Total votes: 18
As much as I hate to give the win to Mall due to his complete lack of participation in the debate, Pro kinda ranked themselves with their resolution.
Burden of proof rests with Pro unless specified otherwise, and Prop failed to prove beyond any doubt that the Big Bang did not and could not happen. A better resolution would be “the Big Bang is unlikely to have happened”
Pro had better sources though, so Kudos on that one. Many people on this site ignore the sources point.
On a more personal note, I hope that your debate with Mall didn’t completely turn you off from this site Pro. There’s a lot of really good debaters here, and Mall is not one of them. My advice is to just not accept his debates in the future. If no one else has yet, let me also be the first to welcome you to the site!
Con Forfeiture
Obviously Sources isn't applicable for this debate, so I left it as a tie. Both sides had good legibility and conduct, so it comes down to arguments for me.
Arugments went to Pro because I agree with them that their R1 arugments went more or less unadressed. That's not to say that Con didn't provide good counter arguements. I think he did pretty well over-all, but Pro's sylogism in the begining is what sealed it for me.
Con started to adress some of the points near the end, but most of his rebuttals were pretty well refuted by Pro, or weren't amazing in the first place. I also didn't see a lot of arguments from Con to satisfy his end of the burden of proof, just lots of rebuttals.
I think both debaters did a great job, this one maybe would have benifeted from another round or 2 though.
Concession
Arguments: Con made very good rebuttals to all of Pro's points. Then Pro did not do a very good job of refuting the rebuttals. For instance:
"Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle introduces elements of uncertainty at the subatomic level. On the contrary, the Cosmological argument addresses the universe as a whole, not the behavior as a whole, not the behavior of individual particles. The quantum realm does not negate the need for an overall explanation for the existence of the universe." -Pro
Con's point was that the cosmological argument was false because some things don't need a cause. Pro claimed that this only applied to quantum physics, which is true as far as we know, but it doesn't change the fact that not everything necessitates a cause.
In conclusion, Con did a very good job in the rebuttals round. Pro made good initial arguments, but could not discount the rebuttals of Con successfully, so loses the debate.
Sources: Neither side provided any sources
Legibility: This one is stupid. I only award it if one side had an abysmal lack of it.
Conduct: Con forfeited one argument. I get that it wasn't intentional, but one forfeit is grounds for a conduct point to be taken away.
Con forfeit.
Pro conceded, Con wins.
As I understand the way the argument was structured, Pro did not satisfy their burden of proof.
Con made a very good point in saying that people can be both human and spiritual, and Pro did not do a good job of refuting that, so I say Con wins.
Also, Pro did not satisfy the burden of proof by not proving that we are spiritual beings. Sorry man, but you can’t really quote the Bible. Like Con said, it’s not an empirically verifiable source.
Correct me if wrong, but I believe the primary burden of proof rests with PRO, so seeing that PRO provided not argument whatsoever, that means that CON wins because PRO’s arguments were insufficient to prove that Satan will always win against Jesus. Please take this down if I got something wrong.
Arguments: Con wins this one too, not by a lot, but still won. I don’t want my votes to look reflective of both debaters performances, both did very good, but Con won by a little in each category, so I have to award points for that. Con won this category specifically through refutations. Pro started out strong with the point that it is easier to do calculations, but Con was able to refute lots of these other points, like the units accuracy and the base 10 numbering system.
Sources: Con won this one. They had more sources, but also from some more credible places. This isn’t a debate that really needs a lot of sources, but Con still did win.
Legibility: I’m just going to waive this category because there wasn’t any excessive mistakes that hurt readability, and I think unless someone really screws up, it’s kinda pointless.
Conduct: I really didn’t want to award this point to anybody, because you both were great here, but to quote the voting guidelines: “The disrespect of even a single forfeiture necessitates this penalty unless there is reason to withhold it.”. I don’t believe pro meant anything by the forfeiture, but I don’t really have a choice here.
The categories I chose are not a direct representation of the debaters ability and skill, but Pro conceded, so Con wins.
Con didn’t have a great argument, but pro forfeited, so this goes to con.
Con did not really provide any argument for their side but decided to ask questions about the other side's argument. This is fine in tandem with serious points from the other side, but Con offered no reasoning for their side of the argument.
Con had more arguments, but also has claims that were backed up by research, while pro didn't
I personally disagree with Con, but they definitely won this debate. First, they actually cited sources instead of making unsupported claims. I don't agree with the points they made, but Pro did a very bad job of refuting them, so this one goes to Con.
I think Con was at a bit of a disadvantage here because they were playing devil's advocate. However, in my opinion, Con's rebuttals did not get to the actual point of the argument and were mostly unrelated.
Pro provided more reasoning and evidence for their side, and cons arguments were semi-unrelated, and not as strong.