The user who votes first on this debate will most likely vote Con.

The USER who VOTES FIRST on this DEBATE will most LIKELY VOTE CON

PRO offers to predict the future based on DART stats and then lazily offers zero proof.

PRO's argument is difficult to parse but runs something like:

P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to be CON.
C: Therefore, the first vote for this debate will favor CON.

P1: The first vote on any debate is more often CON than PRO
C: Therefore, the first vote on this debate will favor CON.

Both arguments are missing a major premise.

PRO's main argument was so poorly constructed that this VOTER actually mistook this gobbledygook "Not only do all the high rankers have an opposite tendency to all low rankers but there is even more consistency in voting for Con side when and if a skilled debater is on side Con than the inverse." to mean "high rankers are more likely to vote CON" rather than PRO's intended "high rankers are more likely to be CON."

For the first argument to work, PRO must first show that high rankers are also very likely to vote first and even then we have multiple layers of likelihoods. Furthermore, PRO must show that these likelihoods are generally disconnected from quality of argument. Since the majority of debates on this site are poorly constructed to begin with, CON is naturally favored. Furthermore, In this VOTER's experience, CON enjoys significant advantages in terms of BURDEN of PROOF, last arguments, and above all, choosing one's opponent. Long before we consider who votes and how, CON is likely heavily favored.

For the second argument to work, PRO must again show that the first VOTE is disconnected from quality of argument. Since CON is favored before arguments are made, the majority of first votes should be CON but since PRO is making a very lazy argument, PRO must also show that these odds ignore even the laziest of arguments.

Oddly, CON also fail to consider how format and quality favor voting for CON generally but not PRO's argument specifically. CON weighs the probabilities as if each possible outcome are just as likely when in fact fewer VOTES rate sources, grammar, conduct and the outcome of all of these depend heavily on performance.

CON unconvincingly argues PRO's ratings will overcome any deficits in performance but then CON goes ahead by noting that PRO contemptuously offered zero proof to his argument and correctly claims advantage because his argument has evidence, in spite of this evidence contradicting the ability suggested by the leaderboard.

PRO effectively eviscerates CON "all possibilities being equal argument"
PRO correctly counters that the leaderboard favors quantity over quality.

CON effectively argues that PRO is deliberately throwing the debate, hoping to win by losing and I suppose such a tactic is clever but CON correctly points out that PRO makes a mistake by predicting a future for which the outcome is out of PRO's control. To win this debate, CON needed to convince the first VOTER to give the advantage to CON but make up those losses in subsequent VOTES and CON has achieved that result.

In the absence of any contention either way, the BURDEN of PROOF that CON would win this debate was on PRO. PRO failed to provide any evidence for two weak affirmative arguments both of which were missing major premises. Such a tactic may have proved sufficient to win the first VOTE but then that outcome itself contradicts PRO's unwise prediction.

In spite of some effective counterarguments, PRO loses this ARGUMENT.

CONDUCT also to CON for PRO's forfeiture and lazy R1.

I was tempted to give CON SPELLING and GRAMMAR based on the world salad of PRO's first argument and said as much in the comments of this debate but in truth, PRO's R2 was superior to his usual poor legibility and the requisite standard of "Overwhelming word confusion" is not entirely justified, just word confusion over one essential structural element.

Most fun I've had reading any debate in awhile!

First impressions:
The initial skimming suggests a con victory (which paradoxically favors pro). Pro's opening being so short, combined with forfeiting a third of the debate, really hurts him. Whereas I see con whipping out some math, and highlighting it with some good use of formatting... On formatting, I really had trouble following some of pro's replies.

possibility and not probability:
As a math guy, I enjoyed con's introduction to the many possibilities, and his 44% chance blind data was very good. The problem is that pro was immediately able to counter the implicit notation with the reminder of how unlikely many vague possibilities are; with the internet outage one highly in his favor due to basic probability distributions.
Con leans in on the future being uncertain, which ignores that the resolution is about likelihood rather than absolute certainty.

Pro further leverages that mixed votes exist. Con misses this and leans in more on his "81 possible votes." He later amends that a mixed vote could be inverted... Which misses that issue that it's not about just majority votes with how the resolution is worded, but any vote which casts points in favor of con.

Laziness:
I do agree with con that quality of arguments still favor a vote for whichever side presented them.

I actually laughed out loud at the execution of this:
"So far, Pro is still more experienced as shown, especially since possibly most of my wins come from forfeits, concessions, or exploiting other users."
"Forfeited"

Con did do a good job describing why forfeiting in a key round is not a silver bullet argument, and even ties back to his earlier bit about power outages. It's almost enough to tip the debate, but not quite...

...

Conduct:
Forfeiture.

Arguments:
Ultimately in light of pro's replies (even without being extended), I did not find con's explanations of possibility and uncertainty to be convincing. It even hurt his case the way it was utilized given the mixed vote possibilities (as much as I would have preferred if pro leveraged the exact numbers a bit, instead of just giving the impression). If this debate resolution did not contain the "most likely" qualifier, this would be a strong con victory; as is, I find pro more convincing.

Legibility:
Tied, but leaning in cons favor.