What is the best Clash Royale card

Arguments: Pro presents arguments about Pekka having a strong attack damage, good defense, and Pekkas' ability to be used as a meat shield. Con only somewhat rebuttals one of these arguments about Pekkas' ability to defend by showing that the Inferno Tower can kill it in one hit, but drops the rest. Con's arguments on the Inferno Tower concern it's attack damage, ability to move units to the side of the field, and it's elixir cost. These arguments cannot be addressed by Pro because Con posted new arguments in the last round, which I will go more into detail about in the conduct point. But overall, since Con drops most of Pro's arguments, Pro fulfills his Burden of Proof and thus wins the argument point.

Sources: Neither side used sources, so this is not applicable.

Spelling and Grammar: Both had some comma mistakes which did not detract from the debates' readability, but I'll give the edge to Con here because Pro has several bizarre sentences which detract from the readability of the debate such as:

"can also be used as a meat shield for other troops such as a wizard or so."

Conduct: Since both sides forfeited an equal amount of times, no conduct points can be addressed there, but Pro overall has better conduct because Con posts new arguments in the final round which Pro cannot rebut, which is generally considered poor conduct.

All things considered, this debate is a win for Pro.