Total votes: 2
RM was more creative and managed to keep a good flow with longer lines
Pro provided one sufficient source. Although not being backed up by any arguments, I assume that the source that pertains to violence amongst homosexual couples was supposed to be a complement to his earlier point about leads to suffering. Then again, I can't be sure of this, so no points to Pro for not being clear in how it fits into his case and for not making an argument related to violence.
Pro brought up God (which is problematic given that it creates a 2nd burden on Pro) and the Bible, to which he argues that God's morality isn't arbitrary because he remains in the same state as he always has. This point is correctly deemed irrelevant by Con as he points out that it is an appeal to authority, one such authority that again, isn't proven to exist in the debate. Pro also argues that there are 3 laws in thr Old Testament that pertain to people: The moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Since this debate is about homosexuality in general, proving that homosexuality is immoral by moral law (that applies to all people) would give the most impact to Pro's arguments. He says that God only wanted those in Israel to kill homosexuals, but this debate is not about Israel, it is about if homosexuality in any case is immoral. Pro does argue that God made AIDS incurable as a means of punishment for homosexuals, but doesn't substantiate this claim with anything, thus making it hollow. He later stated that God didn't set the standard of "homosexuals must be executed" to moral law, which is a concession that homosexuality is not ubiquitous in its immorality according to God.
Again, there was never any evidence for God's existence, with Pro's only argument for said existence being that the moral law exists. This is not supported by any evidence and doesn't help his case.
To add insult to injury, Pro only cited the Bible ONCE, and couldn't do so for his "God made AIDS incurable" claim, which was an important one.
I will again bring up the no-source link from Pro, which couldn't adequately corroborate that homosexuality is a choice, so that point falls flat.
Overall, Pro made a lot of claims that he couldn't support, when he tried to, he didn't bother making an argument for the source, and couldn't prove that God existed nor that it is universally immoral. Con, being the one to negate the resolution, didn't have to do much to knock Pro's case down as the arguments weren't supported anyway, and by arguing that God shouldn't be a model for morality (essentially implying that Pro made an appeal to authority fallacy) and that he doesn't exist, he secures the win for what was the crux of the debate.