Brexit was a mistake

Neither debater won in terms or conduct - CON disappeared, of course, but PRO's instigating description was unprofessional, and it's quite obvious that the only consistently articulate points he made (either side of fragmented pieces of diatribe) were plagiarized from elsewhere. Because of this, neither debater won in terms of argumentation either - as pointed out by others, CON's opening case was stronger than the cumulative case set forth by PRO, but his absence meant he failed to address (and therefore dismiss) those later points raised by PRO, which were in any case copied directly and without acknowledgement from external sources. HOWEVER:

As CON FF'ed the later rounds, some might argue it is deserving of a technical defeat. I simply say that CON's non-participation followed terrible conduct and plagiarized argumentation twice preceding it from PRO, and this, for me, largely acts as a mitigating factor. I'm sure many here, if faced with an opponent who directly copied text, links and all, from Wikipedia and Guardian articles, they would be in no mood to waste time with rebuttals against an uninterested opponent. Any substantive, factual argumentation from PRO - again, plagiarized - came only following CON's apparent withdrawal.

Con forfeited more than half of the rounds, therefore it is an FF debate

600th vote!

Pro forfeited the last three rounds - up until the final round there were limited, if any, tangible impacts offered by pro; meaning that con was ahead by default. However, pro specified a key set of major economic harms, from reduced power to harm to the economy - which on balance outweighed the harms presented by con.

The loss of GDP growth and generalized long term harms presented by con seemed to clearly outweighing the problems con raises in terms of poor budgeting on the EU, demographics, etc. It’s somewhat harder to weigh as neither side decided to provide a rebuttal of the other, however this, in addition to the forfeits reinforce the issue with impacts - leading the conclusion that the win goes to pro.

Conduct for 3/5 rounds FF and 2-sentence reply in R2 only.

I can't split the points, so there's that.

NOTE: this isn't an FF debate, despite Cons forfeitures he made the more convincing arguments.

Conduct to pro because of cons forfeitures. 1 point to Pro,

Arguments- point by point. Also DF=Con and BB=Pro

Economy/bad budgeting/trade=BB
DF points out unemployment in the EU which appears to be dropped by BB. But DF winds up dropping 13 contentions in R4 which do much more for me seeing how they look at the impact Brexit has both nationally and internationally. To continue, trade was argued heavily until R3 where BB got the last word in and wound up winning trade in my eyes as a result Despite this, DF did prove the EU is bad at budgeting and this was dropped by BB. DF is beaten by a wide margin as a result of him dropping 13 points, even if I grant him victories for budgeting and unemployment his arguments are heavily outweighed clearly.

Note to BB for the future: Do not spend so much time on 1 point(in this case economy), the reason DF won arguments was because you dropped most of his case.

Migration=DF
DF points out how Europe can't cope large quantities of immigrants. BB makes a point about Jingoism which he could've tied into migration but failed to do so. So, this point was largely dropped by BB.

Russian relations-DF
Dropped by BB after DF points out the pressure EU nations have to hate Russia.

Demographics=DF
Dropped by BB.

DF wins argument because he won 75% of the main points.

DF must win arguments(3 points to DF), therefore DF wins 3-1(or 6-4 if we're talking about a 4 point voting system).

S and G/Sources=tie.

Con dropped out, leaving pro's remaining case uncontested. This was over half the debate missed.