Debate Rounds (3)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no argument to support his burden of proof. Only con presented an argument. Pro also failed to negates Con's argument. Con made the claim that pineapples have the potential to explode and explained why. Pro reported that there are no supermarkets that have exploded because of pineapples. This rebuttal is invalid because it is based on assertion and it merely kritks Con's point rather than refutes it. Just because something has never happened, it does not mean that it is impossible. The kritik is invalid because it fails to refute the contradiction that it evidently presents.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.