Total votes: 14
I would have probably awarded the win to Con if it weren't for Pro pointing out that their arguments are self-defeating. But Pro's position appears to be better than a self-defeating one by enough of a margin to have more convincing arguments. Their prior probability argument, for example, even though it's bad, since it was not adequately addressed.
Con stated that their argument is clearly better since it is deductive (likely insinuating that deductive arguments, if sound and valid, are much stronger than other arguments). Pro seems to have missed this insinuation, but regardless, a self-defeating deductive argument is not clearly better than a non-self-defeating inductive argument which was not properly countered.
Pro's forfeiture leads me to award Con the point for conduct.
Forfeiture.
Both sides forfeited all rounds.
Con demonstrated several logical flaws in Pro's only argument and gave a logically valid argument for why the Christian God can't exist. (Not that it's necessarily sound.)
There's something to be said for the fact that Pro cannot possibly respond to Con since there's only one round. But Con also seemingly can't possibly avoid bringing up arguments which Pro has no opportunity to respond to. However since Pro had ample opportunity to realize that this would happen and still created the debate with such a condition, it seems Con must be allowed to win this for fear of Pro otherwise being able to automatically win or draw all 1 round debates where the BoP is not primarily theirs.
Con forfeited all rounds.
PRO seemingly assumed that utilitarianism (or something similar) is accurate without providing any fundamental evidence except intuitive claims that I would argue we should virtually never rely on for determining the truth of anything. This might come from semi-common presuppositions about ethics or a unique definition that excludes deontology, virtue ethics, other forms of consequentialism and other systems entirely. But this was unfortunately never really clarified. Either way, if we are to accept things like moral desert and free will, it isn't clear why the lovingness of a being must necessarily be inversely correlated with how much suffering they want their creations to endure. Perhaps God views most animals as toys to be played with, and not beings to love, since other animals arguably lack free will or the prerequisite self-awareness, general intelligence, etc. that the vast majority of humans supposedly have. It seems PRO did not properly account for this part of what CON seemed to be implying.
Like PRO, CON either seems to use a very specific definition of morality or has a completely unmentioned argument or assumption about morality. Either way, they consider things like natural disasters and animals eating other animals as things that cannot be evil, seemingly because they lack free will. Why is free will involved in this? Ostensibly because of moral desert, but how it supports moral desert or anything else that might support oughts is never explained. And either way, these implied things are never properly argued for.
I tentatively believe that PRO should be the victor of the argument point because of how many implied things CON relied on and never properly explained. But to me it isn't obvious, I nearly called it a tie since both sides rely so heavily on unjustified​ premises and/or unspoken definitions.
CON's consistently strange spacing, choice of terms and at times very confusing sentence structures basically guarantee that, if a legibility point should be awarded, it should go to PRO. I decided to award it since this is such an extreme case and I would like to contribute to deterring other people from using such tactics as a strategy to win debates. (Not that I believe CON did it for this purpose.)
CON forfeited all rounds.
PRO argued in favor of the resolution by arguing that agnosticism is a more logical view than atheism. To support this point, PRO seems to make an argument about the ratio of virtually completely verifiable beliefs ("facts") to beliefs that are substantially less justified, but perhaps still justified.
CON starts off R1 poorly, seemingly missing PRO's point by implicitly assuming that x cannot be more logical than y if x and y are not mutually exclusive without providing any evidence for this. However CON then argues against the point PRO made, seemingly arguing against the definitions that PRO seemed to use.
PRO never addresses this and proceeds to say completely irrelevant things for the rest of the debate. CON is not obligated to answer any of PRO's questions unless PRO demonstrates that answering such questions is in some way required for CON's case, and this was never demonstrated, only implied.
CON's primary arguments unfortunately largely misunderstood PRO's implied points, partially due to PRO's confusing usage of "necessary" to mean two different concepts in different contexts. (Something like "ideal" and "needed").
PRO should have made their points much more clear, but I believe they were clear enough that CON (and an unbiased, ignorant third party) could fairly be expected to put it together with a reasonable amount of consideration and no major interpretational mistakes.
While I do think the kind of free will PRO uses in some of their key counterarguments implies a logical contradiction, I don't believe CON provided sufficient demonstration of this. And given that kind of free will, the apparent problems with omnipotence and omniscience seem to be non-problems. So I tentatively believe PRO should still be awarded the victory here.
Arguments:
CON was right in spirit. Even if we grant that God technically performed many abortions, it says little of what God thinks of humans performing such abortions for the reasons CON gave regarding jurisdiction.
However, unfortunately CON did not articulate this well and failed to properly address the complications that arose, and this put together with their double forfeiture seems to preclude me from giving them the win here.
I would grant PRO the victory, but they did not in any way address the possibility that the Christian God could do x while thinking that it's wrong for humans to do x. I believe CON got close enough to arguing for this that, in order for PRO to win, they needed to address it or give a strong argument without this flaw. To me, it seems like neither of these requirements were meet.
Conduct:
Con forfeited 2 of the 4 rounds of the debate.
Arguments:
CON made an argument for interpreting the resolution in a particular way, PRO did not provide a counterargument and conceded the debate.
Conduct:
PRO was cordial, CON took advantage of a technicality to win the debate.
Con forfeited all rounds.
Con forfeited all rounds.