That the Proposed Iranian Nuclear Deal Works In the Best Intrests of Israel

Judge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: RXR.
Reasoning:
Pro had more forfeits, which is unacceptable for both sides to do. Con had a source though neither side had great arguments.

Feedback:
Neither side should forfeit, nor should they include a source as their only argument in a round.

---

1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional

Judge: 2001bhu
Win awarded to: RXR.

Judge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: RXR.
Reasoning:
Con win, but ONLY on the basis of burden of proof. I suspect both sides ran out of time.

Pro asked a few questions in the CX, which were ok, but it needed to be backed up with some substantive narrative for why the resolution was true.

Con has sources, which are ok, but they needed to be backed up again with constructive arguments for why the resolution was true.

As neither side made an argument, neither side was convincing. As pro had the burden of proof initially in this debate, this is a clear neg win.

---

Judge: HelloFriends
Win awarded to: RXR.

Judge: Tejretics
Win awarded to: RXR.
Reasoning:
Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited one more round, and, thus, the majority of the debate, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Therefore, conduct goes to Con. | Spelling & Grammar - Tie. Both sides maintained reasonable spelling and grammar with no major errors. Thus, spelling and grammar are tied. | Arguments - Tie. Neither side made any "arguments" per se, except in the cross-ex round. | Sources - Con. Pro didn't use any sources, whereas Con did. | As always, happy to clarify these reasons.

Feedback:
Both sides forfeited the majority of the debate. Forfeiture is hardly acceptable conduct in any debate setting, and, as always, I recommend both debaters to not forfeit any rounds in the debate. Secondly, answers in the cross-examination should not (for lack of a better phrase) merely reiterate the question, for example: "Is Iran trustworthy? - Iran can be trustworthy." A slightly more detailed explanation would do better.

---

1 user rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: The Redneck
Win awarded to: RXR.
Reasoning:
I am against it working for Israel. They get enough help already

---

Judge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: RXR.

Judge: Hello
Win awarded to: RXR.

Judge: Voice
Win awarded to: RXR.
Reasoning:
Alright, let's get right to it. Neither side presented any argument whatsoever. Con, in Round 1, presented only one source: The New York Times, which is sometimes considered a biased source. Since this source was the only attempt within the debate to even make an argument, the debate has to go to Con by default. Both sides forfeited, but Pro did it more.

Feedback:
PRO:
Don't forfeit... EVER. And actually post something that is not in the intermission/cross-examination area.

CON:
Instead of using just a source as an argument, summarize the article, then cite the source in your debate. I will provide an example.

Blah blah yadda. [1]

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=blah+blah+yada+yada&espv=2&biw=1276&bih=605&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=z0tTVenqHJDAgwStjYGoCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg

So you see, it isn't all that hard, just don't plagiarize. And if you just copy-and-paste from the source, put everything you got from the source in quotation marks ("...").

---

Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: RXR.
Reasoning:
Forfeiture

---

1 user rated this judgement as exceptional