The Instigator
Contra
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
vmpire321
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

I Will Not Contradict Myself

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
vmpire321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,442 times Debate No: 22280
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Contra

Pro

This is our debate for 16k's tournament.

The rules:

1) In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO 10 Yes/No questions.
2) In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.
3) In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.
4) When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.
5) If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.
6) If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.
7) It is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.
8) A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.
9) For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words or phrases in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary or Wikipedia at his own discretion, unless the words or phrases were already defined by CON when the question was asked. If the word or phrase cannot be defined using either source, PRO may use any other appropriate online dictionary, wiki, etc.
10) If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.
11) If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
A contradiction is basically when a person says one thing then later states his position later in a varying way (basically what we think Contradiction is).

Good Luck to both of us...
vmpire321

Con

==Questions==

1. Do you really support Obama and his views?
2. Do you think border secuirty should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico?
3. Do you believe the minimum wage should be increased?
4. Is your profile an accurate and truthful description of you?
5. Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?
6. Do you believe in a christian/judeo God?
7. Do you support Christian/Jewish morals/values/teachings?
8. Do you believe drugs should be legalized?
9. Is Earth a sad place right now?
10. Do you support George W. Bush?
Debate Round No. 1
Contra

Pro

1. Do you really support Obama and his views?

You would have to be more specific, although for the most part, yes. I for the most part support his economic policy, but oppose his extension of the PATRIOT act.

2. Do you think border secuirty should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico?

More border security, more state solutions, DREAM act.

3. Do you believe the minimum wage should be increased?

Yes, but not too much, probably to about $9.

4. Is your profile an accurate and truthful description of you?

Tough one. The confidential information is true. The city is not exactly true, although it is close. Under my information, I didn't include some of my favorite songs or movies and other activities. My political views are matching to the ones I put.

5. Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?

Only on their own private property. Not in public.

6. Do you believe in a christian/judeo God?

Yes, I am a Christian.

7. Do you support Christian/Jewish morals/values/teachings?

From what I have learned, yes. It varies on which branch of Christianity you are part of though.

8. Do you believe drugs should be legalized?

Yes, and attach a fine or tax on them. Mandatory rehabilitation if somebody is addicted to them, it is more effective than prison, and cheaper too.

9. Is Earth a sad place right now?

In many ways, yes. In others, no.

10. Do you support George W. Bush?

Not at all, besides his actions to increase the amount of public health centers. Some actions I would support if they were reformed.
vmpire321

Con

==Rules==

Nice answers, however I spot some broken rules!

The Rule, taken from Pro's post in the first round.
2) In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.

Case 1: On my second question, I aksed "Do you think border secuirty should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico"
He answered with
"More border security, more state solutions, DREAM act."
I don't spot a "yes", or a "No", and nor do I see any explaination.

Case 2: Question 9. "Is Earth a sad place right now?"
He answers....
"In many ways, yes. In others, no."
He provided no explaination.

Case 3: Question 5, : "Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?"
He answers...
"Only on their own private property. Not in public. "
Once again, I do not see a "Yes" or a "No", and it is unclear whether or not that is an explanation.

==(Contra)dictions==

1. In Round 2, question 2, he states that border security should be increased. Also in round 2, he answered question 10 with the idea that he does not support at all George W Bush. However, President Bush supported border security [1].


==Questions==

1. Do you support abortion?

2. Do you think the border fence/wall should be attempted, or something similar?

3. Do you support the war on terrorism?

4. Do you believe college should be free, and the government should provide?

5. Do you support gun bans/control?

6. Is China an enemy?

7. Should Christians support each other?

8. Should the US discontinue its use of the death penalty?

9. Do we all have social liberties and political rights?

10. Do you support funding wars and military operations in the Middle East? (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.)

==Sources==

[1] http://www.ontheissues.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Contra

Pro

The questions that were "unanswered correctly":

The answers I put down were a result of the question, becaue a yes/ no answer would've been insufficient. In other words, they were explanations.

Contradiction:

1) I said in the GWB question: "Some actions I would support if they were reformed." I also said in a different area that I supported more border security, state solutions, and the DREAM act. Bush didn't peform all theree, and if he did, it would've changed my answer. Therefore, no contradiction.


---------------Answers----------------


Do you support abortion?

I am pro-choice. I support the legalization of all abortions, but support discouraging late-term abortion. This is my explanation.

Do you think the border fence/wall should be attempted, or something similar?

No, I don't support a border fence to "control" immigration.

Do you support the war on terrorism?

No. This is an area where Obama and I disagree.

Do you believe college should be free, and the government should provide?

Currently unsure, but I support Obama's plan that makes loans federally controlled, and student's pay back loans gradually after they land a job.

Do you support gun bans/control?

No, but I do support some restrictions (such as a background check, or semi-automatic gun ban).

Is China an enemy?

No. They are contrary in our trading, monetary, and human rights principles though.

Should Christians support each other?

If they do so voluntarily privately. A pretty vague question, please specify.

Should the US discontinue its use of the death penalty?

Yes, but keep it for some very horrible crimes such as rape and murder of child. Same position as Obama on this issue.

Do we all have social liberties and political rights?

In the USA, yes. However, some liberties and rights are being eroded by the War on Terrorism.

Do you support funding wars and military operations in the Middle East? (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.)

No, we should withdraw. We can however support Democracies with intelligence forces and foregin aid, but no MILITARY aid. Obama and me disagree here somewhat.
vmpire321

Con


==Rules==

Regardless, all of my questions were set up for a Yes/No answer.

Case 1: He never stated that neither answer was correct, but rather just spouted random suggestions.

Case 2: He basically stated that neither answer was completely right, but has not provided any explanation. Direct violation of rule 2.

Case 3: He never clarified that the statement he made was "supposed" to be an explanation to as why neither answer was correct.

==(Contra)dictions==

1. GWB and the border.
Funny how George W Bush supports immigration and the DREAM act [3]. Also, many administration officials under GWB also support the DREAM act. I'm not sure what my opponent means by "state solutions", but I can only assume that he means actions taken by individual states in the US. Honestly, no clue about that.

Support is also defined as "to uphold (a person, cause, policy, etc.) by aid, countenance, one's vote, etc.; back; second." [7]. At the very least, my opponent supported GWB's policy of increasing border security.

2. Religious ideals vs abortion
He stated that he holds on general religious Christian morals. He also said that he does supports the legalization of abortion. However, we find that most Christians and Christian Churches agree that even the unborn are alive, and abortion is taking away a innocent life, and hence do not support abortion.

3. Obama and Gun Bans
Apparently, my opponent doesn't support gun bans, but supports Obama. Obama endorsed the Illinois handgun ban and allows local gun bans [6].

4. Drug legalization
My opponent says that he believes drugs should be legalized, but supports Obama.
Obama supports the war on drugs and believes that drugs should not be legalized [1] [2].

5. Death penalty and GWB
He supports the penalty being used. George W. Bush had the same views [8], but Contra feverently "disagrees" with GWB's positions.


==Questions==

1. Do you believe China and the US may be hostile towards each other?

2. Do you believe that the TSA is currently harrasing people at airports and should be stopped?

3. Can inanimate objects hold emotions?

4. Should the government be allowed to jail people for an indefinite amount of time without trial(s) and restrict a person's freedoms?

5. Should same-sex marriage be allowed?

6. Should offending things (such as nudity) be allowed in public, as long as no one is physically harmed?

7. Do you support school voucher programs?

8. Should the government protect the people and focus on issues at home instead of abroad?

9. Should we completely cut off aid to Pakistan?

10. Have you made any contradictions?


==Sources==

[1] http://thenewamerican.com...
[2]http://www.npr.org...
[3] http://www.chicagonow.com...
[4] http://www.lirs.org...
[5] http://www.spuc.org.uk...
[6] http://www.ontheissues.org...
[7] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[8] http://www.ontheissues.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Contra

Pro

Point of Clarification

For the answers I put, if the answer was not yes/no, the answer I put was instead an explanation because a yes/no answer would've been insufficient. Some of my answers were explanations, others were yes/no answers. If my opponent continues to charge this, it is simply playing around with words.

Definition of support: To argue in favor of; advocate

http://www.examiner.com...

C1: Bush and Immigration


Bush DID NOT support the DREAM act your sources proved this. He supported immigration reform. This is NOT a contradiction. Plus, I opposed Bush's view on immigration, as the border security package included a border fence. [1]


C2: Religious Ideals vs Abortion

I said that on morals of Christianity "It varies on which branch of Christianity you are part of though." I also didn't specify what branch of Christianity I was, so I could be a Unitarian from what you know. I debate that Abortion is biblical:

http://www.debate.org...

So, this is NOT a contradiction.

C3: Obama and Gun Bans

My opponent was too vague with his question, I said "You would have to be more specific, although for the most part, yes." On gun control, Obama supported measures to limit semi-automatic weapons being sold (similar to the 1990s ban). [2]

Not a contradiction.

C4: Drug Legalization

Once again, my opponent was not specific enough, as I said, ""You would have to be more specific, although for the most part, yes." If my opponent had been more specific, for example asked if my views on drug legalization were compatible with Obama, my answer would be different. If my opponent wishes to continue similar accusations, I ask that he is more clarified in his questions.

Drop this contradiction.


C5: Death Penalty and Bush

Not true. Bush's view, according to my opponent's source, is a more liberal usage of the death penalty. My view is more restricted, as I said earlier, "Yes [get rid of the death penalty], but keep it for some very horrible crimes such as rape and murder of child. Same position as Obama on this issue."

Not a contradiction.

--------Answers---------

1. Do you believe China and the US may be hostile towards each other?

Yes, if our views on trade, monetary policy, or human rights become more divisive. Currently, we are not enemies.

2. Do you believe that the TSA is currently harrasing people at airports and should be stopped?

I have little information on this issue, and thus cannot answer this question.

3. Can inanimate objects hold emotions?

No, unless you are counting God as inanimate.

Def: Not alive, esp. not in the manner of animals and humans.

Showing no sign of life; lifeless.

4. Should the government be allowed to jail people for an indefinite amount of time without trial(s) and restrict a person's freedoms?

No. I disagree with Obama's signing of the NDAA bill, if you were going to bring this up.

5. Should same-sex marriage be allowed?

No. This is a decision left to the states, not the federal government, but Civil Unions are okay.

6. Should offending things (such as nudity) be allowed in public, as long as no one is physically harmed?

No. A social standard is easily able to define what is and what is not appropriate. Some offending things violate others' civil rights and/or liberties.

7. Do you support school voucher programs?

No, at least not at the federal level.

8. Should the government protect the people and focus on issues at home instead of abroad?

Yes. But this question is very open to abuse, so I will state that I oppose the overseas wars we are currently in, and my view here is different from both Obama's and Bush's.

9. Should we completely cut off aid to Pakistan?

I don't know about this issue much. Therefore, a yes/no answer wouldn't answer this question adequately.

10. Have you made any contradictions?

Oh come on...

This question could not be simply answered by a yes/no answer, because contradiction is a wide term. For example, in your Obama question, I didn't put all of my viewpoints and align them to his. When I said my view on something else later, and if it varied, you could count it a contradiction. However, I have not contradicted myself from the explicit things I have answered.

Sources:

[1] http://www.examiner.com...
[2] http://www.ontheissues.org...

vmpire321

Con

==Rules==

My opponent basically says that the reason why his answers were vague/obscure is because he tried to explain.

VIOLATED RULE: In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.

Case 1: On my second question, I aksed "Do you think border secuirty should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico"
He answered with
"More border security, more state solutions, DREAM act."

Now this could easily be an explanation, I concede. However, there is no clear answer.
His statement could be interpreted as "Yes, we need more border security, more state solutions, DREAM act....etc"
or
"No, we need more border security WITH more state solutions, etc"
or
"Yes/No, we need more border security WITH more state solutions, etc"


Case 2: Question 9. "Is Earth a sad place right now?"
He answers....
"In many ways, yes. In others, no."

He basically says neither answer is fully correct. However, do you spot ANY explanation? I do not.


Case 3: Question 5, : "Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?"
He answers...
"Only on their own private property. Not in public. "

This can also be seen as an explanation. However, the answer is unclear.
It could be seen as
"Yes, citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights on their own private property, but not in public"
or
"No, citizens should only have rights on their own private property, not in public"
or
"Yes and no. Citizens should be allowed to smoke on their private property, but not in public."

==(Contra)dictions==

1. Bush and Immigration
I never mentioned the DREAM act. Completely irrelevent - I ONLY mentioned border security. You stated that you disagreed with ALL of Bush's views, but apparently you and Bush both agree on one specific policy - increasing border security.

2. Religious Ideals Vs. Abortion
Wow. My opponent gives such vague answers, I don't even... The general gist is that abortion is seen as immoral by Christians.

3. Obama and Gun Bans

I don't get what my opponent is trying to say. Contra stated that he opposed gun bans. Obama supports gun bans [1] [2]. Contra supports Obama.

4. Drug Legalization

My opponent made no argument against this. Contra supports the legalization of some drugs, while Obama wants no drugs to be legalized. Contra, on the other hand, supports Obama's views. If he truly did, Contra would not support any sort of legalization.

I don't see how this isn't a contradiction.

5. Bush and Death Penalty

Fundamentally, both Bush and my opponent support the usage of the death penalty in some situations. I bet they both can agree that people who rape and murder children should be executed, but for some reason, my opponent doesn't support Bush "at all".

6. China and the US

My opponent stated in round three that China is not an enemy. "Enemy" is defined as a "a hostile nation or state" [3]. He states in Round 4 that China and the US are hostile towards each other, which basically means that China is actually an enemy. Two different positions...

7. Inanimate Life and the Earth

Although unclear, my opponent apparently believes that, in round two, the Earth has the capacity to be sad. Earth is defined as...
"( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 miles (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 miles (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million miles (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite." [4].
It is quite obvious that the physical Earth itself is lifeless. The land mass we are currently standing on isn't alive.
Later, in round 4, he said that inanimate objects cannot have emotions, contrary to what he said about Earth in the first round.

8. Aid and Focusing on our Home

He stated in round 3 that "We can however support Democracies with intelligence forces and foregin aid, but no MILITARY aid. Obama and me disagree here somewhat."
He then stated that the government should protect the people and focus on issues at home first, instead of foreign countries in round 4.


==Sources==
[1] http://www.gunbanobama.com...
[2] http://www.ontheissues.org...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Debate Round No. 4
Contra

Pro

"VIOLATED RULE: In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct."


Explanation:
A reason or justification given for an action or belief.

If I didn't answer yes or no, I gave other words, for a reason or or justification of yes/no being inaccurate. Drop this point.
I now realize that I could of been more speicific, but regardless I still gave an explanation when yes/no was inaccurate.


----------Accused Contradictions----------



1) Bush and Immigration:

Vmpire said "I never mentioned the DREAM act." In actuality, if you look in R3, he listed as a contradiction: "Funny how George W Bush supports immigration and the DREAM act [3]. Also, many administration officials under GWB also support the DREAM act." No mention of border control. Therefore, since CON could not refute this point honestly,

DROP this contradiction.

2) Religious Ideals Vs. Abortion

"The general gist is that abortion is seen as immoral by Christians."

I said that [on specific morals/ principles] : "It varies on which branch of Christianity you are part of though." My opponent never asked me to clarify on which branch of Christianity I am part of, so my opponent was not able to distinguish if my branch of Christianity supports/ or opposes abortion.

Not a contradiction.

3) Obama and Gun Bans

Obama opposed national or state gun bans, but supported local gun laws. His reason is to lower illegal gun usage, but the federal and state governments should respect the 2nd amendment. Thus, no contradiction here.

http://www.ontheissues.org...

Plus, Obama didn't support the gun ban, a staff worker of his answered the questionnaire, NOT Obama, and Obama regarded the position filled in as incorrect (same source as above). NO contradiction.

4) Drug Legalization

About Obama, in R2 I said "You would have to be more specific" Since my opponent did not become more specific on this topic (for example, he didn't ask if I supported Obama's views on drugs), this cannot be regarded as a contradiction.

5) Bush and Death Penalty

I said in R2 that I oppose Bush's views, BUT "Some actions I would support if they were reformed." Thus, the position of Bush on the DP is different from mine, and I oppose his, but if Bush changed his position to make the DP only conservatively used, then we would have the same viewpoint. But Bush hasn't changed his position, and this isn't a contradiction.

6) China and the US

Enemy may be defined as a hostile state, but hostile is defined as:

Unfriendly; antagonistic.

The US and China hold different views, but we aren't that unfriendly with China and certainly not antagonisitc. Therefore, we are not enemies. No contradiction.

7) 7. Inanimate Life and the Earth

Because of Rule 9, I can define what Earth is since you didn't include it in your question.

Earth is defined as: The planet on which we live, the 3rd planet from the sun.

I think that where we live is in many ways sad, in other ways not. No contradiction.

8) Aid and Focusing on our Home

I don't see a contradiction here. We can help nations overseas, but as I said earlier, our primary concern should be here at home.

Thanks Vmpire for the debate, this is for 16k's tournament.
vmpire321

Con

==Rules==

His answers are all misleading and confusing.

Furthermore, the second case where I ask "Is the Earth a sad place right now?" and he responds "In many ways, yes. In others, no," is the primary violation. Even though he stated that neither answer was fully correct, he doesn't provide a justficiation or reason.

The judges can review over the other violations, if they wish to.

==Contradictions==

1. Bush and Immigration

When I stated that I never mentioned the DREAM act, I was referring to my question, which was about whether or not we should increase border security. The only reason why we are arguing over the DREAM act is because my opponent brought the issue up in his answer to my question.

The inital question never asked about the DREAM act. It only asked whether or not Pro supported border security improvement, and to which he never gave a direct answer (not sure what he means) but stated a bunch of random topics relating to immigration.

Also, the fundamental problem is that you support increasing border security, just like GWB.

2. Religious Ideals vs. Abortion

I drop this. My opponent is too demanding/specific, XD.

3. Obama and Gun Bans

Obama said "I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby." [1]... That seems to imply gun bans.

Also, my opponent concedes that Obama supports local gun bans, which are still gun bans. He supports Obama, but opposes any gun bans.

4. Drug Legalization

My opponent admits that he doesn't support Obama on this issue...
All of this almost leads me to believe that my opponent was lying about supporting Obama at all, lol.

It still seems like a contradiction to me. Pro supports Obama and supports drug legalization. Obama doesn't want drug legalization...

5. Bush and the Death Penalty

Now my opponent is being very specific.
He is ignoring the fact that in a much more broader perspective, both my opponent and GWB want capital punishment to continue to be used, eventhough Pro doesn't support GWB at all. That is indisputable.


6. China and the US

My opponent pratically contradicted himself, when he was attempting to defend himself.
He earlier stated that the US and China are hostile towards each other. He just stated that the US and China are NOT hostile towards each other.

The fact that he admitted earlier that they were hostile, fits the definition of an "enemy".
Hence, according to Pro, China is an enemy, but he answered the question "Is China an enemy" with a No.

7. Inanimate Life and the Earth

The definition my opponent provided is still a contradiction.

He says that Earth is the PLANET that we live on. Planets are inanimate - it is the life that lives on there that is animate. Pro says that the PLANET can be sad, but says that inanimate objects cannot have emotions.

8. Aid and Focusing on our Home

Focusing on our home = US is the top priority.
Sending aid = US is not the top priority.
When we start to send aid, it implies that the government has other interests that what is occuring at home.
My opponent supports aid, but whats the government to focus on home.

====

Thanks for the debate, Contra. :)



==Source==
[1] http://www.ontheissues.org...
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
interesting
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
Dayuum. You post too quickly. =.=
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
Fine I'll accept now
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
okay - ask 16k if we can start past Saturday because that was the original rule
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
I'll accept this when I have some time. :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 4 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
Contravmpire321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro contradicted himself.
Vote Placed by TheBrorator 4 years ago
TheBrorator
Contravmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: All votes to Con, Pro broke the rule.
Vote Placed by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
Contravmpire321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I think Con's attacks for rule-breaking were far too strict, attacking things he even admitted could be explanations. However, he does win by pointing out that Pro believes that Earth, an inanimate object, is sad, but inanimate objects cannot be sad.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
Contravmpire321Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: 16kadams tourney is evil!! I can't tell, if con's refutations stand, so i'm just giving S/G to Pro due to minor spelling mishaps in each round. Good job both sides! Also Side note- Con Pro's "Explanations" are fine, although he did work around some questions he still gave adequate answers due to many of the questions not being a straightforward Yes or No (meaning a question had conflicting sides if pro were to say yes or no.)