Total votes: 6
Pro identified the first argument and then forfeited next round, instigating a debate and then not debating counts against pro for conduct, Pros "first" argument was an argument for not hosting the Olympics rather than an argument for abolishing the Olympics. Cities "bid" for the opportunity to host the Olympics, and therefore, have done a cost/benefit analysis that favors hosting, no argument for abolishing the Olympics was even presented.
Pro is as always, just wasting time. Con actually took the debate seriously, and made an argument. I don't think my vote needs any further explanation.
I don't think pro made his case that parachutes represent a small chance of survival rather than none, con's argument certainly makes sense regarding how parachutes may increase the chance of death rather than reduce it. I'm a little dissapointed that con did not address the fact that it is extremely unlikely that a situation can occur on a commercial plane where it is known far enough ahead of time that the plane is going to crash, they almost always are attempting emergency procedures to avoid the crash all the way down. While he didn't address it explicitly, it still follows his argument that one might decrease survival rates, I can imagine multiple deaths on a plane that regained control and landed safely more easily than I can imagine a plane that knows far enough ahead of time it will crash to get passengers off safely with peronal parachutes.
Pro raised an enteresting option with his distinction between a parachute and a parachute "mechanism" but he remained at a personal device, which isn't very practical. I recall once reading about an option where the entire passenger cabin could be ejected and parachuted safely to the ground, that would certainly overcome many of con's objections and address the timing issue better, but as con argued, may still not be economically practical. I suspect if both options were avialble, nobody would pay a hundred dollars more to be on the equipped plane. Remember, flying is still the safest way to travel, I just don't think this is a practical consideration, don't know of anyone that keeps a life jacket in the car in case they drive into a lake because it is som unlikely, I think the same goes for parachutes, just to unlikely they can make a difference.
Pro established the goal of the debate as providing constructive value, I like the way con logically broke down the debate and then made a strong argument, pro had an opportunity to argue con's points, but pro didn't counter and just repeatedly asks con a question he alrady answered, didn't seem to even try to provide constructive value.
Conduct because pro forfeited, I think Con had the better argument, pro did not meet burden of proof