Total votes: 8
Con contributes by arguing for the wrong side, so obviously pro wins here. Everything else is pretty much tied.
Con provided good reasons to conclude that domesticating animals is okay, and he provided good rebuttals to pro's claims. However, pro gets the source point, as he cited three sources supporting his last claims, whereas con made a series of baseless, unverified claims about the state of zoos. I don't know that much about zoos, so I have no idea if he's lying or not. Con was obviously more legible than pro, as con's arguments were much more structured and coherent, whereas pro's grammar was very bad, it wasn't as well-structured, and he screamed every single word, except when he copied a quote from Wikipedia. Both never insulted each other and both showed up for the debate to contribute their arguments, nobody abused technicalities and nobody intentionally twisted anybody's words, so they are tied for conduct.
Con automatically wins due to pro's forfeiture. But in addition to this, he presents his argument for why debates are needed, being the making of policies to test ideas. That argument makes sense, and is legible, though no sources were provided so neither get the source point, and he actually showed up, gave a good argument, and didn't insult anyone, thus having better conduct.
Which participant provided more convincing arguments? While the word "school" implies specifically the modern American education system, it really just means any form of education, especially since con did not bring that specific part up. So since con could not provide a convincing argument for why we don't need any school, pro gets this point.
Which participant provided more reliable sources? Technically, neither of them provided any sources. But con was the only one who made a plethora of claims without citing any sources, whereas pro didn't cite any sources because there was nothing to cite. So pro gets this point.
Which participant's arguments had significantly better legibility? They were both equally legible, so this point is a tie.
Which participant had significantly better conduct? They both respected each other, and they did not accuse each other of anything, nor did they call each other any names. So this point is a tie.
Con did provide a better counter-argument than pro. However he did not provide a better argument, as he claimed he didn't have to because the burden of proof was solely on pro. But I suspect that this is only because of the low character limit, and he may have provided an argument against the idea that the apostles were Messianic Jews as opposed to Christians, not specifically just against what pro said. All pro did was make baseless claims, no evidence or sources provided.
Forfeiture. Also I agree with him.
The very system of a debate calls for the instigator / pro to agree with the title of the debate, and the contender / con to disagree with the title of the debate. The title of the debate is, "The Earth is Round, Not Flat," and therefore, since Sunshineboy217 is instigator / pro, this means that he is the one arguing for the position that the earth is not flat. This means that since DPrek is contender / con, he is the one arguing for the position that the earth is flat. Both this website and the title of this debate make it very clear which position each person takes, and it was therefore invalid for DPrek to claim that he did not know which position he was taking until the debate started. That argument would have been valid if the title were something like, "Is The Earth Round, or Flat?" But it was not, the title came in the form of an assertion. Sunshineboy217 is being significantly more reasonable in every argument of this debate, whereas DPrek was not, and thus, I must give Sunshineboy217 my vote.
Con provided a list of differences between Christianity and Mormonism, and Pro ditched that entire list, and focused on the one thing they agree on. That's like radically changing every single element of the recipe for a cake except for one single element, and using that one similarity as a reason to believe that the cake you have baked is the same as the cake you would have baked had you just followed the instructions correctly. Pro provided no actual rebuttal to any of con's arguments, so there wasn't even much to respond to. When confronted with a possible contradiction in their own logic, pro simply avoids the situation, and doesn't say a word for the rest of the debate.
Overall, pro completely failed to show that Christianity can at all be synonymous with Mormonism, meanwhile con provided lots of reasons as to why Christianity is definitely not synonymous with Mormonism.