Americandebater24

The Pro's stance presents objective claims on a subject that the Con highlights as ultimately subjective. The Con provided sources, while the Pro offered no evidence and demanded proof from the Con to disprove their position without substantiating their own claims. Moreover, the Con demonstrated better conduct than the Pro, who appeared hostile throughout the debate.

Due to poor conduct, lack of evidence, and an unconvincing argument by the Pro, the Con should be declared the winner.

Although what the pro said was far from historically accurate in their arguments. Con made very little to no counter-arguments and even seem to support Pro's argument. Ultimately Pro wins due to participating in the debate while Con forfeited.

debate is non-existent.

Although I think the pro's arguments are flawed and as the con pointed out pro's position in the argument was not clear. The con loses the debate since they refused to participate in the debate by forfeiting too much.

Pro conceded most of the debate by forfeiting and listed no sources to prove Evolution is wrong and only provided the definition of Evolution which does not prove anything in the debate. While Con could have made better arguments they not only forfeited less but correctly pointed out that Pro's stance on evolution was unclear despite believing it to be wrong.

Both Pro and Con should learn to make better arguments that preferably have sources.

Con presented well-structured arguments with evidence highlighting contradictions, while Pro merely reiterated unrelated Scripture, failing to address Con's points effectively.