, when a man and a woman make love, they produce another being therefore 1+1=3 (in total) or 1+1=1 (child) One dozen eggs plus another dozen of eggs equals 24 eggs, 1+1=24. Numbers are only what you make them to be, they are simply variables that we attach meanings to.
Posted by StephyeeLove 5 years ago
StephyeeLove
Here I go commenting again! XD

I threw in something irrelevant (discussing the source that esisCOA used) mainly because I didnt eant him to do the same. Although the opponent had forfeited the round, it was still unfair for him to present the new argument.

Also:
I forgot to thank my opponent In my final rebuttal and closing statement, so thank you. :)
I thank you again for accepting this debate and I hope you had just as much fun as I did with it. :)
Posted by StephyeeLove 5 years ago
StephyeeLove
Oh and please excuse my use of all the characters. I like to make my arguments as thorough as possible.
Posted by StephyeeLove 5 years ago
StephyeeLove
Thank you again for accepting the debate, and thank anyone who happens to come across this debate and reads or votes in it. :)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by liljohnny818 5 years ago
liljohnny818
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah, the pro had idiotic arguments that through in variables that the Con never through in. Con went and was an ass in the last round, however.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything, indeed, has some level of subjectivity... Even the most objective things. And where there is subjectivity, there is naturally a matter for debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had it the way through. Pro used some weird and some idiotic arguments. Sorry Pro however. I can't give you the spelling and grammar point. Everyone: Vote Con!
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con had real examples proving her point, pro not so much. Arguments where good on both sides but con in my eyes won.
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 5 years ago
youngpolitic
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro. Arguments to con since he provided realistic examples of non debatables
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Deliberately making obvious misinterpretations and equivocation is not clever.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm convinced. Good job PRO.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con in the end just started insulting Pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
StephyeeLoveesisCOATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: con provided several argument examples of things that are indeed facts, but instead of the Pro arguing that some random idiot could think otherwise and would thus accept the debate he actually tried to use loopholes to escape from them. arguments go to con even though pro only had to show it was possible for them to be debated. i gave conduct to pro then since con was being a complete assh*le in the last round...