That reality television should be banned

Judge: Reynold Jupudi
Win awarded to: Mharman

Judge: Meshh
Win awarded to: Mharman
Reasoning:
First off, although iamthereleast123 offered a legitimate argument, after Mharman came up with a simple rebuttal, iamthereleast123 began forfeiting rounds until the end of the match. Mharman obviously wins this debat because his opponent only offered one argument that was disproven by Mharman.

---

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

Judge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Mharman

Judge: Kevintran72
Win awarded to: iamtherealest123

Feedback:
iamtherealest123 constructed a proper argument in the debate format, presenting a solid point supported by an example. They further reinforced their argument by explaining their example and how it correlates to their point. To end his argument, iamtherealest123 provided a summary of what they just said. iamtherealest123 essentially followed the PEEL format for his argument. In contrast, Mharman simply provided a one-line rebuttal that had no real format or structure. Mharman did not elaborate on their ideas.

---

1 user rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as good

Judge: bencarter759
Win awarded to: iamtherealest123
Reasoning:
The facts provided show the reality television should not be banned.

---

1 user rated this judgement as biased

Judge: Anonymous
Win awarded to: iamtherealest123
Reasoning:
The pro debater give explanation and support that expresses his concern using logic with emotion yet not enough reason for reality television being banned. The con debator spoke a statement and logic but not convincing enough for reality television to not be banned.

Feedback:
Pro debator
Critical thinking:5
Ethic:5
Delivery:7
Total:17/30

Con debator
Critical Thinking:3
Delivery:3
Ethic:3
Total:9/10

Nice one. I appreciate the debate instead of having 1 round surrender.

---

1 user rated this judgement as exceptional

Judge: itsame
Win awarded to: iamtherealest123

Judge: angsonam
Win awarded to: Mharman

Judge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Mharman
Reasoning:
PRO made a single argument, that Reality shows negatively impact the participants. They backed this up with a single, very specific, example.
CON effectively rebutted this one example by pointing out that the participants choose to participate.

With no other arguments to go on, the win had to go to CON. PRO simply failed to make their case.

Feedback:
PRO: You need to give multiple arguments and examples and then support them when they are attacked.
Also, spelling and grammar matter.

CON: Probably could have elaborated more, and presented a counter argument, but the brevity and effectiveness of your rebuttal is actually pretty effective. You were lucky the debate didn't continue though.

---

1 user rated this judgement as constructive