Barney

Normally I give conduct for concessions, but conceding while trying to insult someone for being better at the shared hobby makes no sense. If smarter people routinely disagree, maybe there's some truth to what they say.

Weird one, as con concedes the debate, but then pro forfeits the remaining three rounds. I could be wrong, but I'm going with a conduct only award.

Plagiarism. ... Oh and the other side did not plagiarize.

In brief: Looks like an attempted noob snipe, but it missed by a mile.

Arguments (AI):
Given that RM agreed to the terms of the debate outlined in the description (including a clarification on who was who), and proceeded to immediately concede the debate in R1, this goes to AI. The debate never goes back on topic after that, so RM has no points made for his side of the resolution; whereas AI’s points were left utterly uncontested.

The single argument is straight forward, morals are not infallible unless you exclusively obey divine command theory, which kind of says we should not try to understand morals… But again, uncontested, and at least on topic.

As for mechanical aspects of this site: It was off topic within this debate. Start a debate on it with a moderator if it’s such a problem.

Note on debate descriptions: Troll debates are not moderated, so it makes intuitive sense that votes ignoring a troll-strain in a description would not be punished. I as a voter do enforce descriptions, as it says when creating a debate “Detailed description which may contain any important information about the format, the rules and etc.” Granted I generally view violating rules there as a conduct only issue.

Conduct (AI):
R2, RM choose to repeatedly insinuate that AI blind, and further that it would be a bad thing about him or her were that the case. This was done as a tactic to not engage with the debate subject.
Comparatively, AI accused RM of not reading before accepting, which I doubt is true, but RM choose to present himself in a manner to imply the truth to that statement. This was done to try to get the debate back on topic.
AI did briefly fall to RMs level (a reverse paraphrase of RMs statements against the blind, in this case because RM said he needs an aid to read for him, he said the same about RM), but it does not hurt as bad because it was with the clear intent of getting the topic both of them agreed to debate to actually happen.

S&G (tied):
This leans slightly in favor of RM for catching the mistake, and for awkward formatting, but nothing was bad enough to interfere in understanding the debate.

For formatting I suggest only using the indent for larger chunks of text; such as quotations which go across multiple lines. And yes, of course be careful in regards to selecting pro and con before instigating a debate, and if accepting one make sure it's one you are actually interested in debating.

It would be really wonderful if pro is correct (except about monkeys... no one believes we came from literal monkeys, nor that they lack emotions), but he failed to support it with evidence. Con even pointed out what evidence would be enough, and it wasn't a high standard.

So pro's case boils down to he doesn't understand the mechanisms of a theory, therefore a wholly different and unrelated hypothesis must be true. Con counters with an explanation for that theory, and a reminder that the hypothesis is not supported by anything more than hope. He further uses evidence to disprove pro's false beliefs about monkeys.

I should also note that the resolution was so unclear that con had to explain its meaning. This may be some language barrier.

ARGUMENTS TO CON.

The 10th source lending authority to the universal common ancestor was particularly good, as such infers that if we were the point to it all, the rest wouldn't be hanging around, and certainly not in such a variety of shapes unrelated to anything which could become human... As for pro's Marxism source, I am not sure what that was trying to prove (it feels like maybe it was to say that communism created us? That can't be right). ... For the standards, con used a ton of sources to add authority and show research on the issue in question, whereas pro barely had anything, and nothing which advanced his case. SOURCES TO CON.

S&G TIED (I'll admit that I liked pro's opening layout, it was very business professional)

Con did not forfeit, pro did, so CONDUCT TO CON.

(there may be errors, if anyone needs anything clarified or expanded just let me know. This debate going about a week with zero votes seems wrong, so knocking this out while getting ready for sleep)

Really thought this would be a troll debate about how she doesn't exist... Nice surprise.

Pro does a nice opening, but falls flat after that. He overall makes a good case for the writing not being as good, but fails to show her as someone who would choose the path of peace when given the chance.

Con uses a long list of her actions, to suggest her underlying growing madness the whole time, plus her consistent use of terrorism to get her way. Most telling was her insistence that she can do no wrong, and that in her hands crucifying a political activist could not be considered a crime. This is classic virtue ethics.

Where pro could have won was reminding us of her liking her own loyalists, and in the episode in question intentionally murdering countless of them as they stormed the city.

Conduct for forfeiture.

Forfeiture.

Basic rule of debating: Don’t make someone else’s case for them!

S&G: tie
Leans in pro’s favor, but not by enough to take the point. The big thing I would say (to con) here is organization was lacking; I should not have had to dig with CTRL+F to find if argument lines were continued.

Sources: PRO
I hate to say this was by magnitude, but the lack of counter evidence (a single propaganda source in the final round doesn’t count) made it unquestionably in favor of pro. Trump’s white genocide support tweet was the biggest damning one which could not be out argued. R1 sources were just spammed in there at the end, so were not given any weight.

Arguments: PRO
Below I’ve reviewed the different argument segments. Pro showed that Trump is more racist than not, whereas con proved that not every case where Trump seems to be acting racist is necessary due to racist intent... Had the dropped points been argued even to the level of being tied, the issue could have been confused enough to deny pro Burden of Proof; but such did not occur.

So were I con, I would have reorganized pro’s points into categories (such as nicknames and actual actions, or by racial groups), then rewritten it into logical rules of inference such as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, to then intercede against the flow of logic.

1. Miss Housekeeping: pro
Dropped.

2. Korean-American intelligence analyst: pro
Dropped.

3. Elizabeth Warren: PRO
Dropped. ... Then rebounded with con trying to prove Trump is superior for his greater amount of Native American blood, for which the Cherokees apparently support him.

4. Mexicans "rapists," "drug lords," and "criminals.": PRO
Con disputed this by saying some are good people, and used the idea that Trump’s fear is generally correct even if the magnitude of it gets misquoted by omission (that would still be racism, but okay...). Pro points out that this leaves a racist belief that the majority are to be feared, then used statistics to further prove the irrationality of the fear. Con counters that anyone (legal or not? I’m forgiving the missing qualifier, but be careful of that) who crosses the border is a bad person...

5. ban on all Muslims: pro
Dropped. ... Somehow came back near the end because Trump failed... Con held off his best point for the final round (when it could no longer be responded to), that Muslim could be defined by religion wholly separate from race; which had it been earlier in the debate could have given him this point (assuming it was then not countered by pro).

6. white nationalist tweets: PRO
I agree with con on the definitions, except for the fact that they came with the “white” qualifier. Bernie Sanders is technically a nationalist, just not a white nationalist. Pro explained this at length when requested, then linked the tweets (never ask someone to give you a source unless you know you can beat it...). When you retreat something from someone named Genocide, you are making an active informed decision to advertise (thus promote) their cause.
Attempting to move the goalpost to other people, is so common that it’s boring. Start a debate about Obama and Clinton if you like, but when discussing Trump the comparisons only hurt him.
This somehow ended on a note that we should pity him for people trying to suppress his freedom of speech...

7. black voters: CON
Some context could have shifted this, but... If pointing to statistics when speaking of problems made someone racist, pro would be damned due to point 4. On this, Trump targeted them as a voting group, and used race, but did not indicate any superiority or inferiority by race rather than opportunity. Sleezy sure, but con showed that this was not proof. ... Trying to prove the democratic party is racist with this point, is getting off the topic (make a debate on it).

8. supremacists were morally equivalent to the people resisting: pro
Dropped.

9. “some very fine people" among white supremacists: CON
Con counters that the media removed context. After awhile pro makes a solid point about Trump supporting some antisemitism from the night before... I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he may not have known (this debate is about if he’s racist, not if he’s a buffoon).

10. discriminated against black people in his apartment building: CON
Con countered this with suggesting it was about if an applicant listed welfare as an income source, not race, and the race was never proven. I hate nit-picking, but this point became about evidence, which was mentioned but not provided (it may have been to another point, such as the R1 source spamming, but was not tied directly to this one).

I usually refrain from awarding points on the topic of abortion, due to my strong bias (in short: I’m opposed to slavery). This debate looking at the legal merits apart from any moral implications, falls outside the majority of my bias.

Arguments (pro):
Simply put, his legal case (I. Violates the Constitution) went wholly uncontested. Since both debaters agreed to a debate on legality rather than ethics, con’s counter case of morals (basically sidestepping the topic with an attempted K) is actually off topic to be disregarded. I do agree with con dropping pro’s third point about the bible, as that is the same as con’s whole off topic case...

Sources (pro):
Some real information tied to the debate topic vs off topic propaganda pages...
Pro used the LATimes to show that the law was outright legally ruled unconstitutional. A couple quotes from this by itself could have won the whole debate.

S&G (con):
The coherence of pro’s case was initially damaged by a hilariously bad definition for abortion. This is easily forgiven, but it was caught by con, and is the one place I can give some credit for effort.

I should also point out that pro at times randomly went into all caps for extended amounts (use bold or italics, a word here and there, but not any whole sentences). I did not spot such mistakes within con’s case.

Conduct (tie):
Terribly off topic arguments are bad arguments, questionable conduct, but not in itself enough justification to award this. A single profanity (one not even aimed at anyone) is also not a conduct violation.

Concession

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.