Instigator
MagicAintReal avatar
Points: 14

Materialism Is Sound

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
MagicAintReal
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Virtuoso avatar
Points: 5
Description
===Full Resolution===
Materialism is sound.
==================
=====Definitions=====
materialism - a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations of, or results of, or contingent on matter or any spatiotemporal variables, spacetime itself, massless particles, quantum fields, or quantum fluctuations and their forces.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism
Both Pro and Con agreed to this definition before the debate, so pointing out that it's not exactly the same as the definition provided at the link is irrelevant.
The source was used as a guide for the definitions and both debaters and voters will use these definitions.
sound - based on valid reason or good judgement.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sound#h69867460970160
================
Round 1
Published:
Intro

Thanks for accepting the debate Con.
Let's have ourselves a discussion about reality.


Materialism

That which exists is either physical/material itself, or contingent on the physical/material.
Everything from the stars to the planets to the planet's inhabitants to the gas in atmospheres are made of at least particles/radiation/energy in some form; they're all physical themselves.

Other things that exist like thought, love, the mind, compassion, consciousness, intelligence, and happiness are constructs contingent on the physical brain, physical neurons, and other physical neurological substrates.

While not all existing things are made of elements/particles/radiation, they are at least contingent on such.

So, all things are either comprised of/contingent on:


or


or


or



Supernature

I'd love to refute this concept, but I have no idea what it means.
People tell me that supernatural things exist, or that supernatural events occur, but no one's ever been able to provide me with an example that, if it actually exists, isn't reducible to materialism, and no one's ever been able to clearly explain what "above" or "beyond" nature really means.

I often ask that if there's this unexplained "beyond" or "above" nature, then what do you call something that's equally unexplained as "behind" or "below" nature?
Subnatural?
Infranatural?
Is subnaturalism any more/less valid than supernaturalism?

If Con wishes to endorse the position that there are things *not* comprised of or *not* contingent on the physical/material, then I reject this position due to a lack of demonstration, replication, and accurate predictions that would indicate an absence of the physical/material.


Conclusion

I simply maintain that all things, constructs like love and thought included, can be reduced to the physical/material, which is demonstrable, replicable, and able to be used to make accurate predictions within the domain of physical nature.
I fail to see this with any ideas that espouse immateriality.
On to Con...
Published:
I would like to thank MagicAintReal for this debate. I’ve been wanting to do a debate on materialism for a while now. I agree to Magic’s definitions and terms of the debate. 

Contention 1: Immaterial Things Exist

P1: If immaterial things exist, then materialism is false.
P2: Immaterial things exist
C1: Therefore, materialism is false

I’m sure Pro will have no problem with P1. If there are things that are immaterial, then that automatically refutes materialism. There are, however, things that do exist that are immaterial. Namely the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of physics. These cannot be accounted for by purely physical means. 

These laws are transcendent, that is they do not depend on the human mind. If they did, then they would be subjective, but they are not. They are objectively true regardless of who you are and how you think. 

If you are familiar with the ontological argument, then you are familiar with the world semantics:

The actual world - the one that we live in
A possible world -  a world that is logically possible
An impossible world - a world that is logically impossible

The statement “a fire breathing dragon exists” is true in some possible worlds because it is non contradictory in terms; however, the statement “a married bachelor exists” is a contradiction in terms and cannot exist in the actual world or any possible worlds. If something is true in every possible world, then it cannot be dependent on particles, radiation, energy, or spacetime. 

Key question to pro: Is there any possible world in which there exists a square circle or where 2+2=5? If not, then these statements are not dependent on the physical world. 

Contention 2: Free will

P1: If free will exists, then materialism is false
P2: Free will exists 
C1: Therefore, materialism is false

My opponent has already agreed to P2 in our other debate so I’m not going to spend time defending P2. The major premise is what I need to explain. If everything is dependent on the physical world, then free will is impossible. If all what we are is made up chemical reactions, then we have no free choice. I would actually go a step further and say that if all what we are is made up of those chemical reactions, then it is impossible to trust our brain or our thoughts. This is contradictory because without being able to trust our brain there can be no logical discourse like the one we are having now. 

Intellect and will are immaterial powers as Michael Egor points out:

Let us imagine, as a counterfactual, that the intellect is a material power of the mind. As such, the judgment that a course of action is good, which is the basis on which an act of the will would be done, would entail "Good" having a material representation in the brain. But how exactly could Good be represented in the brain? The concept of Good is certainly not a particular thing — a Good apple, or a Good car — that might have some sort of material manifestation in the brain. Good is a universal, not a particular. In fact the judgment that a particular thing is Good presupposes a concept of Good, so it couldn’t explain the concept of Good. Good, again, is a universal, not a particular.

So how could a universal concept such as Good be manifested materially in the brain?

The only answer possible from the materialist perspective, it would seem, is that the concept of Good must be an engram, coded in some fashion in the brain. Perhaps Good is a particular assembly of proteins, or dendrites, or a specific electrochemical gradient in a specific location in the brain.
But the materialist is not home yet. Because in order for Good to be an engram in the brain, the Good engram must be coded in some fashion. How could Good be coded? A clump of protein of a specific shape two mm from the tip of the left hippocampus? Obviously there’s nothing that actually means Good about that particular protein in that particular location — one engram would be as Good as another — so we would require another engram to decode the hippocampal engram for Good, so it would mean Good, and not just be a clump of protein. Yet that engram for the code for the engram of Good would itself have to have some representation of Good in order for it to mean that it signifies the code for the Good engram, which would require another engram for the engram for the Good engram, ad nauseam.

In short, any engram in the brain that coded for Good would presuppose the concept of Good in order to establish the code for Good. So Good, from a materialist perspective on the mind, must be an infinite regress of Good engrams. Engrams all the way down, so to speak, which of course is no engrams at all.


Conclusion
There are things that are immaterial that are not contingent on materialist concepts. Free will is impossible in a materialist world and thus we should reject materialism. 


Round 2
Published:
Round 2

Thanks for that Con.
Also, thank you for supporting a debate culture, where, when the instigator requests that both debaters follow the rules of the debate, both debaters follow the rules of the debate.
It's sad that this is not the norm.


Con's P2

This is the whole shebang, I mean I've stated my case that all things are reducible to particles, so really, if Con cannot show that his P2 is true, "Immaterial things exist," this debate is a done deal, and one must vote Pro.

So Con brings up 4 things that he thinks are immaterial.

1. The Laws of Logic

The laws of logic are conceptual representations derived from physical limits.
The most logical statement is A = A, because in the physical world, two different entities cannot be the same entity, i.e. A can only be A and nothing else.
Also, logic is merely an abstract organization of our thoughts which are themselves contingent on neurological substrates.

I'm saying that without neurological substrates, things like consciousness, intention, and intelligence cannot exist, and so the constructs like logic that we create to help organize our thoughts also cannot exist and are not transcendent.

All evidence indicates that consciousness, intention, and therefore intelligence require...
"neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors...the weight of evidence indicates that nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”
All evidence indicates that neurological substrates originated from "the last common ancestor of all bilaterian animals, living 600–700 Mya, [which] probably had a diffusely organized nervous system."

So, because neurological substrates didn't show up on earth until 700 mya, neither did the laws of logic, which humans created to represent physical limits experienced by navigating the physical world and to organize thoughts into cohesive constituents.

Also, the idea that A must equal A could be vastly different in a universe with different physical properties.

"if you follow through with all the predictions quantum physics gives you, it allows multiple bubbles to form—one of which is our universe. These are sorts of fluctuations in the quantum foam. Quantum physics fluctuates all the time. But now the fluctuations are not just particles coming into and out of existence, which happens all the time. It’s whole universes coming into and out of existence." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
This means that in other universes, the laws of physics could be vastly different based on how they formed in the quantum foam.The laws themselves are arbitrary and are contingent on the types of matter each universe brings forth.


2. The Laws of Mathematics

Mathematics are based on shapes, quantity, and distance, which are all physical concepts.
Again, shapes come from the particles that make up physical things, so if the particles were vastly different, the shapes would be vastly different, and the mathematics that represent these shapes would be vastly different.

Quantity is a physical concept, i.e. how many particles are there?
If there were no countable entities, there would be no counting at all.

Distance is merely the position of or the space between energy in the empty vacuum of space.
The empty space is itself a field of fluctuating quantum particles which are also physical.
Measuring this space, distance, is completely physical.


3. The Laws of Physics

As mentioned earlier, the physical laws themselves are arbitrary and depending on the type of matter that arises with the particular universe, the laws themselves may be vastly different, and so are contingent on the type of matter available in each universe.
Also, without anything physical, physics could not study anything.
The laws of classical physics are also not transcendent as they break down at the quantum level.

No physical things, no physics laws.


4. Free Will

"Physical determinism is a position that holds that all physical events occur as described by physical laws" and so as Con mentioned "If everything is dependent on the physical world, then free will is impossible. If all what we are is made up chemical reactions, then we have no free choice."

Con is correct, because physical laws are deterministic, there is no free will, so I need not hash over anything Con posited here, because according to physics, free will does not exist and Con agrees that given the laws of physics, free will is not possible.
Physical Determinism

Even if free will did exist, it would still be contingent on our neurological substrates.
Unless Con can show free will without neurological substrates.

Ok, on to you Con.
Published:
Thank you, Pro! In this round, I will be responding first to my opponent's opening speech.

=== Pro's Construct ===

My opponent in round 1 argued that everything can be reduced to particles, radiation, energy, or spacetime.

My opponent writes "Other things that exist like thought, love, the mind, compassion, consciousness, intelligence, and happiness are constructs contingent on the physical brain, physical neurons, and other physical neurological substrates." 

This I actually agree with (with the exception of consciousness). These things are certainly constructed by the human brain. Remove the physical brain and you remove those thoughts. My opponent is correct.

Supernature

The main definition of supernatural/supernature is "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." 

To win this debate I actually do not have to prove that God exists or that there is such a thing as a supernatural realm. All that I have to do is prove that there are some things that cannot be reduced to matter. There are quite a few different philosophical views that are not dependent on the supernatural but are definitely anti-materialism. For example:

Immaterialism: the belief that material things have no objective existence.
Idealism: Idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena. According to this view, consciousness exists before and is the pre-condition of material existence.
Dualism: The concept that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute

Though again I don't have to prove any of these theories correct, I just have to argue against materialism. With that, I will now defend my opening speech.

=== Con's Construct ===

Immaterial things exist

1. The Laws of Logic

Pro completely misunderstands my argument. Recall that I brought up modal logic and the types of worlds:

The actual world - the one that we live in
A possible world -  a world that is logically possible
An impossible world - a world that is logically impossible

There is no possible world, either logically or scientifically, in which the statement A=A is false. If my opponent wishes to argue that states such a universe could exist, my opponent has the BOP to show how such a universe could exist. Consider the following

If p then q
p
Therefore q

If the first two statements are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. There is no possible world, logically or scientifically, where both premises are true but the conclusion is false. 

My opponent argues that they are the product of the mind, but this too is false for one simple reason: they are transcendent. Matt Slick points out:

  1. Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
    1. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
      1. They do not stop being true dependent on location.  If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true
    2. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
      1. They do not stop being true dependent on time.  If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
    3. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people.  That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
      1. People's minds are different.  What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute.  People often contradict each other.  Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
      2. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds.  But this cannot be so per the previous point.
Another point I wish to note that my opponent disagrees that we have free will and agrees with the statement that "If all that we are is made up chemical reactions, then we have no free choice." But this can be applied to logic as well. This is the key question to pro: if all that we are is made up of chemicals, then how can we trust our brains and how can we trust logic? How is logical discourse even possible?

Thus we can conclude:
1) the laws of logic are transcendent - not dependent on thought
2) the laws of logic are self-authenticating 
3) They are true in every possible world, thus do not depend on the physical laws of nature or the construct. 
4) They are uncreated and uncaused 
Thus materialism is false 

2. Laws of Mathematics

My opponent is stunningly wrong in his assertion that math is based purely on shapes, quantity, and distance, which are all physical concepts. Mathematics certainly describes those things, but they are rooted in the transcedental laws of logic that goes back to my P1. Without logic, there cannot be any math. Indeed mathematic realism states that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind, thus they are discovered and not invented. Consequently, they cannot be dependent on the human mind. 

To illustrate this let's consider the mathematical equation 2+2=3+1. These statements are both true. You add 2+2 and you get 4. Add 3+1 and you get 4. 4=4 is a true statement that goes back to the law of identity (A=A). 

There is no possible world in which 2+2=/=4

I am running out of time and would like to save the defend my other arguments in the next round.

Over to pro! 


Round 3
Published:
Round 3

Thanks for that Con.
Con agrees on constructs being reducible to neurological substrates, so I won't hash over those.
Con also mentions "To win this debate I actually do not have to prove that God exists or that there is such a thing as a supernatural realm" and I also agree with that, so I won't go over that bit either.

However, Con brings up some points of contention.


Logic, Physics, and Superposition

I had pointed out that logical principles like A = A are derived from human experience with the physical world and our need to organize our thoughts to aide us in reaching viable conclusions.
.
The problem is that we experience the world on the macro physics level, so not only is logic contingent on our brains and neurons, it's only applicable to our experience on a macro physics scale.

For instance,
Con claims:
"There is no possible world, either logically or scientifically, in which the statement A=A is false."
My response:
Yes there is, it's called the quantum world.
Quantum mechanics violates logic all of the time, because logic was created by macro-physical human brains and neurons that have experienced only macro physical events and phenomena.
In quantum mechanics, an atom can be both excited and not excited at the same time, it's called quantum superposition.

Con, can A = A, especially if A = not A?
If an atom can be both excited and not excited at the same time, how does the law of the excluded middle apply here?

The answer is that the quantum world IN JUST OUR UNIVERSE, not even considering other universe's physical laws, is not bound by logic at all and so A = A is false on the quantum level, and it should be obvious that if A = not A, then the law of the excluded middle is violated by atoms all of the time.
Then if you consider other universes and their different physical laws, their quantum physical laws would also be vastly different and so would not follow our neuronal logic either.


Ps and Qs

Con syllogizes:
"If p then q
p
Therefore q
If the first two statements are true then the conclusion necessarily follows. There is no possible world, logically or scientifically, where both premises are true but the conclusion is false."
My response:
Ok, let's imagine that:
P = Atom X is excited
Q = Atom X is not excited.

What you should see is that Q is the negation of P, and so if you run the syllogism it looks like:

If a particular atom is excited (P) it is also not excited (Q).
A particular atom is excited (P).
It is also not excited (Q).

The conclusions is P therefore not P.
This is a violation of the law of the excluded middle and thus the quantum world suffices as a world where both premises are true, but a contradiction arises in the conclusion, making it false.

This shows that the laws of logic aren't even transcendent enough to effect the quantum realm.
Boom.


Con's Other Thoughts

Con asks:
"if all that we are is made up of chemicals, then how can we trust our brains and how can we trust logic?"
My response:
By corroboration, external verification, and peer review.

We know that brains can accurately detect stimuli in the correct position in space.
"The components of the circuitry for orientation discrimination are recruited differently according to the position of the stimulus. In ventral occipital areas and putamen, rCBF differences between discrimination and detection are higher when central stimuli are used."

This demonstrates that our brains are reliable at accurately detecting stimulus.
This also indicates that our brains' observations are reliable, so if verification is occurring, our senses and logic derived from such can be trusted.


Con says:
"My opponent is stunningly wrong in his assertion that math is based purely on shapes, quantity, and distance, which are all physical concepts."
My response:
Mathematics is "the abstract science of number, quantity, and space," and Con admits here that they are all physical concepts.

Here's another definition of mathematics.
mathematics - the science of numbers, forms, amounts, and their relationships.
Cambridge Dictionary - mathematics

Mathematics is wholly contingent on the physical universe and if there are other universes, then the mathematics would be vastly different because the particles would be vastly different and would make different shapes, and the amount of particles that make up functional matter and energy would make different quantities of energy and matter which would change the numbers used to represent these quantities as well.


Conclusion

Con has yet to show anything that isn't reducible to or contingent on the material, and logic, math, and yes consciousness too are all properties of human neurological wherewithal.
Con?
Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
Conclusion

It's rather unfortunate that Con couldn't respond to my direct rebuttals to his points, but silence is compliance, so the quantum world proves that logic and math don't even transcend quantum mechanics, let alone the universe, and that all things that exist are reducible to the material.

Thanks for the debate Con, hopefully the votes will...materialize.
Published:
The end.

Sorry I got sick and couldn't finish. Would love to revisit this another time and would love feedback on the arguments presented. 
bsh1 avatar
Added:
Got that done with only 20 minutes to spare. Whew.
#10
bsh1 avatar
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ramshutu // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
#9
Ramshutu avatar
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Np, it’s one of the most subtle aspects of debate is not to concede the burden of proof, nor use an argument that shifts it against your favor. It meant you ended up doing all the leg work, and Magic didn’t have to defend anything.
#8
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thanks for the feedback
Contender
#7
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
Don't worry man, RM was objectively defeated by you so you deserve to be where you are.
You're just better than he.
Instigator
#6
Alec avatar
Added:
No I'm not.
#5
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
and you are solely there because of ratoing-feeding thanks to one of these debaters grudge voting against me
#4
Alec avatar
Added:
I'm expecting a good argument. As of the time of this comment, both debaters are in the top 7.
#3
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
He is going to semantically decimate you, I wouldn't be begging for it if I were you.
#2
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
--> @MagicAintReal
A little more than 12 hrs left
Contender
#1
b9_ntt avatar
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments: Pro (Pro’s arguments were more convincing {see below}. Con did not rebut Pro’s argsuments/rebuttals made in Round 3.)
Sources: Pro (Pro’s sources were more convincing {see below}).
Grammar/Spelling: Tie (Pro incorrectly used “effect” instead of “affect” in Round 3, just before the one-word paragraph “Boom.”; Con misspelled the name of one source—in Round 1, Contention 2, “Free Will”: Michael “Egor” should be “Egnor”.)
Conduct: Pro (Con forfeited Rounds 3 & 4.)
===============================================
Round 1
Pro: Everything that exists is physical or contingent upon the physical.
-------------------
Con: Immaterial things exist: the laws of math, logic, and physics. They are true in all possible worlds, therefore not dependent on anything physical.
“Key question to pro: Is there any possible world in which there exists a square circle or where 2+2=5? If not, then these statements are not dependent on the physical world.”
Con said that free will exists. If all is physical, free will is impossible. Therefore materialism is false.
Con quotes Michael “Egor”[sic] of the Discovery Institute to support his case. Egnor argues that if “good” were material-based, it would have to be physically encoded in the brain. as an “engram.” Such coding would be “a particular assembly of proteins, [or other things] in a specific brain location.” There being nothing about the assembly that means good, a decoding engram would be necessary. The decoding engram would also require decoding, and so on, ad infinitum. I find this argument unconvincing,
Round 2
Pro rebuts Con’s statement about the laws of logic by stating that they are “an abstract organization of our thoughts ... contingent on neurological substrates.” Pro adds a supporting quote from Cambridge U., which I think strengthens Pro’s argument, to the effect that neurophysiological substrates underlie intentional behaviors.
Pro answers Con’s question from Round 1 (Is there a possible world in which a square circle exists or where 2+2=5?) in the affirmative with “the quantum world.”
Pro rebuts Con’s statement about mathematical laws by arguing that they are based upon “shapes, quantity, and distance,” all physical concepts.
Pro rebuts Con’s statement that the laws of physics are transcendental by arguing that said laws “break down at the quantum level.”
Pro agrees with Con that “If everything was physical, free will would be impossible.” Pro links to an article on Physical Determinism, which seemed equivocal to me on the subject of mental events, so I’m not sure that it supports his argument that everything is physical.
-------------------
Con agrees that certain abstractions such as thoughts, feelings, mind, and intelligence (but not consciousness) are constructs and are dependent upon the brain. In Round 1, Con argued that the abstractions, intellect and will, as well as the universal, good, are “immaterial.” At the end of this round, Con states that mathematics are also immaterial. Con does not provide a method for determining which abstractions are dependent on the brain and which are not.
Con states that to win this debate it is necessary only to prove that something which exists is not reducible to matter.
Con reiterates that laws of logic are valid in all possible worlds. Con then shifts the burden of proof to Pro, to prove that a world could exist in which the laws of logic are invalid, but does not address Pro’s rebuttal in this round concerning the “quantum world.”
Con quotes Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry to the effect that “Logical Absolutes” are transcendent, independent of human minds. Slick’s argument is that people differ about what is absolute and they contradict each other. This argument is unconvincing to me, because some people could be correct and others not.
Con asks how we can trust our brains if they are material only. Con says that we can’t, nor could we trust our logic.
Con then lists four conclusions, which I do not think have been proved: 1) the laws of logic are transcendent - independent of thought; 2) the laws of logic are self-authenticating; 3) They are true in every possible world, thus do not depend on the physical laws of nature or the construct; 4) They are uncreated and uncaused; Thus materialism is false. At this point, I am not convinced that Con’s four conclusions have been proved.
Finally, Con states that mathematics are “rooted in the transcendental laws of logic.”
Round 3
Pro answers Con’s question a second time: human logic breaks down at the quantum level. Pro supports this contention with expanded argumentation and an excellent video produced at the University of Paris.
Pro counters Con’s rebuttal that mathematics are based on the laws of logic by quoting from the Oxford and the Cambridge dictionaries, both of which support Pro’s view.
-------------------
Con forfeited Round 3, and conceded Round 4.
Ramshutu avatar
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Arguments.
After the first round, it appears both pro and con appear to settle down into an argument that really hinges on whether “immaterial things” exist.
In my view, this approach means con has effectively pulled the burden of proof to him, which is not a great move when you don’t have to. (Feedback, never take on any additional burden unless there is literally no other way)
Con appears to raise a few examples. In no particular order:
1.) Free will.
Con argues free will exists, and as this cannot be explained if all our minds is matter and forces.
Pro explains this by arguing that free will doesn’t exist. While I felt pro could and should have done more here, con didn’t justify why he felt free will exists, so pros return argument is sufficient.
2.) laws of mathematics.
Mathematics, con argues that 2+2 cannot equal 5 in any other universe, I don’t feel he is able to support this. In my view pro doesn’t do a particularly great job of this one either. Con does raise the abstract nature of mathematics and how that pro doesn’t fully cover, in my view.
Part of his main justification, however, is to tie it to the laws of logic, which con does a better job of justifying previously.
3.) The laws of logic.
Cons Argument is predicated in the laws of logic being transcendent, and that there is no world where p = !p.
Pro devastates this argument with his argument from quantum theory, I cannot stress how totally this one is blown out of the water by con.
From this, I can only take the view that pro has not shown anything immaterial exists, and arguments must go to pro.
Conduct:
I would normally award conduct to pro here due to the forfeit, but will cede this time to extenuating circumstances for this single time.