Total votes: 4
I am unsure if I am a fan of how the points were laid out but pro made arguments that weren’t originally addressed by con. Con forfeited a round then typed in the final reply. The final reply was made after a forfeited round so pro could not respond. From conduct alone pro should win.
Con forfeited, and pro was the only one to make arguments.
Both displayed good conduct. Pro made better arguments and provided at least some sources to his/her claim. Loved that both were extremely respectful to one another.
Even though I am Christian and it seems like I would be Bias, and vote towards something that would be towards religion, I am unable to deem a winner. Neither side cited any sources, and it seemed like the rebuttals did not really go anywhere. We had an instances of satanism being on the list and the con disagreed with its placement, and there wasn’t really a clear rebuttal besides him mentioning that it wasn’t really a religion (which means it shouldn’t be on the list due to it not being a religion per say). If pro cited some sources to rebut claims such as against the satanism claim and the eating claim, he probably could have won (Example for this is that most people in the US are overweight and eating too much has been scientifically shown to cause harm. I mention this, due to there being data on this). Anyway this was interesting though lol!