• Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    @reformed_christian @arikcschneider Great debate guys!

    Please note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out 3 votes i.e. Community & 2 Judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @singalport

  • 2 years ago
    • 2 years ago

      @reformed_christian Congrats for advancing to the next round! Please expect further details on your next debate this weekend.

      @arikcschneider Hard luck on this one! We will open registration for Dec $5,000 Championship next week. In the meantime you can have fund with our social debates and accept one of the Open Challenges from our Resident Debaters:

      • 2 years ago

        Pro establishes a very clear case with great criteria. Con gives us other ways to evaluate contribution but doesn't do much to show us that these other contributions are measurable or better.

        Con's contentions are reasonable, but he doesn't give us a reliable way to evaluate them or demonstrate that there is an agreement in NATO that all members are meeting their obligation. So what he argues is possible, but how do I know it is true?

        On the other side, Pro has a simple and objective measurement, backed up by specific NATO agreements. That makes deciding for him very easy. So I did.

        Both debaters did a good job here, but @arikcschneider needs to do more work tying his argument to a voting criteria for judgment.

      • 2 years ago

        (Not judging this round).

        This was a complex debate about a subject I’m glad I don’t have to argue. Both debaters are excellent speakers and provided many interesting arguments.

        Much of the debate correctly came down to the existing commitments within the social compact that is NATO, and Pro’s argument that according to what the member states agreed to, they are currently not meeting their obligations. This compelling argument was never adequately refuted by the Con, and thus my vote goes to the Pro.