Pro Should Have Won the Referenced Debate

I negate the resolution that "Pro should have won the referenced debate", and will do so by arguing that the debate should have ended up, as it indeed did, in a tie. I agree with my opponent that Con should have got the spelling/grammar vote, and that the sources vote should have been a tie. I disagree with my opponent on the other two votes, which leads me nicely into my two arguments: === THE CONDUCT VOTE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO PRO === As my opponent himself said in his first and second contentions: "[Con's] first round was wasted asking for clarifications, which is something that could have easily been done in the comments section or through private messaging. .. . The key points of the debate were not so incoherent to justify wasting a round asking for clarification. " That Con wasted the first round of a two-round debate in this way - meaning that Pro never had a chance to officially counter any of Con's arguments - is surely not befitting conduct of a debate. org debater, especially when (as quoted above) he had the chance to ask those questions and receive a response in the comments section before accepting the debate. Pro should therefore have got the conduct vote. === THE ARGUMENTS VOTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TIED === As my opponent pointed out in his third contention: "Both sides share burden of proof. " I agree with my opponent that Con's argumentation in the final round should not be taken into account, given the unfair context of Pro being unable to respond. However, this does not mean that we should immediately give the vote to Pro, who had an equal burden to prove his side of the case. My opponent claims that this was effectively done, saying that Pro "took a stance, [which] was not validly contested. " However, merely "taking a stance" is surely not enough. Pro did not give any arguments within the confines of the debate itself as to why his stance is correct. His first round was spent detailing the scenario and asserting that "NICK OWNS THE NUMBER" (. http://www.debate.org...). The second round was spent clarifying the importance of the number to both parties and repeating the question that is the foundation of that debate: "Bottom line, if you make a TRADE with an object that does not EXIST does that trade still STAND? ?? YES OR NO? ?? ?? " (. http://www.debate.org...) In neither of the rounds does Pro provide any substantive argumentation for his side of the debate, and so gave voters no objective reason to vote for Pro on argumentation over Con. Those 3 points should have thus remained undistributed. === CONCLUSION === The points spread should have been as follows: Conduct: Pro, as Con derailed the debate by unnecessarily asking for clarifications in the first round. Spelling/Grammar: Con, for the reason my opponent gave. Arguments: Tie, as Con's arguments shouldn't be taken into account given the context (as my opponent pointed out), and Pro didn't provide voters with any reason to believe his case. Sources: Tie, for the reason my opponent gave. This spread would have led to a 6-6 final result, leading to a tie. Even though none of the voters in the original debate actually used the above spread, they nonetheless collectively came to the right decision. I await my opponent's response.