I thought I would have to write a very detailed reasoning behind my vote so I stalled voting for a while, now I see we can just vote what we believe and ignore the debate.
I am literally legally obligated to support his ban, I can be genuinely held legally responsible if I support the content he's posting existing on a website I use.
My vote is not even going to get his stuff deleted, hiding it behind 'offensive content' means nothing. If I owned this website I would 100% be criminally liable across Europe for hosting the extreme level of hate content RB posts and engages in rhetoric supporting.
Pro gave categorical evidence such as verses from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (which btw in the key verses about having 2 masters come from directly quoting Yeshua the Christ Messiah or at least are accredited to that)
Pro builds on this in Round 2 with verses (especially the 1st and 4th verse of Round 2) Which prove the Bible did not simply teach the 'shut off your brain and believe' methodology that some other religions may do.
In complete contrast, Con's entire case relied on us entertaining that logic doesn't need to be believed by a Christian, in order to avoid all logical flaws with being a Christian sometimes and a literal non-Christian at others, fluctuating wilfully (with premeditation it would seem) between the 2.
The actual area Con could have won on is the many examples of people wavering in faith and righteousness. He could have made the case that many Christians are part-time Christians. Nonetheless, he made a hyper-minimalist case that I am 0% convinced by and which doesn't address what Pro raised, especially in Round 2.
Pro won but lazily.
Con keeps trying to somehow prove Romans couldnuse coins to somehow make fractions work.
The debate is if Arabic numerals should be taught in shools.
The issue of decimals, number 0 and the main alternstive of Roman Numerals not working for most of complex mathematics, renders it a victory for Pro.
Con's case is that you can devise a system that can compete with Arabic numerals but he does not show a system that is better to justify stopping teaching Arabic Numerals in school.
Pro was incredibly lazy. He only won because Con did not build a case.
A silitely disgusting semantic trap just like many other debates Pro has made.
Pro wins because Con literally forfeits andnhad a forced forfeit anyway as he was banned to use any logic.
