Phenenas

Pro asserted in Round 1 that he does not need to argue in favor of the proposition. Therefore, he did not make any arguments. However, in a debate, that's not really optional. Con countered that femboys are cute and listed several cute activities that can be done with femboys, such as petting on the head or cuddling, and argued that having relations with a femboy is not gay. Pro resorted to numerous personal attacks in response, calling Con "a homosexual weirdo" and "delusional". He also attacks femboys, calling them "an abomination" and remarking that they "smell like dookie and butt cheeks". Pro ends the debate with an appeal to "his master", a Youtuber whose teachings have "propelled [Pro] into the future", because "everything he says is fact". Considering Pro does not name his source, and considering he went the entire debate without uttering a single factual or objective statement, this appeal to authority is suspect. Con wins by default for offering something slightly closer to an argument, and for not resorting to personal attacks.

Pro put forward a claim that he has a large size which would put him above most males. Naturally, this is the internet and there's no real way to prove this claim right or wrong. Con did not specify his measurements, but instead claimed that the debate violated the code of conduct. It is debatable whether Pro's statements count as "posting or linking to pornography or other explicit adult sexual material". Con could have done a better job arguing that it did, in fact, violate the code of conduct. If any images were submitted for proof, as Pro was entertaining, that would certainly be a violation, but this did not happen. Con's first round was flaccid, and shot two blanks with his double forfeit. Comparing this to the larger, longer, more solid arguments that Pro has erected and thrust forth, I feel confident handing this one off to Pro.

Both participants stuck to pointing out certain arguments used by either of the men in the debate and labelling them as illogical. Con does not respond to every single point raised by Pro, but sticks to his own case, which is sufficient for the BOP. Conduct goes to Con for several unnecessary and disparaging remarks by Pro, e.g. calling everything his opponent says "gibberish".

Pro argues that religious fundamentalism is a more dangerous problem in the long term because it operates under unprovable axioms, discourages skepticism or questioning, and leaves people vulnerable to a cult mindset. I wish Pro had provided some concrete examples, or maybe some data points about how much harm religious fundamentalism causes versus the current day. But Con doesn't engage much with his argument, and mostly dwells on irrelevant topics like the far right, the Republican Party, or Ron DeSantis, comparing them favorably to the radical left, or in the far right's case, arguing that they're relatively harmless. But this debate is specifically on the topic of religious fundamentalism, and Con keeps branching out to tangential topics to make this a more general debate of right vs left, which is not what the resolution stated. Con brings up Antifa and BLM looting and rioting, as well as policies he disagrees with such as abortion, marijuana legalization, and defunding the police, as points against radical left-wing politics. Pro rebuts these points, and also brings up the point that fundamentalism has also historically brought about rioting, killing, and defamation. That's another point in Pro's favor, since Con only discusses fundamentalism in its current iteration rather than the long term. And because Con forfeited the final round, he was unable to respond to this point. Arguments go to Pro, everything else was about even.

Full forfeit by Pro.

Pro started off by claiming that 90% of all gun deaths are done with illegal guns, and I couldn't find this claim anywhere in the sources he listed. This fits in with the general pattern of the relationship Pro has with his sources - he leans heavily on quoting from them, though they make a lot of vague statements like "firearms prevent 400,000 violent crimes every year", with sources that don't explain where this data materialized from. Con seems to have a better command and understanding of what sources are for. I was a bit skeptical of his decision not to lay out his full argument in the first round, but in Round 2, while he admits it's an edited-down Vox article, he makes a very good basic case against the proposition, with some solid points that Pro didn't really successfully rebut. For example, Con points out that America has many times more firearm deaths as other developed countries. Pro says that it's just because America has a bigger population. To be fair, Con didn't explicitly say that these are deaths *per capita*, adjusted per population, but if Pro actually took a look at Con's source (as he tells Con to do multiple times) he would see that his rebuttal doesn't cut it. Plus, I agree that it was rather a poor move by Pro to pull the "We're talking about the US, not Australia" bit when he had used data from the UK earlier in the debate. And then accused Con of tu quoque when it was a perfectly valid thing to point out. Aside from that, it was a good debate overall.