Total votes: 54
Same reason as all other judges.
"One SHOULD defend the weak against the powerful."
This is a very interesting topic to debate about. The word 'should' here implies that one has a moral duty to protect the weak from the powerful. Both parties clearly expressed their view points on the matter, but in the end I believe it is impossible to declare a winner without heavy bias. This is because the moral duty of a person would depend (at least from their perspective) on their religious views. For example:
If Atheism is true, there is no such thing as objective morality, and therefore no such thing as a 'moral duty' to protect those who can't protect themselves.
If Christianity is true, it could be argued that people do have a moral duty to defend the weak from the powerful.
In my opinion, a better resolution for this debate would be 'One should defend the weak against the powerful if [religion] is true'. As it is, based on what was presented, this is essentially just an opinion-centered debate and there cannot be an objective 'winner'.
@whitflame I suppose that is a better way of communicating what I was trying to say in the debate 'Religion is beneficial' between TheGreatSunGod and Autism. Well said.
Pro literally argued for Con's side of the debate. @jonrohith read the debate a bit more closely next time.
@jonrohith, debates where one side does not participate at all should not end in ties.
Con wins for one main reason:
Pro had solid arguments for why religion is beneficial could have easily won this debate
BUT
Pro neglected to provide any evidence/quotes/sources for his claims. This essentially makes his entire foundation for arguing fall flat, since empty claims can't be treated as valid in a debate. This unfortunately means that Pro failed to meet his burden of proof, constituting a win for Con.
Con won the debate for a couple of reasons:
1. Pro failed to provide definitions in the description or beginning of the debate. Con showed that criminal records would be considered 'history' according to Merriam Webster and he showed that criminal records are indeed 'needed'.
2. Con provided actual sources via links for any claims he made. He likewise used Merriam Webster for definitions, which is a well-known and reputable source. Pro's only source for his claim was 'ChatGPT' which is not considered a reliable source any more than Wikipedia is (In fact ChatGPT pulls information from Wikipedia all the time).
In conclusion, Con attacked this debate from an angle that Pro was unprepared for. In future debates, I would advise Jonrohith to clearly lay out all important terms and definitions in the description to avoid this kind of scenario.
Con made the fatal mistake of arguing the wrong side. He admitted to accidentally choosing to be Con in the comment section. Therefore, since there are literally no arguments that support the Con side, Pro wins. This is truly a most unfortunate turn of events for johnrohith.
Con forfeit
Chat he won.
Pro wins because he met the resolution head‐on: logic, induction, and truth—all necessary for any debate—demand a non‐contingent, universal grounding that only a necessary, immaterial Mind (God) can provide. Con challenged Pro’s format but never offered an alternative foundation for why logical absolutes bind us in a godless universe, nor did he identify any flaw in Pro’s premises. Without a competing account, Pro’s transcendental argument stands unrefuted. In short, Pro showed that denying God’s existence undercuts the very possibility of rational discourse—fulfilling the heavy burden of proof—while Con could only dismiss assumptions without supplying a viable substitute.
Additionally, Con forfeited 75% of the debate.
Pro hates kids.
Never put a two hour argument window.
1. Strongest Arguments
Pro used multiple, timely economic indicators; stock market reactions the day after the tariff announcements, consumer price spikes, GDP contractions, job losses, and export declines to show a clear, negative impact. Each metric tied directly back to the tariffs and was reinforced with real numbers.
Con repeatedly argued that the tariffs were delayed, that long-term trends dwarf short-term bumps, and leaned heavily on personal gold-investment anecdotes. These points never quite established that tariff announcements themselves had no negative effect; instead, they diffused the blame across “market nervousness,” “long-standing trade deficits,” and “natural market fickleness.”
Because Pro directly linked specific economic downturns to the tariff announcements, Pro’s case is far more convincing on substance.
2. Quality of Sources
Pro cited reputable, up-to-date data: Yale’s budget lab analysis, MarketWatch and Nasdaq charts, Bureau of Economic Analysis GDP figures, and trade retaliation updates from established law firms. These sources spoke directly to the metrics in question.
Con leaned on a mix of Reuters reports (not always directly about the second-term tariffs), StreetInsider’s broad “$3 trillion investment” item, the Tax Foundation’s future-looking tariff models, and macrotrends.com for stock history. Many of these either didn’t isolate second-term tariffs or veered slightly off topic.
Pro’s sources were both more directly relevant and more authoritative for the exact metrics under debate.
Con was more difficult read, but I will not dock the legality point since it is due to no fault of his own.
Both parties had great and professional conduct.
Pro forfeit :(
Con was a woman and Pro hit them into submission. (joke)
Bro keeps using sneaky descriptions that almost gift him the win. Anyways, full FF from Con.
No one mentioned 'running back to you' by Seph Schleuter 😭🙏.
Also this debate feels very subjective and opinion based. I'm going to just leave a neutral vote.
Pro forfeited 66% of the debate. Con wins by default.
Full FF from Pro.
Pro wins because they consistently met the burden of proof: showing that water in its liquid state possesses the very property—wetness—it transfers to other surfaces. From the start, Pro pointed out that “wet” and “dry” are binary opposites, and since water is plainly not dry, it must be wet. When challenged, Pro reinforced this with the Merriam-Webster definition (“consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid”) and explained at the molecular level how water molecules coat each other and anything they touch. Con’s appeals to subjectivity, temperature, or analogies with gold and ice never undermined this core logic—they merely sidestepped it.
Throughout ten exchanges, Con failed to explain how a substance that makes things wet could itself lack wetness. Con’s philosophical detours about perception and temperature’s role in melting solids did nothing to rebut that liquid water inherently fits the definition of “wet.” By staying focused on clear definitions, scientific principles, and unchallenged logic—namely, that only liquids can be wet and water is always a liquid under normal conditions—Pro delivered an airtight case. In the face of Con’s confused redefinitions and red herrings, Pro’s arguments remained coherent, evidence-based, and directly on point. That is why Pro convincingly wins this debate.
Pro was the only one to provide any sort of source in the debate, and therefore wins the reliable source point.
Con was borderline illegible and it took a lot of effort to read and understand his arguments so Pro wins legibility easily.
Pro also wins conduct due to Con's dismissive and rude accusation of 'playing dumb' in argument #4.
Overall, it's a landslide victory for Pro.
They literally agreed to a tie in the debate.
Full points to Con on account of near full forfeiture from Pro
Pro wins because he did exactly what the debate asked for: he showed that some information leads people to believe the Christian God exists.
He gave real examples—parents, personal experiences, stories of miracles, and historical claims—where people heard something and came to that conclusion. That’s all he had to prove. He wasn’t required to show the information was scientific or legally solid—just that it led people to believe.
Con lost focus by trying to raise the bar too high. He wanted all the information to meet strict evidence rules, like in court. But that’s not what the debate was about. The rules said Pro only needed to show that some information led to belief—and he did that.
In the end, Pro stayed on topic, met the rules, and supported the resolution. That’s why he wins.
BEWARE THEGREATSUNGOD!!!
Seriously, he fights DIRTY.
Pro should technically win this debate due to the fact that he asserted the condition "In this debate, it will be assumed by default that fire magic has 50% chance to be real, and that blood magic has 50% chance to be real." in the description, meaning that anyone who accepts the debate accepts the condition.
Pro was likely hoping that someone would fall into his trap by skipping over the description, landing themselves in a rigged debate with an impossible side to argue. Since the condition is predetermined, math literally proves Pro's side of the argument. Therefore all Con could have done to win was not accept the debate in the first place.
In conclusion, although Pro's arguments were highly illogical, he wins due to his devious evil plot.
Con prevails because the evidence linking corporal punishment to harm is correlational rather than causal—most studies are cross-sectional or retrospective and cannot rule out reverse causation or third-variable influences—so there is insufficient proof to justify a blanket ban. Moreover, in a free society, parents deserve the discretion to apply proportionate, last-resort measures in exceptional circumstances; a one-size-fits-all prohibition undermines family autonomy and may drive the practice underground. Con also rightly cautions against equating scientific consensus with definitive proof, highlighting methodological limitations and the need for ongoing scrutiny. Finally, corporal punishment’s real-world effects depend heavily on context, severity, intent, and available alternatives—factors a universal law would overlook—while Con’s focused critique of evidence quality outstrips the Pro side’s extensive but often unsubstantiated list of harms.
Pro began debate in a frankly confusing and non-topical manner, using twisted logic to say that 'No human beings exist' (???). He also began with the incredibly weak argument that there are no good people because Neely Fuller Jr. claims everyone is racist (which could be an entirely separate debate.) Pro also was unclear on definitions of 'good and bad people', making points about 'good' referring to functionality as well as morality. Pro's overuse of analogies also made his arguments confusing, and he additionally had less than ideal legibility. Pro's main argument was that it is impossible for someone to be 'good' or 'bad' since all humans do both 'good' and 'bad' actions, and no 'good' thing can create 'bad' (and vice versa). That argument is an opinion however, and not a commonly agreed upon fact.
I believe Con was more clear about what they were arguing, but I will leave this debate as a tie due to a lack of an absolute definition for the main terms. There can be no clear winner if there is no clear point to argue. If one accepts Pro's definition of 'good and bad people' as 'being 100% good with no bad in their nature' (or vice versa), then Pro wins. If one accepts Con's definition of 'good and bad people' as 'someone who produces significantly greater good than bad in their lifetime' (or vice versa), then Con wins. I believe Con did a better job overall throughout this debate, but cannot unfortunately give him the vote for this reason.
Pro forfeited two of the rounds and even conceded that Con's arguments were superior (see round three, argument #5).
Pro had a ridiculously easy side to argue and Con had a near indefensible position. Due to the fact the debate is whether AI girlfriends are 'useful' and not necessarily 'better than real ones', all Pro had to do was show that they have a use. Simple as that. Con most likely didn't understand what he was getting himself into when he accepted this debate. Con additionally forfeited the final round. Landslide victory for Pro.
Forfeiture of 4/5 rounds by Pro.
Pro never refuted any points brought up by Con and immediately resorted to use of disrespectful language. Even though Con forfeited the first round, Pro's terrible conduct alone constitutes a win for Con.
Edit: To clarify what I mean when I mention Pro's lack of refutation, Pro brought up arguments such as 'White people have higher IQ' and Con pointed out that nothing Pro brought up had anything to do with UNFAIR SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. Con pointed out that these were all arguments having to do with white supremacy instead of white privilege. Pro then used heaps of disrespectful language instead of trying to make a rebuttal or introduce new points. Essentially, Con challenged Pro's definition/topicality and Pro
a: used racial slurs
b: just flat out claimed "you can't argue with my definition." (while this might be technically allowed since Con forfeited round one, it is rather unsportsmanlike IMHO)
Overall, my primary reason for voting for Con is Pro's poor conduct.
Most confusing debate I have ever seen.
AnonYmous_Icon is just trolling at this point...
Full points to Pro on account of full forfeiture by Con.
I award full points to Pro on account of Con's forfeiture
Forfeiture
This debate was far too short for any real rebuttals or multiple proofs. Not enough information.
Forfeiture.
I award all points to Pro on account of complete forfeiture by Con.
Forfeiture.