Alec

FF from Pro.

Full forfeit on Pro's part. Con also had more convincing arguments since he actually had arguments.

I disagree with Pro, but I think he deserves to win because he made more convincing arguments. Con forfeit the whole debate, which is poor arguments as well as poor conduct.

Con forfeit twice. This is poor conduct and evidence that Pro's arguments were convincing.

Con had arguments so good that Pro forfeit without apology.

Pro also forfeited. This is poor conduct.

Full forfeit.

Arguments:

Con kindof conceded in the final round by stating, "I never said anything against the books.". The debate was about star wars in general.

Sourcing:

Pr showed how much revenue Star Wars produced and this is good for the economy.

Conduct:

Con forfeit without apology. This is poor conduct.

Arguments:

While Pro had some arguments, they were refuted by Con and Pro didn't refute Cons back.

Citations:
Pro doesn't cite at all, at least some of Cons sources connect to his evidence.

Spelling and grammar:

Pro says, "nmvaco" which interferes with the meaning of the text. this is poor spelling.

Conduct:

Pro threatened to summon the "Duck god" to Con at the end. He also forfeited a round without apology. This is poor conduct. However, Con also called Pro a crackhead at the end. This is also poor conduct. Since Pro made 2 mistakes whereas Con made 1, this means that this point should go to Con.

Convincing arguments:

Pro stated that it teaches self discipline. Con rebutted this. It's not convincing for how a sport that encourages assault would teach self discipline. People already know not to hit each other. Con also had arguments so convincing to his opponent that it caused him to forfeit. He said there were other alternatives to get fit and to get self discipline.

Conduct:

Pro forfeit all of his rounds except the 1st one. This is poor conduct.

I hope my vote does not get removed because I am trying pretty hard on this one.

Pro's argument contradicted it's self. He said, "Even K-Rino can't rhyme like them and he's literally the best rapper in general on earth." Yet his argument was Eminem was the best on earth. He also forfeited.

I hope my vote does not get deleted by anybody. I read the ToS, and am making this vote based off of an approved summary of the ToS.

Who made more convincing arguments:

Con had better arguments because he actually had an argument. Pro forfeit the whole debate.

Who had better conduct:

Con did not forfeit any of the rounds wheres Pro forfeit all of the rounds. This is extremely poor conduct.

Pro had an argument and used sources.

Con cited a .gov source and had more of them. Pro forfeit one of the rounds. This is poor conduct.