Total votes: 7
Forfeiture by Pro.
I will say that Con presented an excellent moral argument for its existence.
Forfeiture from Con.
This was pretty clearly a win for Pro.
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
Con forfeited.
Disclaimer: When I vote on debates, I vote on the quality of the debate. Who my vote goes to does not necessarily mean that I agree with their position/conclusion on the topic of the debate.
While both parties gave interesting points, I think Con was closer to the point than Pro was.
Marriage always involves the health of both parties and we have natural rights to ensure we can take care of those needs. While future generations are in the picture, they carry less significance since they are an effect and not a cause. This comes from the idea: a defect in the cause is a defect in the effect. If the marriage is bad, the future generation is in trouble as Con pointed out. At that point, it would have been better to debate on whether or not the evil of a divorce or forced marriage is proportionate to the effects that will happen. Since Pro did not go there, my vote will go to Con since his points were closer to the heart of the problem.