It is likely that fire magic or blood magic is real

thou there is some truth in the existence of such stuff, but well accord. to the debate, ig con got it b8r.
cz well there should be some info on the assumptions n stuff.
besides that 50% aint big than 50% also puts an end soooo/ meow

Con doesn't kritik the description until the final round, so I'm treating it as binding since it explicitly states "Upon accepting, entire description is agreed upon by Pro and Con and must be followed in whole debate." For the math to work out to 75% exactly, the events need to be independent, which Pro doesn't prove, but Con doesn't bring this up. Either way, it's likely above 50% if we combine the probabilities Pro uses. However, that doesn't make this an automatic win for Pro, especially with the caveat that these probabilities are only assumed "by default." Pro doesn't do anything to move the needle, relying entirely on the default assumptions.

Con challenges the default by defining terms and arguing that examples close to the definitions aren't magic. i.e. "nothing is magical about a warm sun." (His arguments weren't that fleshed out, really just assertions that Pro could have tried to push back on.) Pro defends the description and argues the original definitions, but I didn't see Con contradicting the definitions, just using sources that say more about them. Con is also the only one telling me how to interpret the term "magic" as used in the description.

So even if I start with the default assumptions and agree with Pro's math, Con providing arguments that get entirely dropped by Pro are enough to negate the resolution. Pro isn't telling me why I should stay with the default assumptions when new information is provided (if anything, the whole point of a "default" is that it is generally abandoned when a better metric comes along).

Pro does himself a disservice by offering a “likely: definition of “over 50% chance to be real,” but then offers definitive definition in Description: “fire magic has 50% chance to be real, and that blood magic has 50% chance to be real.” Pro repeated this latter condition in R1, settling the discrepancy.
Pro’s R1 argues that Con cannot prove fire and blood magic do not exist, when Pro has already allowed for just 50% probability that neither or both do exist, leaving a 50% probability for Con’s BoP, regardless of availability of sourced references. Given that both opponents are limited to 50& probability, Pro has cancelled his own argument. Pro R1 lists 4 possible options of either magic’s existence, but does not mention, though has allowed for a fifth by his math: that neither exists, and that needs no exemplary coin toss.
"Likely" implies a probability only greater than 50%, indicating a greater chance of the event occurring than not. A probability of 50% or less suggests an event is at least as likely to not occur as it is to occur, and is therefore not considered likely, all of Pro’s “math” notwithstanding. Probability statistics do not use common math. An AI calculator will know that only if given the input to know it; it will not simply extrapolate successfully, therefore, Pro’s “math” is fruitless. pro should have sided with the definition with which he started, and argue that.
Con’s R2 argument seals the win: “50% is not higher than 50% so Pro loses on the description alone... “

Pro badly misapplies math in attempting to prove that one but not both are real… and the appeal to authority of the description does him no favors without him first showing a reason why the likelihood of either has gone up; the very attempt to do this affirms con not being off base to challenge that number as it is not fixed…

I’m surprised con did not use the OR from the description, but it’s quite respectable. In addition to the 0% argument, he instead showed likely explanations for both types of magic as non-magical, driving the odds of either downward.

Pro could have won this debate. Could have.
Secondly, it is not possible to deduct a conduct point from Con when Pro made this winner-selection instead of multiple criterions. And kritiking a debate does not violate conduct, so even if I were to comply with an absurdly unreasonable request, whiteflame would delete my vote.

Pro attempts to argue that it is more likely that blood and fire magic exists just based on mathematical data alone. But Pro fails to provide a justification for how he arrived at the results that he did. And he doesn't provide a correlation between the numbers or the probability, there needs to be some correlation. Some connection.
Pro's only chance at victory operates on the assumption that the terms of this debate (resolution and the description) are absolute and will guarantee him an auto-win, which can only work if Con doesn't kritik it.

Con does kritik the resolution by pointing out that the assumptions by default are 0% until proven otherwise. Con also defines the difference between medical science and magic, arguing that doctors do not claim to have powers.
Con is the only one to source his arguments. Therefore, Con wins.