GOD is a 3 letter acronym = G- genius O- of D- deception the ultimate human fabricated scapegoat for CONTROL

This is not a troll vote... This is a genuine vote where I feel Con was just plain lazy overall. In fact, forfeiting is something I consistently don't comprehend as being bad conduct as it makes your opponent's life easier in the debate but what I do see on Con would make me tie the conduct and basically if this had been four-points debate I'd be giving S&G to Con (even though Con REALLY needs to learn to spell acronym, it is fine to be dyslexic but it is not fine to not compensate for it at all that many times when your entire R2 is one sentence and R3 is a troll-phrase.

Another reason I would give it a tie for conduct is that while Con was smarmy and lazy throughout, Pro didn't even remotely answer Con in R2. Pro was smart to use this method of scoring as Pro would be tying (3 for arg, 2+1 source and S&G to Con) had this been what I see as the superior debate-voting scoring system of the two that are currently available.

Now, the reason why Con loses is that Con assumes sourcing is everything. Let me explain something Con does wrong, Con's source is his grandma and joke or not, obvious or not, this kind of remark makes his source even less reliable than Pro's. At least Pro is here reasoning his own theory, where is Con's grandma to reason hers? Is she a renowned source of any kind? Con's source, while maybe somehow indirectly proving what he says as somewhat plausible, has headline about the raping done by Priests and basically supports Pro's case completely. While it was a better use of source than Pro's 0, this scoring system has no sources, it's winner-takes-all so... Sorry? You used the source very poorly in my eyes, Alec, please next time provide another source that would support the 'majority are good guys overall' part of your argument.

Now, I think we need to really think about Pro's argument to understand that, while terribly presented in an eyesore manner, it isn't really that flawed logically. As a Pagan, I actually do believe my God is indeed a genius of deception meaning both the best deceiver and hardest being to deceive. This is because I believe in quite a sinister God who is essentially 'natural selection' as a mentality among other things. I won't go into my god other than to say, no disrespect was meant by this, Fiora, I know you mean no harm it is just what naturally comes with progress.

Okay, so Pro's argument is that the GOD you believe in, and sneaky reason the name 'God' caught on in all religions, is that this being which you assume is the ultimate bringer of truth is actually the same being inside all religions ultimately and that is a genius of deception. It is never once refuted by Con other than to jokingly say 'well duh' in a few ways and sorry but that's not formal debating. If we don't punish this here, what then will we as a site allow in other debates as something an opponent can just go 'haha you madman, my grandma said the Earth is Round don't you know it's obvious? LOL!' and win. Forum debating surely would allow that, formal debating... The reason I pay for this site monthly and truly adore the mental-sport of debating, should never ever allow that as a valid argument even once. I don't care if Alec loses, I don't care if Alec begins to grudge-vote against me, this is a very significant moment for me in the site's history where I need to take a stand. This attitude is disgusting even more so as it's quite clear that Pro struggles with writing in a structured manner suitable for formal debate and all Alec is doing is toying with him, goading him... It's not funny, it's like bullying a child for being less able to fight back, we all hate it when it's sexual or violent but why not emotional or intellectual taunting of the less-well-developed too? We need to nurture noobs, train them well.

Pro's entire argument was actually well formed if he'd written it better. Pro is saying that all God is, is basically a scapegoat for one dynasty or regime to be barbaric to another in the name of their 'superior God' to the others'. Con NEVER EVER refutes this AT ALL. Con's argument is LITERALLY that his Grandmother told him and that not all Priests rape (or molest) children... This isn't really funny to me, and if you have the better reasoned argument that is left unattacked you DO NOT NEED a better source.

At no point during pros rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in reading this debate is now dumber for having read to it.

I award Pro no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

Flipping that that was, Pro was rambling, incoherent and was entirely nonsensical. He didn’t offer any specific argument I can see, just a ranting word salad that made no sense, and cannot and should not be assessed as an attempt to engage in good faith debate.

Con wins this debate as he is the only individual who offered any form of understandable argument.