Waking up on the floor is normal

Pro's opinion would be that: Pro is not normal, Pro doesn't wake up on the floor, therefore waking up on the floor is normal.
Con's opinion would be that: Con is not normal, Con doesn't wake up on the floor, therefore waking up on the floor is not normal.

Con's stance technically contradicts itself or at least is a non-sequitur, because as little evidence as a non-normal person not waking up on the floor is to the claim that waking up on the floor is not non-normal(therefore normal), the same evidence in the same form only swapped with another individual does not amount to anything proving that waking up on the floor is not normal. On the other hand, Pro's argument is logically coherent at least even though it wasn't a very strong argument given the upper bound is 10,000 textual characters.

1. Arguments from both sides were identically bad. Neither provide descriptions of the terms they employ; neither argument resolves anything; they just mutually contradict each other.
2. Neither side used sources.
3. Spelling/grammar was fine for both participants.
4. Conduct was fine as far as both parties were concerned.

I vote a tie.

Con proved that self-consideration of normality can refute itself if compared to an action to be called normal or abnormal based on it.

Both relied on anecdotal evidence, thus sources are tied.