TheRizzler

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.