Barney

Forfeiture.

I really dislike voting with this many points toward one side when the other made a solid effort... I wish I could balance by awarding say 1 point for arguments instead of 3 (can't be done, but I can daydream)

Conduct (Fran.):
Virt. forfeited a round… And no, the dropping of another round does not hurt conduct (it still hurts arguments, but that’s a whole other thing).
Oh and Fran. did not forfeit (it still annoys me that this needs to be listed).

S&G (Virt.):
Fran., I strongly advise writing your future arguments in MS Word or another smart text editor.

1. Missing characters (most often apostrophes), problems with your/you’re distinctions, capitalization abuse, missing spaces between words, etc. Examples “NO CANT” “he didn’t won fairly” “COMBINED. No race here. Just nonsense for democrats.” (that one doesn’t make sense as separate sentences, nor if the periods were changed to commas). “impending?But” even were the periods fixed, this just doesn’t make sense as the separate sentences there that one doesn’t make sense
2. The commonality of these errors kept pulling me from the debate.
3. In comparison: the other side used great formatting to make the debate easy to follow.

Sources (Virt.):
Fran. started this on a low note. Sources should never be a strawperson fallacy video, it hurts the credibility of the side using it especially when a point is made that it is the only source needed.
Virt. Started with giving definitions (honestly those should have been in the description), setting himself as a voice of reason (it’s not that he necessarily is, but he postured himself as such given that neither side’s arguments make sense without this). Then repeated source after source to support the presence of voter suppression. The 6th was of particular weight, given that a real judge ruled against what was happening (they’re more knowledgeable than any of us on this, so great and valid appeal to authority). I also do give extra credit when someone is able to call back to their same sources between rounds (it speaks of the reliability of sources, and avoids source spamming).

Arguments (Virt.):
So here’s the big thing, if the tactic was used but did not really impact anything, it was still used. It need not even be done by race (it’s more likely to be done by education and income levels… it’s not like white people write in white ink and black people in black… we should all fear the unseen blue people!). It was however proven to be done against people who vote by mail, and the resolution is written as an absolute.

note 1: Given how the rest of this vote has turned out, I kind of want to leave arguments a tie, but it is the one thing that absolutely has to be graded to grade anything else.
note 2: I suspect the resolution may have been written to address a different premise than what Fran intended it to be.

C1 (Fran.): “A democrat Lost.”
This goes to Fran., but has no impacts. That either side lost does not mean anything about the topic, as one side was guaranteed to lose (okay technically in a billion such elections there might be a tie, but that is getting into an absurd area of consideration).

C2 (Virt.): Conflict of interest (AKA “Observations about the Election”)
This went unchallenged. Virt set this up successfully as a premise to use for later arguments, but by itself it does not gain ground. Things can be sketch as hell, but not in itself prove much. … I do give credit to Fran for using my favorite rebuttal “irrelevant.”

C3 (Virt.): MAIL Ballot Tossing
Virt. proved it was done to massive levels, coming to about 10% of votes that were mailed in, on an election that was narrow to only 1.5%. Fear of criminal aliens did not undo what was done. Interestingly Fran’s source could have been used to explain what was expressly pointed out as unexplained and suspicious, but what I read in the source does not matter, what is cited from it is all that does.

Had that 10% been proven to be a normal amount of rejected votes, this would not be such a decisive argument.

C4 (tie): Exact Match Rule
Over 50k voters suppressed. A judge had to intervene against it… It feels wrong, but I can’t say if it was or was not voter suppression given that neither debater advanced it after their original comments on the subject.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture.

All kudos points to con! (seriously, it wouldn't be a bad additional point category...)

Arguments to pro. More or less this was dealing with a truism, to which con needed a hard K, or to bring on the laughs.

Math (pro): 2+2 reliably equals 4. This is the most important area of contention, to which con had the general duty to disprove (or at least to cast doubt).

Biology (tie): Amusing side node, but it doesn't hold actual weight toward the resolution without more put into it. Why 2a+2a=2k doesn't actually line up, for starters where did the adults disappear to? Con could have used historical information that women die in childbirth decreasing the overall number when adults are combined, but the follow through was missing.

Abstract (tie): Had con pulled Numebrwang (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0obMRztklqU) on this, it could have gone somewhere... But his end proof is that 2+2=2 because he said so, is just a weak assertion. Defining things however you want, and making a point of that, leaves any sane person not questioning that classic math is a better way to do it, leaving the original answer unchallenged.

How con could have won?
Most easily just showing that Americans suck at math (this debate was on standard american mathematics taught in school, given our nation debt we clearly can't balance a checkbook) ... Otherwise, quoting René Descartes; Quoting George Orwell and applying that we live post 1984; or likewise quoting certain modern thinkers (ideally with appeals to authority for their universities) who insist we cannot obey objective science due to racism. Bad math could have also done it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVI5s6CyoUY).

Concession.

Basically no contest. Pro had no real case of his own, and chose not to refute any part of cons (he did attempt a very weak K via moving the goalpost).

Pro's opening case is two words, not enough to give him BoP, barely enough to make an assertion.

Con's in depth case on ways the subject of this debate could do something (seems not just un-impossible, but outright likely). For the criteria, I'll just use #7, RM could fake the evidence. This went uncontested. Pro tried a weird it hasn't happened yet so it will never happen, but this debate is not about history but possibility.

Sources were used by one side to show how easy proof would be, and they were left uncontested and with no counter evidence. The digitaltrends one showed how easily a program could identify matching works of the same author.

Forfeiture. ... Good luck if opening this challenge again for another contender.

Forfeiture.

Got to respect the concession with a favorable conduct note...

Con proved pro was speaking in gibberish. Pro then failed to demonstrate that a "belt of bowl" is a real thing. S&G due to the poor S&G being used successfully as an argument impacting the debate.

Concession.

FF, and trying to prevent this being swayed by any last minute vote-bombs.

Arguments:
1. Pro set a semantics bomb, con defused it.
2. Con walked pro through how to argue this, pro ignored it in favor of pointing to the already defused bomb.
3. Con demonstrated various ways humans are winning against Chimps (not to mention the rest of the planet).
There is no standard with which to even consider a pro victory.

Sources:
Pro had the YouTube (would have only been good evidence were they recorded by Chimps...) and conspiracy theory site (likely an attempt to show how dumb humans were, that any believe that crap), whereas con had a ton of sources, of particular note was the smithsonianmag.com removing any doubt about how we're winning.

Conduct:
(not going to grade this on the plagiarism, as they are not copy/pasted, but merely similar work from the same human... maybe it was an attempt at showing lack of human creativity compared to chimps and dogs?)
Pro accusing con of being a racist etc etc etc scum, seals this. The debate itself being semantics could be counted as just really weak arguments he could not move beyond, but the personal attacks are inexcusable. ... Oh and yes, con kept a level head rather than resorting to Ad Hominems.

Forfeiture and no contest.

Concession and role confusion. I hope you each argue this against from the sides you prefer (not against each other, since you both wanted the same side).

The entire pro case dropped without challenge (or even being read, as his #2 and #7 was already contradicted by pro's #2), and forfeiture.

Pretty straight forward, a benefit made available to twice the current population, at the expense of a negative effect applied to precisely zero people... The traditional values issue for example, is done without showing any way even one traditional value would be harmed... The distracted angle was not shown to be meaningful and was countered with basic logic.

Note on the distracted clause: Pro technically if there were so many more gay people in the scouts, they would not be the ones banned, you would be for being so distracting to them; that is the standard pro's logic proposes. AND since boy scouts are about teaching discipline, learning to deal with distractions (which I know, your number 2 prevents anyway) would lead to greater self improvement for them.

Concession.

Concession.

Forfeiture.

No real contest...

Let's see, pro pulls the old Christians are terrorists cliche, but fails to support it with anything beyond the base assumption... Con of course countered this with a reminder that nearly every religion has a big sin of believing in the wrong gods, so you're almost certainly damning yourself way worse if any one of them happens to be right.

On time, pro might have taken this had she stuck to the lack of a time requirement angle, but she directly contradicted herself by then insisting the need for a time investment every Sunday (which con went into great detail laying out how much time that adds up to). She then chose to drop the analysis of time investment required (giving her this argument, would require failing to even skim the bold text in the debate).

Con makes some other arguments, but they were left unchallenged so it'd be pointless to restate them.

I admit that I want to leave this tied, but careful review does not support that award.

C1 (pro): Jews as a race
Quite possible. Calling the dictionary wrong is fine, but a reason to disbelieve it would have shifted this away from pro. ... Pro, you probably should have cited the existence of Christian Jews in Israel (not basing my argument award on this, it's standalone advice). The base fact that something is popular, does not guarantee it to be wrong.

Further, con's later argument argued that we are things if we meet the criteria. Even if genetic lines are horrible to consider, they still verify the basis for someone to be genetically one thing (or many things) but not certain others.

C2 (con): Jews as an identify
This did not get much headway. While on the surface accepting what people define themselves as is good and reasonable, con used the chair analogy, which shows how flawed it would be to just accept broad claims (e.g., Donald Trump claimed to be Native American back in '93, but not even his supporters take him seriously). So at least within this argument, some random person not of the blood or religion proclaiming himself or herself to be both does not confirm they have any validity to do so.

Conclusion: C1 is enough, as C2 does not invalidate it, which leaves an outright likely way for someone to be both things.

Pretty much no contest. ... Next time please use the description to define what God in Human Form would be prior to the debate rounds, or at least by what standard is to be used (con could have trolled with a simple K denial of God's existence... he quite respectfully gave the desired debate).

"that was a lot of points to counter." ... was badly ironic given the Gish Gallop in R1.

C1 had an attempted counter, pointing to an isolated place where it said without reason (or at least without double checking the rest) that Jesus was without sin; but that left the thrust of those sins he committed unrefuted.

C2 and C3 wholly dropped.

CONDUCT: Forfeiture.

Pro conceded that he offered no evidence, did not challenge the counter case, and failed to even meet BoP. The enormity of this concedes the debate.

Note: I give conduct to the conceding party, but the majority of points to the victor. It's not to insult the victor, rather it's to give credit for saving us all so much time.

I need to first specify that con began each contention with what looks like a quote, prostitution = "immoral" for example. The problem is these quotes are not contained within the links given, and neither debater responded to inquiries about this. Thus I am forced to dismiss the quotes without effect to conduct or arguments.

BOP:
Here's the thing, con gets benefit of doubt. In English inspired and based are not synonymous, so something can be inspired by something without being based on it. ... Written before reading past the description, because I know it will become important.

Victory Condition:
For this debate Pro need not prove AND, merely OR. If one contention holds up, he wins (this may seem unfair, but it's literally in the resolution). ... At the end of the debate I've gone back to this, and pro failed to prove even one. The resolution is probably true, but pro failed to show it within five rounds.

Debate Gist:
Pro argues that anyone with religion wants pure theocracy in government, con says that's not true.

C1 (con): Border Fence
Pro argues con only believes this due to divine command theory. Con counters that he does not subscribe to such, as exemplified by his lack of support for laws against swearing (no stoning to death anyone who says the lord's name in vein, or wearing mixed fabrics, would have been a better example). Further con believes in it for reasons of national defense instead of religion. Pro counters that without Christianity no one would want to defend their borders (this doesn't hold up due to even a basic knowledge of world history, namely that the existence of nations long predates Christianity).
... When debating you sometimes hit a dud, in these cases it's better to drop it, rather than pretend it's a diamond.

C2 (con): Civil Unions and Marriage in General
That something shouldn't be legally regulated at all... *facepalm*
Pro tried to get a checkmate on the basis that con used the word believe in any context... *facepalm*
Con counters by reminding us that this debate is about political beliefs (like what he would cast a vote in support of), not separate religious beliefs (like going to church on Sunday, even if we won't be arrested for not). Pro complains that con refuting his argument was not fair (even doing this repeatedly through the remaining rounds, did not add any reason it would support the resolution).
... When debating you sometimes hit a dud, in these cases it's better to drop it, rather than pretend it's a diamond.

C3 (tie): Legalized Prostitution
This gets scary, as pro thinks morality cannot come from reason, and con thinks it is about obeying whatever the law of the land is. (this was how they argued, not to say what they believe outside of the debate)

The problem of an out of date profile is annoying, but even going by an opposition to prostitution, religion was never demonstrated to be the reason for that (nor even that religion is opposed... it probably is, but no source suggests such).

C4 (con): Politics
Not positive this was meant to be a serious contention, but was easily refuted with con's second paragraph in R2 (religious people do not exclusively follow religious laws).

Sources:
Con giving an outdated source sucks, but even his old political beliefs were not conclusively shown to be purely religious (or pro really should have shown the quote in the bible the border wall is based on). Plus, here's the big thing: if you have reason to challenge him to a debate, there should be something he's said somewhere to make you think the resolution is true, not merely his old profile from a dead website, or a religious conspiracy theory to which he happens to be listed as a member of said religion. So pro, next time quote him on something.

Better Contentions:
I like to point out how someone could have won, and abortion could have been a slam dunk had it been more than a tiny side point going into the final round of the debate. It's one that pro-life sources could have been used to highlight the direct religious connection to the political belief (something not done for any of the contentions... the term is warrant, as in there's evidence to suggest, not merely an assertion).

This is a weird debate given that no one could even begin to consider the cases without knowing the basics of key related myths (a definition for Jesus and for Messiah should have been included in the description).

So here's the biggie, con was the only one who offered an IF THEN TRUE. Near the end of the debate pro even made a complaint that con's arguments did not absolutely prove Judaism, which was not was this resolution was about (If Judaism is wrong, that would not prove Jesus was anything).

By con's standard (which pro engaged with such that I think he bought in to said standard), Pro wins the debate if Jesus "come at the end of days, bring peace to the Earth, bring people close to God, rebuild the Temple, and restore the Davidic throne." These points were pretty well dropped, which as they were the issue I thought was most important gives con the debate (C3 was not absolutely proven or disproven, so ended up having almost no impact; C0 was just tied; C1 also went to con... this falls pretty strongly in con's favor)

C0 (tied): The messiah is named for disease, and the Rabbis accepted this (admittedly I really did not understand this, other than it might relate to the possibility (not certainty) that Jesus is the Messiah). ... Con's rejection of this corrected a minor cherry picking (not actually against conciseness, just know where people might expand to make holes in your case) via adding on the preceding line, and making a strong connection to the history of the land (instead of a dude) he believes the passage in question referred to. But first, it awesomely went into cow-Jesus worship (it was criticizing the sacrifice connection, with India today as a stand-in). Pro gave a rather long protest to this, but the protest itself did not prove that Jesus was the messiah, it was only really about if one line from the holy books could be about a man instead of a nation.

C1 (con): The genealogies of Jesus disqualify him (wrong father to be eligible), and that the 14 generations were a lie (I was unclear on what the lie was until a source was used later).
Pro asking "what historical evidence do you provide for that claim?" is a little off-putting, given that we're talking about mythologies. Con navigated the false dilemma in a long-winded manner, ultimately defending Mary's honor against pro's claims, while maintaining the biblical denial of Joseph being father to Jesus. Somehow this side tracked into there being no errors in the bible, and that's why they had to lie to add errors... This is continued with Luke lied about who he was talking about when listing Joseph's line (which was long ago pre-refuted with how they tracked these things making only the father's side matter).

C2 (con): Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecies.
To me the previous two are semantic issues, and this is the big one. Actions are more important than who your daddy is and other issues of racism.

The general counterpoint that he could not fulfill all prophies inside his life, fell flat to me, as someone can do various things and then die after being confirmed (at least my interpretation was not that he'd die in his early childhood, but that as messiah he'd die).

The sub contentions were of course dropped, so not going into great detail on them...

C2 A.: Temple
Destroyed.

C2 B.: Gather the Jews
Exile got worse.

C2 C.: World Peace
Sharp! (sorry, had to make the pun)

C3 (mixed): False Prophet
Okay this is a cool unexpected twist. If he's a false prophet, he certainly wouldn't be the messiah. A little C.S. Lewis could have twisted this into pro's favor, but such never came, so the impact of navigating it did not tilt the debate in pro's favor but just avoided losing the debate to it.

The first strike (con)... Claimed to be God. Pro did okay here by asking why that would automatically make him a liar, but when asked failed to show any reason we should ever believe someone making this claim.

The second strike (pro) I don't understand the importance of someone not carrying light things, and pro was able to explain why carrying light things was fine so long as it was not for business.

The third strike (con) was a good one, given that his promised return was supposed to have happened a couple thousand years ago. That counterpoint of insisting that that'd see him again before they died really meant after they died, was obviously unconvincing.

Concession...

Forfeiture.

This honestly felt like a conversation between two people, and not a formal debate to be judged.

Both conceded.
Had there been a definition for elective, this could still be weighted. As is, there were too many unanswered questions; such as is a normal elective different from a required class?

Arguments: Con wins this mainly due to his case being unchallenged. Had there been a real debate, I am sure he would have expanded his points. Pro on the other hand wasted his conclusions by talking about himself and dislike of voters.
Conduct: Pro forfeited.
Sources: I’m unsure the relevance of Michael Jai White, but he is amazing. No other sources, nothing to substantiate any claim.

Aid Money (con): Sounds like a lot. Pro’s counter to this seems to be that it’s a sunk cost (he really should have outlined a challenge to the amount claimed by con, in addition to pointing out that a relationship can be maintained without being a sugar daddy). Con did a nice follow through with concluding his R2 by inquiring why we should continue to pay.

Human Shields (pro): Under the unstated presumption that we must have some influence in the area… That Hamas murders people via using them as human shields, nothing better was said for any neighboring country. Ethically, the side not dedicated to the cause of genocide makes sense as an ally.

Betrayal (con): Sinking one of our ships and influencing our politicians (plus some conspiracy theory stuff about them watching us right now), they’ve been a bad ally. This went uncontested.

Wasn't going to vote on this, but the CVB.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture. Plus making a good strong case in favor of the sport.

Forfeiture. ... That opening argument was pretty good as far as traps go, with a little follow through it probably would have won.

Forfeiture. Plus con gave strong evidence (link's to pro's own words), proving conclusively that he repeatedly broke the COC, and thus in essence requested the ban.

Forfeiture (2 out of 3, no debate could even form).

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture/resignation.
Good luck if you relaunch this.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture.

Got to say, con's final remark sealed the debate. There was no physical stimuli to encourage him to make a racist remark, yet his spirit cried out...

With literally half the debate forfeited, the arguments did not quite reach any destination. Had con stuck to the facts instead of straw manning everything (pro never mentioned God, so why bring that in?), his case could have carried him across the finish line. Had pro not forfeited, his withheld Free Will defense almost certainly would have seized the day. The issue of the twins suggests something we clearly do not understand; but con did a decent job relating it back to physical mechanisms (while I would also expect a shared brain and shared experiences to produce one person not two, this wasn't followed up on enough). As for Free Will, we indeed base our sense of justice on criminals having a choice, but as con pointed out, we might just be hoping it matters.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture.

Forfeiture

SOURCES: when using videos, point out the relevant timestamps.
CONDUCT: As per con's conclusion, this became fully a debate element influencing the respect variable.
ARGUMENTS: Intelligence was left in the realm of doubt (BoP denied), whereas any standard of respect was very much shown to favor Sun Tzu.

Prelude (R0):
So, this is a duel resolution debate. Pro wins the debate IF(AND(BoP(P1)>=1,BoP(P2)>=1),win,lose)
As can be seen in the simple Boolean logic, both premises need to first proven or sufficiently implied, then successfully maintained. The way con tends to argue, he probably throws one under the bus in support of the other, which is not an automatic loss.

Introduction (R1):
Pro, making such a weak appeal to novelty, should be beyond you given your previous debate on ancients (https://www.debateart.com/debates/605). Trying to discredit how well above someone's time they were, by reason that their baseline is primitive, only works on children. Adults on the other hand, basically go "wow, he was the Stephen Hawking of Cro-Magnons!" (imagined quote, not from any user)

Con... You're trying too hard. That the character limit allows you to type every thought, doesn't mean there's any benefit (except protection against grudge votes... I've been there). Your opening would have been better served linking us to Patton Oswalt's brilliant ad libbed filibuster (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNDssdsVnM).

Regarding modifying quotes, you don't need to explain so much, just toss brackets [] around the change.

The grammar catch in the resolution. That ST has had more time to accurate respect, was entertaining. Yeah, semantically there's no way pro can reason JS has greater SUM(respect).

Debate (R2,R3):
Through that unorganized mess, I've identified key areas of importance, and summarized how they turned out...
THINKING (this paradoxically goes a little more toward respect than intelligence): ST seems to have changed the way the world thinks, whereas only JF wants to have done the same (pro claims he outright cured racism, but that's a profound claim needing actual support outside a video of JF talking... Maybe had he transformed the KKK into a force for good?).

ORIGINALITY (this is about intelligence): It seems accepted by pro that JF was sugarcoating Marxism (which was pretty clearly shown to be awful for humans... good for robots...), rather than inventing his own stuff (note: I do agree with pro that using money in a capitalist society is not wrong; but it does remain a little ironic). ST comes out better in this, but it's a lot harder to place anyone he may have copied so far long ago.

INSPIRATION (major respect issue, as implied by the debaters): JF inspires that to argue you call your opponent child molesters and make other use of Ad Hominem attacks, anything to distract from the actual issues under discussion. ST inspires tactical thinking to get a result (I disliked con's lengthy opening, but he made up for it in the concise final round; and once again, showed tactical thinking).

ARGUMENTS (con): In summary, BoP unmet.
SOURCES (tied): See C2.
S&G (tied): I could make a joke about how off topic both were, when the resolution was about marijuana's effects on alcohol...
CONDUCT (tied): Both got a little ugly by the end (pro's usual, con's R2 opening).

C1 (con): Legality
This should have been the equivalent of a warning shot from con, but the counter made it a winner. ... The laws are going away, really rapidly, when speaking of long term effects it's practically a non-issue. Instead of that basic information, the debate presented the hypothetical that problems can just go away (this could equally be applied to health problems from drinking tap water in Flint), with some additional profanity about how much pro doesn't care.

C2 (con): Karma
Pro gets some credit here for making effective use of a source showing alcohol as worse. This should have been his key thing, showing alcohol is worse throughout the debate, rather than in isolation on one small point. While this should not stand up to the onslaught of good sources from con, as a reward for such massive improvement I am leaving sources tied.

Too little of this point was challenged, so while it isn't high impact (pun not intended), it still shifts the argument points a little more toward con.

C3 (con): Date-rape
Pro right away concedes this (and for largely repeats the concession throughout), by pointing out how messed up alcohol gets a person, which supports con's central claim of proving a crime was committed.

Conclusion: As con points out, these debates massively favor pro. Throw some pictures of liver damage, and we're shocked into a vote against alcohol. I feel like con admitting to the work he went into for the trickery was wasted, as this debate never rose to the level where it was needed. If pro were to successfully disprove each of con's contentions, he would still have not introduced his affirmative argument (ok, some ways of disproving could have done it), leaving his BoP unmet.

...
Notes to debaters:

Type: Regarding your R1 opening, sources are supposed to be employed to prove a point. If you don't reference their content, they do you no good. It is the difference between a passionate make-out session, and just placing your un-moving tongue in someone's mouth.

RM: Nice catch on the grammar mistake in the resolution. I once had a debate about if Rap for women was bad... To be fair, I tried to warn the person, but they insisted their own words didn't matter...

ARGUMENTS (con): This largely boils down the the limits stipulated in the description: Or lack thereof. Were the scales of brain size, strength, durability, "more nutritious," etc. specified before the debate, with the current arguments pro would easily win. But con introduced other scales, which give greater value to living modern humans.

CONDUCT (con): Pro called con an "incessant plebian crotch guzzler," and a "pathetic dick/ headed shit." Con refrained from doing likewise (yup, following the weird voting rule of stating when someone does not do something), and in general kept his cool. (FYI, the correct spelling is plebeian... but a small mistake like this does not cost S&G)

Going to break this down by key argument lines as highlighted by con (it captures the main points closely enough, even if these shifted as it went on)...
1.) Cro Magnons are modern humans (pro): The very title of the debate implies it is assuming they are treated as distinct. Con in arguing they are the same, states "Cro Magnon - in context merely defines a particular geographical and historical grouping of modern humans," which preludes pro's counter nicely. The back and forth, does not invalidate that a particular grouping of humans might be better, the Olympic village for example is a grouping full of physically amazing humans.

2.) Arbitrary Definition of Superior (con): I actually disagree with con on the initial cherry picking fallacy complaint, as there will always be some standard of measurement. However, pro could not show why success should be ruled out in measurements. So "Gold Medal wins, Nobel Prizes, scientific and technological achievements, contemporary humans win hands down." Giving made up awards post-mortem, while fine as a joke, would not be the same as top-tier members achieving amazing things. Even intelligence does not favor Cro-Magnons, due to agriculture (pro dropped this point to do an ad hominem attack, instead of actually challenging the information)

CVB.

For someone to say one side won sources, when they forgot to give a beat in half the rounds (the only thing I suspect could translate into sources on these?), is proof of bias completely overriding both reason and basic ethics.

Highlight of the debate which more debaters should use: "This is something we can agree on for this debate's sake and just move on with as it's totally irrelevant to the Debate Resolution."

Summery of the debate: "...Pro's case was some kind of rant to prove Atheism unimportant as well as wrong. Atheism can be unimportant and wrong and still fail to fit this debate's Title's criteria."

S&G: Pro, I give you props for improving your formatting as the debate progressed. It will be very helpful in winning future debates.
Conduct: Not outright penalizing a point, we all went thought growing pains on this, and it really seemed to be ignorance instead of malice.
Sources: This ends up favoring con by too large a margin to ignore. Put simply, con schooled pro. Pulling sources for ethical concepts pro had never heard of (like teachings from Plato), could not challenge, but still tried to disagree with... It intensified the worry about pro thinking murder is A-okay so long as an invisible friend isn't actively telling you not to.
Arguments: Basically no contest.

...

For arguments, I am only focusing on the barrows from the bible (read the rest, they went as predicted... but if the big claim isn't proven, the resolution has already failed): Pro made some assertions that an invisible friend is the only way people can be moral, to which con countered with the basic human condition, and pro tried to refute this by asking where that comes from... No real contest.

...

Something else worth noting from this debate, was an off topic argument pro brought up near the end, which makes me wonder if he's using Poe's Law on us:
"Con is mostly correct in that religions are man made. There is one exception, Judeo-Christianity is not. The God of the Bible is not made by man. His thoughts are well established in His Word written to man. Judeo-Christianity is not arbitrary for One God makes the rules and His truth is absolute."

That line is best read in the voice of Edward Current: https://youtu.be/pusSNjBd8do