Total votes: 13
Con forfeited more than 40% of the debate.
Pro didn't have a real argument. Con asked for empirical evidence, which Pro never provided nor gave a proper reason why it was not necessary.
Full forfeiture
Con attempted to argue that the Ocean does not have various characteristics necessary for being soup. Pro was able to successfully demonstrate that soup can indeed have these characteristics, and Con was not very successful in constructing a counter-argument. They conceded multiple points and had weak arguments on others. In particular, while Pro was only able to demonstrate that the ocean is partially man-made, it is clear even from what is generally considered soup that being entirely man-made is not a requirement, (Water, vegetables, etc. are not man-made.) so I didn't find Con's counterargument convincing.
Full forfeiture.
Pro successfully refuted Con's arguments with factual information. Con refused to properly refute Pro's counterarguments. In particular, Con failed to address Pro's points regarding Israel's rightful ownership of the land, and the fact that the Jews are not in fact the minority. It does not help that Con chose to skip two rounds, effectively forfeiting them.
FF on both sides.
Pro had something vaguely resembling an argument. Con basically just used Ad Hominem, which is also why I'm giving the conduct point to Pro, even though neither one of them had great conduct.
FF on both sides.
Pro didn't really make an argument, and didn't have any sources. I am also giving Con the conduct point because of Pro's lack of participation and forfeiture.
Pro missed 2/3 of the debate.
Full forfeiture by con.