Yugioh cards are not needed to live a moral life

Haven't voted in awhile, or been online for that matter.

Burden of proof, according to Pro, is pointed towards Con, "i guess" - but really, i would see this debate as a shared burden of proof.

Why a shared burden?
Pro proves that, without a doubt, multiple examples of people who lived moral lives without Yugioh cards.
Con proves that, without a doubt, *everyone* would need Yugioh cards to live a moral life.

Pro only simply needs to show one example of someone living a moral life without Yugioh cards, meaning its *not needed* to live a moral life.
However, con must prove that *everyone* would *need* Yugioh cards to live a moral life.

Alright, enough of my imput, i'm going to review the debate.

Pro lost a great deal of leverage on the burden of proof by saying these few sentences:

"Are you saying that more people live a moral life thanks to Yugioh cards?"

^ Should have been considered "that everyone would live a ..."

"They are just cards. How can they improve a moral life?"

^ This probably even hit a little harder, because this isnt about improving. This debate is about "living a moral life" not improving it.

"Since I cant prove a negative, I guess burden of proof is on my opponent."
I did address this with my imput.

Pretty much, you just lost all your leverage.. Regardless, you only needed to defend your point with using examples of people who haven't even touched Yugioh cards. A great example would've been people (or really, only one person is needed) who lived a moral life before Yugioh cards were even invented. Then, you could've built your framework off of the fact they did multiple moral acts, making them to be considered as moral without the need of Yugioh cards..

Heading over to Con's side,

"Let’s say you are leading an awful existence. Then God himself comes to you and says “the only way you can lead a moral life is if you obtain Yugioh cards."

Con built their argument off of "what if's" and using moral in terms of religion.

Skipping over a little bit of Pro's side ...

"took this debate as “come up with a scenario where Yugioh cards are needed to lead a moral life” 

^ This debate is is not simply "a scenario" but all "scenarios" for your burden of proof.

"Yugioh cards are made of paper, which is made of wood, which is tree, which is good for the environment, which in turn teaches us a moral principle. This can help us lead a moral life. Also, you can increase your vocabulary from Yugioh cards, which you can use to study morality."

"they can still be used to teach moral principles"

^^ Only for some cases.. Needs to be in all cases.

Con has not stated anything regarding its "needed", in this example, Con is trying to prove that it can help, but that does not prove that it is needed.

Back over to Pro,

"But some yugioh cards are never even used."
^ This could've really been used to dig deeper into the fact that, Yugioh cards were not needed by most people for a moral life. Pro wasn't going in that direction from what I can tell, but it definitely could've been an eye-opener.

Let's summarize this.

Neither contenders had proved their burden.

1. Con never proved it was needed.
2. Pro never proved that even in just 1 case, it was not needed.

I'm going to be honest, I'd like to give Pro the point as if they'd won since Con never fulfilled their burden, however, how can I give them "more convincing arguments" for no argument at all?

Nobody had sources. Nothing out of the ordinary with legibility at all, and nobody had over the top conduct compared to the other..

Therefore, I'm giving this vote a tie.
All my imput should answer all questions, but feel free to let me know.