TheRizzler

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.

Forfeiture by Con

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.

Forfeiture.

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.

Con forfeited half of the debate.

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

Forfeiture

Forfeiture of most rounds by Pro

This debate was far too short for any real rebuttals or multiple proofs. Not enough information.

Forfeiture.

Full forfeiture from CON.

I award all points to Pro on account of complete forfeiture by Con.

Forfeiture.

Both sides had well thought out, logical arguments However, I feel that some of Pro's arguments were overly repetitive and did not address the important issues that Con brought up. I think the deciding factor in my vote is the point that Con made about 'considering other possible contributors to the statistics'. Pro failed to effectively counter this and attempted to sidestep the issue and reassert previous arguments. All in all, I believe that Pro did not succeed in meeting the burden of proof for that reason.

Both showed very respectful conduct and had clear and concise writing. Very well done debate overall.

Forfeiture.

Con provided diddly squat to support his claims. He also randomly introduced a glaringly obvious red herring. Pro additionally had poor legibility. While Con only forfeited one round and Pro forfeited three, the combination of other factors constitutes a victory for Pro in my opinion.

Pro provided no actual evidence to support any claims, with his posts more closely resembling some strange form of poetry than actual arguments. Con actually attempted to reason logically, and Pro did not successfully refute any of Wylted's points.

Neither Participant provided any sources whatsoever, so that is a tie.

Everything Pro said was nearly impossible to read, and Con expressed frustration over this very thing. Regardless of whether this was intentional or not, Con wins legibility points.

I believe that AnonYmous_Icon was intentionally trolling. However he wins conduct on account of the fact that Con used blunt and unnecessary language and forfeited a round.