hammmmm

It is obvious they are the same person but whatever.

Pro had slightly better grammar than con. otherwise, complete tie.

Quick Note:
It can clearly be seen that they are both the same person. Both were created on the same day, and this argument was posted where nobody could accept the challenge but one person. This person being iamham. However, i'll still judge accordingly.

Arguments:
Pro states "Ham is bad because it is hammy and it is not plump and not healthy", which in last part of his argument is his rebuttal and con then argued about the protein, minerals, and other nutrients however never rebuttals against the rebuttal about ham being "plump".

I would also state that con made an argument as of which pro never responded, however, it was in the last round and really nobody could counter that. Either way, an argument is an argument, and pro dropped it. His (cons) last round argument wasn't necessarily valid but did provide a valid point.

Meaning I give the arguments a tie.

Sources:
No side provides sources, thus a tie.

Legibility:
iamham states "and sfdhijahdfiu" which determines, though a small mistake, who's the winner of legibility.

Conduct:
Con makes a new argument in the last round whereas con can no longer make a rebuttal against, meaning I give pro this point.

---

Questions? I'll answer them in the comments or messages.

Both sides created on Feb 9th. Instigator starts a debate called ham and the contender creates an account called Iamham to accept the debate. This is clearly one user testing the sites defenses against cheating and clearly discovering there is not much defense here against multi-accounters and other cheaters.

Con cites "chicken nuggies" as a valid argument, which is currently composed of chicken, not ham. This is a critical point to consider and Pro's arguments about the health benefits and hamminess of ham are also very convincing, all whilst having relatively good grammar. In comparison, Con doesn't refute Pro's arguments well and fails in the grammar category, as to the point of being incoherent.

Pro argues ham is healthy and no rebuttals were offered until the final round when it was too late to count

"Ham Is yummy true but it can cause diseases and chicken nuggies and sfdhijahdfiu" (Con R2) is grammatically incoherent. Given the fact that both players only wrote 1 sentence per round argument, the error of 1 sentence weighs a ton here.

The others... Well, let's say, both players under-cultivated the 10,000 character limit.