Total votes: 2
(1) Both forfeited their remaining rounds.
(2) PRO said they are gay and thus no one can really disprove that. So they win by default. There is nothing CON can say to disprove that.
(1) In the first round, CON made a strawman by pretending PRO uses the Dawkins scale even though PRO defined their terms. PRO explained it to CON but CON kept using the wrong definition that PRO said he does not use.
CON also failed to understand PRO's rebuttal of the Kalam and CON kept misrepresenting PRO's rebuttal. PRO properly refuted the Kalam and CON kept going in circles which slowed the conversation down
CON lied by pretending PRO was not respecting the rules while PRO has not done that.
(2) Both sides were heated towards each other(Which is fine in a debate) PRO was misrepresented against from the get go and that can justify PRO's response. CON could have easily responded to the long description but decided to slow the conversation down by not responding and instead just giving the Kalam and accusing PRO of not meeting their BoP.
Tie for the other two since both used similar sources(logicallyfallacious website and non academic websites) and neither made gross grammatical mistakes.