Miracle claims are unlikely to be true.

Frankly, I feel as though a lot of this debate just wasn't relevant to the topic.

Pro keeps talking about how news sources can come from stories that aren't real so they should all be taken with a grain of salt, though he never provides any reason to doubt this particular news source nor does he engage with the support for that news source. Even if I buy the grain of salt thing, it has no bearing on the resolution. If I slightly distrust the source, that doesn't mean that the miracle claim is untrue, that just means that there's some unknown possibility of it being untrue. If you want to argue that that possibility makes all miracle claims that appear in a news article improbable, then make that claim. I don't see it, so I don't see why this point matters.

And this kind of argumentation plagues Pro's initial round as well. He says that these don't happen often and that our daily experiences don't confirm their existence. The former is an argument from common knowledge, which isn't particularly relevant for this debate. Low probability doesn't invalidate all instances, yet that's the point Pro is trying to make. The odds of any single one of us existing are abysmally low, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. Moreover, giving me an overarching probability doesn't tell me anything about single instances, which become the focus of Con's argument. The latter argument is pure anecdote and, once again, fails to examine individual instances. Con is not required to show that it is probable that a certain portion of the population will experience miracles, yet Pro's argument solely focuses on that much bigger picture.

So that largely just leaves us with Con's arguments and his support thereof. It's never argued that the set of events that were said to occur in this instance actually occurred. Pro doesn't contest that any of what occurred here actually happened, and his arguments about appeals to authority don't affect that, either. Instead, he solely argues that there is a potential naturalistic explanation for why this boy could have survived. It's a viable option, but in order to argue this way, Pro had to show that it's the more plausible explanation for the boy's survival. That requires a good deal of 1-to-1 analysis, i.e. these are the set of circumstances the boy experienced, and those experiences mirror what we would expect to occur if the "dive reflex" was in play. Two problems: one, Pro doesn't provide clear evidence that such a reflex exists in humans, which Con points out is impossible to get without getting into immoral trials, and two, Pro doesn't establish that this other teenager who went through a similar experience either resulted from a dive reflex or even represents a comparable situation since, as Con points out, this person went into a coma and required extended life support. In other words, while a "dive reflex" may have been in play, Pro failed to establish that it exists in humans and that there's even a comparable circumstance that is likely to be explained by such a reflex.

So, I'm left with Con's version of events, where he says that the prayer must have acted in some way to address/prevent the resulting physical harms. I think that was entirely arguable, but Pro didn't make any arguments questioning how we would assess whether the prayer played an active role. Con relies on a sort of "prayer of the gaps" argument, saying that in the absence of an obvious medical/naturalistic reason for the child's survival and rapid recovery, we should attribute these to the known prayers that occurred. I personally don't find that argument compelling, but it's also the only explanation I'm given for what could have made this case different, and while I'm quite certain that others have prayed for the safety of a loved one in similar circumstances and failed to achieve these results, which may suggest that prayer is exceedingly unlikely to yield this kind of result, it was up to Pro to demonstrate that the prayer angle is improbable in this instance. Pro didn't do that, so I vote Con on arguments. And since Con also gives much deeper analysis of both his sources and their validity as well as Pro's sources and how well they apply in this debate, I also award him sources.