Total votes: 2
Neither debater won in terms or conduct - CON disappeared, of course, but PRO's instigating description was unprofessional, and it's quite obvious that the only consistently articulate points he made (either side of fragmented pieces of diatribe) were plagiarized from elsewhere. Because of this, neither debater won in terms of argumentation either - as pointed out by others, CON's opening case was stronger than the cumulative case set forth by PRO, but his absence meant he failed to address (and therefore dismiss) those later points raised by PRO, which were in any case copied directly and without acknowledgement from external sources. HOWEVER:
As CON FF'ed the later rounds, some might argue it is deserving of a technical defeat. I simply say that CON's non-participation followed terrible conduct and plagiarized argumentation twice preceding it from PRO, and this, for me, largely acts as a mitigating factor. I'm sure many here, if faced with an opponent who directly copied text, links and all, from Wikipedia and Guardian articles, they would be in no mood to waste time with rebuttals against an uninterested opponent. Any substantive, factual argumentation from PRO - again, plagiarized - came only following CON's apparent withdrawal.
Tough decision, but I have to give it to the guy who actually wrote something.