Star Wars is good

Arguments: Pro asks Con why Star Wars isn't good. Usually, Pro would have the BOP in this debate due to his position as the instigator, but he forks it over to Con. Since Con essentially rolls with it, I'll disregard it. Con points out Star Wars has otherworldly life which is similar to humans, which he thinks is a coincidence, which isn't really a great argument since he provides no evidence besides conjecture that this is unlikely. Pro counters in a different way, by pointing out that it's meant to be entertaining. This is a fair point on it's own, but it also has no evidence; Pro could've supported his reasoning or explained it given how easy it is to justify, but he doesn't. The point still initially stands though. Con drops this point, (1-0 pro) and says it's violent, but gives no evidence that this is a bad thing, but also says it has bad lighting, which is a fair (though unsupported) point. Pro drops the violence argument (1-1), conceding it, and his rebuttal to the lighting argument is poor, saying it's in space, which still doesn't justify it. If I filmed a film inside of a shark's large intestine people could say it's bad because you can't see anything. If I said "but it's in the shark's large intestine so duh" I would still be wrong. Con points out that the ISS has good lighting, but Pro says that this is because it's more recent, which has no evidence to support it again. (I'll give this to Con 1-2) In the last round, Pro says that Star Wars grossed a lot, which has no weight at all because that provides evidence that people liked it, which is conceded by Con when he says that the books are good (2-2). Overall, I just wrote run on sentences and lost brain cells simultaneously. I need a break. Speaking of breaks, here's the breakdown: 2-2. Overall, I'd give the args to Con, because by tying it he has the advantage since Pro did not fufill his BOP.

Sources: Pro was the only one who used them, although both provided so many assertions that had no support.

S+G: I understood Pro's "meant to be entertaining" point. I only detract points when incorrect S+G detracts from the readability of the debate, which is a policy I firmly stand by.

Conduct: I'd say that Con's FF was poorer conduct than Pro's new args in the last round, since there were no rules on this policy but also Con completely disregarded it.

my head hurts

For a debate where most of the arguments were two sentences long, this one still managed to be a real mess.

Conduct;
Con forfeited round 4. Con also tried to move the goalposts in the final round by claiming that he was only talking about the movies and the books somehow didn't count, although the original debate topic didn't actually specify which form of media was being discussed. (What about video games? Fan made content?) Conduct to Pro.

Spelling and Grammar;
Equally bad on both. Tie.

Sources;
Pro used a source in the final round... but technically the final round should be used to summarize earlier arguments and provide final rebuttals, not introduce new information. Con never used a source. Tie.

Arguments;
Although the manner in which Con points it out in the final round was rather uncouth (he needed to make a convincing argument in general, not convince you specifically), it is true that Pro had the burden of proof to show that "Star Was is good" per the title of the debate, with no specific description provided. Pro never really did that. His opening argument was to ask his opponent why it isn't good, which was an inappropriate attempt to shift the burden of proof. Regardless, Con still tossed a few minor arguments at him such as being unrealistic and having bad lighting. The rebuttals Pro provided were fairly meek and not a very good display of knowledge about the topic. In the end, it does remain the case that we don't really know of any evidence or proof that Pro could provide to say that Star Wars is "good" as he claims, so the argument goes to Con.

Conduct for forfeit. Arguments as only con made a real argument that moved out of unsupported and subjective opinion (about grosses), and sources to con: as his source supporting his claim made it the only real argument made in the whole argument.

Arguments:

Con kindof conceded in the final round by stating, "I never said anything against the books.". The debate was about star wars in general.

Sourcing:

Pr showed how much revenue Star Wars produced and this is good for the economy.

Conduct:

Con forfeit without apology. This is poor conduct.

Con is incorrect in this entire debate about what debating itself is about and that's largely why Pro was able to win by trying so little. Con finishes their series of attacking grammar and nitpicking quality of lighting in Star Wars by stating 'Plus, this debate is about you convincing me that the movies are good.' but a debate is not about that when it's in a 1v1-arena type scenario as it is here. In contrast, it's actually about convincing unbiased (or even biased) third-parties to vote you as the winner in awe at the skill you displayed over your opponent and with regards to the topic at hand. Pro convincing Con was not the win-condition of Pro, Pro had to impress the judges enough with their skill at debating the topic in order to win so long as Con failed to equally or not furthermore impress us.

Pro uses admittedly biased sources (Starwars itself as well as Wikipedia) but these were extremely relevant in backing up claims of money and such. Pro did raise new points in the last round to achieve this but both sides were playing dirty so I really am not going to care about that. Con attacks a run-on sentence that wasn't even necessarily a run-on sentence at all but merely a placing of comma where, perhaps, semicolon could be a superior choice if one is really OCD about grammar.

Con's only point against was the lighting and realism which Pro shouldn't have gotten away with just saying 'it's not meant to be realistic' as well as pointing out that the lighting is not meant to be great in outer space but Pro DID INDEED get away with it because Con just lets it be. I am a flat-earther who has severe doubts that the ISS is what we are told it is but Con just says it has fantastic lighting... So, is Con comparing that to an outer space movie? It's not quite clear to me what Con meant there.

Pro wins because Con just allowed Pro to steamroll this debate without even properly steamrolling at all (Pro was actually abysmal in both effort and quality of execution).