Amera v Elick

So generally I want to make a distinction on the quality of debate here: both debaters argued using scans well to set up their arguments, but there comes a point where creating a narrative of ***why*** your win con succeeds becomes necessary to craft.

Roy v Zero

Zero wins by default

Meta v Bradley

The Meta simply has answers for 'run at my face and try to slice me up'; going solely from feat posting, its impossible to deny Elick his rebuttals that paint the Meta in a light such that he simply wins any engagement. Bradley is a binary opponent as presented without much ability to take retribution: either he gets close and cuts you to win or he can't and thus loses. The Meta has damage options to kill Bradley both at range and in melee and also options to consistently enact either without risking damage

The Meta wins

Maki v Samurai Jack

Second verse same as the first. Elick takes the time to contextually frame his arguments for why Jacks sword just kills Maki, why Maki's speed is inferior, why the physicals he presents are concrete and good enough to be relevant, and how his win conditions are enacted in a superior manner to those for Maki.

Jack wins.

Elick wins 3-0 overall.

Side note: amera did well with the feats presented for his points, it just is a matter of stringing them together cohesively to make the assertions strong and relevant.