fauxlaw

Primarily, Pro loses this debate by forfeiture of 3 of 4 rounds, exceeding the 40% minimum at 75% of all rounds.
However, also by regiment, Pro argued botch for and against the Resolution, presenting an unresolved argument.
Con wins by default.

Neither participant offered source material for arguments.

Con demonstrated better conduct by participation in all rounds.

Pro's Resolution was combatted by Con throughout, yet Con did not bother to request a modification based on Con's eventual argument that abusive parents do not deserve filial piety. Pro's description, however, already sidelined that argument as an outlier, and not an arguable point in the mainstream of most parent/child relationships. Nor did Con ever accept Pro's description of debate scope. Pro's R1 offered very clear evidence of the benefits of filial piety as being beneficial to both parents and children, the which describes every single member of society as most of us are parents, and all of us are children, whether or not all always can be described by these terms throughout life. After all, Pro's Resolution is that such piety is "generally encouraged," but Con wants to ignore that scope. Pro win's the argument section.

Pro's arguments, being well described for scope in the Resolution and description, met the requirement of better legibility, whereas Con's legibility was flawed by not complying with the scope of either the Resolution or description. As a result, Con's argument were more confusing.

Con wins this debate on the basis of Pro's "argument" that the debate title [the Resolution] was not optimally worded, and offered a suggested revision. The time to do that, however, was during the challenge phase by request in comments to alter the Resolution. Pro, chose, instead, to accept the debate challenge as is; tacit approval of the Resolution, as is. Secondly, pro failed in four rounds to offer an argument speaking to the Resolution as is in support of it. Therefore, Con wins the debate by the three arguments offered in Round 1. Pro said his argument would have agreed with Con's argument regarding the Rapture. The single forfeit of Pro's last round [4th] is not a sufficient percentage of the debate rounds to warrant loss of the debate on a forfeiture basis [40% of rounds, according to Rules]

Argument: Pro won the argument of this debate with a very clear and sustained order of presentation through all three rounds, and actually won it in R1 with a very clear description of creation being a process of bringing light out of darkness, and "divine order" out of chaos; a specific description which Con never adequately challenged. In fact, Con's R1 stated: "I would have liked that to be in the description..." and in R3: "...you should have specified what you meant by "the bible" in the description..." In both instances, regardless of what Con would have preferred, I note he made no effort to make these requests ion the challenge phase of the debate prior to accepting the challenge. That implied tacit approval of the challenge. Also, pro's discussion oof the inherent suggestibility of the Hebrew language, and the failure of adequate translation into other languages, was not adequately challenged by Con. It seems evidence that Bible translation from Hebrew and Greek, primarily, to any other language, fails since most translation efforts are dictionary-to-dictionary, which does nothing for cultural understanding. Since language is a creation by culture, and not the other wary around, culture is requi8red to be understood to offer successful translation. Knowledge of biblical culture was likely missing in the first biblical translations of history. Con never argued against this history.
Sourcing: Pro made better use of biblical citations to supports his argument than did Con, who mostly merely pointed out that translation isn';t precise, and that's God's fault. Nope. God did not write one words of the Bible - it is all the writing of fallible men and women. It is obvious by reading the entire text that Go0d expects our belief in the word by its reading. All of it. points to Pro.
As noted above, Pro's use of sourcing, and a keen understanding of the debate raw material was used much more clearly by Pro.

Pro set himself up for failure right from the beginning by ignoring a major definition of "agnostic,", i.e., that it extends beyond doubt of belief in God to doubt in belief of anything. "Agnostic" denies, by Merriam Webster definition, anything one wants to oppose belief in, end of story. That is a very non-specific stand that cannot be supported by logic, alone, whereas Pro established "logic" as an underpinning concept on which to defend the Resolution. That logic is an unsupportable argument, which Con successfully argued against in R1, stating the logic of "noting comes from nothing." Total denial, or even total skepticism - the scope if agnosticism - is an illogical construct, as Con established in R1, and throughout his debate.

Con's successful argument regarding sourcing, including the Bible, but not exclusively so, demonstrated the historicity of Jesus by several non-biblical sources in R1. Pro claimed these historic references were not legitimate, using the example of liven g survivors of the holocaust as being current eyewitnesses, being more credible than historic references. In 100 years, ir less, when all survivors of the Holocaust are dead, they will no longer by living witnesses, but that will not deny the historic evidence of tgheHolocaust, which will trash prod failed argument.

Con's Resolution [the "topic"] does not take a position of argument, against or for the topic. This is a disadvantage to the opponent. TheREolution needs to take a stand by description either against or fore the topic stated. Furrthere. Con's argument that more crime is committed by American citizens than illegal aliens ignores that the population of citizens is greater than the population of illegal aliens by a factor that is easily 10x to 30x. To equalize the argument, Con should have have made a per casita assessment of crime to know which population actually commits more crime, but that comparison was never made.

The Resolution offered by Pro, is an emphatic negation of Big Bang theory, as describes its alternative by description as creation by God, then launches R1 wit a discussion oof cellular complexity and DNA, as if these can only be existent due to creation by God, putting the Big Bang into the category of non-cause of cellular activity and presence of DNA. Pro then buries their entires argument by acknowledgment in R2 that no one was around at the alleged Big Bang, so we don't know for sure whether it happened, or not. pro never recovered from that admission. Con's argument that though the creation by God was possible, it did not discount that creation may have occurred by tree Big Bang. Pro failed to discount that explanation. Argument to Con.
Sourcing was a problem for both participants.pro seems to have written a book on the subject [?], but was unable to "find a copy" to cite from, and it's subject of cellar activity and DNA seems to have been off-topic relative to supporting the Resolution, so it is of little value. Con's reference to a website offering a biblical rather than Big Bang explanation was never cited specifically other than referencing the website, so failed to be supportive of the Con argument. Tie on sourcing.
Con's argument was more scarified than Pro's. Point to Con.
Both participants demonstrated good conduct.

Con's arguments in denial of the Resolution that humans are not compelled to do anything, and that the Resolution should have offered justification for doing anything to animals was entirely successful.
Neither participants offered justifying sources to support their arguments.
Both participants were legible, and conducted themselves professionally.

For demanding that logic and reason demand a God must exist, Pro's argument for the Resolution failed on the point of logic and reason. Pro's R1 presented an argument of 12 statements in 3 series of 4, 5, and 3 numbered clauses, the which contained references to "c, d" clauses whereas none of the clauses were "numbered" by letters, and contained a reference to clauses "4, 5, 6" where none of the 3 series of numbered clauses contained a 6th-numbered clause. For demanding "logic and reason," such references were confusing to try to follow. Secondly, whereas Pro's R3 argument contained a statement of "cosmologicaL evidence," Pro never referred to a scholastic source of that evidence in any round other than making the claim of its existence, ignoring a debate suggestion of sourcing as a means of proof of an argument. Thirdly, by Con's forfeiture of R1. Pro's only statement for R2 was a declaration of "I win." in the debate, whereas a single round forfeiture by a participant is not sufficient by Debate Rules, to qualify as a forfeiture of the entires debate, and, since "I win" is not an early round argument for or against the Resolution, Pro effectively forfeited their R2.
By contrast, Con's arguments, while not offering scholastic sourcing for their arguments, either, at least offered sufficient argument to counter the Pro claims of "logic and reaSon" that God exists, by simply negating the Pro claims, an effective argument for atheism. For example, Con offered that Pro claimed that "This is all based on logical rules, laws, right. Going with the premise that logic was created, it didn't exist for the cause of everything to exist including logic to figure it with logic."

Pro argued successfully for the Resolution, though made moi effort to support the arguments by any scholastic supporting sourcing.
Con also argued for the Resolution, and not against it, while also arguing points beyond the scope of the resolution, which did not helot Con's cause, and made no souring effort.
Con effectively conceded the debate.

Both Pro's [JudgeHolden] R1 and R2 arguments were sound, and would have been successful arguments against the Resolution, but for the fact that Pro misread the Pro and Con sides of the argument, and, therefore, fully forfeited the debate. R1 by Pro was a brilliant piece of argument against the Resolution. By the way, I did not like Con's R1 at all, introducing an outside reference rather than merely using the referenced YouTube device in his own words as argument against the Resolution.

Argument: neither participant had compelling argument
Sources: Neither participant offered more than anecdotal evidence.
Conduct: Con conceded.

According to voting rules [see Help Center], both participants forfeited 40% of the debate rounds [2 of 5 rounds], the threshold to consider this debate lost by both participants, regardless of other infractions by both participants. For example, while both offered argument, neither participant bothered to provide adequate sourcing for any claim made to support their arguments. Con appears to "cite" the Constitution by accusation that Pro ignores "separation of church and state" while ignoring that the 1A does not contain that verbiage; it is merely Supreme Court interpretation which has been argued against by the Court, itself, in several cases, such as Everson v. Board of Education [1947] and Brown v. Board of Education [1954]. The subject is still controversial, which neither participant acknowledges. Con accuses Pro of citing personal belief, but proceeds to offer the same, without scholastic reference to support their own beliefs. Pro violates conduct by accusation that Con is an AI bot, but Con also violates conduct by accusing Pro of "subjective perspective" multiple times while doing no better themself. The forfeitures seal the deal. No win debate

Pro set-up a self-conflicted Resolution: "All of law abiding America, everyone will support Donald Trump. " Is it "all of law-abiding America," or its it "everyone;" i.e., to include non-law-abiding people; o also include non-voters, and even illegal aliens who should not have the privilege of voting. Several separate groups of people. It is difficult to argue for or against a conflicted Resolution.
That said, Con's R1 argued the definition of "support," which Pro did not define as part of the debate challenge, and it turned out Pro and Con disagreed on a definition, then Con's R2 agreed to accept Pro's definition belatedly given.
Con forfeited one round [R3], and Pro erroneously assumed that meant Con forfeited the entire debate. No, Con returned for R4 and argued 1] that he did not forfeit the debate [he didn't, just one round, or 30%; under the threshold of full forfeiture]. Con argued successfully that one can legally oppose an administration, and therefore not support it.

Neither opponent offered any argument relative to the Resolution. In my view, that amounts to a dual-forfeiture. Neither should receive any point, but, unfortunately, there is no 0-0 vote option; I.e., both lose.

Argument
Pro’s Resolution amounts to a challenge to prove how/why his religion tier list is flawed, but advises the list is by his own choice “to value one factor over another,” and then declares to challenge his list “is of course impossible.” Also, Pro’s description of his tiered placements were sampled by far too many separate religions to make sense of placements by tiers. One must conclude by choice that Pro has stacked the deck.
Con rebutted disagreeing with the tier placement of tier C Laveyan Satanism, offering argument that it did not deserve its tier placement. Pro’s reply offered no more justification than by pointing to the tiers, making comparative mention of other religions, whose tier placements were just nebulous as Laveyan Satanism: by Pro’s whimsy at work. Tie

Sources
Neither offered source references. Pro’s personal claim of personal choice cannot count as a source. Tie

Legibility & Conduct
Tie for each

If wishes were fishes, then I would own an ocean. Here is exemplified the fallacy of if/then logic. In order to justify the ‘then’ statement, ‘if’ must be currently true. Fact is, ‘if’ is virtually always currently false in such “logic;” therefore, ‘then’ is not ever justified until ‘if’ is changed. Something else must justify wishes coming true. Therefore, either free will is not an illusion, or there is more to being held accountable for our actions than just free will, because the possibility exists that we are unjustly held accountable for our actions because human justice is not 100% accurate, which is a feature of Con’s rebuttal of the resolution (R3)

Argument
Pro’s neuroscience, philosophy, and Paraboom’s Four Case arguments are well documented, but leave entirely open to be rebutted by Con by the R1 rebuttal, continued in R3, that other factors exist to demonstrate that free will, itself, may not be sufficient to overcome external forces that could, if present, remove personal accountability for actions, such as the argument, “other moving parts outside our manipulation” to which greater accountability can be assigned. Pro never recovers from this rebuttal. An observation, Con wasted R2 posing a question rather than pressing his R1 argument of shifted accountability, negating the Resolution. Points to Con, with a caution.

Sources
Pro clearly offered sources for arguments, but they supported a failed Resolution, however, Con used Pro as his source, rebutting Pro. Lacking sources elsewhere for scholastic backing of arguments Con lost these source points rather than Pro legitimately earning them. Points to Pro

Full forfeiture by Pro, but also, an excellent first round argument by Con, with sufficient supporting sourcing, which was never challenged by Pro. For the future, suggest Con demonstrate a waive of every round forfeited by opponent so the rounds by Con are not considered forfeitures, themselves.

Pro begins argumentation ignoring definition of terms like “Christian god,” “perfect,” “exist,” or “contradict.” Theses are vital to understand Pro’s argument, since some uses are confusing. “Christian god,” is used in a few contexts, and capitalize, uncapped, both , and in quotes and not. Can’t tell when these contradictive references are used for what, or who or what they’re intended to be.. It spoils his argument. Further, “perfect” has multiple interpretations; all cannot apply without definition. Lacking definitions of these two words, mostly used in reference to a deity. They becomes a weak state to demonstrate by Pro’s BoP. I am left wondering if Christian god is a specific person, the Screaming Spaghetti Monster, or an amorphous wine bottle. Pro’s sourcing of contradictive Bible verses to demonstrate Christian god’s imperfection (therefore non-existence) is successfully rebutted by Con by Con’s demonstration that the Bible, though “the word of God” though not necessarily “Christian god” (doesn’t not explain the Yahweh of the O.T.) the Bible’s scribe is not God, nor “ Christian god.”
Con’s R1 argument that without understanding “God’s purposes or goals, how can you assert that apparent contradictions (in Bible verses) are failures.” This argument on nature of perfection is never successfully rebutted by Pro.
Con R1, R2, R3 are the superior arguments and rebuttals. Score 3-0 Con

Both Pro and Con provide sourcing, but some Pro sources like NBCI and Smithsonian take one into the weeds of creation, and do not support the Resolution. Further Pro sources revise age of Earth from biblical implications, but we’re not certain, yet (and never are) just who is Christian god to have created Earth and when. Doesn’t support the Resolution.

Con has fewer sources, but volume of such is not a justification of effectiveness. Con sources (biblical) such as citing Matthew 19:26 to underpin the clam that that “God may exist beyond man’s understanding rather than being logically incoherent” succeed to support the Con argument. Score: con 2

Legibility: tie 1-1

Conduct: tie 1-1

Note that I am not given the full array of voting parameters [arguments, sourcing, legibility, conduct] - a system glitch. But, given the following:

PRO: "My prayers vs your prayers. (You can use AI to write prayers)" is the given Resolution, which begs the following concern: The latter allowance is to what end? This debate becomes a matter of; "My AI is better than your AI" So what? All of AI is artificial, hence, the name. If even prayer can be rendered so impersonal [AI is also that, because it is a matter of circuits that have no true feeling, no sense of spirituality [isn't that prayer, at its core?], and, therefore, a sham.
In addition, Pro forfeited 2 of 5 rounds [I do not consider an emoji to be either an argument or a positive indicator of a wived round. - I want to see the words, because that emoji [a smiley face] does not signifying a waive - I might have construed a hand emoji to signify a waive, but, just like words, emojis cannot say whatever we want them to say.], which therefore meets the 40% rule of my acknowledging sufficient argument rounds.

CON: forfeited 3 of 5 rounds. sufficient to declare the debate as forfeited by Con, even though completing two argument rounds.

Vote: Tie

Forfeiture by Quasimoto, whose 2nd round post makes no sense toward the Resolution

Pro begins the argument claiming hers will be an ontological argument, and defines God as “greatest being,” but then proceeds to compare this proposed greatest being to things, which are different entities than beings. Further, ontology is a metaphysic exercise in the nature of being, and not the nature of things, nor not-being. Therefore, Pro’s entire argument seems a contradiction to what ontology concludes: that a “greatest being” can exist, not that it cannot exist. I find the entire Pro argument fails on failure to both provide a definition or argument of ontology, let alone hold to the nature of being as its sole emphasis. Further, Pro argues that the mind cannot believe in something it cannot fully contain. There are examples to provide to demonstrate an ability to understand and believe concepts about which we are not fully informed.

Con has a more consistent argument, just because whether the debate resolve is at odds with itself by definition, the Con argument is sensible: “Belief need not strictly mean that you understand the truth, but rather that you accept as true, lacking the understanding of it.” And, “I will disagree with your definition of truth, since by it you seem to think that in order for truth to exist, one must understand it.” Con draws the example of “rocket science,” which most of us approach as being euphemistically complicated; most of us common folks do not understand a bit of it, yet we observe its action in delivering a payload to outer space, and “believe” the delivery, therefore, the science to produce and transport it.

Con’s discussion of “what is” and “what could be,” sealed the Argument phase of the debate. It was a clear, though brief — in thus case, brevity was yet complete — thus a logical conclusion that God is the purity of “what is,” and thus, the “greatest being,” is not merely a “thing,” in reality, and is thus believable, even in a limited degree, which successfully denied the claim by Pro that such lack of full containment is refutable. It even fit with Pro’s definition of truth: “…something we consider real after being presented with proof.” What was not real was Pro’s argument on application of ontology.

Though both participants did not fully develop arguments [character count limitation and argument round limitation has much to do with this result], I conclude Con has the better argument. 3 points to Con

Sourcing: Neither participant offered outside sources. 0 points for Pro and Con.

Legibility: Both Pro and Con’s offering was fully legible: 1 point to both Pro and Con.

Conduct: Both Pro and Con’s offered professional conduct: 1 point to both Pro and Con.

Con wins, 5 points to Pro’s 2.

Pro begins on a flawed foot in the Description, citing "Psycho-" as a suffix. It is a prefix, I'll let that slide. Pro's argument must further slide by beginning round 1 with a reference of comment [post #2] by Con, prior to acceptance of the debate, which I consider a reference to outside content. Not a great beginning with 2 strikes in two sentences separated by a debate transfer from challenge to acceptance.

Argument: Pro has a major hill to climb in demonstrating the BoP; it is almost a contrary truism. Pro's R1 contains a statement early on, that, itself, sounds like a contrary truism, as well: "The mind cannot be observed or measured." It is a nice, declarative comment, but, sadly, it has no support that it is anything but
Pro's opinion. I am not convinced by the argument, alone, but to cite a source for this contention would violate voting rules. Let's just conclude that the statement has no academic, let alone scientific evidence.

Further, Pro's R1 speaks to RMT, and, although citing "fruits" of RMT, there is but one anecdote provided; hardly convincing while completely missing any other citation but the anecdote. I am waiting, but in vain, for Pro to define his terms: Psychology, or Pseudoscience. Without definition, Pro wanders into opinionated accusation, that Psychology practitioners are "self-deluded con-artists preying on the gullibility and scientific naïvité of the public." Again, a declarative statement with no scholarship cited to support it.
Con's R1 adequately cites several reliable definitional sources rendering Psychology as a science. Pro had no definitions, only hurled insults. Con adequately cited several sources explaining the reality and measurability of the mind, thus destroying Pro's opinions on the matter.

Pro begins r2 with an insult hurled at his opponent over his chosen moniker. This will be revisited. Pro then says, rebutting Con's cited dictionary definitions, "Appealing to dictionary definitions is pointless." Intended as a rebuttal shot across Con's bow, the cannon is, unfortunately, pointed inboard; it is pro's ship that sinks. R2 is entirely a discussion about theory and its relation to science, but Pro's source for his argument is Con statements from R1. Again, not a single reference to an academically substantiated source other than for the definition of scientific theory. The point Pro misses in this entire round is that even theory, to hold as theory, as defined, must be testable, and those test results cited. Since Pro offers no cited sources demonstrating tests that support his Resolution, the argument utterly fails. Con wins.

Sources: Pro had virtually none that actually support the Resolution, whereas Con had multiple sources in both rounds substantiating his BoP, for example, the definitions of "Psychology" in R1, and cited references to psychological scientific theories. Pro's R1 debunked [without cited evidence] that they did not exist. CVon wins.

Legibility: Both opponents were clearly legible, Tie, yet some Pro comments should have been more vague. This will be revisited

Conduct: Pro lost this point at the outset of R1, and sealed the loss at the outset of R2, as noted above in Argument section, Whereas Con remained respectful throughout.. Con wins.
I know the separation of factors in the debate are not necessarily required to this detail, but I thought the distinction of argument style between the opponents merited the detail. I suggest for future debates, Pro clean up the act. It is blatantly clear to be lacking tact.

This debate has curious interrupts to judging a straight-forward debate that is only slightly marred by Pro's confusion regarding which role Pro should play. The roles are very clearly defined by Con and should have been recognized by Pro upon acceptance of the debate.

However, Con complicated the debate by forfeit of half the rounds, and providing argument in only the third round, thus losing the debate by de facto forfeit.

Argument. The fact is, Con's R3 did, in fact, present nearly sufficient argument to deny the Resolution that Palestine deserves consideration as a state, but the argument fails by lack of any demonstration why this is so. There are, in fact, sufficient arguments against the alleged de facto statehood of Palestine, but Con does not bring them, let alone cite them. Pro wins the points be default for having a structured argument as well as Con's failure of sufficient arguement and de facto forfeiture.

Sourcing: Con offered no sources at all. Pro offered sufficient sources, such as by UN designation. Con could have argued against this notion, with sufficient evidence to support that the UN recognition fails to satisfy statehood recognition, but Von did not bring it. points to Pro.

Legibility: Pro loses by failure to understand the proper assigned roles, making his entire first round incongruent to the Description.

Conduct. Pro wins by entry of argument in all rounds, although they were incongruent in R1.

Although this debate is a demonstrated full forfeiture by Con, and, by such forfeiture, Pro wins the debate, I find severe lack by Pro in Argument and Sourcing to actually carry the day in those areas of voting focus:

Argument: as is typical, the side in these debates on this specific subject declaring systemic racism in America based upon, as Pro, in this debate defines "systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded through laws and regulations within society or an organization," Pro, in this debate, which is also typical, fails to meet this defined standard. To wit: Pro offers no argument or citation of any "embedded laws and regulations" that specifically document current racial animus at all. All that is offered are government, academic, and industrial reports and data indicating individual racism practice, even if that practice is conducted by many people. Whereas no law or policy is cited, one cannot blame the system, which Pro has specifically defined as need "laws and regulations" cited. The lack is a total failure to support the Resolution. Therefore, even though by policy, a full forfeiture in a loss to the forfeiting party, I cannot in good faith award points for argument top Con. Tie.

Sources: For the same reason as stipulated above in Argument, I cannot, in good faith, award Source points to Pro. Tie.

Legibility: Points to Pro for at least R1 entry, whereas, Con has no entry.

Conduct: Points to Pro for at least R1 entry, whereas, Con has no entry.

Argument: Pro's primary Resolution argument of "far better" was gradually, through the rounds, shifted to "best." Further, in an effort to support either "far better" or "best," Pro went excessively overboard in lists, effectively making them TL/DR. Not impressed. Con effectively rebutted the argument by Pro that a cruise has cruise + shore leave, or cruise + fly, signifying additional off-ship activities, by demonstrating that at that point, the cruise is merely a means of conveyance, which any other vacation type can offer, such as fly + leave activities, or train + leave, or car + leave. Con wins the points.

Sources: Both opponents had reasonable sources, but Con's are superior by such as examples as Statistica, offering data demonstrating that cruises are not preferable. Pro attempted to argue the point that preference is not a factor, but failed to demonstrate that without vacationer preference, there is still a "far better" or "best" condition to vacations. Whose preference ixceeds that of actual vacationers? Pro does not attempt to answer.

Legibility: Tie

Conduct: Con wins by Pro forfeit of 3 of 5 rounds.

Pro's argument of fundamental right to our own body is not an absolute, even constitutionally; there are conditional exceptions, such as due process. Con argued the point that employers have the responsibility of employee safety, and measures such as a vaccine requirement for employment was successfully rebutted on this point of exception.

Argument: Pro's Resolution was well explained by pro in R1, setting the parameters for a debate that, by his language, set-up Pro for holding what became an insurmountable position while setting a trap for Con that was not able to be assailed. Pro's first argument was that his BoP need not have an exclusive on Hitler's bad decision making, acknowledging that there were other causes contributing to the loss of TTR, but that Hitler's bad decisions were involved. Con argued against that being the only cause, when pro never claimed that it was. Further, Con's statement in his R1 that "I will concede up front that Hitler's bad decisions made an impact on the outcome of the war..." surrendered that ground to Pro. Every historic detail Pro presented throughout the rounds supported the Pro argument. pro wins the points.

Sources: Pro's sources supported his arguments, whereas, as pro pointed out, an otherwise convincing argument presented by a Con source turned out to stipualte pro's point of leverage had by TTR. Points to Pro.

Legibility: Excellent by both sides. Tie

Conduct: Excellent by both sides: Tie.

Argument: Pro waived R1 whereas Voting Policy dictates there must be argument made in each round specified. Since pro initiated the debate in 4 rounds, there must be argument [includes rebuttals, defenses, conclusions] in all rounds. Further Con challenged Pro that Pro's tactic of Resolution indicated "some deadbeats" rather than all did not have justification. Pro never addressed this challenge by indicating what "some" meant and why only some deserve sterilization. Dropped argument. Con wins points.

Sourcing: Pro's sourcing, such as reference to Guttmacher Inst. did not dig deep enough to recognize flaw in Pro's cited percentages. points to Con

Legibility: tie

Conduct: Pro waived both first and last round, excuses not acceptable. Con wins point

Disclaimer; In spite of my comment #40 regarding voting on this debate, denying to do so, my sense of the time left to vote, and seeing a lack of other members daring to vote on a controversial subject within the deadline of 1 day from now, I am compelled to not let a no-vote tie occur in this debate. I say: shame on the membership and mods. Make a bloody vote! Well, failing to do so, I will strip my bias and vote strictly on what is offered, as I should do in any vote.

Argument; Having debated this subject generally, i.e., not related to a specific industry such as health care, I am sufficiently conversant. As a voter, I demand evidence of systemic racism by citation of current legal statute and/or government or private industry policy that specifically calls out a racially biased comportment by citizens as being acceptable practice. This is at the root of the Resolution's fundamental systemic racism claim. Pro, in 4 rounds, offers plenty of opinion pieces from journalism, education, and even by government personnel who postulate and pontificate on an apparent social issue, but not one single reference is offered to cite any legal statute, or public/private institution policy stipulating racial bias as an allowed practice. In all those industries, there are individuals within them who do carry on such practices, but they are not allowed by statute or policy to do so. That is the definition of individual racism, and Con acknowledges that individual racism is apparent in US society, but correctly rebuts that it is not institutional/systemic. points to Con.

Sources: Fairly even in scope by both opponents, but Pro loses these points by early reference to a source which, used to exhibit racially biased practices in housing society, notes that there has been a marked decline in those practices over time. Points to Con.

Legibility: tie

Conduct: Tie

Although the debate is a full forfeiture by Con, Pro wins the debate on a concise, and adequately supported argument by DNA evidence that the human fetus can be no other species than human, and is so by virtue of the unique humanity of the gametes, oocyte and sperm, each carrying half the full human genome.

Argument: Pro's claimed reductio ad absurdum argument starts down a path of absurdity in R1 by presentation of three "syllogisms." In quotes, because stringing words together does not, by itself, create logic. One is sufficient illogic. Repeating the effort is the absurdity, because all three fail logic. #A, P1 proposes that martyrdom is the sure way to heaven, as if it is the only way. Con deftly rebuts tyhat there are other mans to attain heaven; therefore, since all propositions must hold for a syllogism to be true, #A fails. #B, P1 also fails because, as Con rebutted, because Pro cannot know what occurs to Con, yet makes the claim. P1 is pure conjecture, thus #B fails. #C, P3 fails under the same condition as #A, P1; martyrdom is not the only sure way to heaven. Con successfully rebuts this notion, again. Thus, Con has defeated all three supposed syllogisms.

Pro attempts a goalpost shift in R2 by the claim that Con had better be Catholic [Conargued in R1 that it may not be the case, at least not a dedicated Catholic, or Con will lose. Neither theResolution, nor the Description demand that Con be Catholic. Therefore, the shift, which Con successfully rebuts by that strategy.

Pro's R3 repeats the R1 mantra that martyrdom must be the sure way to heaven, and suggests that a martyr should request the go ernment kill them. Con successfully rebuts by reminder that martyrdom is not accomplished by asking teh government to kill. There is no motive in governments favor to do so. Con wins the argument points.

Sources: Pro offers no sources to support his arguments. Con offers numerous sources, such as offerin g definition of "false," a Resolution keyword. In fact, Pro offers no definitions of Resolution keywords. Con also offers support for the futility of mass suicide as a martyrdom effort, all of which bolster his arguments. Con wins these points.

Legibility: tie

Conduct: tie.

Argument: Pro started with a reasonable resolution, but spoiled the effort in each succeeding round, effectively taunting Con for the balance of rounds. Simply put, Pro offered a truism, kids are smart. Yes, they can be. But that is not enough to convince this voter. The killer for Pro was accusing Con the lack of sourcing; something Con failed to do himself. For making the accusation, as if Pro did better, but did not, since confirming evidence is not a voting issue, Pro loses, Con wins these points

Sourcing: noted as part of argument. Con wins by default for a Pro-limiting accusation.

Legibility: tie

Conduct: Pro accusations and personal attacks loses this point. Con wins

This was a curious debate which began with a non-combative topic, the which I normally consider to be the Resolution, but in this case, it merely pits one debate site against another without the Instigator [Pro] taking an obvious position by the topic statement. It is clarified by the Description that Pro is taking the DArt position as the better debate website; however, the Description does set-up a potential troublesome theme by separating a timeline of the two websites. The timeline issue is easily resolved however, considering that the argument pro/con need not conform to a timeline to be a valid comparison. One site is better than another site regardless of the time misalignment.

Argument: Pro's BoP that DArt is the better debate website stands on its own merit considering the current conditions of DArt as opposed to the best that DDO ever was. Con argues the point that DDO is a defunct website, which, when accessed to see for one's self [it is a legitimate sourcing search a voter should conduct], one finds the DDO website is, in fact, defunct, and is even suggested that the URL is up for sale. Therefore, Con argues for the remainder of the debate rounds that the comparison is is/was between the websites is an illegitimate argument. While it is true that a voter cannot now see the DDO website as it was, Pro spends enough argument discussing its features, without sufficient rebuttal from Con to overwhelm the Pro arguments, that there is little left for Pro to argue. Con abandons the is/was argument to compare DArt to Debate.org, which is known to be DDO risen from ashes, but Con cannot overcome the distinction that the Debate.org website is not the DDO website. Con even cites the Debate.org URL, and not DDO. Failure to address argument within the confines of the Resolution is not sufficient to win the Argument. Argument to Pro

Sources. Pro's sources are relevant to the Resolution and fully support it. Con has few source references, and the one source most approaching supprt of an argument fails to address the website defined by Resolution. Sourcing to Pro.

Even though these elements are not required voting criteria in a winner selection debate, they are valid supports to conclude who did win the debate: The win goes to Pro.

Argument: Pro begins by offering definition of "cute", stipulating that qualities of cuteness are: "childish, youthful, or delicate." Pro further embellishes, without need, adding "attractive" and "beautiful." This is too much supporting definition, with all of it being subjective; there is no solid evidence declaring iterations of any of these words. Some think spiders are cute, others do not. Con successfully argues the subjectivity of the Resolution. Pro doubles down by declaring, in R2, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute..." This effectively cuts pro's entire argument, making it indefensible. Points to Con.

Sources: Only Pro offers sources for his arguments, but the R2 Pro argument against his own argument nearly loses these points. They are only held in Pro's corner for having any sources at all. Points to Pro.

Legibility: Tie

Conduct: Indeed, Con forfeits R3, but Pro declaration that Pro has thus won the debate ignores that by Policy, a single round may be forfeit without loss of the debate. Although Con's reply in R4 is not an argument, it cannot be called a forfeit, either. Therefore, Pro's declaration of forfeiture by Con is out of bounds. point to Con

This is, perhaps, one of the easiest debates I have ever voted on, and it gives no pleasure to admit it, because it also happens to be on of the worst debates I've ever voted on. Neither opponent managed to take a consistent side of the argument since both utterly abandoned a confusing Resolution that, at first, presents as a double-negative, but, in the end, abandons even its negativity by declaring the topic is not the topic; a non-negative that argues neither for or against the Resolution.

Argument: With the confusion of the Resolution out of the way, Pro at least offered definition to the major components to the Resolution: Death, Consciousness, and Evidence. However, definitions offered, Pro seems to argue against the Resolution, although Pro, by arguing that death is a barrier through which one can obtain no evidence, which is exactly the thrust of Con's argument, that consciousness can only be "measured", and even argues THAT point, on living subjects. It's not a bad rebuttal, but it misses the point of the Resolution. In effect, Con wastes two rounds arguing nothing at all, and then moves the goalpost. Pro responds with 2 rounds of no argument. In total, the objective of the Resolution is abandoned to debate whether consciousness exists at all, dead or alive. Tie

Sources: Only Con offers sources, but all speak to the shift of the goal post: consciousness [dead or alive], therefore fail to support either side of the debate. Pro offers no sources. Tie.

Legibility: Unfortunately, the whole by both is frustratingly coherent, other than the drift off topic. Tie

Conduct: Both flirt with disaster relative to forfeit, dropping fully two rounds [40%] without valid argument. Declaring the opponent did not argue is not, itself, an argument. When there is nothing else offered but that complaint, it is a dropped round. Tie

That this debate ended with a concession by Pro could end the matter of voting at that, alone. However, in the guise of offering suggestion for future debate, I'll offer the following:

Argument: Pro's Resolution is fraught with danger for/by Pro's avoidance of defining his primary terms in the Description, leaving definitions to Con, who provided valid dictionary definitions [Cambridge]. Pro dug a deeper hole by waiting to R4 to offer insight to what Pro meant by a definition of "incoherent" that is nothing close to the Cambridge definition. By then, it's a failed argument. Further, Con successfully argued the difficulty of the Resolution because it structured a difficult hill for Pro to climb by forcing Pro to justify "evil" and "incoherent," which pro ultimately admitted was beyond Pro to accomplish. Pro kept a running battle trying to overcome incoherence as a term meant to support pro's BoP, but it was never achieved. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro offered one legitimate source: Mein Kampf, itself, whereas Con's sources were varied and completely effective in supporting Con arguments, such as nothing more complicated than the coherent definition of incoherent. Points to Con.

Legibility: Tie

Conduct: Point to Pro for recognizing ,finally, that Con's position was unassailable.

The exhibit of Billy, notwithstanding, I am confused by Con's R4 argument re: capretto, which is not pork, short, or long, but kid, i.e., an immature goat. I've eaten both, and have a clear, distinctive palette for both, being an omnivore. Further, strictly by Voting Policy, I could potentially call the debate a tie since both participants forfeited at least a round, and at that, only by Con's R2 statement was it a mutual forfeit. Further, Con's only argument relative to the Resolution exists in R1, after which, the commentary, while entertaining, was not convincing as further argument, further advancing [or retarding, in this instance] a vote for Con. R4, as noted above, was confusing.

All considered: Tie.

This debate result meets the Voting Policy conclusion of a full forfeit, which is applied against Con for failing to offer any argument beyond R1; this due to loss of membership by moderator ban. Therefore, Pro wins the debate.

However, both participants entered an R1 argument, but neither side's argument was convincing over the other. Same decision on sourcing and legibility. By full forfeit, Con's loss of Conduct is automatic.

Pro’s set-up contains an illegitimate argument that “PRO can't lose this debate, that's a rule. Any vote giving majority points to the CON side will be reported and removed.” Yes, he adds “LOL,” but that is insufficient to remove from consideration that Pro declares victory, making a joke of it, by condemning voters in the process. Nope; unacceptable premise for a debate. See Voting Policy, "Absurd rules."

Argument: Pro’s R1 argues that “…a statistical result is invalid unless the dataset conforms to statistical assumptions,” but then adds: “No valid statistical dataset can include a non-zero probability of rolling a seven.” However, common knowledge of statistical probability affecting the toss of a pair of typical dice [numbered on each side, 1 – 6 accordingly] knows that in such a roll, there are 36 total possible outcomes by the addition of the exposed number on each die, and that to specifically roll a 7 as the sum of both die can occur in a total of 6 different combinations. Therefore, the probability of rolling a 7 is not 0%, but 6/36, or 1/6, or 16.66…%. Pro’s argument amounts to a non sequitur argument, as defined in the Voting Policy.
Con’s R1argument that “…the benefits of debating are critical thinking, ability of research, and organization.” This is a superb rebuttal of Pro’s R1 conclusion while presenting a perfectly valid argument of the process of debate employing sound principles. Con further argues, “It does not make sense to force judges to be discredited…” Agreed; see Voting Policy, "Absurd rules"
Pro’s R2 begins by citation of outside content rather than make argument, and further accusing Con of reference to that outside material. To anyone unfamiliar with that other content [me, for example], this voter sees no relation of Con’s R1 to anything that may have been included in outside content, and pro does not bother to prove his point; a failed argument on two matters. Firther, Pro's attempt at a link, apparently to the outside content, fails. Pro doubles down by saying “This debate refers to a rigged debate in which votes for CON are reported and removed.” “LOL” was thus disengaged. Being declarative argument by Pro, the claim in set-up that Pro’s rule is legitimate violates the Dart Voting Policy. Then, Pro denies the argument. To this voter, that is a null argument with self-cancelling statements. Pro’s argument, “CON possibly winning our current debate doesn't disprove the resolution” denies the Resolution as stated. Another non sequitur. Pro finishes R2 with a syllogism, which contains, and therefore is, itself, a “not even wrong fallacy” as defined in the Voting Policy.
Con’s R2 argument, “The only true winner is the one who convinces the audience” is adequate to the task, as long as such convincing is within the boundaries of proper debate. Con has sufficiently convinced this voter: Points to Con.

Sources: Although both participants had sourcing, Pro’s own R2 source, stipulates, “Expressing probability as fractions and percentages based on the ratio of the number ways an outcome can happen and the total number of outcomes is explained.” [speaking of a video embedded in the source]. Unfortunately, this statement opposes Pro’s R1 argument relative to the dice argument. Failure by Pro. Points to Con, whose sourcing supports Con arguments.

Legibility: Tie.

Conduct: According to the Voting Policy, under the Cheating heading, “People lacking in intellectual integrity will always devise more ways to cheat. If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on.” This is exactly descriptive of Pro’s Description, and the R2 syllogism, falling under the definition of “Absurd special rules.” It does not help that Pro indicates in Description, "This debate is rigged." I perceive the claim to amount to an attempt to cheat. Pro, therefore loses Conduct. Point to Con.

Truth be told, I oppose a debate set-up that includes a declared waiver, mainly because the Debate Policy declares there shall be an argument in every round, and the Voting Policy declares a waiver is not an argument. Further, I consider an R1 waiver to be a weakness against the opposing party just to see how they will argue. ?This debate set-up was a unique approach to a first-round waiver, but, my personal rule, supported by policy, stands. Therefore, I consider Pro's R1 the equivalent of a forfeiture.

Argument: Pro's waiver of R1, and forfeit of R2 seals the deal: Pro offered no argument whatsoever, whereas Con obviously went to great length and time to assemble an argument, as challenged by Pro, providing all the necessary elements as challenged. With a virtual concession in R3, No further argument from Con was necessary. Points to Con.

Sources: As Con provides the only sources in the debate, using them to bolster his requested debate subject, Con wins these points.

Legibiity: Tie, though leaning heavily to Con.

Conduct: Point to Con due to virtually no input from Pro, while making an effort to illicit response from Pro in all rounds.

A frustrating debate by both sides. Well, so be it. It's a concession, and that's always frustrating to encounter, but, so be that. It does settle the argument with a thud. This as a play in 5 acts whose curtain comes down prematurely. Oh, well. On to my RFD:

Argument. Pro states in the Description that this is not about God, and that miracles are part of the Exodus story, but immediately follows with the unlikely occurrence of miracles [?]. In R1, introduces God and miracles, so I.m trying to ignore the statements in Description, and wonder why we are not given scientific reasons why various of the plagues are demonstrated as very possible during a flooding Nile season, as Con develops in the lower frame of R1. But, the lack is an allowance of outside material that is missing anyway from the Pro argument, so, I'll drop it as an issue. No argument is no argument. I concede the point, and Pro's R1 is in shambles. However, Con's R! is not much better. We're introduced to Ahmose I, a Pharaoh a few hundred years before our alleged exodus event, so, why? Don't know. Then we are intriduced to a papyrus, begun, by Con's argument, over a thousand years before Ahmose, written for Khufu, an earlier Pharaoh [and famous for the Great Pyramid on the Giza plateau, but he's out of time, along with his papyrus. Why is he here. Don't know. Then, we are introduced to an Egyptian princess, who is not linked to the alleded exodus, either, so, why is she here? Don't know. Too many don't knows for my book. Both opponents fail R1.
R2: Pro repeats the mantra of the Description [no God,,, miracles, yes/no], then proceeds to regale more God and miracles, summing up at one point that natural catastrophes can occur, but follows by a statement that the Jews can be blamed for them [?], and I wonder just which BoP Pro is attempting to prove. Pro concludes that it's up to us to determine whether Gods exists. Again, God. Having been dismissed in Description, he apparently still has scripted lines, but this audience is looking for his name in the players' list. It seems to be missing according to the handout we received with the tickets. Con's R2 argues that evidence of a migration of Isrelites into Egypt does not prove there was an later exodus. True, but it does not disprove, either, and Con drops that argument in favor of discussion Hyksos and Asiatics wandering about, but neither negates or supplies a link to Israelites, so, what? Further in R2, Con introduces a new character on stage in his Act !!: Jesus and his resurrection? What is the link of that story to Exodus; and even that need not be proven, or disproven in this debate, so why is Jesus on stage, resurrecting, or not, let alone teaching anything? Non sequitur events occurring over a spread of over 3,000 years in two acts. An epic.
Sorry, I can't continue. I've got to leave the play to take a leak, and, maybe while O'm gone, the curtain will mercifully come down.
It did. Without detailing Act III, IV, or V... No, Act III has Pro alleging [no it is history] that a volcano erupting a few hundred years before the exodus caused the plagues. Even a hundred years before strains credibility, so both opponents are telling stories with a clock that looks like one Salvador Dali owns.
Cut to the chase, Pro concedes in Act 4, and all play nice to the end. The end. Tie.

Sources: Neither uses sources to their best advantage. Tie

Legibility: Tie

Conduct: Does a concession automatically earn a tie? No, the Voting Policy stipulates that if a conduct point is awarded to the conceding side when such a vote wold give the win to the conceding side, such a vote could go to moderation. Nope, not going to do that. Tie.

The debate is clearly won by Con due to full forfeit by Pro.

However, in R1, Con presented the argument in meticulous detail that love has greater influence on others than fear, even to the extent of loving one's self. The argument is successfully bolstered by sufficient scholastic sourcing to carry the day, even there were some argument from Pro.

Argument: In spite of Pro's attempt at a cleverly-worded Resolution [not clever at all - it is a red herring], Con makes three major argument mistakes:
1] Shifting the BoP to Con when the Resolution is clearly Pro's to demonstrate, even in a negative [and proving a negative is logic's conundrum, not ours - common knowledge].
2] expecting the proof need be proven to Pro when it is the Voter's place to be convinced of any proof.
3]"Know anything" was the challenge thrown to Con, whoever that was going to be. By mere acknowledgement that Con accepted the debate by Pro saying "Hi" as his first word of argument acknowledges that Con knew enough to accept the debate, which, by itself, Pro proves the Resolution is false all by himself. Pro admits Con knew something; all the BoP Con needs to exhibit.
By contrast, Con actually presents valid arguments in both rounds, including presentation of solid logic n two fronts. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro uses no sources, apparently on the premise they are not needed. Even if not needed, Con presents valid sourcing in both rounds. Points to Con

Legibility: Pro offers little verbiage in either round, even though declaring a 10,000-character limit. On volume alone, offering the greater risk of losing the legibility point, Con ought to win the point, but volume of text is not the proper criteria. Tie.

Conduct: Again, the attempt at a clever Resolution, as described in Argument, and failing, should lose the point for Pro, but, as with Legibility, this is not the correct measure of the Conduct point. The loss of the Argument points is sufficient justification. Tie.

My voting detail in comments.

Argument: Con presented clear evidence of Earth's physical shape as not being flat; his appropriate BoP as being a contender, though initiator of the debate. Thge best evidence, in my opinion, came from the lunar eclipse argument, demonstrating by shape of the Earth's shadow a full coverage of the lunar surface, rather than a single sliver of shadow across the Moon's surface were the Earth flat. By contrast, Pro never properly addressed his BoP, arguing instead, over four rounds that Con made an error in the short description of Theweakeredge being Pro; an error which, first, never appears in the debate page itself, and which, by Description and first argument, at least, clearly left notice to Pro which side of the argument Con was positioned before Pro ever had to produce an argument. Full reading of the debate information provided by Con, other than the erroneous Short Description, should have made clear to Con which opponent was to take which side of the argument. Con even advised Pro in R2, "Nevel... you must carefully analyze any debate before taking it..." giving Pro ample opportunity to see the positioning in the debate and respond accordingly for the balance of the debate. Even given this clear warning, Pro continued arguing the posiitn structure of the debate, rather than the debate Resoltuion, itself. By clear default, Con wins the points.
Sources: Con offered clear, numerous supporting sources, even sourcing definitions sources, and then sources supporting the argument of physical shape of Earth. Pro had no relevant arguments for the Resolution, and no sources for any arguments relevant to the Resolution. Con wins the points.
Legibility: Both opponents offered legible text. Tie
Conduct: Both opponent’s conduct toward one another was good. Tie.

Argument: "Concession" by pro in first round, followed by two rounds of forfeit. I put concession in quotes because when. first reading Pro's R1 entry, I was uncertain that concession was Pro's intent. Con's R! was, indeed a superlative argument covering numerous reasons why the better debate site is DArt, such as the flexibility of formatting and the increased word use allowance. Points to Con

Sources: Con had the only sources in the match, and they are supportive sources. points to Con

Legibility: Pro had very little to go on, but legibility is not a matter of volume of text. Tie

Conduct: That Con may have stepped over a personal line [personal to this voter] of declaring victory in mid-debate is a detraction to this voter. Thus, on that score, as well, I give the conduct point to Pro

Pro's argument that police departments should be defunded "by at least 5%" is an unsupported claim, and is not backed by any sourcing. where does that figure come from but thin-air conjecture? pro further argues that police unions figure into hte discussion by a number of means, but this argument does not speak to the Resolution. A sideline argument. Further, pro argues that defunding would be achieved by shifting some tasks to other agencies, but that argument simply incurs more cost to those agencies, so what is truly defunded? One suggestion was shifting tasks to psychiatric care. Is that less expensive that a typical police officer? Con argues that these proposals do not satisfy reduction in cost. Con further argues that militarization, reducing prison populations, and mental health facilities are not cost-saving on police budgets because these factors are not funded by local police agencies in the first place. Con wins the arguments and debate.

The set-up of this debate is confusing due to the lack of a declaration which argument is Pro's [the instigator], and, therefore, which is Con's. Con's first round argues this very point, whereas pro's first round is a vague as the Description. Pro's only valid argument is that, yes, the two distinctions, killing one tribe, or killing the leaders of two tribes, is laid out, but the conditions for cause of the dilemma, who does the killing, and which option is morally superior, let alone which optin either participant is to take, are all questions never answered by Pro. poor set up.

Argument: Pro effectively offers no argument other than from what is gathered from the Description and pro's R1: questions and no answers, let alone true argument. Con, by contrast, offers a perspective on all questions with arguments. Con wins the points.''

Sourcing: Neither participant offers sourcing, but the greater infraction is Pro's for never offering a positional statement; which participant shold take which side of the debate. Therefore, Con is left without a clear side by which to offer sources for arguments. Con wins the points by default.

Legibility. pro loses this point be having nothing but nebulous questions - effectively lack of legibility, of the Instigator side of the debate. Point to Con.

Conduct: By concession and forfeit, Pro loses. point to Con.

Argument: Pro wasted R1 by avoiding any argument worth analysis, choosing, instead, to waste the round with definitions [dubious as one is] which could have been offered in Description, thus allowing Con a heads-up in the scope and conduct of the debate - a tactical Pro error. Further, the "dubious" definition of "inferior," which, I'll agree with Con's argument, seemed contrived to advantage the debate for Pro, was distracting, at best. Further pro asserts that "maturity" is a vague standard considering children of two adjacent ages, the selection of which is alleged to be arbitrary, but makes no effort to define an alternative split of age/maturity as a legal standard. Con successfully rebuts the point that a standard, nevertheless, is a necessity. Pro's definition of "inferior" finally resulted in the dubious nature of his unique definition in Con's R3 by the rebuttal that children are not to be combatants, not because they are "inferior," but because the are "valuable." Excellent rebuttal. Further, Pro's argument "Merely knowing more than they need to will not ruin their lives" is successfully rebutted [by adequately sourcing in support of the Con rebuttal] that there is an appropriate sequence of learning. Points to Con

Sourcing: Pro's disdain for sources [they are barely used, and typically are not credible] comes to fruition in R3 when Pro cites, as a source, a banned, former member, Wagyu [also banned by a different moniker], but then fails to cite the specific reference. Therefore, the source is completely unverifiable. Total fail, because this reference [not really cited for verification by readers] is Pro's sole "source." Con, by contrast, has valid, verifiable sourcing in every round. Points to Con

Legibility: Both participants had legible content throughout. Tie.

Conduct; Since both participants forfeited a single round, Tie.