You pick the topic, I'll do my best with it.

YOU PICK the TOPIC. I SHALL do my BEST with IT.

This conversation doesn't really qualify as any kind of debate according to any objective debate standard. Essentially, every possible advantage is given to the contender for entirely shock (comedic) effect. This voter considers a debate under these terms non-moderated and essentially subjective. Basically, the instigator has ceded the stage and so it up to the contender to knock our socks of with full license. CON chooses " "THBT: North Korea is currently the best country in the world." which not only fails to knock the socks but is doubles down on the subjective nature of this discourse by choosing generic, totally non-controversial geographical question. On comedic or subjective stylings, CON scores a zero.

PRO seems to agree with this voter's thinking by arguing that the topic is irrelevant to victory in this debate.

" However, all the resolution entails is that to win, I must choose a topic alone. Consequently, all voters need to do is vote for pro based on the proposition of any topic at all."

This statement of thesis excludes the relevancy of topic and on this we agree but CON badly misses there was a second condition to the instigation: " I (the instigator) shall do my best with it."

So it not true that CON wins " based on the proposition of any topic at all," rather the winner is determined by whether PROdid "his best with it."

Given that PRO has two rounds and no ground to argue with, I set the standard for best at an extremely low bar. CON essentially forfeits his opportunity to show us his best and his second argument hypocritically faults CON for not setting a standard for "best" while ignoring the fact that he also forget to set a standard for "best" regarding our evaluation of his effort.

So- did PRO do his best? Not even close. PRO's only argument is ultra-weak and stupidly hypocritical. Total fail. Since PRO did not even try, CON wins this debate.

Pro proved that North Korea can be considered the best country but never substantiated further than equating it to subjective taste.

Con gave metrics of GDP and 'human rights' or (freedoms essentially).

Con didn't really disprove that despite those setbacks, North Korea isn't the best country but Pro's way of meeting the BoP meant that Con was entitled to say that the pizza/country tastes bad to Con for any reason and win the debate.