Total votes: 4
Both sides had a very clear, concise structure and addressed each other's points well. The analogies used were also helpful for understanding the arguments, but pro's were more on-point and resembling of the topics than con's.
Pro's arguments were much more morally centered, while con's were very much from a utilitarian view and focused on the solution that causes the greatest happiness. Causing happiness, however, does not necessarily mean doing what is morally right, and the topic of this debate is "The majority of abortions are immoral".
Bop was mostly on con, as he had to prove that unbaptized infants going to hell is impossible, whereas pro just had to prove that it could be possible. Pro gave arguments for his stance, but con gave none and ended up agreeing with pro after trying to argue about an unrelated subject. Con also forfeited.
Con gave more convincing arguments. Pro's initiating argument was somewhat generic, and their last statement about murder was pretty bad. Neither gave sufficient sources, as they should have given the site where the definitions were taken from.