You're not as pro life as you think you are.

This debate as proposed by Pro was a miscarriage from the start. In fact, there appears to be no effort of intellectual coitus, let alone conception on Pro's part. Therefore, to follow the analogy, no abortion to debate over. Here's the vote assessment:

Argument: Though Pro maintains throughout all four rounds that it was Pro's intent to effectively waive the first round to "[know] the extent of your position." However, reading the Description with much care, word for word, there is no indication whatsoever that it is Pro's intent to "waive" the round, that is, to abdicate presenting an argument in order to first "[know] the extent of [Con's] position." One would naturally assume without the intent spelled out in Description, Con will present an argument to conclude, not to begin round 1. Moreover, the Description does not adequately present an argument, as claimed by Pro's r1. It contains questions. Questions do not suffice for arguments. Whereas Con correctly argues that given the proposal by debate title and the Description, the BoP resides with Pro's position. Pro even finally acknowledges Con's pro-life position, but doe not rebut the position by meeting his own BoP to challenge that Con is "not as pro-life as you think you are. Points to Con

Sources: Pro completely ignores sourcing any material given until r4, when Pro merely copies Con's definition of "pro-life" in r3 without ever contending the definition in Pro'd r4. Con's sourcing offers one source, defining BoP, but, otherwise, is also lacking source material. one the basis of at least one legitimate source, Con wins the points.

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Pro's deceptive conduct by r1, baiting in r2 "Now come on with it" [demanding an argument from Con to Pro's expectation], belligerence in r3 assuming the lack of understanding is on Con, and r4, carrying on the taunting of r3 by demanding Con's BoP when it is Pro's BoP to prove Con "is not as pro-life as he thinks he is" and never presenting any argument to that point, Pro loses ;the conduct point.

Con doesn't have an argument to survey in this debate, that is unfortunate as the voting requirements imply that there will always be an argument present. Let me help the voting moderators to see the flaw:

The debate is about whether or not Con is as pro-life as he thinks he is. The problem is that Con tries to prove that he thinks he is pro-life without ever once touching on whether or not he ACTUALLY IS as pro-life as he thinks he is. On top of this, the description of a debate is agreed upon by both parties upon acceptance and voters are entitled to enforce it on top of normal voting requirements. In this debate the following was stipulated (and a victimised, exasperated Pro brings this up in Round 3):

want you to put your thinking caps on and throw away that box your mind has been placed into.
As you explain your position in detail, prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies.
Please comment, Send a message for clarity or questions

It is evident that if there was misunderstanding between the two, it could only be Pro's fault if Con did PM or Comment for inquiry and then proved that Pro deceived him. Unfortunately this was not the case. It appears as if Con decided to completely and utterly ignore this aspect of the debate because it is he who keeps demanding Pro to elaborate on the inconsistencies between how pro-life he thinks he is vs how pro-life he actually is without he himself remotely affirming that he is as pro-life as he thinks he is.

The syllogism doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He hasn't proven that he opposes abortion and euthanasia nor the scale/strength to which he holds this opposition. He solely states that he thinks he is pro-life and that his belief is self-affirming. This is bullshit and a completely flawed way to reverse burden of proof onto Pro of a topic that says 'not'. Pro did this to not bait someone into accepting 'You are as pro-life as you think you are' assuming that they were against it.

Pro's arguments are absolutely valid and his conduct is impeccable given how abusive Con was to him and how Con toyed with him throughout. Pro's primary argument is that Con never once elaborates on 'how pro-life' he is (Round 2 by Pro) and Con never once addresses this with the slightest sufficient argumentation worth noting in this RFD.

R1:
Both sides wasted it.

R2:
Pro points to the description, which con apparently mistook for rhetoric. I do not agree with the claim that it was an ambush, as much as it was weird without some exploratory questions.
Pro makes an argument that he is pro life.

R3:
Pro reminds con that he should "prepare for questions and exposing of any invalidities and inconsistencies"
Con reaffirms that he is indeed pro-life.

R4:
Pro wisely points out that there are different levels of being pro life, but never asks con which he would be classified within. He seems to argue that it was con's job to list the inconsistencies of his belief.
Con reminds pro that he gave no limiting criteria, which should have given pro the opportunity to argue some inconsistency, to which he refused.

Arguments: Con
See above. No challenge to con's status as absolutely pro life in all cases was made (as much as he might have taken a conduct hit had he made special pleading to walk back his position on certain not thinking he's pro life in common sense abortion cases).
Pro, next time if you want questions answered in R1 (or at any other point), ask them!

Sources: Leaning con, but tied.
The dictionary was well used, but I don't find the margin to be excessive enough to warrant 2 points (as a % it's great, but alone low magnitude).

S&G: tied.
Pro, please get control of your caps lock. Also please use the quotation tool when quoting multiple lines of someones case.
Both of you, please get control of the bolding tool. Bold a key word here and there for emphasis, not whole paragraphs.