The Instigator
salitaly123
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Pepsi better than coca cola

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 59361
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

salitaly123

Pro

Coca cola tastes better but its run by Zionist Jews, Pepsi last longer and tastes better when flat and also helps with digestion drink with meal and you will be on the shitter in less than 5 minutes guaranteed .

Prediction
Pepsi wins by flying knee round 2

Referee- irn bru
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof clearly rests solely upon Pro within this debate, as they are attempting to prove that Pepsi is better than Coca Cola, while Con must not prove anything, merely cast doubt upon Pro's arguments.

As such, if Pro fails to prove that Pepsi is better than Coca Cola, then Con wins.

---

Objectivity

In order to prove that Pepsi is better than Coca Cola, Pro must provide (an) objective method(s) of measuring "better" and (a) valid reason(s) for its/their adoption. This is because the resolution is an objective statement, rather than a subjective statement, and requires objective proof.

As such, if Pro fails to provide (an) objective method(s) of measuring "better" and (a) valid reason(s) for its/their adoption, then Con wins.

---

Rebuttals:

A: Pro: "Coca cola tastes better"
1: Pro must first prove this to be true.
2: Pro must provide (A) a reason why this is not valid ground for objectively considering Coca Cola better (or is valid for considering it worse), and/or (B) a reason why other points outweigh this one.

B: Pro: "Coca cola ... run by Zionist Jews"
1: See A1.
2: See A2.

C: Pro: "Pepsi last longer"
1: See A1.
2: See A2.
3: Please note the grammatical error; "last" should be singular.

D: Pro: "Pepsi ... tastes better when flat"
1: See A1.
2: See A2.
3: This contradicts Pro's statement A. If, as Pro asserts, "Coca cola tastes better", then it *always* tastes better. However, statement D asserts that *sometimes* Coca Cola tastes worse. Only one can be correct.

E: Pro: "Pepsi ... helps with digestion drink with meal and you will be on the sh!tter in less than 5 minutes guaranteed ."
1: See A1.
2: See A2.
3: Please note the grammatical error; "digestion drink" should be "digestion; drink" or similar.
4: Please note the curse word-involving "sh!tter".
5: Please note the grammatical error; "guaranteed ." should be "guaranteed."

---

Summary:

Pro has failed to provide an objective method of measurement and thus fails Pro's burden of proof; hence, Con is winning.
Debate Round No. 1
salitaly123

Pro

salitaly123 forfeited this round.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

My opponent forfeited this round.

Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
salitaly123

Pro

salitaly123 forfeited this round.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

My opponent has forfeited this rond.

Extend my arguments.

---

Summary:

Conduct: Clear Con vote. Pro ff'd all rounds and was offensive.

Grammar: Clear Con vote. Pro had many grammatical errors.

Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro had BOP and failed to fulfill it.

Sources: No vote. Both Pro and Con had no sources.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by discomfiting 2 years ago
discomfiting
Pepsi is like a flat and bitter coca cola...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
salitaly123FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, and no contest to con's points.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
salitaly123FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
salitaly123FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources because he called Coca Cola a Zionist company. Con had better everything else
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
salitaly123FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
salitaly123FuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is clearly not receptive to any argument that they do not set the rules for, again. Con is arrogant dismissive and attempts to define the rules of debate.