Abortion is always immoral.

Pevensie R1
Hm, going with strict Bible wording,
I'd expect Con to focus on the debate title use of the word 'Always,
I'd expect Con then to argue for exceptions,
Which Pro might argue are still immoral actions just less immoral,
Which Con might argue less immoral means moral action in context.

Or Con look to see if passages in Bible contradict, passages used by Pevensie.

Best.Korea R1
Hm, going with the being born is evil argument, unusual.

Pevensie R2
Argues pain can be good.
That might stand, depending on whether Best.Korea can argue 'all pain is bad.

Nonexistent being can't really be better or worse, as it doesn't exist,
Existent being, might think itself better or worse, being existent or non.

Best.Korea R2
Eh, I wouldn't say that Best.Korea is arguing against the Bible 'quite,
Ja Pevensie is using Bible to support their arguments, but description and title don't say using the Bible as a standard.

Best.Korea argues everyone would 'eventually commit suicide,
That 'might be true,
But I'm not sure if that's because life is not worth it,
Or because life was not worth it to 'that person in 'that moment.

Eh, life being torture or gift, subjective perhaps.

Best.Korea arguments on existence of evil, not fully fleshed out.

Pevensie R3
Eh, religous is vague wide word, some might argue from their view such as game theory their arguments are not religious.
Isn't Dante's Inferno fiction?

Aborted babies go to Hell?
Hell is greatest possible pain?
Booo, boo Pevensie, boo,
Eh, I'm an Atheist anyway.

Free Will argument 'is one some people use for existence of evil.

Best.Korea R3
Get's a bit off topic.

Second Reading
Hm, Pevensieargues abortion is immoral due to Bible 'statement claims,
No logic or 'explanation,
Just authority appeal.
BUT Best.Korea doesn't 'address this.

Best.Korea argues 'any pain as evil, and evil outweighing good,
Lays it on a bit thick.

Pevensie relies heavily on blanket claims by others,
A problem for Best.Korea in arguments though, Is that they are not 'addressing this.
While Pevensie 'does address and make argument against Best.Korea claims of all life is pain/bad.
Best.Korea all life is pain/torture/bad, is not fully fleshed out,

Though I'm inclined to vote for Pevensie,
I don't think they. . . No, that's my own thoughts, Best.Korea 'doesn't address Pevensie's use of appeal to authority,
While Pevensie 'does address Best.Korea's claims that being born is evil.

RFV
Pevensie's appeal to athority is allowed to stand, and they are able to undercut Best.Korea's arguments that being born is evil,
Appeal to Authority convincing for some people, don't speed sign says, some people obey because sign said so, no other reason, people 'could 'think on 'why though, and whether authority in X case is valid, but Best.Korea did not argue against Pevensie's appeal to authority.

Best.Korea laying on being born as complete evil, makes it easier to knock down,
Though 'maybe Best.Korea could have strengthened this argument, word count was restrictive of Best.Korea being able to do this.

Arguements Pevensie, though both sides did poorly in my view.
Sources, addressing source validity is part of argument, not sources itself, because someone said so, someone elses argument, I don't rate highly as 'sources, but instead lend weight more towards a person 'explaining their own arguments.
Sources a tie, since, I don't view Pevensie's as strong sources, and Best.Korea used none.
Legibility, both understandable.
Conduct, both polite enough.

An easy read. Pro states abortion is immoral because it is evil as God prescribes. Pro then states that evil is available because of free will. Pro then states that aborted babies, or effectively any baby that is not baptized go to hell. Con points out this huge conflict, and states if God allows for infants to go to hell, there is a question of morality. Con does not tie a ribbon on the debate but does show a blatant failure in Pros logic. Pro used searchable references in most rounds and wins that regard.

This entire debate happened within 90 minutes.

Interesting.

I'll analyze this round by round.

R1:
Pro provides definitions, and cites bible. However Pro also makes the broad generalization "religion is the exclusive authority on morality" with no proof of that at all.
Con shows multiple scenarios where abortion may be necessary (If I can count correctly, 10).

R2:
Pro cites bible (2x). And cites ted cruz to argue not living is better than living, only using a quote with minimal explanation/reasoning...
Con shows two scenarios where not living may be better than living.

R3:
Pro: "First, any debate concerned with morality is religious per se.". This is certainly moving the goalpost, but I can't really tell if it moves the goalpost for arguments, or for sources (e.g. suddenly restricting sources to only religious sources). Either way, it is still a logical fallacy. Also he cites Inferno and Mere Christianity. Keep in mind one is fiction and one is an authors opinion. Again, with no explanation, simply citing a source.
Con refutes morality through contradiction and acknowledges pro had moved the goalpost of the debate from "abortion is always immoral" to "religion is moral" (him arguing con, of course).

ok now time for voting.

Args: You can't just cite a source and expect that to be an argument. You actually need explanation. Not only that, you also can't move the BOP/debate through moving the goalpost. Pro did these two, so points to CON for delivering justified args (and not moving the goalpost).

Src: I guess pro used sources, while con didn't use any. Although not really used correctly, still points to pro on that.

leg: ok on both

cond: ok on both

final:
A: con
S: pro
L: tie
C: tie

Pro opened up with a preset that I think could be described with the term "laughable". Just look at it. "Abortion is the termination of of pregnancy. Immoral describes an action that violates the natural law, which is instituted by God." By this definition, all cases of birth would also be abortions since, well, the pregnancy is terminated because it ended.

Both sides did not agree on it possibly but also did not touch on the definition again, achieving nothing.