fauxlaw

RFD deataiz on comments #3, #2 [in that order]

This, as expected, turned out to be a milestone debate. The sense of the challenge requires a good grounding in the philosophy of modal logic
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/,
and first in that grounding is understanding the language, and by language, the meaning of, for example, ◊□P → □P.  Well, that's not common English, is it? Regardless, anyone sufficiently interested should read the entire section of "Modal logic" in the site given above. Read and re-read until understanding is reached. or you're in Con's position: "That's what I spent the whole debate trying to understand, and you [sic] guess is still as good as mine" [Comments, Con post #20. I do not render this quote as part of my RFD, but merely as exemplary of Con's self-admitted misunderstanding.] If anyone is interested in the more complete edition of my RFD, I have it and will provide it. [that may take a bit as I am taking off next week for surgery.]

fauxlaw RFD:
Argument: This would be a very lengthy RFD, so I'll cut to the chase in Pro's R4 which summarizes the Pro arguments of R1, R2, R3: "My opponent has conceded every premise except for premise 3 [I have confirmed this is the case]. Unfortunately my opponent continues to misunderstand premise 3 and misunderstand modal logic. This is not a logical contradiction but an axiom of modal logic: ◊□P → □P.  ◊□P means there exists at least one possible world where P is true in all possible worlds (i.e., P is necessarily true in that world). In other words, if P can be necessarily true somewhere, its necessity holds universally. Thus we are saying because there is at least one possible world where God is necessary, then God is necessary in all possible worlds. This is not a stretch but a basic foundational axiom of modal logic. In modal logic, necessary means true in all possible worlds, including the actual world as the actual world is a possible world."

Con's rebuttal: "I don't quite understand what my opponent means by "If God being "possible" necessitates him being real then he is no longer possible, because something that is possible cannot be 100% real, there must be a chance that it isn't real." By definition anything that is real in the actual world is possible. The word "possible" is a maybe-word, not a definite-word."

Con's rebuttal is out of a common dictionary [though Con never cites one as a source, which Is not the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy; Pro's source, and, therefore, the more credible source. Pro wins this debate argument going away.

Sources: Pro's sources are so credible, even Con uses them, but draws the wrong conclusions from them, and, otherwise, offers no self-supporting sourcing. Pro wins the source points.

Legibility: one might draw the conclusion that Con's misunderstanding of Pro's modal logic yields a legibility loss, but legibility is not descriptive of misunderstanding. What Con writes is certainly legible, it's just not meeting modal logic
Pro, by contrast, while arguing points normally beyond the level of even a college degree not rooted in modal logic, and therefore are not understood well, his argument is legible. Tie

Conduct: Both participants conducted themselves well. Tie.

This could have been an interesting debate, and it's construct was well devised by Con to be the instigator, but opposed to the Resolution/Resolve: "Hell is likely locked from the inside," a position of argument that suggests that once in hell, a person yet has the choice to vacate hell for heaven and has the unlock function available to do so. I disagree with Con's entire argument in this regard, yet, I was confident in my ability to separate from personal opinion to render a justifiable vote. Con's argument should have been relatively easy to combat while maintaining the sense of the Resolve by valid reasoning, but Pro chose to take a tangential journey of rebuttal by an argument of misinterpretation of scriptural translation over time. This is, factually, a valid argument, but not in the manner of Pro's approach, which was not oppositional to the Resolve, i.e., that the lock on hell's door is outside the door, thus unavailable to its inhabitants to unlock, and therefore, in agreement with the "everlasting hell" of Con's scriptural references. Thus, Con's argument prevailed.
Further, Pro forfeited the last two rounds; 50% of the debate. one seldom will win a debate ignoring half of its rounds, and failing to overcome the opponent's arguments.
Con wins the debate.

This is a debate in which both participants allowed drifting from the resolve, "Should Religious Faith Be Questioned," to morph into Religion v. Science; a concept drifting both from belief, as both participants assume, but avoid "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" [Oxford English Dictionary], or, secondarily [same dictionary] "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." However, apprehension must be understood in this secondary definition as Hamlet, by Shakespeare ["What a piece ofc work is man...in apprehension how like a god."] used the term as meaning understanding and comprehension rather than the modern meaning of anxiety or fear. Neither participant grasps that. Further, science enters the discussion when it is not part of the resolve, nd contributes nothing toward either's BoP.
I can only conclude it is a failed tie.

Argument:
Pro flailed to adequately define terms, one ofc tree essential necessities of a multiple criterion debate. Pizza and salads are keywords of the Resolution, "pizza is a salad." pizza is loosely described by Pro, but insufficient to call it a dictionary definition, and salad is more poorly described as a "mix of ingredients."
Con's RE1, first argument is effectively the winning argument up front as first salvo by repeating a Pro R1 argument, but with word emphasis [bolding] to demonstrate an excellent rebuttal: "a mixture of uncooked vegetables, usually including lettuce, eaten either as a separate dish or with other food," by an initial description of a salad, but with the closure "...eaten either as a separate dish or with other food." "other food" being, for example, a pizza, because, Con explains, pizza is not salad, and Con's balance of R1 explains why not, simply because salad can be, but is not necessarily "a mix of ingredients", since a pizza can be described exactly the same way, and yet, Pro admits "salad" is "a separate dish or with other food" which makes it a distinctive food that can be combined with pizza, but Can defines salad as "raw greens [such s lettuce," but pizza is "baked with toppings" while salad is not typically baked. pro wins argument.
Sources:
Pro offers a quoted statement in R1, but does not cite a source, so, it is not certain why the statement is in quotes. Pro offers no other apparent sources.
Con offers dictionary sources of definition in R1, the offerers more surges to recommend refrigerated storage of leftover salad, and re-heating leftover pizza [having already sourced the baking necessity of a pizza dish to serve it.] Points to Con.

Legibility: tie

Conduct: Pro forfeits round 2; Con wins point.

Considering that Pro is the initiator of this debate, he would have done the debte a huge favor by defining the key words of the Resolution ["ethical," "parent,s" "prevent," "change," "child's homosexuality"] in this citation of it: “Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?” By doing so, he prevents Con from making up his own definitions to suit his argument. Further, putting those definitions in the Description, which was cryptically short, would allow the opponent to review and accept the debate with eyes open and being flawed to then try to change definitions. As it was, Con was allowed to, and did create his own definitions to suit his argument; this was, therefore, a Pro tactical mistake, but, in the end, it was argumentation that was the tale of this debate.
On the whole, I find Pro’s argumentation culturally, and even civilizatiionally consistent with the meaning of “ethics:” pertaining to principles of morality, pertaining to concepts of right and wrong behavior. There is no mention of religion in that definition, yet it can encompass both religious and secular behavioral ideals. On the basis of my vote on specific round by round [see Comments R1, R2, R3] I award the vole to Pro.

Until one analyzes the Resolve, one may relive this debate is about the practice of government, but that is the incorrect application of this debate; the Resolve can be interpreted only as it is worded, and practice is not its intent, but its "form." That is the keyword of the Resolve. Pro sets that tone in R1, arguing a Resolve-based conclusion: "Democracy holds individuals in power responsible for their actions." Con's R1 is concluded by the initial argument, "Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary. Democracy is inherently corrupt for a few reasons." The reasons listed are matters of government practice, which is not only contrary to the Resolve [a correct counter-BoP, but going after the wrong BoP, for it does not address "form," because neither address power's responsibility for government actions, but are authoritarian by form. Con also argues "There is no such thing as a non-authoritarian regime," and "There is a quiet tyranny to it all," and "Democracy... leads to multiculturalism," These first two, again, aim at practice, not form for the same reasons noted above. The third is used as if multiculturalism is government form, but it is culture, not government form or practice.
Pro's R2 rebuts fascism's authoritarian form resulted in the holocaust, an historical fact, that multiculturalism is a social structure, and that "tyranny" is not democracy's form, but a illogical practice by some.
But Con's R2 also contains an unintelligible argument: "If I promise you I will ban green paint and party with green paint all over me and green clothes sticking middle fingers up, laughing, you cannot do anything to me inside democracy. In certain dicatorahips, that would lead to my military killing me and couping." That is not only nonsense, but inapplicable to theResolve, nor Con BoP, having no reference to color.
Pro's R3 is an admitted unintentional forfeit, but it represents only 125% of the rounds, and there is no conduct point in. a winner selection debate.
Con's R3 declares o joke about a small, democratic vote that concluded the vote is a good idea, which argues against his BoP
Pro's R4 declares "My opponent’s argument is not only incoherent, it is built on fear, fantasy, and fallacy. It reads like an unedited rant dressed up as political analysis," then proceeds to detail each issue, such as the historical inaccuracies of Hitler's 1932 election [See comments], rhetorical discrimination, and "Modern democracies have laws, education, and cultural integration, not because they are perfect, but because they are self-correcting."
Con's R4 beginning: "My opponent clings to proving that democracy can work. I agree. It can work." Thpugh surely not intended, thy amounts to a concession. It wasn't necessary.
Pro wins by argument, not by a joke.

Offering the only argument of the debate, pro wins effectively by default. However, I do not like using forfeit, even full forfeit as a justification to award a winner. Fortunately, pro actually offered an excellent argument to justify the Resolution, "Religion is not necessary for morality."
Presenting reason, mutual benefit, and evolutionary cooperation [though I would prefer thinking civilization was not necessarily an evolutionary result, only, but a cognitive result - but that is a minor point of personal preference not affecting the argument] was excellent argumentation that may have overwhelmed the opponent. That conclusion on my part is pure opinion only.
Pro wins by successful argument, not by full-forfeit.

My profile pic is better than both participants because:
1. I created it; it is not someone else's work.
2. It has been my profile image for 5 years, so it has sustained presence on this site.
3. It is symbolic.
4. It can be relied upon to represent the greatest vocal variety of any genus on Earth, including man, making it the best debate participant, ever [but that's not me; I'm, just the frontman for the frog]

The debate Resolution [Resolve] is hampered by the adverb "highly" to describe "irrational" because there is no suggestion to understand what constitute "high." No definition. Further, Pro failed to define "irrational," whereas both words are keywords of tree Resolve, and should be defined to aid voters in the intent of the Resolve. This has been suggested to Pro before.
Without adding definition, the argument is weak. Further still, Pro's argument equated "promise": with "guarantee," which enters the potential of legal territory of a promise, yet pro abandons that usual linkage. A grantee assured a promise by allowing legal action against the failure to uphold the promise. There is nothing irrational about that, whether talking a historical view, of present day.
Con successfully rebutted that that promises can be backed by grantees, but even if not, a person making a promise strengthens the promise by g=follow through to successful ly enhance reputation. thus defeating the Re3solve. Con wins.

Pro offered no argument and forfeited R1 and R2, and conceded in R3.
Con argument in R1, "DART centers around discussion from all sides of the political spectrum. Intentionally introducing bias would destroy the site" met the Con requirement to defeat the Resolve by saying any deference to any political part of the spectrum would be detrimental to the site. Win by argument, regardless of Pro forfeit and concession.

Pro’s R1 asks a question that belongs in the Description because it asks for a different BoP than stipulated by the Resolve: “Abortion and homosexuality are two sides of the same coin.” By the Resolve, Con’s BoP is that Abortion and Homosexuality are not two sides of the same coin, but demands “do you support abortion prior to the development of a complete human being inside the woman, the womb of man?” which is not directed to the Resolve as a blanket acceptance of Abortion, but parsing it by time. And there is no mention of homosexuality in the question, but demands a forfeit should the question be ignored., which amounted to a quasi-early round blitzkrieg. That's not necessarily a detraction from Pro, but not an above-board argument: “The act of homosexuality disregards sexual reproductive sexuality.” This is patently false because at least one of the sexual partners can be a fertile female who declares being homosexual, but can have relations with the opposing sex, and become pregnant by those relations, regardless of whether the other partner in her sexual life is male or female. Therefore, the statement fails.
Con replied to the Pro R1 Question in R1, “No, I don't support abortion, but homosexuality is okay,” which de-links the “two sides of the coin” resolution, thus defeating the Resolve unless Pro can rebut in a succeeding round by arguing that abortion and homosexuality are not linked by any common thread, let alone by the rigidity of coinage.
Pro’s R2 appears as an extension, but is completely unresponsive to the Resolve, discussing Con’s potential ban. What has that to do with th4e debate?
Con’s R2 response amounts to an extension of argument, but recognized that the Resolve is incorrect, and therefore a relevant rebuttal more than merely an extension because of Con's de-linking rebuttal.
Pro’s R3 & R4 are, like R2, unrelated to the Resolve, and any argument supporting it.
Con, having successfully turned the Resolve to his favor, wins.

This debate centrers on the critical definition of "truth." The opponents offer differing definitions in their arguments. Pro, the instigator, may have made a damaging error by not offering his definition in Description, thereby tying down an irrefutable definition in debate. leaving the matter open until the argument phase began left Pro open to rebuttal by a more accurate definition, which Con offered in this one-round debate.
Pro definition of truth: "something which exists"
Con definition of truth: "In accordance with fact or reality"

Both failed to source their definitions, but consulting the definition, Con's definition makes the more accurate of the two, and most dictionary references, including the definitive OED, indicate variations to "accordance" of something "to fact or reality," i.e., what is true is fact or reality, and not merely existence.
Pro's argument then says, "The mentioned statement [the Resolution] exists, we can see it with our own eyes."
Con's rebuttal: "'This statement is true' refers only to itself and contains no reference to external facts." A statement referring only to itself is circular logic, sometimes referred to as logical fallacy. It does not hold. Therefore, Con wins by selection

Argument:
The instigator, Pro, offers a problematic Resolution: "Fashion is not sustainable it creates more pollution," because it makes assumptions argued and not argued, and reaches conclusions assumed to be fact, but still exist in the realm of theory, i.e., unknown. Quite simply, pro's Resolution begins with a truism: fashion definitively is not sustainable in single example. Fasion is a consumable, like food. It is consumed and must be re-acquired. The following quote from pro's R1 demonstrates the theory/fact conflict: "As of recent data, approximately 60% of clothing materials worldwide are synthetic fibers such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic, which are derived from fossil fuels and are non-biodegradable These synthetic fibers can take hundreds of years to decompose in landfills..." First, Pro claims synthetic fibers are non-biodegradable, then immediately follows with them taking hundreds of years to decompose. These are contradictory claims. His sources admit the same conflict. But the claim of non-biodegration does not support the Resolution's concern of either non-sustainability nor pollution. Further, pro argued "the fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions," but did not cite a source for this claim. See notes posted in comments. Pro's citation of "Environmental Cost of fast Fashion..." itself, makes this critical mistake, merely passions on rumor. Will someone cite a credible source, pls?
Con's R1 argument repeats the problematic Resolution, pointing to its assumptions, then argues successfully that the notion of sustainable fashion is basically a circular argument t because fashion, even if environmentally friendly, would not be sustainable. It's an irrefutable argument: like other consumables, like food, fashion must be replenished.

Pro's R2 ignores the truism factor of his Resolution and argues unsuccessfully that Con has not refuted his argument, whereas Con's R1 is nothing but refutation. pro appears married to his truism, and digs a deeper hole of it: "He is failed to give any ideas or alternative to make fashion pollution free." But that argument is not Con's BoP, because, Con will rebut [R2] "First he says, fashion is not sustainable because it creates pollution. And now he says that the answer is to use less fashion." Very good rebuttal.
Pro [R2] "Con should provide enough arguments and ideas to how make fashion pollution free." Pro needed to worry less about Con's BoP and see to his own, but this will continue to be Pro's downfall. Agaon, it is not Con's BoP to address pollution-free fashion, because of the truism of Pro's Resolution; Fashion is not sustainable. Con's R2 set's the proper tone of this debate with a seven-word answer for his BoP, and Pro's as well: What Are the Solutions to Climate Change? - a sourced rebuttal which, effectively, wins the argument.

Pro's R3 just perpetuates the problems with his argument.
Con wins arguments.

Sources; con's sources exemplified in Argument section are sufficient t to win sourcing points.

Legibility: Though pro's arguments are legible, the confusion therein is also apparent by self-contradiction. Con's legibility wins the day

Conduct is tied

Resolution; "One should defend the weak against the powerful." This is deceptively simple, and Pro's primary BoP is one of moral ethic, and neither "survival of the fittest," Con's Darwin argument, nor necessarily superior strategy to overcome superior power, but merely the will to defend, regardless of outcome. We assume Pro's "one" could be anyone one, or a combination of us, thus personalizing the argument.

Con's mistake is attempting to imply by "defend" that this requires adequate "fittest" [physical fitness] and declares this is a Darwinian principle that superior "fittest" equals superior power, thus the statement leading Con's argument: "when the weak are constantly supported by the powerful, they become even weaker." By this Con claim, it is obvious, for example, that the British, having the superior armed forces [Darwinian "fittest," again, equal to physical strength, rather than Pro's argument of will power] during the American Revolution, and, therefore, should have been victorious. Con's argument is defeated by Pro's superior rebuttal that, one, "fittest" does not necessarily equate to greater physical strength, but greater will, not even necessarily by the weak, but by the protector of the weak by the Resolution.

Thus, Pro's superior argument "Power or Weakness is a Mindset." Pro acknowledges that physical strength may, indeed overwhelm weakness of mind, but Con is unsuccessful in rebutting the original Resolution that weakness is not merely depended on physical strength to overcome a greater physical power.
Therefore, Pro's Resolution, and his strength of argument for it, wins.

Pro acceptable argument
Con no argument by forfeit.
Pro wins

I admit not liking rap music, generally, but I can appreciate the style of writhing rap presents, and Rittz, Pro's chosen featured artist, excels at internal rhyme, particularly with use of a syncopated rhythm which one either has naturally, and Rittz does, or one fakes it, generally poorly. Of this I am qualified as a voter because I have published poetry since I was 14 in various literary mags in the 60s. - 90s
Pro's Description and R1 1st sentence had all the rules for this debate quantified; The first R1 line; "When you read Rittz lyrics they don't always read rhyming, you need to listen to where he emphasises in the songs to realize how he did it." I cited this because Pro's choice of artist, Rittz, as said, inherently gets it. All six songs Pro featured in 3 rounds exhibited the skill of internal rhyme and syncopation, Pro's voting protocol.
Con's R1 featured Slaughterhouse, a group of multiple rappers, violating pro's described single rapper requirement with 1 additional vocalist allowed.
Con's R2 feature Emenem, when the Description erequireed that the same artist be used for all three rounds. Even though Pro generously allowed the change, I go by his original description requirements, because rules require that once accepted, special rules by Description are locked and cannot change. AAlso, in RT2, Con presented not 2, but 3 songs, also breaking Description rules. Pro wins Argument points

Sourcing in this case is a matter of reviewing lytrivs of each song presented in debate. pro's choice of Rittz far exceeds the rhyme and beat of Con's featured artists. points to Peo.

Legibility, in this instance, is replaced by dedication to rhyme and beat of the songs. With superior internal rhyming by Pro's featured artist, Pro wins "Legibility."

Conduct: Con forfeited R3. With other rule violations by Con, Pro wins Conduct.

The instigator, Pro, demands that his Resolution carry the burden of resolve of the debate, its description, and its definitions. Neither of the last two tasks are accomplished at all, when Pro had opportunity to support his Burden of Proof by their use. Further, Pro issues default forfeits in the first, third, fourth and fifth rounds. While forfeit is a conditional conduct violation in a rated debate, in the case of a whiner selection, with 80% of the rounds abandoned, this must figure into voter decision on argument. I find Pro’s argument lacking due to failure to distinguish a governing philosophy and the nation’ economic policy. Without definition of these competing policies, Pro’s argument is mismanaged.
Con offers a multiplied argument features of distinction between governing and economy to explane his BoP that a government can n s uccessfully manage harm to citizens by an unchecked private sector capitalist economy by appropriate policy and regulation. Con supports his arguments by citation toon of scholastic sources, while Pro ignores support oh his arguments.
Winner is Con

Not sure why everyone [debate participants, voters, and commits by observers] have reduced the argument to "hate speech" specifically since ut is not a featured specificity in the Resolution, and there is not a Description, at all, perhaps an oversight by Pro [instigator], though a Description is not a required element of debate according to Debate Rules, just a very good idea which I encourage both debate participants to engage in the future. Therefore, my vote will consider discussion of hate speech as irrelevant to the debate as being anymore than an example of one type of speech. As both participants argue against it, it becomes a null point, and not a point on which either participant scores over the other. The debate must, therefore, on my opinion, score on other arguments.
Argument:
First, I find the practice of a participant asking the opponent questions which appeared construed to determine the opponent's attitude about possible debate detail an egregious tactic, rather than just making argument of the issue to which the opponent can rebut, or ignore, the latter perhaps to the opponent's detriment. That seems a much more prudent way to address the matter. Stare your own position by argument; let the opponent address it or ignore it. ro chose to pose questions in R1 and R2,
Pro argues in R1 that only humans have god-given speech, i.e., communicative skill, but other animals also express themselves and clear understanding of the "communication" is demonstrated in the predator/prey relationship, even if nothing more than demonstrating fight or flight. Con, yin fortunately, does spot make this rebuttal, but does effectively rebut by 3 R1 rebuttals: 1. Right to speech is not right to harm. 2. Misuse of rights is not a reason to remove rights. 3. Silencing speech creates fear, not safety. Pro's rebuttals to these statements do not score against them in thee following 2 rounds.
pro's R2 attempt failed: He claims he never suggested a ban on speech, but only restrictions on speech, but never defines what he means by these apparent synonyms, for clearly, he draws a distinction that is not obvious. More of the same, with Con's adequate defense of his rebuttals, scores a win on argument.
Sources:
Pro cities a poet in R1, but it does not support his argument adequately, and cites a source of hate crime data in R2, but does not qualify how it would be curtailed by shutting down hate speech, and quotes something in R3, but does not identify the source. However, Condoes not cite any surges at all, so the point must go to Pro, even though no source supports his argument.
Legibility: tie
Conduct: Pro exaggerated Con's response to a Pro question. Con answered the question: "Because speech should be fought with more speech, not silenced by fear," but Pro's exaggeration was to elevate the response "speech:" to killing an opponent; clearing aggrevating the condition Con laid down. Point to Con for his cool response to the accusation.

There are at least four different versions of the Old Testament that are used among people who call themselves Christians, including Calvinist's, so to debate a subject that depends on Old Testament citation, perhaps it would have been beneficial in the Description to not assume every Bible in existence is acceptable sourcing. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Description of this debate allows: "Biblical: Derived from or supported by the proper interpretation of the Bible." What Bible, then, is "proper," and who defines it? Pro did not. I do not mean Pro is obligated to know, but, since his Resolution maintains that "Calvinism is biblical," Pro ought to have indicated a "biblical" to source allowed argument. As it is, it's open-season, and Con cited from "open-season" sources, then accused, in R2, that Con violated the rules. What rules? They're open-season, and, R2 is not the appropriate time to suggest more refinement of rule. As such, Round 1 goes to Con for good rebuttal against Pro's arguments, which do not recognize that citation from O.T. verses cannot overrule that Christ has not yet appeared to effect his atonement for the commission of sin, on condition of a sinner's free will to overcome their past sinful behavior, as Con rebuts in R1.

R2: As said, Pro's R2 begins with baseless accusation of Con violation of rules, and includes an inappropriate invitation to forfeit [I'll call that a conduct violation, although a standard debate does not include the four typical categories of voting in ratted debates] when Pro's own definitions in Description allow Con the flexibility expressed by citation of verses apparently not included in Pro's biblical genre [excpet, contrary to Pro's accusation, Revelation, a book. cited by Con, is in the Protestant canon, apparently Pro's biblical version of choice. In fact, it is located in all Christian versions of canon, whether our not John's words apply only to the book oof Revelation, or the entire canon [I happen to agree with Pro that the refer only to the single book], but the book, itself, is in all canons, and is, therefore, a legit source for Con. pro argues Sirach 15 does not reject Calvinism because it is not scripture, but Pro did not forbid its use in debate by not defining a debate-assigned canon. Pro asks "What does scripture teach? Again, which canon, since Pro opened the door to all.
Con's R2 rebuttal is, again, successful. "The irony is insane." Yes, correctly put, since, as I said above, Pro's failure in Description to define the canon of choice for the debate is ironical.
Open the door, Con walked through it. Con takes R2.

R3: Pro accuses Con of still more rule violation citing Con's rebuttal in his frame of R!, when pro's rules mitre R1 is for argument, only. But pro's "rules" cannot violate DebateArt rules, and Debate rules do not distinguish argument and rebuttal; both count as "argument." This is not stipulated, but is obvious to the careful reader. There is a fair "rule" debaters use, that suggests "no new argument in the final round," which avoids blitzkrieg, which is forbidden by rule.
The balance of R3, R4, and pro's R5 are a clash of citations of scripture from both sides, with pro directly challenging that which his Description failed to challenge by not specifying a canon to use in the debate, allowing Con the open-season to cite from apocrypha. Con settled that score in R2, and successfully maintained that position throughout.

Con wins the debate by successful rebuttal against Pro's failure of definition. Next time, Pro, make proper use of your Description. It's yours as instigator to define the road map for the journey, and for potential challengers to accept or reject. When it's left open-season, expect to be challenged, and to complain and accuse afterword is just petty irony.

Flavor appreciation is a personal choice with difficult proof, but Pro just wrote it like it is. I admit to being biased in this regard, but even Con caved to the Pro argument. That absolves my bias.

This debate was won entirely on successful arguments and scholastically-rooted sources.
Arguments
Pro R1 argued that Earth’s forests could be cut down because trees contribute only 28% of our oxygen supply.Only?
Con’sR2 was a stellar comeback presenting several good rebuttal points, such as that forests are habitants for many animals and plants which would be endangered by loss of forests, and loss of significant carbon dioxide absorption, and water cycle disruption. Con wins points

Sourcing
Pro did not offer source material
Con supported all arguments above with scholastic references as noted in arguments. Con wins

Legibility tie

Conduct con’s forfeit of R1 loses conduct point,

It’s a good thing comments do not need to be considered in voting because on further reflection, I realize my comments post was close-minded, and I found a cause to vote on this alleged [by me] non-debate. Pro’s R1 did present an argument, though it was entirely allegorical. By simplifying the subject of debate from countries to individuals, he presented the argument the one person’s wealth does not necessarily impoverish another person unless the money supply is finite. It is clearly not. Pro wins on argument, regardless of Con’s full forfeit, therefore, loss on conduct, and fegibvility.
Unfortunately, Pro did not offer sources, so that feature can only be a tie, Con's only points [undeserved given the full forfeit].

Pro’s argument of a.i. taking our jobs as a good result is a nod to entitlement, which is pure laziness for all but the infirm, and even many of them still express sufficient ambition to go to work.
Con’s rebuttal is successful because loss of income potential is also results in entitlement by loss of self-esteem

Pro’s R1 offers two arguments to support the Resolution: creation, morals
Con’s R1 suggests a singularity is responsible for creation but the that loops of properties that allow contradictions, as if God’s creation is supposed to be perfect. Con does not offer that argument of creation’s necessity to be perfect, but is suggested as why there are contradictions.

Pro’s R2 argues that God allows evil to exist. He did not create it, but allows it, and tells us how to make it good, and he offers several reasons, primarily because of our free will to choose between evil and good actions.
Con”s R2 is a pointless, argument-free, expletive orgy that, on it’s own, a loss of conduct point, if there was one.

Both Pro and Con lose R3, but Pro’s previous 2 rounds are sufficient for the win. Yes, Pro, you win, but your R3 does not exist to claim it unless your opponent was a full forfeit, while you had legit rounds of argument. He was neither a forfeit nor a lack of argument.

After Pro’s Description provision of forbidding “semantic arguments,” he begins R1 with a semantic argument by language, defining the three key words, theism, atheism,& agnosticism as argument. Perhaps the definition of “semantic”ought to have been offered in Description by dictionary definition, not the ad hon public opinion of them
Con’s R1 successfully rebuts Pro’s entire R1 merely by offering dictionary definition [wikipedia and Merriam-Webster Webster,[ which also count in sources. Con argued that the three types are not mutually exclusive; that one can be agnostic atheist or agnostic Christian because agnosticism deals in knowledge, or more correctly, lack of it. The lack is available to both theism and atheism. Further, Con argues his own atheism, but acknowledges a sliding scale, allowing for himself the possible existence of God, which argues against the rigidity of the Resolution.
Pro’s R2 misses this last Con argument, declaring Con’s R1 was a confession to the Resolution.
Con R2 solidifies his R1 rebuttal by citing Schema psychology, in this instance that atheism is closer to agnosticism than is theism, thus defeating the resolution of similarity to both. Points to Confusion

Sources. Pro offered no sources.
Con offered and made argument use of sources, as noted above. Points to Con

Legibility: tie

Conduct: Pro’s violation of his own ban on semantic argument gives Con the point

I disagree with both previous voters. Vote rules of a debate do not say a forfeit is an automatic loss of debate, but merely loss of conduct point. So be it.
Pro defined only free will in Description, then proceeds into convoluted arguments that cause, and person are inseparably related in choice, none of which key words are previously defined, and are difficult to read due to numerous circular arguments of “logic” which fail to convince.
Con offered an R1 argument that choice is not automatically by a cause, using the choice of two boxes as example. It’s a successful argument because there is no cause to the choice since the boxes are identical. It is random choice, which Pro’s argument/rebuttal does not defeat.

Pro’s R2 argues the definition of choice, but that citation is an argument, not a given by Definition, so Pro cannot claim Con ignores it. Or o cha rvrs Con with concession by definition of knowledge, but knowledge is not defined in Description, so it, too, is merely additional argument, and not a given. Con wins argument

Sources:
Pro’s sources were definitions, only, which he used in argument,, but do not do anything in support of argument. Con is not bounded by them. These should have been included in Description to be binding by Con acceptance of the debate.
Con had. No sources. Tie

Legibility
Pro’s circular arguments maxed legibility difficult. Con’ argument easy to follow. Con wins point

Conduct
Pro’s assumption of concession is a greater failure than 1 forfeit by Con, but rules impose the conduct. Loss,

This could have been good debate with an interesting subject that is more simple than many think. I personally feel we are not over-populated, but very poor land managers because there is, all land types considered [arable/agriculteral, forest, meadow, arctic, desert and urban as main types] some 149M km^2 of total landmass, of which 37% [55.15M km^2 of arable/agricultural/pasture grazing land. The entire population of Earth, 8B could equally divide that 55M km^2 and occupy 0.006 km^2 of land, each [1.5 acres], leaving all other land types completely unpopulated but humans. That's entirely impractical, but points to the fact that we have not over-populated the Earth by humans.

Anyway, Con offered many points of argument, while Pro was a copmplete forfeit.

I will begin by noting that it would have served Pro well to define the keywords of his Resolution: "domesticate" and "wild" [animal]. It is apparent by the varied strategies each participant used in their arguments that a preliminary definition effort in the Description would have guided both particpants' argument strategy. This notice does not deduct points from Pro, but would be useful consideration in future challenges, if, for nothing else, advantage to voting..
Argument:
Pro presented a good structure to arguments, citing ethical, evolutionary, and potential danger to humans as key arguments in support of the Resoljution. His intended definition of "domesticate" became clear through reading the arguments, so that did not present a limiting factor for voting, after all, but the suggestion to define up front stands. The obvious meaning of Pro's "domesticate" was is placing wild animals [big cats were used as sufficient exemplars] in non-wild environments, and the 3-way structure explained sufficiently how each structure was of harming consequence to those animals.
Con's arguments keyed on species survival and ethical stewardship, both valid counterpoints, but in the process, altered what he intended "domesticate" to mean. While the keying on species survival in a growing human population that does encroach on natiurasl wild habitats, and providing artificially attempted "wild" habitats for recovery of extinction, it is still an artificial wild habitat, regardless, and there is, as a result, a relatively failed effort of domestication, making it difficult to prove success of the attempt but for a few notable exceptions which Con does describe.
Over all, I found pro's argument more convincing.
Sourcing:
This was clearly a Pro victory. Con failed to provide back-up sourcing to justify his argument points.
Legibility:
A more strict view might tilt this feature in Con's direction, because Pro's English is not easy to interpret in some instances, such as using "petation," an unfamiliar reference to this voter. However, in a wider context, I wish my skill in any of a hundred or more dialects commonly in used in India was as skillful as Pro's English is. His meaning is clearly understood by syntax. I understood, by syntax, that Pro spoke of making wild animals pets in the common sense we think of pets in America as part of our families. Content is king, and that is true in language as well as anything else. Tie.
Conduct: Both participants were cordial and respectful to each other. Tie

Pro offers a very detailed, and sourced-confirmation of the various historical points made of the variable borders that recognized Israel's sovereignty; variable only because of Arab dissatisfaction with the various UN-established protocols, obtained by member-state vote on the proposals; a democratic process in which, as appropriate for democratic [not the U.S. political party] ideals.
Con failed to participate with any argument by forfeiture.
Pro wins the debate.

Argument
Pro failed to define terms, specifically, his keyword of the Resolution; pleasure, and is dealing with a 19th and much of the 20th centuries version of Catholic thought that is no longer the doctrine today. Although Pro's view of Catholic-version "pleasure" is anachronistic as its demonstration, by Pro, is limited to sex and substance abuse, is a far wider application of causes and effects he is not willing to, or at least did not argue or acknowledge. Pro's R2 offers a syllogism, in name, but is not an argument of logic, because one premise offers "Pleasure is desirable by definition unless it causes more harm than good..." which is a piece of nonsense. While the first clause is sensible, the latter is far from it. In practice, even pleasure that is temptingly desireable, its consequences may not be viewed as such by any rationale.
Con missed opportunity to capitalize on these deficiencies, and even missed a full round of argument altogether by forfeit. Con's first round appears to take the tactic presented by pro of a limited view of what pleasure is, but at least cites sources to attempt to justify the view, such as Matthew 5 and Proverbs 21, so neither participant has a realistic objective of what pleasure is. Tie.

Sourcing:
Pro simply ignores sourcing altogether, presenting only his own opinions on the limited matters he presents.
Con does offer sourcing in two rounds, but it does little to support his one good argument, that Pro's argument problem is not Catholic doctrine, but biblical doctrine. He does little to flesh out that argument, with maybe the Proverbs citation attempts that justification, but it is a tangent, at best. Con wins points.

Legibility: Both were easy to read. Tie

Conduct; Con loses this point, and acknowledges it, by forfeit of R2.

Pro's R1 argument begins, "america's [sic] current taxation system has money coming in from a wide variety of sources..." which clarifies an argument of its own developing in later rounds of the debate in which Pro becomes lost in the weeds and loses focus on the detail of the Resolution. The thrust of Pro's R1 argument is that America's tax system is "inherently unfair and wrong." Pro claims a Georgian tax system would improve the "unfair and wrong" because it consists of a "land-value tax." [as a personal note, having naught to do with my vote, but what, then, is current property tax if it isn't a "land-value tax" that is reduced tax for undeveloped property, more tax for developed property?] Pro's Resolution is "Georgism is better than America’s current system of taxation." Pro defines “better" as "more favorable quality of life for the most citizens..."
Con's rebuttal consisted of proposing what factors contribute to "better" as being: 1] livelihood, 2] consumption & welfare, 3] sustainable prosperity, and declares "Georgism" is not a current tax policy, and is therefore speculative as to accomplishing these three outcomes of Georgism's application.
Pro lost the argument by never being able to overcome his weed entanglement of referencing America as his country of primary interest by declaring it upfront in R1 as his country of interest, and then admitting in R4 that Georgism cannot be proven to be better for America. Con wins points
Sourcing: Pro completely lacked sourcing . Con sourced in all three arguments in which he participated, sustaining his arguments and rebuttals effectively, such as A Search-Theoretic Critique of Georgism - Econlib in R4.
Legibility: tie [under personal protest, but I’ll forego further personal argument]
Conduct: Point to Pro for Con R1 forfeiture - auto-loss of point per voting rules.

Pro's opening R1 argument carried the weight of the entire debate. It may have been more appropriate to pose the three questions in his opening in the Descrition because they do not contribute to the argument other the n to establish ground rules to set the tone of the debate, having a relatively simple Resolution that does, nevertheless, impose a significant BoP for both sides. This is not a demerit on Pro, for the questions are valid. pro's argument weight rests on the logical syllogism that is the feature of his R1 argument which successfully establishes his ontological argument that God's existence is established on his necessity to exist; a very valid position. The one problem in Pro's argument was the lack of any sourcing to substantiate the logic. Logic, itself, requires some evidence to substantiate it, if for no other reason, because the debate rules of DART require it in a multiple-criteria point system, which was Pro's choice in the set-up.

Con's only argument consists of challenge of the premise of Pro's questions by the following rebuttal: "...to call the shots on clarifying the rules for this framework" which appears to be merely an attempt to re-align the topic of debate, and to claim the BoP rests entirely on Pro, ignoring that the Con position, by the Resolution, must argue that God cannot exist. If the method chosen to accomplish that argument was to forfeit the remaining three rounds as the negating tactic, the argument failed to accomplish its purpose.

Sourcing failure affected both participants.
Legibility goes to Pro for a more succinct argument.
Conduct is as follows: Pro wins the debate by argument. Con loses the debate by forfeit of 75% of the rounds, thus the loss of conduct.

Pro makes several claims in R1, none of which are substantiated by more than his claims; he offers no academic sourced backing. He offers a quote, but does not bother citing the quote. Who is it? Pro's alter ego? The claims are summarized with 6 specific problems alleged by "kissing on the lips;" the Resolution's allegation, and thus, Pro's BOP.
#s 1 & 2 are really the same thing, and may survive as the only legitimate argument.
#3 amounts to a truism.
#4 limits the affect to only children by emphasis, which, while a reality, appears as a tug of sympathy because the effects are really universal to all ages. Pro repeats the child emphasis as his last argument of R1, but it's just more sympathy by personal Pro claim, and not substantiated fact by a credible source.
#5 is simple absurdity. kissing on the lips hurts? Never felt the pain, personally, so, as a voter, I cannot equate to the claim.
#6 wanders off course relative to the Resolution, which limits the discussion to lips-to-lips, only.

Con's R1 rebuttal offers four points:
1 Doesn't affect other people, society at large.
2 Doesn't infringe others' rights
3 Is not enforceable
4 Is not morally/ethically wrong/evil.

Con's summary appears to make an error claiming P)ro's BoP is that kissing on the lips improves health, but Pro is clearly making the opposite opposite claim. This error is minor considering the strength of the 4 other items, even though these, like Pro, are not substantiated by sourcing.

Pro's R2 rebuttals fail to turn Con's #1 and #2 rebuttals because pro ignores that other people and society at large are not affected by two people kissing on the lips.
Pro never addresses that wrinkle of Con's rebuttal.
Pro's rebuttal of Con's #3, enforcement, also fails because just reduction of incident of transferring disease is not completely eliminated by a ban, but merely reduced, so Con's argument is not defeated.
Pro's rebuttal against Con's #4 also fails because Pro claims the debate is not about what others think. But Pro has, again, ignored that others are not affected by the kissing by two people. It is a 1-on-1 association, not 1-on-all, and Con has successfully addressed that point because Pro ignores it. Pro is not able to capitalize on his one sure argument of potential transfer of disease by not emphasizing the point in either round, it remains a weak, and losing argument.

Con's R2 successfully defends his rebuttals of Pro's arguments, and thus wins the debate.

This debate was poorly set-up as a clear argument of Non-demoninationalism vs Catholicism, and clearly intended a specific member to debate the point, but which participant takes which subject? This should have been made clear in the Description so both participants are clearly aware of which subject is their burden of proof. That they clarified it between themselves privately seems evident. But I, as a voter, must have a clear understanding of it, too, and, given what is within the debate, itself, there is nothing until the debate begins. Poor set-up, and I fault Pro for that oversight. Pro indicates in Description “Failure to engage with intended topic counts as forfeit” Engage which side of the argument? Only Pro’s R1 argument makes clear his BoP is Non-denominationalism, but then errs in an argument that Paul is unable to argue spreading the gospel to gentiles when it is Peter who has the dream of a sheet from heaven filled with animals considered by Jews and early Christians as clean and unclean, and is shown that what God cleans cannot then be considered by Peter as unclean. Peter is convinced by the Lord, and does not need Paul’s convincing. Is that a precursor to Pro’s stand of disagreement? But Con does not argue this point - a missed opportunity, other than his argument than nondenon does’t make sense, and one must agree with that as a voter, so maybe Con’s argument is sufficient.
Pro finally defines a stand in R2: “Ultimately con is missing the entire point, the ability to disagree is the greatest strength of being nondenom.” But what is disagreement? It is not defined by Pro in his context. Failure. To what does one rally around with others if disagreement is the core belief? “We agree to disagree” ends up being an oxymoron, too, which Pro argues against in R1.
Cutting to the chase, this debate is both won and lost in R2. Con wins with two simple arguments: “When life gets too hard to stand, kneel.” And “Uniting under Christ is far beyond Sunday Mass. It is Societal too, Christianity is also meant to help make moral societies.” Pro never rebuts either argument in R3. Pro also loses in R2 with the argument already noted: “Ultimately con is missing the entire point, the ability to disagree is the greatest strength of being nondenom.” Nonsense.
Con cites multiple sources justifying his position. Pro cites one source in R3, but too little too late.

First, there is nothing in the DART debate rules that specify that any percentage of debate rounds forfeit yields an automatic loss; merely loss of conduct point in any debate with a multi-dimensional voting system [argument, sourcing, legibility, and conduct] This debate is not that type of debate, so, although Pro did not argue for two rounds, the R3 argument offers multiple reasons why phones ought tor be banned from student use during class time, at least. Pro offered multiple reasons why phones present distractions to students.
Con's wasted R1 & R2, and so was unpreepared for a full-on debate against the Resolution during those rounds, offering only an unsuccessful argument, in R3, insufficient to match Pro's argued points in R3.
Pro wins.

Pro provided sufficiency definition for the particulars of the Resolution. Con tried to move the definition of "evidence" to align with accepted "evidence by the practice of law in a courtroom, The four types of evidence Con presented ignore "evidence" that becomes very personal, unseen by others, but that meet the definition of faith, leading to evidence, as by Paul, and james in New Testament texts. There is no definition in the courtroom procedure to accept this kind of spiritual evidence, such as the witness of miracles. pro's argument were supported by these conditions of applied faith, and effort to seek a power greater than ours. There is no courtroom nor a legal trial evident as a feature of this debate, so Con's argumeentws fail against the REsolution and Pro's successful arguments.

Dropping all rounds by Con is a full forfeit, and not just loss of conduct.
Pro's argument in R1 [all that were necessary given the Con forfeit] were detailed and sourced. However, Wikipedia is an unreliable source, and acknowledges it itself because it allows anonymous editing. Not a very scholastic stand. Better to dig deeper with its sources to find more credible sourcing to cite in the future I'm not enamored with either other source, either. Both are demonstrably biased against Israel. Maybe the data is accurate, maybe not.
Pro wins.

Let's get rid of the negatives: neither participant made any effort to substantiate their arguments by any credible sourcing although both made mention of supporting data. If the data exists, the Debate rules of DA stipulate they should be employed as part of argument. I know there are studies and white papers and such supporting both arguments. I have seen them and read them, so they are accessible and reeferable Just mentioning they exist without making use of them is lazy and irresponsible for this site and this debate. No win on this feature for either side. Cite your sources. period.
Both conducted themselves well. Tie
Both used legible language. Tie
[I realize this is not a multi-feature debate scoring debts, but simply win/lose]
So, it comes down to argument. One of Con's arguments was that 80% percent of teens watch porn anyway, and that it is a feature of society virtually impossible to enforce its ban. Another argument is that 90% successful enforcement is necessary to the cost/benefit ratio.I have seen studies on both issues on a variety of other topics, and this one, and they are able to be cited, but they are presented, instead, as personal opinion without citation, so I cannot buy the argument on that assurance, alone. Sorry.
While acknowledging that enforcement of any ban would be difficult, Pro makes an argument that enforcement of behavior is not the purpose of a ban, but just setting an expected standard. That, too, is presented, as said, without back-up data, but it is a more sensible argument in any case. That is the factual result of any law of society: 100% prevention of an unwanted behavioral result is never expected, but then, we do not know how many ships are saved by a lighthouse in dangerous waters, the stat is only those that fail. Pro’s argument is a more successful argument, because arguing that a lighthouse is not enforced, and therefore should not exist will guarantee failure. 
Pro wins on argument.

Pro does himself a disservice by offering a “likely: definition of “over 50% chance to be real,” but then offers definitive definition in Description: “fire magic has 50% chance to be real, and that blood magic has 50% chance to be real.” Pro repeated this latter condition in R1, settling the discrepancy.
Pro’s R1 argues that Con cannot prove fire and blood magic do not exist, when Pro has already allowed for just 50% probability that neither or both do exist, leaving a 50% probability for Con’s BoP, regardless of availability of sourced references. Given that both opponents are limited to 50& probability, Pro has cancelled his own argument. Pro R1 lists 4 possible options of either magic’s existence, but does not mention, though has allowed for a fifth by his math: that neither exists, and that needs no exemplary coin toss.
"Likely" implies a probability only greater than 50%, indicating a greater chance of the event occurring than not. A probability of 50% or less suggests an event is at least as likely to not occur as it is to occur, and is therefore not considered likely, all of Pro’s “math” notwithstanding. Probability statistics do not use common math. An AI calculator will know that only if given the input to know it; it will not simply extrapolate successfully, therefore, Pro’s “math” is fruitless. pro should have sided with the definition with which he started, and argue that.
Con’s R2 argument seals the win: “50% is not higher than 50% so Pro loses on the description alone... “

Pro's Title/Resolution makes a claim that ends up being supported by anti-social attitude that is expressed up from in the Description by use of clear racial epithet, as Con rebutted in R2. Pro con tinged with all three rounds to issue racial slurs, making a point of epmhasizong it, making the argument a truism, and, therefore, inadmissible. Since Con's R1 argument was forfeited, but amounts to only 30% of the debar, it does not qualify to be demerited in conduct. Further, as noted, Con provided successful argument that pro's attitude was unsuited, and amounted to Pro's only argument.
Con wins.
Pro deserves sanction to clean-up a clear, unacceptable attitude. Moderators, please note.

Con forfeited the last last 3 rounds, 60% of the debate.
However, Pro argued valid points, and although ignoring sourcing in R1, stepped up with credible sources to cover both R1 and R2, and, and handily attacked Con's sources in R3 as being incredible sources for bias.
Pro's sources were credible sources.
More than Con forfeiting, pro won this debate.

Con's argument seemed committed to a phrase never explained: "Jesus Christ, son of God, son of Mary." The surface meaning is clear: Jesus had a father and mother. Fine. I get it, and agree, but the insistent repetition gave it an importance never described, never realized in full. If that had further significance, Con ought to have argued it.
Pro's argument gave clear, substantial Bible verses all attributing to Christ's ascension into heaven, meeting the Resolution's demand of his location. However, the Pro's argument suffered by introducing a matter having no mention in the Resolution nor Description, the latter being identical to every Mall-initiated debate, therefore not being descriptive of any specific debate, including this one. Mall would help matters in future debates by being descriptive of each debate. The matter is whether Christ resurrected and rose to heave with a physical body or as a spirit. I have my own opinion which shall remain unrevealed since it has naught to do with the debate, but both participants then argued over the matter as if it was pivotal. No, it wasn't. Not unless we are to derive from Con's insistent repetition that thee body/spirit argument was pivotal. If 'twas, Con was required to argue the point. Nope.
Pro then. forfeited the balance of the debate, three rounds, sufficient for full forfeiture. However, the Voting Policy does not demand automatic loss of debate for forfeiture, although many voters, including me, do use that tactic, just loss of conduct point. And, given that Con's argument in R1 met the demand of the Resolution as given, and which overwhelmed Con's argument of son-of-by-two, which had naught to do with the Resolution, I declare Pro the winner.

Pro would have served his readers and voters to take more caution to prepare a better Description of the intended debate because I, for one, had no idea what AfD was, let alone the numerics of 9.1, 9.2, etc, [and still don't - I should not have to do that research just to vote] nor that this involved Germany until several lines into Pro's argument. This is one reason why a 1,000 character limit to a round may be challenging, but ultimately uninformative. Debate is dependent on information. Next time, give more.
Con made a good argument of definition by creating a reason to favor a judgment of "good, neutral, bad, orterrible" rather than Pro's limiting "terrible" or not.
Con wins.

Con demerited by full forfeiture.
However, I have often wondered how AI would demonstrate intelligence if it never had input. Pro demonstrated the effect very well, unfortunately demonstrating pure, artificial intelligence, in R1, and, otherwise, balked. The only problem is, Pro's R1 argument offered perfect support for Con's position: artificial illegibility, first and last. In the face of Con's forfeiture, and virtual lack of supporting argument for Pro, even though Pro was present, in good conscience, I cannot award Pro the win for simple lack of argument for that side.

A good debate subject. Too bad it fizzled due to full forfeiture by Con. Pro offered a field of supporting arguments to the Resolution.

Having fully forfeited 2 rounds, Con loses by forfeiture. Also, Con did not take the obvious, and necessary opposing argument that would have argued for Catholicism being the "more correct," but instead, devalued Christianityt altogether.

Con actually had more cited sources.

Both participants had good legibility.

Although forfeiting would normally argue for losing the conduct point, Pro's attitude toward Con was unacceptable harassment in two rounds. Point goes to Con.

Primarily, Pro loses this debate by forfeiture of 3 of 4 rounds, exceeding the 40% minimum at 75% of all rounds.
However, also by regiment, Pro argued botch for and against the Resolution, presenting an unresolved argument.
Con wins by default.

Neither participant offered source material for arguments.

Con demonstrated better conduct by participation in all rounds.

Pro's Resolution was combatted by Con throughout, yet Con did not bother to request a modification based on Con's eventual argument that abusive parents do not deserve filial piety. Pro's description, however, already sidelined that argument as an outlier, and not an arguable point in the mainstream of most parent/child relationships. Nor did Con ever accept Pro's description of debate scope. Pro's R1 offered very clear evidence of the benefits of filial piety as being beneficial to both parents and children, the which describes every single member of society as most of us are parents, and all of us are children, whether or not all always can be described by these terms throughout life. After all, Pro's Resolution is that such piety is "generally encouraged," but Con wants to ignore that scope. Pro win's the argument section.

Pro's arguments, being well described for scope in the Resolution and description, met the requirement of better legibility, whereas Con's legibility was flawed by not complying with the scope of either the Resolution or description. As a result, Con's argument were more confusing.

Con wins this debate on the basis of Pro's "argument" that the debate title [the Resolution] was not optimally worded, and offered a suggested revision. The time to do that, however, was during the challenge phase by request in comments to alter the Resolution. Pro, chose, instead, to accept the debate challenge as is; tacit approval of the Resolution, as is. Secondly, pro failed in four rounds to offer an argument speaking to the Resolution as is in support of it. Therefore, Con wins the debate by the three arguments offered in Round 1. Pro said his argument would have agreed with Con's argument regarding the Rapture. The single forfeit of Pro's last round [4th] is not a sufficient percentage of the debate rounds to warrant loss of the debate on a forfeiture basis [40% of rounds, according to Rules]