Total votes: 15
The fact that there aren't multiple parameters makes me mad but ok, the Con's attestations just bases it on the 'fairy tale' of religious books and also it's basically sourceless, even when talking about the Big Bang Theory, what happened before that is not our business and I think we shouldn't even ask ourselves about this, it's purely metaphysical stuff that distracts us from the real argument.
Pro on the other hand provided only Qur'an based arguments which I think is pretty good also as informations because he didn't use them as an excuse to justify misinterpretations of the Qur'an itself, the exact opposite of what has been done by Con just the prove his point.
You both provided really good argument which I think they incorporate good concepts for you both, but as an overall I think Pro had the best.
forfeiture
I would probably have sided regardless with pro, even if con's had said something
Con even if it is seen as a forfeitures, is objectively right
pro forfeited
Forfeited by con
Pro has developed very good points and a really good argument, but I don't think that human rights properly don't exist. They're a concept that guarantees to people to be respectful and respected as human beings. Case closed, Con gave a FF.
Only one round. The Con is more convincing than Pro even though there are very good points. Con wins
mexican chips.
it shows itself. Con has forfeited all of the rounds so...