Bifolkal

Contender says that they basically forfeit and they actually forfeited a round, which leaves arguments to Pro.

Alright guys nice debating.
Here's my voting.

Arguments

Pro is arguing that the earth isn't a spheroid because water surface is flat and this is the only argument for the resolution in the opening round. Con says water surface appears flat because like ant on balloon, walking along balloon seems like walking on flat surface, but balloons are not flat surfaces similar to the water surface of the earth. If the balloon can be mistaken, so can the earth...this analogy made it very easy to understand how Pro's only argument that "water looks flat" is explained by a spherical earth. Pro says "The ant on a ball is a valid analogy, when the ant is on the surface." Pro concedes that Con's analogy is valid, which makes me think that every time I've looked out on a flat ocean vista, I'm just a tiny old critter trying to traverse this water covered balloon of an earth. So Pro says asks why unedited amatuer balloon footage show an eye level and flat horizon, even at over 100,000 feet to which Con replied with the live stream from the ISS from the Official NASA Website which impressingly shows a quite spherical earth.

My vote is hanging on this last point, because if Pro doesn't give me any good reason to doubt NASA, the live video I watched from NASA's actual website seals this up for Con. So Pro has to dig deep and...he plucks out the idea that NASA is using a fish eye lense. Con says that in the live shot they are not using fisheye because of the lack of perturbations from each angle, so I clicked on this link twice to see the ISS at different times of day and Con was correct, what one would usually see from a fisheye lens is a perturbation of the different angles and you simply don't see that on this live feed when you actually look at different angles at different times. The earth is clearly a massive sphere being captured by the ISS camera. As for Pro's "100,000 feet" footage, when Con said "if you look closely, you can actually see the curvature," he was right...it took me like three close watches, but the curve is definitely there, and this was Pro's own source. Even though Con forfeited two rounds, which is why they're being hit with conduct, they managed to convince me with their sources and valid analogies that what Pro was telling me about water doesn't refute a spherical earth at all, and Con showed Pro's source to prove curvature right along with Con's source.
I have to buy that water surface looks flat like surface of balloon to ant on balloon...look at live feed of a spherical water covered earth.
Arguments to Con

Sources

Con's ISS live feed is near insurmountable, and the fisheye point was won by Con BECAUSE of the source's credibility when I went to inspect it. It was used by Con to make his case that one can easily see the curvature of an earth covered in water and one need not worry about fisheye lenses, because the ISS provides other angles that are not fisheye perturbed. Pro never battled that point and what was worse is that Pro's source Pro used to show a flat earth when looking from 100,000 feet showed a little curvature and Con mentioned that. Since Con's ISS feed proved a curved earth and Pro's 100,000 feet source proved a curved earth, Con wins sources for using them to make his case and because Pro used sources counter to his claim Con wins sources.

Conduct

Pro gets conduct because Con forfeited twice, which is viewed as poor conduct. Pro on the other hand kindly posted every argument maintaining proper conduct throughout.

I mean, Pro's post is borderline maniacal and Pro forfeited two rounds, while Con actually makes a case that holds in that zeus and odin are "alpha male Gods in a demigod regime" which is incongruous to jesus or allah. So given no responses to Con's case, this goes to Con.

Con was attempting to put up a decent case, but started to veer into ad hominem attacks and then Con forfeited 2 rounds leaving Pro's case basically untouched AND the rules explicitly state that forfeiture warrants a loss AND Pro even pointed this out last round. So, the forfeits mean dropped arguments and a loss for Con.

-Arguments-

Pro argues that democracy embodies the power of the people to participate in elections and civic live, have equal rights, and have laws equally apply to all people, so mandatory voting would actually yield more people voting, or more properties of this embodiment by necessitating the participation. Pro suggests that the mandatory voting could be imposed by fining those who don't vote, proportionally to their income, to act as an incentive to vote.

As a voter, this all seems like a substantial case for not only how voting could be made mandatory, but how making it mandatory would increase the very things we want and expect from democracy.
I'm leaning Pro at this point.

Con does pretty well though. Con points out, with statistics, that in the last election at least 120 million people did not vote which would require, with Pro's idea, to fine just that many people, and as Con also points out, "Some people may not have the time for voting. Should the US government round up people to vote in an election..." which was pretty much what I was thinking about with this idea and why it might not be implementable which speaks to this resolution "Should voting be mandatory?" Con also shows that while Pro showed the Netherlands to have a great country and successful mandatory elections, that much of Latin America is rife with poverty and despair and most of the countries are mandatory voting countries.

This left Pro's case about the products of democracy coming from mandatory voting less impactful, because if mandatory voting is going to fine 120 million people for making free choices and there's a possibility that mandatory voting leads to the many cases of despair like that of Latin America, plus Pro gives me no reason to doubt these points, then mandatory voting would actually serve to mitigate, instead of exacerbate, democracy, antithetical to Pro's case.

Now I see that Pro could not respond last round, that is a real shame, but Pro I feel like you had the opportunity to knock down how impactful fining 120 million people was in the round where you could have responded but you did not address anywhere near the level it was impacting on the resolution. By leaving Con's point about how you could reasonably fine 120 million people for not having time to vote, it makes implementing this mandatory voting a harsh penalty for choosing, say, to go to work or babysit your children.

Con wins arguments because implementing the mandatory voting would require fining too many people for making a free choice about their time.
Arguments to Con.

Wow, what an intense debate! And these intense votes, I don't know if I can top those. But I will try.
-RELIABLE SOURCES-
Con used Biology Online, the NLM, Cambridge University, and Oxford Dictionary to support Con's points of what homeostasis is, why H2O2 is poisonous, how and why there's consciousness to consider in Con's case, and definitions that negate the god in the resolution respectively. All of the sources are credible upon me checking them and solidly substantiate Con's case and rebuttals particularly on those points I mentioned. Pro used A scientific American Blog, CARM.org which is an apologist website, Union of Concerned Scientists, a wiki page about the NAP, merriam webster, NASA, and 3 books to show a mismatch with what we think is our choice and what we actually choose, that atheism cannot account for free will, that driving cars is causing climate change, that Con's case is like the NAP, a definition for command, more climate change data, and various faith-based arguments respectively. The problem with Pro's sources is that the CARM website lacks any real credentials or reliability and upon reading is extremely biased and opinionated, and since Pro used this to show that an atheist cannot explain free will and Con did explain free will, I have to take an actual atheist's example of how free will works over a clearly anti-atheist website which also shows this site's lack of reliability on the matter of atheistic free will. Pro also sourced wikipedia for the NAP and as Con clearly states later, the NAP is irrelevant to Con's case, so Pro ends up using another source that didn't go to any length to chip away at Con's case, which was the intent of the source. Also, while I do find the union of concerned scientists and NASA reliable sources, Pro used these to show an activity that Con pointed out was not really moral or immoral because it didn't involve behaving towards others, so while Pro was trying to come up with a morality example to present to Con, Pro used his sources to substantiate a moot point unrelated to the resolution of morality. Since some of Pro's sources were questionable and didn't exactly substantiate Pro's case or rebuttals, Con's sources reign supreme for their credibility and effectiveness in the debate.
-ARGUMENTS-
Pro has to show two things.
1. Morality can be objective.
2. Objective morality necessitates god's existence.

#1 Is clearly agreed to by both debaters, it's just that Pro thinks morality is based on god's commands and Con thinks morality is based on the "homeostatic principle."

#2 Is not substantiated by Pro but vigorously challenged by Con.
The god in this debate is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe, and as far as I see it, nothing in Pro's entire debate mentions the universe, how it was created or what it was created by. I can't tell that god exists or how god's existence is related to objective morality from anything Pro posts at all, and Con challenged that the universe was not created to which Pro said "I'm going to ignore the K." The argument is not a K, it's a direct attack on one of the burdens of Pro, to show that god must exist for objective morality to exist, and since god is the creator of the universe and Con pointed out that the universe was not created so there was not a creator of the universe and Pro clearly states he's ignoring it and both debaters agree that objective morality exists, I have to accept that the resolution is dead here for Pro.
Also it seems Con went to great lengths to ask Pro to name moral actions not reducible to the homeostatic principle, and Pro failed to do this the entire debate. It makes me have to believe that all moral actions are reducible to the homeostatic principle and since Pro only talks about immoral actions, I have to take from this debate the only real moral action mentioned which I think was giving your child water instead of hydrogen peroxide to which Pro never responded and it seems like homeostasis is the exact reason I would give my kid water instead of a poison, not a universe creator.
I don't read this debate and think, "you know why I don't harm or mistreat people?...a creator and ruler of the universe, that's why"
I think like most people, I'm going to remember how our homeostasis is affected by people's actions not whether or not a universe creator makes those actions moral or not.
Pro never refuted that the homeostatic principle accounts for all moral actions, which means that morality is objectively measured by homeostasis, and Pro never refuted that the universe was not created, so objective morality exists and given Pro and Con's performance, god is not required for this objectivity.

Wow I've never listened to this much electronic music before, so this was really my first time ever. I have to say that the consistent rhythm in Pro's music put me in a dancing kind of mood and I started to boogy a little bit. That is not to say that Con's music was bad, in fact that Ava Max song is really catchy and driving and I almost voted there, but the Dimrain song and the Destroid song made me feel like I was on cocaine, at least the dimrain song because of how fast it was...all things considered like beat, feel, melody/lead tune, driving bass, Pro's songs sounded better and put me in an electronic kind of mood, and I don't even listen to this stuff. Fun debate guys, I'm voting Pro.

I feel bad for contender because they did not realize what it is they were arguing, but they did not make any arguments and the instigator of the topic did not forfeit and the contender did, so I give this to Con for the debate vote.

The opponent seems to have not participated at all.

These arguments are about who would win in a fight, and i thought it would be batman because he has so many fighting skills and cool gear. Most of the round were forfeited, but the ones that weren't forfeited, the instigator was able to defend his proposition without a response from challenger. Challenger said "Can you please explain to me how Cap would be able to dodge Batman's weapons or fights off all of them with his shield?" And the next round Pro responded "Captain america's incredible reflexes and senses give him the ability to dodge a vast array of projectiles, and his shields ability to stop any and all oncoming impact and other forces that batman could pull from his utility belt." This is a good response and it is not challenged by the challenger because they forfeit, so I now think captain America wins this fight and instigator (green) wins the convincing arguments point.