Socialism

Pro never sources anything he says, while Con does for each and every one of his claims. This completely kills Pros arguments as they really need a source to back them up. Also, I can no longer check if his claims are legitimate leaving the voter in the blue as to how to treat his arguments. But, it isn't only the voters, Dr Franklin can no longer secure the legitimacy of Pro's points himself.

So, it is clear that Con won sources.

Pro's uncited claims

#1 ""Norway has more State owned assets is more collective than both Venezuela and red China.""

#2 ""enjoys the worlds best quality of life.""

#3 ""you like to cherry pick the losers that are in no way close to socialist but the most socialist nation by definition on earth is a paradise, eh.""(Multiple unsourced claims here, he doesn't prove Venezuela isn't socialist, that Norway is the most socialist nation on Earth, and that Norway is a paradise).

With the lack of sourcing on Pro's part I can't truly count any of his points, Dr.Franklin on the other hand gave me multiple good reasons to believe Socialism doesn't work.

Cons arguments

He points out Socialism's track record of failure, from the past to the present, how tyrannical governments will emerge, and how Mao killed 30 million people, this proves to me that Socialism is wrong whether you look at it from a moral perspective or a more statistical perspective, Pros attempt at rebutting these are unsourced.

Over all Con demonstrates socialisms blunders and inefficiencies. When Pro tries to debunk these things he doesn't back up 1 point with a source.

So, it's fair to say Con won arguments.

This debate was extremely awkward. Both sides forfeited a round, and Dr.Franklin got banned for some reason. Not only that, but there wasn't many arguments to go on due to the 500-character limit, meaning that I have to be more critical of each side.

I awarded "convincing arguments" to con, since his arguments were more specific and easier to understand. Pro argued that "Once the world economy developes properly we can all co operate and make like better and more equal". This argument was extremely vague, in my opinion. Pro should have went into more detail about what he meant when he talked about "the world economy" developing properly as well as making live "better and more equal". Con gave more specific arguments and went into more detail, despite being limited to only 500 characters.

I awarded sources to con since pro didn't give any source.

I award spelling and grammar to con, too. Pro misspelled several words like:
"develope" (it's actually spelled "develop" without that E at the end)
"co operate" (it's one word, not two)
"extatically" (i have no idea what word he was actually trying to spell here; exactly? extremely? excitingly? ecstatically?)
Pro also started multiple sentences without a capital letter and also ended multiple sentences without the period, question mark, or exclamation mark.

I tied conduct, since both sides forfeited a round, so their conduct was equally bad.