Total votes: 9
No debate, no points.
No debate, no points.
Pro failed to make an argument and only made any comment of substance in the final round, but even then it was just declaring that Con's arguments somehow proved Pro right. It is hard to argue that Pro made any effort at making a real argument to support the resolution, which just leaves Con's untouched case as the only real effort. As such, points have to go to Con.
RFD in comments
I think that starting in Round 1 Con took a large advantage just because of how little Pro actually included in their first round. Pro proposed three different arguments but only really explained the first one in any detail to give the argument some weight, thus making it so that Con was easily able to respond to these arguments in his first round. Con effectively makes an argument against the application of Occam's Razor and shows that Pro's 2nd argument makes a leap from 'could' to 'is'. I think that Con's argument against Pro's paradox is also effective, though its main effectiveness comes in creating a semantic difference between the monotheist 'God' and polytheist 'gods' which is useful for a later argument.
Because Pro did not go into enough detail on the arguments in Round 1 it allowed Con to not only be able to mount an effective Round 1 rebuttal, but also to pose an issue for monotheism in the Problem of Evil. This set the pacing for the entire rest of the debate and made it so that Pro, instead of Con, had an uphill battle in the remaining rounds.
In Round 2 Pro accepts the definition of 'god' used by Con in Round 1, but then proceeds to equivocate the two (using a god from mythology that Con never mentioned) in an ontological argument to try and show polytheism is illogical. Pro uses the rest of the 2nd round to Gish Gallop a response to the Problem of Evil while calling the usage of this argument an appeal to emotions. This really made Pro fall even further behind, and Con took advantage of that. Con rightly points out that the entire first half of Pro's Round 2 does not address Con's arguments and then proceeds to show that the criticism of the Problem of Evil as an appeal to emotion does not work. While Con does not dismantle the various theodicies, considering they were brought up in a Gish Gallop this does not seem to be a mark against him.
Pro's attempt to move ahead in the 2nd round just did not succeed. The only saving grace Pro had at this time was that Con did not make an extensive Round 2, thus Pro should still have some ability to pull ahead if they do everything perfectly in Round 3. Sadly, this last opportunity was not capitalized on. I think that Con could have easily finished this by arguing that by the definition of 'god' that Pro had just accepted in the beginning of Round 2 that Pro had conceded the debate by saying that "Even more evil proves that Satan exists" (as Satan seems to fit the definition). Con, however, did not capitalize on this opportunity.
Pro's Round 3 really did not expand on anything, and, considering Con was in the lead so far, this pretty much sealed the debate. Con does respond to the theodicies to an extent in this round, as Pro did bring them up again, but by this time none of Pro's arguments for monotheism were really left standing. By the 3rd round it seemed to have shifted to debating whether Con's argument against monotheism worked and Pro did not manage to make a convincing case.
This ends with Con winning the points for arguments.
Full Forfeit
Pro forfeited their only round to provide a case.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit