melcharaz

Since the ways of ranking a villian from a tv show can be subjective. Ill use the following metrics.
1: aura (impact in situations both on other characters and to myself)
2: morality (the emotional or visceral impact the villian has on me)
3: integration in the plot/affect on the narrative of the story.

All of this based on the evidence shown in this debate. I may weigh other things as well, such as brutality, psychological impact, charm, etc.

R1: instigator shows the impact of lalo and the implication of his name alone, this shows there is a aura and psychological impact shown to saul and contrasts the impact via: tuco, the twins and hector respectively, and instigator emphasizes the suaveness and coldness. A snake is deadly because you dont know when it will strike, wereas a lion is deadly because you know they will, meaning the aura lalo is one of anticipation, regardness of the suaveness. And he is implied as one that cannot be decieved.

R1: contendor contrasts choosing gus and saul.
1: legacy, contendor emphasizes the build up and awareness of saul and gus in comparison of lalo which appears in season 4.
2: depth and realism
Gus is shown as a victim who is capable of wrath, saul also is shown as a victim who chooses to be a lawyer.
3: iq and villiany: contender asserts that lalo has plot armor and is "good at everything" and suggests he has information that would be hard to obtain.
Contender ends r1 showing the discipline of gus, the depth of saul and how gus kills lalo.

R2 instigator shows how lalo plays mind games with gus and does acting. He emphasizes that lalo understands and manipulates gus.

Emotional depth and range: instigator shows the capability and depths of deception and intelligence lalo displays and the fear factor that gus displays.

R2: contendor shows the depth and awareness of gus, comparing him to lalo, seeing lalo as a psychopathic monster, wereas gus is a reasoning, aware man with discipline, violence and capacity to act and play a part.
He then emphasizes what he think what makes the best villian and introduces definitions as to what a villian is.

However i do not weigh this as it was not set as the standard in description or r1. I will continue using the metrics i established.

He shows clips and emphasizes that gus didnt under estimate lalo and that saul and gus are more realistic villians. Comparing lalo to a comic book villian.

R3: instigator makes alot of key points that contendor has to downplay using a perspective that shows the manipulative and logical tactics of gus on nacho.

Here are some uncontested facts stated by instigator:
"Lalo is able to upstage Gus by earning the boss’s respect,"
"But before Lalo can take the final shot, Gus cuts the power and retreats while the place darkens. Lalo takes a few shots, Gus takes cover and pulls out a gun and gets a lucky shot,"
"Gus screams like a damsel in distress before the explosive blows his face off
Instead of showing fear," "Lalo laughs evilly in mock defeat before dying. The angle of the lighting then shows Lalo’s eyes going dark, symbolizing that Lalo was not fully human but was a metaphorical demonic force of nature."
"ties up Saul and accuses him of having Lalo’s people killed. This scene terrorizes Saul and is a level of fear and trauma that Tuco nor Hector could reach"
"Lalo finds the assassin he burnt with oil and forces him to lie and make it seem the assassination attempt was successful"
"Lalo decides to fake his death and uses a body double to trick the feds and Gus"

Using the metrics i established earlier i weigh the villians

Aura:
Lalo excels in aura, his presence shows cunning, fear and manipulation that neither gus nor saul match.

Morality:
Lalo is shown to intimidate and be regarded as psychopathic, like a snake waiting to strike, he has no regard for others but his family, he shows no hesitancy to lie, torture, decieve or resort to faking his death.

Integration:
Lalo is shown as a man even respected by rival gangs and leaders, he shows a depth of amicablity and even friendliness to others, despite the position he has in the gang. He is generally regarded in either fear or respect.

Saul:
Saul shows a unique morality and depth that others have a hard time considering, based on the information shown, he does not show a complete disregard for others or morality, due to his activity as a lawyer and his integration is seen with either respect or indifference.

Gus:
Gus shows himself as a disciplined and violent and cunning man, he is shown to be respected and sometimes underestimated by even his own allies. He has a regard to morality, but not in the sense of respecting it, but using it to further his ambition.

I rule that instigator has shown lalo to be the better villian, i rule this based on utter aura and complete disregard of morality and truth to achieve his purpose, even his own death is dramatic and compared to other villians, i rule he is better at emphasis on what a villian is.

A villian may range in depth, intellect, cunning and violence. But ultimate ambition and ultimate disregard makes a villian more villianious. The dramatic aura and disregard gives visceral reactions and expectations to the observer, regardless of motivation and upbringing. To defy expectations emphasizes ambition.

There is something here worth weighing!

No description. Title says "Countries are not needed, boundaries are not needed "
It is assumed contendor disagrees with title.

Instigator gives the following reasons.
1:"very hard for people to get represented in a government"
2:"it’s hard for governments to keep track of where money comes from and where it goes."

Contendor replies
1:"if we look at the world organisation, we realise that centralisation experiments are underway and are proving rather successful. The example of the United States"
2:"The European Union"
3:"the number of international treaties signed by almost all countries"
4:"one area where individuals react in a similar way, namely economics. Libertarianism promotes a world without countries, entirely regulated by the market. "
5:"individualism destroys the nationalism you mentioned earlier"

So while there has to be the weighing of individual freedoms and tracking of transactions. It is possible to develop government without necessarly having a country, its also possible to track money regardless of governments. IMF has been doing a pretty good job in europe. And the eu, though to be fair has had mixed results, they do in theory attempt to represent people's intrests.


Its possible this debate could have been intresting and note worthy. Due to forfeits i can rule tie.
Or i can rule contendors/pro favor since he did have a slightly better arguement and instigator did have chance to refute....

First off, pro life and pro birth wasnt defined. I can be pro life and not support a woman having 13 babies cause i fear for their finances or the healthcare of the amount of children.

Pro birth meaning, to encourage birth?
Pro life meaning to encourage life?

Goy should have just left it alone but introduces natalism, and it seems to be the agreed upon definition.
Never do someone's work for them, especially if they demonstrate hate towards you or what you believe....
That aside.

Bop 1: "on the very last round, the solution of pro must be conving enough to explain why being prolife ISN'T being probirth. Of course this means to provide sensible arguments which can be based on morality, which must be compensed with at least some scientific and social evidences"
Which he doesnt do, there is no links, no science nor a moral authority mentioned.

Bop 2: "if pro doesn't provide any single fulfilling argument for the debate, then Con will have the best on the debate. The same as pro, con's arguments must show how morally being prolife is being probirth including some scientific - if there are many- proofs for the case"

Contender does this by ACTUALLY DEFINING PRO BIRTH and gives links, he also defines pro life as well. He give nuance between natalism and pro birth stances, wereas instigator simply criticizes it.

With both scenario's satisfied, contender clearly wins this debate.

Side note: the hamas and the criminal/child abuse example/comments were totally unnecessary. If you wanted an example of moral authority, stick to either church or state/government laws.

First off. The bop is heavily contender favored with the wording.
Second. There is stuff in here that doesn't add to bop of either side
Third. After reading this my brain goes blank and i literally have dread for trying to weigh this.

The one good thing i like about this debate is the defintions are airtight. Gj on that.

All that being said, ill try to keep it short.

R1 instigator (in summation) talks about culturalism or nativity bias and lack of trust in representatives. Shown in gerrymandering as an example

R1 contender states need to defend electoralism... im ignoring that cause thats not bop, also im looking at what makes it better, not the morality or spirit of it, but concrete or imperical evidence that the result is attained.
Also why does contender tell instigator to pass his tests? Thats not part of his or instigator's bop.
Contender's 1: basically not alot of media, would take alot of time cause rural/urban lifestyle differences.
Sure, that can hinder the progress of changing electoral system.
Contender 2: so a 200 year prescedent and republicans wanting electoral college cause they sick of democrats gerry mandering and pretending the republicans do it more. Yeah i can understand that as well, its a partisian issue based on manipulating the system, or fear.
Contender 3: recounting is expensive and people lie or election tampering. Yep, i agree, same reason they both do it as point 2.

Contendor rebuttal: dont forget the farmers, and 3/5ths was abolished.

Frankly alot of the stuff mentioned is more relevant before the expansion of technology, which neither side addressed. We got farmers with phones and ipads now.

R2 instigator: constitution can be amended, faithless electors dont matter, people like to feel their choice matters. Why the heck is he referencing a debateart debate.....
Votes were miscounted or were of illegal/dead people.
Election bureacracy can deal with any form of election counting.
R2 contender basically clarifying stuff, mentions overturn of faithless electors. Elector allocation messed up colorado. Framework was focus on "spirit"

i addressed weighing that earlier

Proofs instigator didnt meet... cause he apparently had to?
"Didnt dispute Montesquieu" about the spirit of the electoral college? All he had to dispute is the norms of the electoral college, not why.


Basically i rule in favor of contendor, despite the minimal impirical evidence and lesser bop, he still manange to create standards no one asked for, invoke values non essential to the debate.
BUT! He did focus on the key reason why electoral college should still remain, its more expensive, and our politicians are fearful power hungry liars who gaslight everyone.

Instigator tried, but he had a harder bop and i didnt feel there was enough to convince me to switch to direct election, i do agree that in alot of ways it COULD be better, but inside the vaccum of government bureacracy and the lack of solutions and evidence to back it up, it ultimately didnt stand.

This debate felt like a optimistic guy trying to fight a shredder.

So before we get into the claim and bop, what is IQ? Neither side gives a definition or background, i include this information in my vote for the sake of determining bop and who met it.

https://grokipedia.com/page/IQ_classification

"The intelligence quotient (IQ) is a numerical score derived from a battery of standardized psychometric tests designed to assess an individual's cognitive abilities,

including reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and processing speed, relative to a normative population."

So IQ does NOT correlate to debating power, at least, not in the sense that instigator is asserting, because the contexts of the premises asserted has nothing to do with IQ.

If instigator asserted the possiblity of being strongest debater based on 6300 IQ (70% of 9000) and asserted it under premises of different conceptions, (ie IQ somehow justifying solipsism, "which is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist, and that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is uncertain. Solipsists argue that the external world and other minds may not exist independently of one's own consciousness."

Or at the extreme end of subjectivism)

Then i could take this debate more seriously, however there is no way a high IQ justifies such a premise.



That out of the way, lets look at title and description.

"Even if I lost 30% of my IQ, I would still be the strongest debater"

"In this debate, it will be assumed that my IQ is over 9000 and that everyone else has IQ 360 or lower."

So with 6700 instigator asserts they would be the strongest debater. But what does strongest mean? Instigator declares:

"thus, I will always be the strongest debater and it is not even possible to prove existence of something which isnt part of my mind.

Because other debaters cannot be proved to exist as independent minds, and I am proved to myself, I will always be the strongest debater.

Strongest debater is also the one which can make a claim but cannot be proved wrong."

So instigator defines strength based making a claim that cannot be proved wrong.
But again. IQ neither approves or disproves the ability to make a claim, instigator is asserting a claim based on premises that arent applicable to IQ.

So lets see what contendor says.

"Now it is impossible to make guesses or deductions about the strength level of Pro without them describing their weightlifting and workout routine.

Thankfully, Lucy provides us with a little insight about their current strength level from sites like DART.:


High sugar diet - most dangerous diet?


Having a sweet tooth as a source of nutrition doesn't give us any details or much information that suggests they are a musclebound debater and actually leaves a lot of room for doubt."


So.... contendor ignored instigator's defining of "strongest" and speaks of physical strength instead of addressing the subjectvism or even solipsism..... he neither affirms nor disproves.... nor does he acknowledged the supposed burden of proof.

That being said i must rule in instigator's favor as contendor failed to address the bop and the definition/standard of strongest.

Also contender used wrong link for oxford language again.... just a link to the front page. (Not weighed in vote)

"Burden of proof is on Pro to prove "I dont believe that God exists"."

"I am Con. I merely need to show Pro failed to prove the claim."

So all contender has to do is prove that instigator doesnt believe God exists.
.....
Alright.

"Now, what does "I" mean in the claim can be debated. But if it means me or Pro, it is irrelevant really. If Pro cannot prove which is it, he will have difficulty proving topic."

So doesnt matter who doesnt believe in God, as long as someone is proved as to not believe in God.
.....
Alright

Premise stated by instigator doesnt follow bop of contendor.

Contender gives alot of info on the bible and gods. Also including why jews must remove the o out of god.

Instigator never specified which god or gods.

"It is very obvious to me that you cannot fully believe in that God and another at the same time. What I am getting at, very clearly is that to believe in 1 God guarantees you disbelieve others."


Instigator says "i disagree"

Contendor proved instigator didnt believe in god.
Contendor wins

Final thoughts
Contendor did alot of teaching on god for... some reason? But regardless, it was completely unnecessary for bop to be fulfilled.
He could have just said "God exists" and if instigator denied it, he won, or if he said "a certain god doesnt exist" and instigator affirmed it, or denied it. He would have won.


I have no idea was instigator was trying to do, a weirdly worded paradox trap? Or "convince me of God" arguement?

Either way, the info about why jews say G-d was intresting.

No descriptions.
Assuming title ans instigator opening statement is the foundation.

"Atheists will NEVER be convinced of the existence of the gods of theism"

Automatically there is a problem.
Assuming the contendor came in Good faith, they debated under the assumption of convincing the athiest of the existence of gods.

However instigator in opening statement refutes their own title and says

"So atheist can never believe in God."

And

"My opponent defends a position that at some point in future, an atheist will believe in God."

But belief and convince are 2 different objectives. I can convince someone (maybe) but then they are no longer categortically defined as the "non believing" or athiest as is shown in this debate.

I rule contender wins because instigator approached debate in bad faith, talking about conviencing in the title, then shifting the goal post of what an athiest is.

Disappointing.

"Burden of proof is on Con to prove that hating someone for being a bad person is fair."
"So I assume Con must prove that person chose to be bad, in other words, that free will exists and that person isnt just programmed to be bad."
-instigator.

So its up contendor to prove it is fair to hate a person for choosing to be bad.
Meaning pro must defend that it is Unfair to hate a person for choosing bad.
Though choice seems to be optional according to bop.

There is no definitions for fairness by instigator, bad or hatred.

R1: Contendor immediately shows there is no proof of instigator being hated.
There is no foundation for instigator (if referring to self as the title suggest) that they are hated.
Contender points out the bop isn not related to instigator, so showing they do not have to prove instigator right or wrong concerning themselves.

Instigator then points out 3 things.

1:likability and hatability do not equal moral character.

He gives examples of people who are distinctively less likable in their settings.
I would have liked a real world examples instead of fictional to verify this... but i will move on.

2:hatred reveals more about the person than their target of hatred.

Again citing fictional characters, but ultimately asserting that hatred is not dependent persay on the actions of instigator.

3:hatred bases on moral character.

Contender asserts that if someone does hate a bad person, they do so without "independent of any emotional biases, or feelings that would affect their personal judgment."

This is a stretch, and contender has laid no ground work definitionally or through example of wether this is true or not. There are standards to weighing actions and people like judges have to discard their feelings and judge according to laws or precedent, but not every person does this.

This caveat aside

Contendor then gives link to oxford languages dictionary, i would have liked if it actually linked to definition of fairness!
But seeing as it didnt, i have to weigh the debate as if fairness isnt defined.

R2: instigator asserts
"No proof of people not being programmed or having free will, so nothing for me to respond to. It is not fair to hate a person for something person was forced to do."

Reworded. Proof of people being programmed or having free will. And sees no reason to respond to contendor's arguements. And citing unfairness to hate an unwilling person.

Due to double negative instigator asserts there is proof. So due to language shot himself in the foot.

But contender reminds instigator that proof of or lack of programming and free will is not in his BOP.

Final thoughts:

This was a messy debate, very little ground work from either side and no definitons, though in fairness, contender tried harder.

The bop of contender is very clear, to prove someone hating someone for being bad is fair.

And their 3rd point in r1 is the closest they did in attempting to define fairness. And assert that its more fair to hate someone for being bad, due to supposed lack of emotional biases.

Instigator made no defense against the opposite other than assertion and said there is proof (via use of double negative words) people being programmed, defeating their own non bop opening statement.

I therefore rule contender won.

But make no mistake, i expect better. More groundwork and more definitions

Description: The question is more akin to “does logic/sound epistemology necessitate the conclusion that Christ is risen.

Epistemology: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Logic and epistemology suppose knowledge and foundations, so basically is it more logical or likely Jesus rose from the grave.

So right off the bat there is a contention over premise 1.
"P1. If one genuinely testifies to their genuine belief in an event’s occurrence, and they have access to knowledge that would allow them to know whether or not the event occurred, then the event must have occurred."

Instigator uses sincerity as a legitamate premise,
Contendor rejects the premise.

"It assumes that having access to knowledge guarantees the truth of an event and does not take into factors like genuinely mistaking, deliberately lying, hallucinating, or other factors."

Contendor then gives examples

1 The LDS golden plates as an example of the sincerity of the account, howbeit not Truthful. 2:fatima

However instigator counters contendor by saying:

"They said someone can lie. Well then they aren’t genuine in what they’re saying and dont satisfy my premise. They said something can be mistaken. Well then they would not know if the event occurred and they do not fit my premise. They can hallucinate. I specifically addressed why this did not occur, but if it occurred then they would not meet the premise on account of the fact that they would not know whether or not the event occurred."

This seems to indicate the meaning of genuine is stretched, its asserted with truthfulness NOT Sincerity. To be sincere is to believe you are showing or declaring a/the truth. Not that you automatically ARE.

"If you would know whether or not a thing is true due to the circumstances, and you believe that it is true, then it simply must be true."

This is begging the question.
he has a affirmative conclusion from a negative premise.

Contendor wins because he correctly identifies the negative premise, wereas instigator simply reaffirmed his understanding of the genuineness and claims contendor didnt address it.

FF of pro

Pro Forfeited half the debate.

Contender did full forfeit.

Opponent forfiture.

"This is a policy debate on whether or not the US should formally switch to the metric system."

I assume policy to mean a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisionshttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/policy

Instigator lists in his OS or #1 the objectiveness and the reliability of the Si system to U.s. imperial/custom system, he shows the ease that the Si system has.
None of which i find fault in.

However he lists out the amount of financial drain and loss of life due to inaccurate conversions.

Contender then explains the history of the u.s. imperial/customary system, he explains that "there has been no great push for decades." And how instigator has not weighed the costs of conversion, a good example being in road signs.

He concludes "but the will of the people is insufficient to undertake such a burdensome task."


R2 Instigator mentions the DOSAR"Part Number: 611 #5 i ii and iii but does not show the power of the exceptions of i ii and iii respectively which as the "adventageous" ness, is clearly applied.

He then cites examples of HOW u.s. can change policy. Concerning these examples i do not weigh in favor as they speak to ability to change, not WHY to change.

Contender points out the application of changes from an SI system where it was originally measured as "The gram was originally tied to the mass of water until 2019" he also correctly points out the sources do not necessarly add money appropriately to gdp and goes over mistakes of SI usage in links.

The conclusion is the air drops and australian stuff isnt weighed as it was about U.S. system conversion.

I do believe instigator mentioned Contenders points, but only vaguely and in passing.


All in all i weighed contenders arguements to be more substantial, logical and accessible to U.S.

Ill rephrase title as "assuming pro is supporter of homosexuality, it is consistent that pro does not support incest at all"

Right off the bat we have to ask, what form of consistency? What form of support? Social? Ethical? Moral? Logical?

This is already a mess.

Judging on instigators R1
"I have spoken with many individuals that support homosexuality but will not support incest.


That is until I establish the inconsistencies and they concede their support and acceptance of close relative sexual relationships."

I believe we can say he means logically/positionally as he mentions they can concede support

So ill weigh this debate as instigator contends you cannot logically support incest as a homosexual, and contender affirms that you can logically support incest as a homosexual.

So lets get started.


R1 is a mess due to title wording.
R2 contender explans the source of incest and the problems of it, showing homosexuality lacks these.
R3 Contender's arguements are assumed and taken out of context, and misunderstood by instigator. contender again points out health issues of incestual relationships. Instigator suggests sterile relationship

R4 Contender rebutts against instigator saying he didnt prove why a homosexual MUST support incest. Instogator uses logical fallacy i forget name of but is basically "why not support both?"
R5 is summation and repeat.
I vote contender/pro as he actually gave reasons to not support incestual relationships, which, wether homosexual or not, are worthy of considering.

I judge debates based on perimeters and foundation in description. Description speaks of money to be saved, yet neither side discussed contraception based on fiscial or financial gain or loss.

For some reason bible was included by instigator? As a source of health and morality, not of fiancial or fiscal gains, same with every link posted.
No one met description, they debated ethics and they debated health, not fiances.

Id vote no points but since i cant. I vote tie.

Instigator description reads "I (instigator) will argue that the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat. Somedebateperson

Pro (contender) will argue that the Bible does teach that the Earth is flat and not a sphere. Fauxlaw

His own description isnt met except in R3. His own admission and standard is to use BIBLE to prove it does not teach the earth is flat.

So lets look at what bible says.
"The four corners of the earth are also spoken of in the book of Revelation7:1, and mention of the "four quarters of the earth" appears in Revelation 20:8."

And lets see how instigator interprets it to disprove the earth is flat.

"The circle of the Earth is just what is seen from above. The Douay-Rheims Bible even translated “circle” as “globe.”"

The amount of effort put forth by instigator was insufficient to disprove the arguements of contender which is:

" 30, 3 offer the keyword "sphere" in the Isaiah 40: 22 verse we have both referenced; 23 offer "circle," and 4 have other words used. "Sphere" is the minimum translated word-use in the Isaiah verse; the Douay-Reims, the Catholic Public Domain, and the Peshitta."

And

"The original language of this Isaiah verse [§I.a.1] was likely Hebrew, in which the keyword "circle" is ח֣וּג [khūg or hūg].[5]. It may have also been translated from Hebrew to Greek [Septuagint LXX] anciently, and later, Greek to English, in which case, the operative keyword is γῦρον"
Contender didnt bother to use scripture to revelation 7:1 and revelation 20:8

He then proceeds to show ancient works and diagrams which have nothing to do with scripture.

He then throws in repeated phrases and insults from their debate over theistic evolution.

And then mocks him.

The only valuable take away is defining of shape and isaiah 40:22. Can can be infinite, this wasnt disagreed on by instigator, so is assumed he accepted it.

"But arguing shape is immaterial to the debate;"

And

"but its shape, other than being a mathematic plane, and a circle can be of infinite diameter, rectangular, octogonal, or any other shape, as long as it is planar." As put forth by contender.

Diameter: A straight line segment passing through the center of a figure, especially of a circle or sphere, and terminating at the periphery.

Contender admits sphere is translation used 3 times out of 30 and 23 is circle in isaiah 40:22

This debate perimeters werent met by either side.

Few things to mention. 1: description says *american*i regard that as both north and south american. so im disregarding japan, russia and china comparisons, only *american* countries. Also that the U.S. 2nd amendment is interpreted as supporting evidence instead of being weighed as major point in this debate, and the right to bear arms as the foundation... but as it is even supreme courts have to rule on the interpretation, and op gives no description definitions...
2: round 3 pro says he almost agrees with con except on this "I agree almost completely with Con

I agree with most of Con’s case. Our visions of gun control and regulation are very similar, the only significant difference between us is that I think there should be a protected base of firearms, such as simple hunting rifles and basic handguns due to their being paramount for the lives of many Americans."

To which con replies "If America 'heavily regulates guns and removes the 'Right to guns, we complete with Canada and Mexico. Guns will next fall out of criminals hands, available only due to the glut of American guns."
He then never reproves the definition of rights as pro laid out, he only rebutts it.

Pro barely won. Next time make descriptions like you are trying to make a house rule.

Con needs to be aware of his links and be aware of semantics of "which americans" when determining statistics. He may have potentially rebutted pro if he cited colombia regulation on fire arms for example, as they are an "american" country

Joke/troll debate. Alot of wasted typing for something not possible to do outside of violating already placed digital laws.
The question and method of any lawful ways to hinder free speech falls on site admin/mods, etc. Otherwise it is assumed to be free speech until its not. After all, rules have been broken before.

The debate started on pro's assertions of natural rights, the closest source he used to define rights is what he quoted in regard to U.S. constitution later on.
Con attempts to define the word "rights" at the beginning, the debate devolved from there. The arguementation then devolved into semantics and assertions, the debate started out broadly, then became in bad faith. Con however did prove via definition of "rights" that is pertaining to U.S. rights, which pro didnt rebut or refuse the perimeters of. And according to that "supposed" agreement, i must award con with victory, as the U.S. does mandate the rights of adults to provide guardianship for children, and in scenarios of adoption has standards which the child has no say in, based on law and certain state codes.

Summation: became a debate in bad faith, con had to define perimeters and somewhat justified them. Both parties need to bring more effort and sources.