Total votes: 7
Ff by pro.
I, myself, think that this is the weakest point to be an atheist. Why's one an atheist? Because their past experiences with God have not been quite good and they, therefore, don't believe in him anymore. Therefore I incline more towards the pro.
Don't get me wrong no this one but the pro's reluctance to posting the 1st argument wrong (he agreed to it). I mean how. Where's the focus and professionalism. The con also did not write his 1st argument, he wasted his chance when he could have made his argument and then have said that this is not relevant in the context of this topic.
Con dismantles the central flaw in Pro’s argument: the double standard of requiring evidence only from one side.
Read comment #3
Forfeiture. Con could have won just by saying one line: video games have already been recognise the sports they have international events, money prizes and all that kinda stuff. The topic is irrelevant.
The Con (pierree) delivered a full, well-structured argument across all rounds, while the Pro forfeited a critical round. But more importantly, Con’s points stand undisputed: they clearly explained how over-advising kills creativity, builds mental dependency, and promotes conformity — especially among youth. They didn’t just whine about bad advice; they explained why too much advice, even with good intentions, can lead to real harm — emotionally, culturally, and intellectually.
While the Pro eventually made a few points about “polite advice” and cited Steve Jobs, that was too little, too late. Con’s case was consistent, mature, and filled with original insights. They called for less noise, more thinking — and that’s not a "boomer" mindset, that’s just balance.
This wasn’t just about who gave better advice — it was about who debated better. And the Con clearly did. Pro also did a great job!
Despite the simplicity of Pro’s argument, it rests on a fundamental moral principle: the right to life. The Pro contends that abortion is equivalent to murder — and while not elaborated deeply, this point hinges on the belief that life begins at conception. If one accepts that premise, then abortion becomes the deliberate ending of a human life — which many would agree is morally wrong, regardless of context.
Even without complex statistics or emotional anecdotes, the Pro’s stance draws a clear ethical line.