AudraE

Even though PRO forfeited the arguments were still better and at the end of the day that's what it's about. Whomever can present the best most cohesive arguments that are still standing at the end of the debate. CON was unable to actually rebut which leads to a vote for the PRO

CON gave the only source and while PRO tried to rebut it was ineffective and easily defended by the CON. I agree that the PRO has the burden of proof, and PRO did not sufficiently convince me that there is no one in poverty whereas CON sent me a card talking about the people in poverty.

PRO gave the only actual argument, and it was carded so I have no complaints :)

The CON is the only side that gave me any evidence throughout the entire round. This means the only proof I have is on the CON. They were also able to make a clear, comprehensible argument while the PRO did almost nothing.

If it can't be proven real then it can't be proven fake. Even then the pro didn't even try to rebut it.