The meaning of something being illogical is not the same as the phrase "outside of logic" or separate from logic.

concession

Pro is arguing that anything outside of conventional logic is not semantically identical to the term "illogical." Con argues the opposite.

Pro mentions that the rules of logic are limited to this universe and human comprehension/perception, so anything existing outside the confines of this universe are not subject to our same laws, so these differences being too convoluted would be declared as being outside of logic. But that doesn't mean it's illogical. Pro uses the example of Jesus using his divine powers to walk on water, which is impossible given our current scientific knowledge. Pro cites this example to defend that divinity rarely aligns with our expectations of what is logical.

Con begins round 1 by strawmanning Pro when he declares Pro must argue that illogical is inside of logic. Imposing a framework like this is acceptable, but not without a valid justification. Con doesn't provide an explanation for why Pro must defend this version of the resolution and Con provides no rebuttals for any of Pro's arguments, nor does he make any of his own. This either demonstrates Con has not read Pro's round 1, or he lacks an understanding of Pro's round 1.

In round 2, Pro doesn't provide a response. But instead simply asks if Con has a rebuttal to anything he said.

Con quotes one of Pro's lines from Round 1 about logic not materializing outside of the universe and retorts that theories can be illogical or outside of logic, but this isn't actually a response to Pro, more of a sideline non-response as it doesn't address anything Pro was talking about. Con proceeds to misrepresent Pro's argument by implying that Pro must continue arguing that illogical is inside of logic. Con explains that the rules of logic can be used to identify what is logical, but doesn't disprove or argue against anything Pro was saying. He just restates what he believes is Pro's position.

Round 3, Pro explains that Con's framework is a misunderstanding of the resolution. Pro refutes Con's arguments by stating that theories are not outside of logic, as theories are logical and thus within the confines of rules of logic. Pro continues to give examples of how being "outside of logic" is not the same as "logical." As what exists outside the universe is outside of conventional logic, but not illogical.

Con forfeits this round.

Round 4, Pro extends his arguments and announces Con has resigned from the debate. Con substantiates this claim.

Round 5, Pro expresses frustration by telling future debaters to understand his position before accepting the debate to avoid wasting time. Con formally thanks Pro for the debate.

So for arguments, Pro is clearly outclassing Con because he defends his position adequately and gives his justifications. Con attempts to insert a framework, which is a misdirection of Pro's intended position of what he should argue and I might have accepted this, if Con could have successfully explained why Pro should have argued this. But not only does Con not contribute his own constructive arguments, he ignores 99% of what Pro said and gives no rebuttals. It was a sheer lack of effort and laziness from Con's side, so Pro gets the point for arguments.

Neither side provided sources, so I'm leaving this tied.
Spelling, grammar, and font was decent from both ends, so this is tied.

Pro might have gotten the point for conduct, since Con forfeited. However, Con messaged Pro outside the debate to inform him he was conceding, which shows full communication through transparency instead of wasting Pro's time by ignoring him. Pro gives Con credit for this and Con acknowledges this happened (both of their own words, not mine.), so I will not deduct a point for conduct. In the end because Con thanks Pro for the debate and shows respect and both sides displayed an equal level of respect and conduct, so I'm leaving this tied.