Total votes: 282
For simplicity, I’ll abbreviate Kotomine Kirei as KK and Emiya Kiritsugu as EK.
First and foremost: framing. Pro tells me to evaluate the fight on the basis of “skills and abilities,” but the way those are categorized begins to look more shaky as the debate continues. He also tells me not to account for “luck,” although it’s not clear what counts as luck and what doesn’t. Pro tells me I can take all of EK’s weapons into account except for the Avalon, since it’s not “an extension of Kiritsugu’s own abilities.” This seems to be the main sticking point in how each side wants to frame the debate.
Pro argues that the Avalon was received by pure luck, therefore it doesn’t make EK a better fighter. Con argues that Pro is being inconsistent here, since KK’s command seals are granted by the Holy Grail and not strictly an extension of his abilities. Furthermore, Con argues that KK’s superhuman abilities are also “luck,” so if we can take them into account why exclude the Avalon? Con gets the final word on the Avalon, arguing that it wasn’t actually received by luck and reiterating that it was used in the fight, therefore it should be analyzed. I don’t see Pro coming back to this point after Round 3, so I’ll include it as part of EK’s abilities.
At this point in the debate, Con is pulling significantly ahead. Much of Pro’s case relies on the statement that “Every death that Emiya Kiritsugu experiences reinforces Kirei as the superior fighter, and dying once is already one point for Kirei.” The points system is shown by Con as basically arbitrary, since Con can just count a greater number of things that use it to give EK a greater score. In the end, I think Con makes several important points that are enough to win this debate.
First, damage. It’s pointed out by Con that KK needs to destroy EK’s brain in order to win the fight. Pro’s analogy to infinite Ronald Raegans cuts against him, since it provides a clear demonstration of just how powerful EK’s healing abilities are, showing that KK is likely to get more and more fatigued over the course of the fight. And since the person regenerating is still the same and the Pro’s objection to the Avalon got dropped, I’m counting this as something that makes EK a very strong fighter. Furthermore, Pro points out that KK can’t always dodge the Origin Bullets, as evidenced by the fact that he resorts to blocking one of them with his arm. KK will have opportunities to damage EK as well, but as both sides seem to agree, EK can recover from damage pretty quickly. A lot depends on whether KK uses the black keys remotely to block the bullets, but Con argues that KK won’t use them defensively. Pro focuses on the keys’ offensive abilities, which doesn’t contest Con’s point about their defensive use.
Next, speed. It seems like EK is faster when the time alter is in play, but KK’s reflexes have the advantage when the time alter isn’t in play. This is enough to convince me that EK will have at least a few opportunities to hit KK with Origin Bullets over the course of the fight.
In the end, while it’s conceded that KK might have an advantage in a limited scope like a closer ranged fight, Con shows that there are more ways for EK to damage KK than the other way around. KK specifically has to destroy EK’s brain, which EK simply needs to hit KK enough to overwhelm his durability and does inflict some lasting damage. There are some references to other fights and stats that I didn’t explicitly mention, but I think the key points here are enough to give EK the advantage. I also wouldn’t weigh stats or other fights as strongly as what’s shown in the video (except maybe for context) since the description specifically says the debate is about this fight.
Hence, Con wins my vote.
This debate doesn’t have as much back-and-forth as I’d like, since it largely comes down to each side quote-mining verses about either freedom or servitude. It goes mostly conceded that the verses from Pro paint freedom as important and that the verses from Con paint servitude as important.
First, I’ll explain why Pro’s verses about freedom aren’t strongly contested. They pretty clearly use terms like “free from sin” and “Christ has set us free” that Con doesn’t dispute the presence of. Con’s response is just to bring up other points that emphasize servitude, which doesn’t negate these verses talking about freedom or show why the verses about servitude are more important.
Now I’ll address why I think Con’s verses about servitude aren’t strongly contested. The verses about slaves and masters are advocating servitude at least to some extent, and followers are described as bound to the service of God with God as their “master.” Pro’s response is mainly to just give other verses advocating freedom, which isn’t enough to negate the verses about servitude. There’s mention of whether the servitude is “forced” or not, but that’s not really topical since the resolution doesn’t specify whether the servitude is forced or not. If the servitude is voluntary, that of course implies some amount of freedom, but it doesn’t show that freedom is being primarily taught over servitude. Particularly with Con’s mention of Jesus himself serving people, there’s enough here that the importance of servitude can’t be swept away entirely. I’ll note that Con had a big opportunity to tie Jesus’ servitude together with the doctrine of salvation (serving people by saving them from sin), which would have made his case stronger with regard to the resolution.
Pro does engage with some of Con’s verses preemptively by arguing that slavery is defined as freedom from sin, hence any verses about slavery to Christ must help affirm the resolution. However, Con is also bringing up verses showing that some amount of servitude and following commands is expected of Christians, so slavery to Christ is not entirely removed from servitude.
There was a missed opportunity by Pro here in Jesus’ parable where he says “you will not be given your freedom until you have paid your debt down to the last penny.” There’s context in that story where Jesus is telling his followers to avoid this situation by reaching an agreement with their opponent (i.e. one should prioritize freedom to avoid servitude). But Pro never brings that up, so I just have to interpret this the way Con wants me to, where at least in one situation, servitude comes before freedom.
There’s some amount of clash on whether freedom or servitude comes “first,” but it doesn’t move the needle of this debate much in my opinion, as (a) this is mostly just argued by quote mining, which doesn’t weigh verses against each other, and (b) neither side really fleshes out why one of these preceding the other chronologically means it is primarily taught over the other.
What this debate comes down to, in my view, is topicality. The debate isn’t about Christian doctrine in general but specifically about the Christian concept of salvation. This is a point repeatedly raised by Pro but only tangentially raised by Con, as the term “salvation” only appears once in Con’s argument. Even if I buy that Christianity emphasizes servitude, it’s not made clear by Con how this ties to salvation. Is it required for salvation? Is it something that Christians will only do because they have been saved?
I’ll note that some of Pro’s points don’t strongly connect to salvation, such as freeing the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, which isn’t really what the doctrine of “salvation” is about, but there’s enough there to build a clear connection with salvation setting Christians free. For example, contextualizing verses about freedom as Jesus describing salvation in his own words, which isn’t really disputed by Con. Con never makes a similar connection between salvation and the verses about servitude. Pro also comes closer to flipping some of Con’s verses by defining slavery to Christ as freedom rather than servitude. Con’s response to Pro is almost entirely mitigation plus their own arguments, so everything about freedom is left standing. Along with the resolution emphasizing the doctrine of salvation in particular, that’s enough for me to vote Pro.
This debate basically becomes about Con’s analogies and whether the impacts on society from pornography are worse than the impacts from video games and junk food. Pro allows this line of argumentation by (a) not contesting that video games and junk food should be legal, and (b) not having specific criteria up front for why an industry should be banned, just a lot of negative effects of pornography. Hence, I’m forced to buy into Con’s logic that, if these other industries should be legal, then there’s not a justification to ban pornography.
I think Con succeeded in showing that, at least for most of the metrics Pro brings up, the harms of pornography are not unique. Pro brings up industrial scale, then ditches it when Con shows that video games and fast food are larger industries. Pro brings up that porn can potentially cause aggression, Con shows that video games can do this as well.
Pro brings up the risk of coercion but doesn’t really give a measurement or a reason to believe that most pornography is coercive. With Con bringing up that scandals happen in every industry, I’m not seeing the porn industry as uniquely harmful in this regard.
While I think this would have benefited from a clear framework for why an industry should be banned or allowed, there are enough similarities in these comparisons for me to vote Con. The comparisons aren’t always identical, but Pro needed to show that pornography meets a particular threshold at which an industry should be banned, not just that it harms society.
RFD here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uYuDvZroLtGmbjohOn7d4axaMaS3ANZDsNK2Ghoqw_Q/edit?usp=sharing
Con tells me to interpret the resolution as written, and Pro never makes a compelling case against that. I can buy that very few people are debating whether trans women should be allowed to compete in chess, but the designation of "female sports" is broad enough to include chess, snooker, and archery. Pro tells me that Con is interpreting the resolution incorrectly and making an equivocation fallacy, but they needed to justify that "female sports" means "mainstream physical sports" rather than just insisting it means that.
Aside from that, there's not much to say on arguments, since Pro's arguments are limited to mainstream physical sports and they bet their case on me interpreting the resolution the way they want. Pro never really challenges that trans women should be allowed to compete in chess or snooker or archery, so interpreting the resolution as written, that's enough to give Con the win on arguments.
Sources to Pro since Con provided barely any while Pro was consistently adding sources to support their case. Con does question to credibility of some of Pro's sources, but identifying a bias isn't the same as flipping them. Plus Pro cited a study on muscle mass, which is strong evidence even though it's wasn't enough to prove the resolution.
Con could have argued that Pro's profile picture wasn't "better" and that the resolution was negated, but they never argued along those lines. Since both pictures are identical and the description says to vote for the profile pic you like most, I'm leaving this a tie since I can't like a picture more than itself.
Nothing in the rules allowed a video response, and getting a transcript of the video online, the character count for Con's video was over 24k. If Con had bothered to engage more in other rounds or "extended" (in which case I could maybe give them the characters from that round too), I might give them a pass on this. But with a mutual FF for most of the rounds, I'm gonna give this to the person who respected the constraints of the debate.
https://notegpt.io/youtube-transcript-generator
Neither side really responds to the other side's definition. Con defines trans as the act of transitioning, since they have the same root word. Pro appeals to the APA, AMA, and WHO. Citing these authorities could have been enough to win had a link been provided and the tie to the definition more explicit. However, the appeal to authority only states that trans people report feeling different from a young age and that being trans is not a mental illness, which could technically both be true under Con's definition. It is implied that these authorities define the term trans as Pro is saying, but neither debater gives me a framework to weigh that implied appeal to authority against Con's semantic case. Since neither side really engaged with the other side's case, I'm leaving this as a draw.
Con basically concedes the resolution here by saying that punishing hate speech is a "reasonable restriction on speech" in R2. They argue against banning everyone's speech, but that's not the same as saying hate speech shouldn't be limited.
Forfeiture
1. Which is more true? (Historical, scientific, and evidence of the supernatural)
Pro and Con both cite miracle claims. Con put himself at a disadvantage by not citing any sources, meaning that Pro was able to at least reduce it to being speculative evidence. In the final round, Con argues that if we don't know whether the Shroud of Turin is real, then the odds are 50/50. One could arguably say the same about Buddhist miracle claims if we start from a position of agnosticism, and Con doesn't really argue for why "not knowing" equals a 50/50 chance. Furthermore, the "truth" of Buddhism argued for by Pro isn't entirely based on supernatural claims. Pro uses cause and effect as an example of a true Buddhist teaching. I think Con could have argued along these lines as well by citing Christian teachings like "thou shalt not commit adultery" which most people agree with, but their case boiled down to assuming that supernatural claims have a 50% chance of being true by default, and as that was argued in the final round I can't afford it much weight. Con does dispute the point on cause and effect, but I still think that leans toward supporting Pro, since natural cause and effect could be argued to basically be a Buddhist teaching whereas arguing that a deity influences cause and effect required more evidence than Con provided.
2. Which leads to a more fulfilling life?
Meditation is conceded as having benefits for the individual practicing Buddhism. Christianity is conceded to have a positive impact on society, but the impacts are based on how I interpret the description. Since the second topic asks which religion leads to "a more fulfilling life" (singular) rather than "more fulfilling lives" (plural), the most obvious life to examine would be the person practicing the religion. This puts Con's arguments outside the scope of the debate, since helping 100 other people live fulfilling lives doesn't really address the "a fulfilling life" that the description refers to. There was potential for Con to argue that helping others leads to fulfillment, but in this case, meditation ended up being the only point left within the scope of the debate.
As Pro wins on both contentions and provided sources to justify his arguments, Pro wins on arguments and sources.
Con doesn't kritik the description until the final round, so I'm treating it as binding since it explicitly states "Upon accepting, entire description is agreed upon by Pro and Con and must be followed in whole debate." For the math to work out to 75% exactly, the events need to be independent, which Pro doesn't prove, but Con doesn't bring this up. Either way, it's likely above 50% if we combine the probabilities Pro uses. However, that doesn't make this an automatic win for Pro, especially with the caveat that these probabilities are only assumed "by default." Pro doesn't do anything to move the needle, relying entirely on the default assumptions.
Con challenges the default by defining terms and arguing that examples close to the definitions aren't magic. i.e. "nothing is magical about a warm sun." (His arguments weren't that fleshed out, really just assertions that Pro could have tried to push back on.) Pro defends the description and argues the original definitions, but I didn't see Con contradicting the definitions, just using sources that say more about them. Con is also the only one telling me how to interpret the term "magic" as used in the description.
So even if I start with the default assumptions and agree with Pro's math, Con providing arguments that get entirely dropped by Pro are enough to negate the resolution. Pro isn't telling me why I should stay with the default assumptions when new information is provided (if anything, the whole point of a "default" is that it is generally abandoned when a better metric comes along).
Con never really argues against he resolution, they just say that Pro's arguments are wrong. Pro makes three separate contentions that provide support for the resolution (regardless of how strong or weak that support is). The is-ought gap had some potential as an argument, but not enough to support Con's case when no alternate interpretation of the resolution was provided. The issue here is that Pro is supporting the resolution, while Con is arguing that the debate topic is hard to define. That's not the same as negating it, and Pro's points about Potentiality, "The End is near," and Best.Korea's promise weren't meaningfully addressed by Con.
Full forfeiture
Second half of the debate is forfeiture vs AI. However, in the first round, Pro makes a case that Con doesn't respond to. Con makes no case of his own.
Two hours left and no votes. Guess I should take a look at this.
Since the resolution only deals with the "divine establishment" of the papacy, the specific powers of the pope aren't the main argument here. Even if Con is right about the pope becoming corrupt or not having as much authority as the Catholic Church claims, Pro makes a decent case that the office itself is said to be divinely established. So even if other offices of bishops have comparable authority, it would not negate Pro's case that the office of pope was also ordained as the successor to Peter. Con makes a good attempt to frame the debate, but as a voter, I can't veer too much from the description.
The main thread of the argument deals with succession, since it's generally agreed upon that Peter was selected by God, even if the other apostles were also selected by God. Pro cites Acts 1:20-26 where the apostles appointed successors. Con makes a point of the pope not being singled out, but they emphasize the role of bishops and deacons. Since the Bishop of Rome is a bishop, bishops being divinely established would seem to imply the bishop of Rome was as well. The term "pope" wasn't used, but I don't think the semantics are the sticking point. Pope here just refers to the bishop of Rome, and I think Pro could make the same case for really the bishop of anywhere. Given the agreement on general church authority, the pope just being a bishop at all is enough to satisfy the resolution.
I think Con's strongest case is when they argues that Pro must show "the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches." They focus on arguing against that specific statement, and if the description were different, they might have won this. However, Pro's case that "papacy is a direct and God-ordained continuation of apostolic authority" gives them a lot of leeway, since they don't have to defend every claim the Catholic Church makes about the pope, just that they have a continuation of apostolic authority. Con makes the case that "Rome AD 325 does not yet have full authority of all churches," but in this case, that's not what Pro has to prove.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Two sentences against a fleshed-out argument about paradoxes. Foregone conclusion.
Basically a concession at the end by Con, not to mention Pro is basically the only one who participates here.
Con argues that true communism has never been tried, and Pro argues that the US is not capitalist, citing government intervention in healthcare and lack of bodily autonomy. I can grant both of those, which seems fair, since neither proposed system mirrors any country exactly. Pro argues that capitalism is synonymous with individual sovereignty. Given that Con doesn't really flesh out Marxism or dispute individual sovereignty being good, I think Pro did better here.
Concession
Con highlights a lot of potential issues with the resolution but still falls short of negating it. I think the phrasing "everything christians believe in and practice" leaves some leeway for Pro to make his case, since a practice of only one denomination arguably isn't something Christians practice collectively. I'm inclined to agree that the resolution is probably too broad, but Con missed the opportunity to really show this with examples. Most of the verses he cites are playing defense, even though many of Pro's arguments that the Bible endorses some bad thing or other go unchallenged. Pro even gives a list of what things are the opposite of what Christians believe.
If Con had given an example of something Christians practice where doing the opposite is clearly bad, they could have won. If Pro had given a specific practice where doing the opposite is literally impossible, they could have won. I could give this to Con if I really push semantics, but the examples Pro gives were enough to fit the resolution in my view, especially with the clarification that "different denominations share core beliefs and values." That seems like the most fair way to interpret the resolution, and it's really the only way that's fleshed out.
Pro links sources but doesn't do much analysis on them. Con cites verses pro linked to and argues they support his side of the resolution. So source points to Con.
Full forfeit
Pro's case relies on each premise of his ontological argument being correct. Con argues that the mind does not prove things and that Pro has not justified assuming that it does. Since Pro's entire case relies on this premise, and since Pro holds the BoP, this is a win for Con.
The resolution states that opposite-sex platonic friendships cannot exist, but by Con's second line it's clear he's arguing for rarity, not nonexistence. Since both debaters don't agree to change the resolution to something else, and since Pro emphasizes exceptions, I vote Pro. This debate was a bit like if Con was a monotheist trying to defend atheism by saying that there's only one god, so it doesn't count. Those are two different positions. In addition to the resolution just being too bold of a claim, I wasn't convinced that Con's examples were more common. Neither side cited any sources, so what makes Pro's examples more rare than Con's examples?
Yes, I changed my decision. WF messaged me and said the reasoning for sources was insufficient. I looked back over the debate to elaborate on my vote, which is what changed my mind on how to evaluate this. I'll stick to the points that made me change his to a tie, which should be sufficient per voting standards. However, my old vote is in the comments, so you can see more detail on my thought process there.
Pro did actually make a non-circular argument for the Quran's reliability, specifically the predictions made in Daniel from a supposed dream. There's room for Con to argue the book was written after the events that are described (a lot of scholars make that argument), or that it's not specific enough, but they don't address this at all. So dropped argument in favor of Pro.
Con on the other hand argues that making men out of mud violates the laws of thermodynamics. There's room for Pro to argue that Allah can violate the laws of thermodynamics since he performs miracles all the time in the Quran, but they don't address this at all. So dropped argument in favor of Con. This isn't relevant to the personal experience argument, but as I addressed in my previous round, the only argument Pro makes outside the Quran and before the last round is their own experience, and a single anecdote could easily be luck as Con points out.
Since both sides drop significant arguments for and against the Quran's reliability as a source, I'm leaving this as a tie. Other arguments largely boil down to Pro and Con each asserting what is and isn't commonly used in scientific discussions, but I don't care as much about precedent as about which sources can be shown to be reliable for and against the resolution. And as I showed above, both sides drop arguments on that front.
Con gives an example of "1% everyday" working in practice. Hence, the quote seems practical when applied to The British Cycling team's performance. Pro argues that it's hard to measure the improvement, but Con's example shows some measurable criteria, and as long as the quote yields positive results, that seems to makes it "practical." Pro never comes back to argue against this example or to dispute that it is enough to negate the resolution.
The description says "accurate," but the resolution says "practical," and I don't see any rule strictly holding Con to the description. So even if the strategy isn't an accurate descriptor, it's practical for achieving desired effects.
Pro's argument is a lot more focused here, and they start out citing a lot of sources to support their claims, while Con cites none. I also found a lot of Con's argumentation confusing, as he would make references to things like the unemployment rate without defending how Trump's policies affected it. Pro instantly comes to the table with a source and argumentation to dispute this argument.
By the end, Con leaves basically everything on the table except abortion, beyond a few rhetorical questions that don't compare to all the sources Pro is providing. The description states "a better quality of life for all people," so this depends on whether or not the fetus is a person. Both sides are kind of vague here and agree the fetus is a life but not a human. Then Pro calls it a baby, which seems useful to Con's case. There was more room to go into detail here, especially on the latter claim, but that's what I'm left with. Pro compares abortion to not saving someone from a burning building, but the description only talks about better quality of life. So as long as forcing people to save others from burning buildings raises the average quality of life for persons, then I should presumably favor Con on the abortion topic. But Con doesn't argue along these lines beyond stating that abortion destroys life and thus reduces aggregate quality of life. Neither side really weighs all these costs against each other beyond Pro's comparison to "a law mandating all people must become doctors and dedicate their lives to curing cancer."
In the end, I vote Pro. Personhood was the deciding factor for the abortion topic, and Pro makes enough analogies to house plants and non-persons that Con doesn't really dispute. Con's case for the immorality of abortion seems more to hinge on the fetus being a potential person, and regardless of whether we should normally care about potential persons, I can't weigh their interests in this debate. While Pro's analogies could be a lot more in-depth, Con leaves almost every other topic on the table without showing abortion to be more important than those other topics. By the end Pro decisively wins on everything except abortion, and Con doesn't decisively win on abortion (I think Pro even comes out ahead there by a bit.)
Pro doesn't give any arguments, but they at least participate.
Pro doesn't defend P1 very strongly, which gives Con room to come in with a counterexample. Mostly this debate is Pro making sweeping statements and Con pointing out exceptions.
Almost a full forfeit
Pro conceded
Pro gives "bachelors are unmarried men" as an example of a justified true belief that is also knowledge. This is a debate-winner on its own unless sufficiently countered by Con. Unfortunately, much of Con's case only tangentially relates to this, and they never make a strong case that bachelors might not be unmarried men. Con references "rules that underlie thinking itself" but does not show how these rules are flawed or how Pro's statement about bachelors relies on them. There was a lot of back-and-forth where Con wasn't totally clear, but at the end of the debate, I'm left with an almost uncontested statement that bachelors are unmarried men and that Pro has upheld their burden. Pro doesn't have to show anything about rules that underlie thinking, just that bachelors are unmarried men, which they justify in the first round. Further weakening Con's case is that they admit parts of it haven't been proven, and that it's essentially self-defeating (it would mean I can't accept any of their premises as knowledge.)
Conduct goes to Con for Pro's forfeiture.
I don't love that Pro won this late with a round Con couldn't respond to, but tech issues happen, and I'm already penalizing Pro for forfeiting the second round with a conduct point.
The reason Pro wins this in my opinion is that they were able to reaffirm their case without adding to it, mainly by showing how Con had made some assumptions that weren't very well supported by what Pro said. For example, much of Con's case relied on the premise that "Under moral subjectivism, every obligation is descriptive because it describes peoples' moral attitudes." But that's not subjective morality, or at least the version of subjective morality Pro is advocating; they're saying that ought statements do exist to the extent that they match someone's value (i.e. if I want to achieve well-being, I ought to do something that will achieve that). I do think Con had an opportunity to cast a wider net in responding to Pro's case if they weren't sure whether or not Pro was advocating descriptive ethics—and if they wanted to argue that subjective morality must be descriptive and cannot be prescriptive, they could have fleshed that out with more than a single sentence and even had an extra round to do so. There are also secondary points I haven't addressed here, but the debate really comes down to Pro not advocating descriptive ethics.
Given what Con says is allowed at the end, I don't think this is a final-round blitzkrieg, even if I would have liked more rounds to settle the dispute. Pro cites the source Con provides, and nothing at the end seems to come out of nowhere. It's mostly clarifying how Pro's first round case doesn't fall into the box Con puts it in.
Con generally does a better job of backing up their arguments. I found Con's case that defense necessarily involves offense to be compelling, and Pro seems to agree that defense involves offense in order to be a "full defensive position." Con's case holds well here, since they are defending "any offensive position" rather than a "full offensive position," so this can include part of the process used in defense. Pro made tangential statements about proof that didn't seem that related to the resolution and which Con did a good job of responding to. Saying "Examples are a form of evidence" was more concrete than anything Pro was throwing out, and this seemed like a theme throughout the debate.
Forfeiture
Concession
Full forfeit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dDhvbeFqNs
Full forfeit
As with most religious debates, both sides come in with radically different points of view and standards for evidence. I will do my best to judge this objectively, which means looking for points of agreement and trying to use those to determine what burdens either side has for evidence. I do think it helps Pro that the standard is "more likely than not" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt," and in that case it's on the voter to determine how evidence can be considered sufficient while being fair to both debaters.
Pro gives a lot of documents attesting to the resurrection and attests to non-Christian scholars supporting certain historical conclusions. Con argues against this case on two fronts: first, that someone rising from the dead is medically impossible, and second, that Pro's evidence is weak or insufficient. The first point establishes what was kind of clear from the outset, in that Pro is arguing for a miracle. There doesn't seem to be a dispute that miracles are at best rare or unlikely occurrences, though it's never really proven that it's impossible for God to exist or for a miracle to happen.
That leaves Pro with the case of providing enough evidence for the resurrection to overcome the low initial probability of a miracle occurring. What's never really settled is how much evidence is enough. The reliability of the Gospels as historical sources gets a lot of back-and-forth and it's not entirely clear which parts of them we can and can't trust. Pro's case seems to boil down to "not everyone agrees that Jesus rose from the dead, but the disciples experiencing Jesus is a historical fact that even atheist historians agree on." Con had more room to push back on this, but from what I can tell, Con doesn't really dispute that the disciples experienced Jesus. That makes this a little simpler to judge.
There are two possible explanations raised for the appearances: the resurrection, or hallucinations. This comes down to the last round. Pro argues that there has never been a recorded instance of synchronized group hallucination, while Con argues that there has never been a recorded instance of someone rising from the dead. Con did have an opportunity to respond to the hallucination counter in the last round, but they never do.
What breaks the tie in favor of Pro is that they present an explanation (however strange) for a resurrection, while Con doesn't present any explanation for a group hallucination. Pro argues that Jesus was a religious figure, and religious figures might perform miracles. I guess Con had room to argue that a hallucination miracle would be just as likely as a resurrection miracle, but it's never established why Jesus would make people think he rose from the dead instead of just rising from the dead. Since natural laws don't really account for either the resurrection or group hallucinations, I'm forced to go with which "miracle" is more likely, and that ends up leaning Pro.