Con forfeited most of his rounds. Pro made a case using Islamic scripture and doctrine, while cons case was flawed by only mentioning that not all Muslims interpret it this way. This assertion would need to have a deeper dive through scholarship to see how individuals interpret it. Pro would have really won by a larger margin if he added data along with his text arguments. If he could show harm in society, it adds an extra layer to his arguments through real world implications.
So neither side did that good in this debate. Con’s attitude wasn’t the best either, but I am voting for Con due to how the debate title is framed. The title is framed as “ Has the bible been proven false and to be a fairy tale?” Based on this the resolution is framed on the atheist to provide the burden of proof. To do that pro should have argued in terms of historicity, prophecy’s he thinks failed, or reliability issues he sees in the scripture. Granted the framing of this debate heavily favors con because it frames as if you have to prove the whole Bible wrong, which is a big ask in one debate. But again, pro signed up for this debate. It would have made more sense of the burden would be on the atheist if the topic would be is naturalism true. A debate topic that could put a burden on both sides would be is the Bible reliable (Well if con stipulates in the description that burden of proof is on both sides). Anyway the main story is pro didn’t fulfill their burden of proof, but the topic was extremely flawed. Their is no way I would have accepted this topic and how it was framed lol!
So before I start, the debate resolution is extremely unclear. Pro didn’t make that strong of a case and mainly just cited some articles instead of going into reasoning. I applaud them for using citations though. Even though I didn’t think the opening was particularly strong, it is not right to not vote for them in this case due to this being a forfeit. If Con replied I am unsure if my vote would be the same, but they didn’t so we are here lol! I am not meaning it to sound wrong. Con could have been busy, which happens to all of us in life. Pro should make a more concise debate title, so the debate doesn’t go out in the weeds so to speak. With a title having things such as many, it frames it easily in their favor, because they just have to put forward a few arguments and win. If con makes a case that it is detrimental, pro would really just have to argue that well it says in many cases and not all. This sort of ambiguity confuses the debate voting system because anyone can interpret the debate anyway. We can even say that for whoever they are debating.
