Total votes: 1
Con simply has much better sources and their logic stands much better.
Pro's position on the topic requires that he disproves all other possibilities which is much harder to do than prove a single other possibility. That is like trying to get someone to buy a single style of glasses with one million other options. Pro may want to keep this in mind for his future debates. Don't set yourself up for failure.
False alien invasion -- "How Demons came down and called themselfs god" "The demons are going to come back but this time there not going to call themselfs Gods" "Remember Demons look like humans but with wings" "Which would be correct except for the bible. TV Shows like ancient aliens do this. Where they show all the evidence that demons calling themselves god and created religions" "My god is right because my god has prophesy that come true. almost 2000 years ago Israel was completely destroyed by Babylon." "Israel was created and declared a nation in a single day in 1948 after the Hitler stuff." -- I feel like this is a good example of why pro's arguments stand less well. While this might make sense to Pro's logic and experience it makes hugely less to Con's. Con is atheist and doesn't believe in demons in the first place, so when points like "cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence" because a radio pastor said it and using that as a source, it doesn't do too well against them. Maybe like trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in santa that elves are real, you have to speak in your opponent's terms and on their field to convince them of something.