Full forfeit plus plagiarism from Con
Full forfeit
Full forfeiture
The framework proposed by Pro is institutional legitimacy, defined as “the public belief that the Court’s power deserves compliance, even when its rulings are unpopular.” Con never provides an alternative framework, so per voting and framework rules, that is the metric I will use to judge this debate. Con does provide a summary of points they will cover (or rather, a summary of points that Pro covers?), but it doesn’t really challenge Pro’s argument that legitimacy is all that matters or that the purpose of other points are to further legitimacy; and if they don’t think legitimacy is important, then it’s not clear what other rubric the debate should be graded on. Hence, other arguments and points of dispute will only matter insofar as they show term limits to increase or decrease legitimacy.
As far as sources are concerned, if they’re not elaborated on I will treat them as “someone agreeing with Pro,” but if Pro makes an empirical claim that’s not challenged, such as a specific stat, and it gets dropped by Con, I will count that point since it’s not information from outside the debate. Con never says that stats themselves are bad, so if it comes down to a specific stat plus a source vs nothing, the stat plus the source at least tells me more than silence on the issue. As for vague opinions, a source alone doesn’t tell me much if it’s not backed up by a justification or the source is not elaborated on.
Pro’s first argument is that appointment timing is basically random, with Republicans having disproportionate control of the court. Pro draws a connection to the legitimacy framework by stating that “the disparate timeframe between regular elections and Court appointments undermines legitimacy…a single four-year term can lead to the appointment of justices who serve for over thirty years.” I think a connection is further implied when Pro states that “turnover in line with the views of the citizen populace” which gains them some offense since legitimacy includes “the public belief that the Court’s power deserves compliance.” However, Con argues that public support for rulings does not equal legitimacy, and Pro agrees, “I never claimed that the Court should do what the public wants.” Further, the framework includes the caveat that the court must have legitimacy “even when its rulings are unpopular.” With this much conceded by Pro, I’m not seeing how a more balanced court necessarily adds legitimacy. Will serving the “public good” and serving “the needs of the current populace” lead to more popular rulings? Perhaps. But avoiding unpopular rulings is not the same as making the public trust unpopular rulings. It could be argued that a consistent number of appointments per president makes people perceive the unpopular rulings as achieved through a fair process and thus more legitimate, but Pro doesn’t make that argument. Hence, I think this argument fails to advance Pro’s case.
Pro’s second argument is that the court is becoming more polarized. The connection to legitimacy is never made explicitly clear, except in the case of “using the shadow docket.” However, I think it could be seen as a reasonable assumption that polarization could make the court be seen as less legitimate in general, and Con agrees on the relevancy of polarization, so I will give this point some weight. Even if I ignore all of Pro’s sources and just look at what each side says, Pro is giving some stats, while Con is more arguing that tying elections directly to appointments means the court is not neutral. Pro argues that since justices are still appointed by elected officials, they are not neutral and are tied to one party or another. Con drops a lot of points here, including the stat that term limits reduce Court polarization by 50% through removing strategic retirements. Even if I ignore Pro’s sources, Con never says the stat is false, and as Pro says it in the debate, it’s not “information from outside the debate.” Pro’s impacts are coming through here more clearly, particularly though the shadow docket which is directly tied to legitimacy and empirical stats from Pro, both of which Con drops. Con’s argument is largely that elections of officials will be motivated by changing the court, but as Pro points out, this doesn’t directly impact the polarization of the appointments themselves even if it impacts elections, and Con never disputes that more participation from moderates are “underrepresented in elections with low turnout.” That particular statement isn’t super reliant on an appeal to authority—the point is pretty easy to understand even without the source, and it’s never challenged by Con. Con’s argument that justices drift from the president who appointed them gets dropped, but it’s not quantified and Pro is giving more sources/stats here that seem like pretty big numbers, so if I give Con’s argument weight here, I have to give Pro’s argument even more weight. Hence, Pro gains significant offense with this point.
Pro’s third argument has to do with strategic appointments and retirements. Pro says that this creates the public perception that justices are simply extensions of the political parties that appointed them, which directly ties into their definition of legitimacy. Con doesn’t challenge this point about perception, although they argue public approval does not matter for legitimacy. However, under the framework defining legitimacy as “the public belief that the Court’s power deserves compliance, even when its rulings are unpopular,” then public perception does matter, even if perception of legitimacy does not equate to approval. So Pro gains some offense on the point about strategic appointments and retirements.
Pro’s fourth argument has to do with age, and I’ll group this with Pro’s argument about young justices being less experienced. Basically, justices are too young or too old, which makes them less experienced, which makes the court look less trustworthy when it makes decisions. Con drops most of this, particularly with how it relates to the belief that justices “have the competence and knowledge to handle the most contested legal cases in the country.” Even if older justices aren’t more biased, Pro argues that being less competent means they are perceived as less legitimate. So Pro gains more offense here.
That leaves Con’s sole contention that isn’t an attempt to flip one of Pro’s points—the slippery slope issue. This basically relies on the fact that the Supreme Court has lasted a long time, so we’d better leave it alone. However, the quality of the court looks like a bit of a mixed bag over this debate, with Pro pointing out some issues with the status quo, so it’s not clear to me that the current trajectory of the court is inherently “better” than an unknown. Particularly with the point about a supermajority needed for an amendment, it’s not clear why this would be a polarized process or one that opens the door to rash changes. Current issues with the court need not be existential for a change to possibly be better, or at least, for Pro’s world to start looking preferable if they have arguments that it will be more legitimate based on certain empirical data.
As a good chunk of Pro’s points are left standing at the end of this, while Con’s are not, Pro wins my vote.
I will be voting on the basis of Pro's framework, since it was the only one provided. Basically, is God/gods more likely or unlikely to exist. This is kind of reiterating the description of the debate, so it doesn't give Pro a huge advantage in framing, but it is acceptable as a framework.
Pro's argument starts out a bit speculative—I'm reading it as, other intelligent beings could have influenced our universe and thus there is a good chance they did. I think that opens up a lot of room for Con to argue that this is actually unlikely, which he does by arguing that problems in the universe itself make the creator "unlikely to be intelligent." I can agree with much of Pro's argumentation that intelligent beings can make mistakes and that even in some cases intelligence takes an abstract form like computers, but Pro presented this as a question of what is more likely early on, and so I'm left wondering what makes that "intelligence" more likely than not? At the end of the day, Con is the only one really using observations about the universe (like diseases) to argue whether the creator was intelligent or not. I also find myself agreeing that Pro is stretching the definition of intelligence a bit to include unthinking entities, and even if those entities could be intelligent, I'm not seeing a reason to believe that's the most likely conclusion.
The arguments about deities in other religions vs. Christianity got a bit off track in my opinion. The biggest contention was the definition of "intelligent," and I think more of the focus should have been on overall likelihood of intelligence based on observations (which both debaters mentioned in the first round but later was largely dropped.) This comes down to Pro's argument that an intelligent being could possibly end up making the universe, vs. Con's argument that the universe is unlikely to be something an intelligent being would create, and so Con is arguing likelihood more directly in that regard. Pro's argument got close to saying every being is intelligent but stopped short of making that claim...since presumably some beings are unintelligent and it's not contested that the universe is "poorly designed," Con wins my vote on the basis of an unintelligent creator being more likely.
Con doesn't use logic, but he doesn't prove logic exists either. This was a trap debate, and the only way for Con to win was to challenge the rules.
Con's only argument refers to "things outside Bible" which is against the rules. Since Con does not challenge the rules, he fails to meet his burden. (Also Pro saying "things outside Bible" isn't saying those things actually exist.) And Pro is making a lot of arguments about circular reasoning and logic that don't get addressed.
There are two main points of contention here: humans being replaced, and whether AI will be properly controlled. It seems to implicitly be conceded by Pro that losing jobs would be a bad thing, since he tries to resist that conclusion. Most of Pro's examples here are ways that humans can make money now, with AI being in its current state. Pro claims that this trend will continue, because AI still needs humans to supplement it. This then opens up Con to respond that AGI will just do all of the things that humans are currently doing to replace AI, including lawyers, doctors, etc. Pro argues that this is unfathomable, but Con has the advantage here because this is largely just granted by the resolution—we're dealing with a scenario where AGI is somehow created and surpasses human capabilities "across virtually all cognitive tasks." So Con can just say "AGI, by definition, thinks better than humans," and that seems to me pretty much granted by the resolution. Pro claims in the last round that CEOs won't want to replace humans, but Con immediately responds that because AI surpasses humans, CEOs won't have a reason to keep humans around anymore. I think this could have been expanded on more, but from where I'm sitting, Con is providing more of a justification for why AGI would make humans obsolete, so long as it meets the definition of Artificial general intelligence.
The second question is whether AI will be properly controlled. It's basically agreed upon that if AI is controlled properly, it will help humans advance, and if it is not, we should expect bad things to happen. Pro sets up the condition "as long as it is properly guided" but then largely assumes that AI will be properly guided and says that "if we focus on fear we will never accomplish greatness." Pro seems to jump from "we should moderate AGI" to "we will moderate AGI." The comparison to nuclear arsenals and advanced warfare had potential (as well as some risks of Con weaponizing the analogies), but there needed to be more from Pro about how similar safety techniques are being used for AI. These broad comparisons come across as insufficient when Con is giving reasons that the fear seems justified. The claims that regulations and safety are afterthoughts as companies compete to build AGI go uncontested, so even it's possible to control AGI properly and that would lead to good things, I'm not seeing a response from Pro to Con's reasons that it will probably not be handled safely given what we've seen so far.
I think there were other paths Pro could have taken, such as arguing that a world without jobs and AI servants is better than one with jobs, but as written it seemed more like an argument that AI wouldn't advance that much. I think Pro also needed to focus on alignment more and how it would be done, since Con was bringing up points to justify why AI was unlikely to be handled safely. Pro also implicitly conceded a bit about jobs being important and failing to control AI being a risk that allowed Con significant openings. Because Con was able to justify his view as the more likely future, he wins my vote.
Full forfeit
Pro has a relatively straightforward case, with P1 and P2 being enough to satisfy the resolution if both of them are true, as he points out. I can buy that Con advocating another definition of ownership means implicitly challenging the second premise. However, Pro reiterates in the second round the goal posts that they think Con needs to meet (directly saying the premise he challenges), and claims that "By site rules, once you accept the debate, you agree to debate's description." In my experience, there are some exceptions to the description if it is unreasonable, but Con has to at least dispute Pro's claim there or argue why the definitions are unreasonable (even though they obviously are, in my opinion).
Basically, Con's last round is nonresponsive to Pro's second round, where Pro has said that Con is bound to the definitions in the description. Con could have argued against that but he needed to at least address it.
Con, there are paths to victory doing what you did, but you needed to be more explicit about how being a deity overrides site rules. For example, responding to "By site rules, once you accept the debate, you agree to debate's description" with some kind of challenge like "I have the right to decide about that per the description." Claiming that you are a divine being or that you have access to some of God's power gives you access to a lot of arguments, but you have to actually address Pro's point imo to satisfy your burden. Arguing about maximal vs. partial ownership has a lot of potential, but I think Pro's case is effectively that by starting to argue along those lines in a way that will challenge his understanding of the terms, you are violating the description and implied rules of the debate. I think expanding what ownership means is effectively challenging the obvious interpretation of the definition. The premises Pro gave looked straightforwardly like a valid syllogism, so if you wanted to argue that "decide about" meant a different thing in each premise, I think you had to be more explicit about that.
In summary, Pro appeals to the debate description making this debate a truism and says that by accepting the debate, Con must accept the definitions in the description. Con never responds to that point directly, which is necessary to argue why I should prefer his definition over Pro's. Hence, I default to the (admittedly very biased) description, and Pro gets my vote.
Let’s start with the framework, because I think that’s really going to determine how I look at this debate. Besides the more broad utilitarianism vs deontology debate, there’s the issue of how many points each side has to win on to declare victory. Pro comes right out and says that because of how the challenge is phrased, winning on any of their three proposals for expanding personhood is sufficient to win the debate. (“Because the resolution doesn't specify how wide-ranging this expansion is, default to the reasonable interpretation that any substantial expansion over current law qualifies.”) I don’t see a direct response to this from Con. The closest I see to a dispute to this is when Con says “If you believe my evidence that we have and can protect the welfare of animals and the environment through expanding and enforcing our existing laws then this warrants a con vote.” However, this only comes in the final round, and it doesn’t address Pro’s analysis of the phrasing of the challenge. In theory, based on what Pro had said up to that point, winning on the AI contention alone would be enough for a Pro victory. I think there were ways Con could have defended their stance on this, particularly earlier, but as it stands, I see Pro giving me a clearer reason to agree that winning on a single point is sufficient to win the debate. This is a pretty big advantage for Pro in my view, right from the outset.
While it’s secondary, I also think that Pro wins on utilitarianism as a means for framing the debate, mainly because it’s clear to me how that impacts out. The most good for the most beings is simple enough to understand, and Pro clarifies later why they consider the suffering of some animals to hold more weight than the suffering of others. (Con does argue that fish can suffer to a significant extent, but I think that amounts to arguing Pro’s plan doesn’t do enough, not that it is bad.) The issue with Con’s proposal is that I’m not sure what they mean by deontology. Some rights are absolute, sure, but which rights? Legal personhood comes with certain rights and privileges, sure, but if the idea is that Pro’s plan violates some absolute rights, then which ones? If the idea is that we should only grant rights individuals deserve, then Pro is going to need to explain what makes a right something an individual should have, if we’re not meant to use utilitarianism as a measuring stick. There’s a lot of mention of legal coherence vs incoherence, but Con doesn’t explain how specifically that fits into his dentological framework. According to Con, “deontological framework states that pain alone is not sufficient to determine moral or legal personhood”...but then what are the rules of this framework? There are a lot of forms of deontology with completely different rules and rights. Because Con fails to list out what these are, I’m left guessing, and Pro’s framework remains the only way I can objectively judge these contentions.
For his part, Con does try to place significant burdens on Pro—that is, Pro needs to do better than a counterplan proposed by Con. However, Pro is able to whittle down these burdens significantly by the end of the debate. I think it’s generally understood in debate that a “counterplan” is supposed to have advantages over an initial plan that are unique to the counterplan. For example, if I’m defending food stamps, and my opponent says “let’s build shelters for the homeless instead,” I think judges would expect them to explain why building shelters for the homeless makes food stamps no longer beneficial, or why one precludes the other. Now, it would be possible for Con to challenge those assumptions here on how the debate should be evaluated, but that analogy is basically my way of saying how I interpret the main point of Pro’s response here. Pro claims that these are not mutually exclusive, so the strength of this counterplan is going to depend on how much giving legal personhood conflicts with existing laws and protections.
And, to his credit, Con argues that it does in the case of animals and the environment, but not in the case of AI. I think this is Pro’s strongest point, and because winning on a single proposal alone is enough to win Pro the debate in my view as explained above, I think my time would best be spent explaining why Pro wins on the issue of artificial intelligence. Pro gives me a strong impact which Con drops: “personhood allows us to hold AI accountable, which would allow terminating it if it went rogue.” Con says that we should just never build the AI, but I’m inclined to agree with Pro’s assessment that this is nontopical. Con can be right that we should never build sentient AI, and Pro can be right that creating a framework for personhood is better than not doing so. Con argues that granting rights to something that doesn’t exist yet is incoherent, but Pro gives examples of laws like space treaties and laws for autonomous vehicles being widespread, which Con doesn’t respond to. Even if Pro’s proposal is simply “a backup plan if things go wrong,” they’re giving reasons that it’s better than no backup plan. Hence, I vote Pro.
I understand that character limits were a big issue here, but nonetheless, I will mention some things that came to mind I think could have made the debate go differently. Con could have argued more successfully on the AI point by making a bigger distinction between preemptive laws and preemptive personhood. There was an argument to be made, I think, that beings that don’t currently exist fall outside the scope of this debate, but simply calling something legally incoherent isn’t making a topicality argument. (It would also have helped if Con had tied more direct impacts to incoherence, perhaps by laying out deontological rules and making one tied to legal coherence.) That brings me to my second point, which is that the framing gave Pro a big advantage early on. Pro’s strategy had a lot to do with giving themselves multiple paths to victory, and while Con did give a few benchmarks Pro needed to hit early on, I think Con needed to more directly challenge Pro’s claim that a single point could win the debate, or at least group arguments somewhat to avoid needing to have what ended up as three debates alongside each other.
Full forfeit
Basically a foregone conclusion with Con forfeiting so much of the debate. Plus AI use.
Pro treats this as a troll debate, while Con treats it as a formal debate. That means judging this is going to be fraught, since neither side comes out and tells me what kind of debate is it. Out of fairness to both debaters, I'll try to be thorough here and analyze this from multiple angles, even though a debate like this normally wouldn't be subject to vote moderation.
First, if I am to interpret this as a troll debate, which side made funnier and more entertaining arguments? This goes to Pro, who made multiple jokes throughout his argument, such as calling himself Tom Hanks and citing a quote from "probably not Voltaire." Con didn't make any jokes or even attempt to, so if this is a troll debate, Pro wins.
Second, which side won from an argumentative standpoint? This is where Con has the greatest chance of victory, since he took the debate 100% seriously. The issue is that if I don't grade this as a troll debate, I have to take all of Pro's arguments seriously and expect responses to them. That is, even if an argument from Pro seems ridiculous on its face, I can only designate it as such if Pro dismantles the faulty logic behind it. There are too many arguments from Pro that Con drops, seemingly because Con believed they weren't worth addressing. For example, Pro argues from pathos, or emotion, which Con criticizes as lacking evidence. Sure, but emotion and evidence are different things. If Con had said something like "an appeal to emotion is not an argument" and provided a case where emotions lead us astray, that would probably have been enough to debunk that point. But this is a pattern with a lot of points Pro brings up. Con accuses Pro of making unfounded assertions, and even if I agree, that's a bit like saying that all your opponent's arguments are illogical...maybe they are, but you have to be specific and show which ones and why. At the end of the day, every sentence is an assertion, so a general critique like that it's sufficient to rebut. Pro also posted more sources than Con, which required more elaboration from Con on why they were unreliable (even though I agree they were). Pro even responds to the claim that their arguments were unfounded by calling it an ad hominem and pointing to their links. Pro's case is fraught with logical fallacies, but Con fails to show what they are besides essentially calling Pro's case silly and unfounded (which it is, but that's not an argument). To give just one additional example, Pro argues that their circular reasoning is valid because rejecting it is racism. Con doesn't respond to that. That's arguably even a defense for why I ought to accept unfounded (or circular) evidence, which takes the teeth out of what's basically Con's only argument.
Third, should this be treated as a troll debate or a formal debate? The vagueness of the title means it only really works as a troll debate, plus the fact that Pro leads with comedy showing their obvious intention. Pro doesn't come out and say "this is a troll debate" but of course a troll debater wouldn't want to break character. If Con wanted this to be judged as a serious debate, I think they had to at least address why we should ignore the obvious ways it appeared to be a troll debate.
Pro ends up winning this for a couple of reasons, and while Con may have wanted this to be judged as a "foregone conclusion," I can't ignore the context of an obvious troll debate or the fact that Pro is actually responding to Con in as much or more detail as Con is responding to Pro.
Reason for Decision: Why Pro Lost
1. Rule Violation Claim
What’s Off:
Con’s main argument was that Pro’s content was generated by ChatGPT, which is against the site’s rules. Pro questioned the accuracy of AI detectors but did not provide concrete proof of human authorship.
Issue:
Without direct evidence to counter the claim, the rule violation stands uncontested. On this site, an unrebutted and credible rule violation is enough to decide the debate.
2. Lack of Direct Rebuttal to Core Accusation
What’s Off:
Pro focused on pointing out logical fallacies and accusing Con of personal attacks instead of disproving the claim of AI authorship.
Issue:
Labeling something as a fallacy does not prove the original claim false. This left Con’s accusation intact and persuasive to voters.
3. Con’s Supporting Evidence
What’s Off:
Con presented:
AI detector results showing high likelihood of AI content.
Stylistic similarities between Pro’s posts and known ChatGPT outputs.
References to alleged prior AI use in other debates.
Issue:
While some points were circumstantial, Pro did not meaningfully dismantle any of them. This allowed the overall narrative to remain in Con’s favor.
4. Forfeiture in Final Round
What’s Off:
Pro forfeited Round 4, leaving Con’s last argument uncontested.
Issue:
A forfeiture at a critical stage amplifies the strength of the opponent’s position and signals a lack of defense.
Conclusion
The combination of an unrefuted rule violation, supportive evidence from Con, and Pro’s forfeiture makes Con’s case stronger. The debate rules require arguments to be self-authored, and Pro did not effectively prove compliance. The win is awarded to Con.
While neither side really gives a framework, I think both sides are basically aligned in what they are trying to achieve. The main points here seem to be making the site a place where people can debate while also driving traffic to the site. Pro's three contentions and Con's six contentions all fall into one of those two broader categories, so I'm going to use those as the goalposts in order to weigh points against each other.
First, what makes the site a "place where people can debate"? Both sides want to achieve this, but they give me different answers to what this will look like. Pro tells me this requires enforcing some level of civility and banning certain hot-button topics. Con tells me that debate requires a free exchange of ideas. Pro specifically tells me how their vision will be beneficial for the site—users will not be "witch hunted" (ADOL is used as an example). They also argue that debaters are a specific subset of online users, people who want to participate in a higher-quality level of discourse and that moderation will prevent it from becoming indistinguishable from sites like Facebook. So these are some clear potential benefits to Pro's proposal.
I think for Con to win on this point, they would have to come up with competing benefits to laissez-faire moderation or make a case that the benefits Pro is describing won't be realized with harsher moderation. The limitation of Con's case that I'm seeing is that they make a lot of prescriptive or descriptive statements without really justifying why they would be beneficial. For example, "People argue in bars, classrooms, discords, subreddits, and family dinners." Why it that the kind of behavior that ought to be encouraged? I think there's room for Con to make a case here, but just stating that it helps build a "living, breathing site" isn't really justifying how more lenient policies lead to a clear benefit. Is a "living, breathing site" just one with more freedom? If so, what are some benefits of freedom that outweigh Pro's alleged benefits. Furthermore, Pro brings up that these situations are policed to some extent, which I think would weaken this point even if Con had fleshed it out more. While I agree that Con's proposal largely gives people more freedom, particularly with the option to blur offensive content, it's not clear that letting people post whatever they want is what the site is trying to achieve. Pro is bringing up sites like Reddit, Facebook, etc. as examples of what the site isn't, and even if DebateCraft spans across multiple formats, I think the point of Pro's argument is that the quality of discussion should be kept to a high standard across the board. Con distinguishes between "formal" debates and other parts of the site but doesn't really contest that it's a "debate site" overall (which is key to Pro's argument that the forums ought to be held to a higher standard than places like Twitter).
The option to filter content is something I agree with and is one of Con's stronger points, but Pro's argument in this debate is more about encouraging discussions to stay on track and productive, which goes a bit further than just hiding offensive posts. Con addresses that certain content can be hidden on the front page without removing it, but that comes in the final round when Pro can't respond even though the point was brought up earlier (and it kind of goes against what they were saying up until then, which was that controversy should be promoted as it drives engagement). Hence, Pro's argument on this first point, that moderation is more in line with what DebateCraft is "supposed to be," come across clearer and more consistent.
Next, driving traffic to the site. Because of the way this debate is set up, examples of debaters like Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Destiny, and even debate.org itself are limited in how much they can help Con. Pro makes it clear that they support controversial discussion and even drama to a large extent, just not in extreme cases and when it devolves into personal attacks. (I do think the debate is kind of set up to Pro's advantage here, as their proposed moderation isn't even that strict compared to plenty of sites. And on that note, pointing out the strict moderation from Reddit would have been a good move from Con.) The way this ends up is that Con wants to achieve controversy, and Pro's proposal still allows for a lot of controversial discussion. Pro frames their case as an incredibly low bar (being as civil as viral content creators but still driving controversy) and Con doesn't really contest that they will achieve this, they just argue that it's not the best vision for the site.
So even though I'm personally in agreement with Con's side here, Pro is able to come in and agree with much of it in broad strokes, which means that the debate hinges on a lot of extremes like people "witch hunting" other users (with ADOL as an example) which could limit participation. I think for Con to effectively rebut this, they would need examples that are more clearly in contradiction with Pro's position or to contest the examples given. Con did contest some of Pro's framing in the final round, particularly arguing that the moderation on Imabench was lax, but this came too late to swing the debate imo. Just in terms of comparisons to other things that generate or harm engagement (even ddo itself), I think Pro comes in earlier and with more detail about how it supports his proposal.
There are a few angles I think Con could have taken to give more solvency to his case. One would be attacking the efficacy of Pro's approach and arguing it would lead to unintended consequences. Another would be arguing more specifically about why a debate site must include every idea, or every way an idea should be phrased (beyond the broad benefits of free exchange, which Pro generally supports). I also think the broad strokes of Con's case could have worked if Pro's position was stricter. But the way things went, Pro was able to show a stronger impact to his points. Hence, Pro wins my vote.
