The Instigator
Ssunlimited
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Reincarnation is highly likely to be true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,239 times Debate No: 39580
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Ssunlimited

Pro

Here I will argue the evidences for reincarnation and how they suggest reincarnation.
imabench

Con

I accept because I have a feeling this could turn out to be funny as sh**

State your case
Debate Round No. 1
Ssunlimited

Pro

We'll my case is based on children who seemingly remember their past lives. At the university of Virginia division of perceptual studies they are studying past lives based on children who seemingly remember their past lives. Ian Stevenson started the investigations in the 1960s and now the university has over 2500 cases. Everything but reincarnation has been disproven including but not limit to fraud, faulty memories of informants, coincidence, genetic memories, vivid imaginations, self-delusions, ESP and demonic possessions. Many skeptics such as Tom Shrodder and Jim B, Tucker became believers. The cases have some or all of these characteristics:

A child is born with illnesses or marks and later talks about their past life of a person who died having those
A dream that the parents had announcing the child's birth
Vivid and detailed memories that the child has of their past lives
Identification of the child with the previous personality
Same personalities, physical characteristics, phobias, philias and others with the previous personality
Same talents as the previous personality
Astrological correlations with the previous personality

Even Carl Sagan endorsed this investigation and said it might be true. I looked at all the counter-arguments and criticism of these things and they were all either weak or nonsense. The conclusion is there is empirical evidence suggesting reincarnation. There is no alternative so therefore it is probably reincarnation.

Example: in the 1930s there was a girl named Shanti Devi who at 4 years old alerted her parents that her name is Lugdi Devi and that her home is elsewhere. Even mahatma Gandhi got involved and set up the committee. Shan't Devi by herself remember her last live's full name, her husband!s name, her previous village, her full address, her date of death, her mode of death, her afterlife, her past lives relatives and friends, that she had a son and personal things only Lugdi Devi and her family knew such as that she hid 150 rupees in the basement. They even tried to trip her up by introducing her husband as her husband's older brother and she immediately saw through it. She led the whole committee back to her house by walking all on her own. Everything was verified as real. An award winning journalist Sture Lonnerstrand went to debunk the case as fake only to come out as a believer and wrote the book I Have Lived Before.

Example two: The case of James Leininger. James always played with airplanes so they took him to an airplane museum. 2 months later he ended up having severe nightmares. He talked about being another James and in his nightmares he screamed out "Crash! Plane on fire. Little man can't get out!" When they asked him he said little man is him, he was hit by the Japanese, he knew the Japanese flag as the big red sun, his past life's name was also James, his previous battle fort, his previous friend's name Jack Larson, which planes he flew and what was a drop tank. His father Bruce was very skeptical and called past life memory bullsh!t immediately. He refused to believe it. But he researched all the facts and they were all true. There was a James who was hit and flew down who had a friend named Jack Larson etc.... Even astrologically they match up.
imabench

Con

"Everything but reincarnation has been disproven including but not limit to fraud, faulty memories of informants, coincidence, genetic memories, vivid imaginations, self-delusions, ESP"

lol, all of those things most certainly have NOT been disproven in dealing with cases of reincarnation because defeating them one time in one scenario doesnt void them from being the case in other cases....




"A child is born with illnesses or marks and later talks about their past life of a person who died having those"

Illnesses and birth marks arent things that affect only a small handful of people.....





"A dream that the parents had announcing the child's birth"

How in the hell does that in any way tie to reincarnation?





"Vivid and detailed memories that the child has of their past lives"

Could easily be a coincidence. I had a dream of living through the Great Depression which im pretty sure somewhat matches the experience that MILLIONS of other people actually experienced.... That doesnt imply reincarnation.





"Identification of the child with the previous personality"

Theres a very finite number of personalities a person, and since there have been over 100 billion people to ever live, its feasible that literally tens of billions of people had very similar personalities.





"Same personalities, physical characteristics, phobias, philias and others with the previous personality"

Having blue eyes and a fear of spiders fall squarely into the 'coincidence' category, not as solid evidence of reincarnation....






"Even Carl Sagan endorsed this investigation and said it might be true"

Sagan only said that some of the arguments that are related to reincarnation should be investigated, he never said that it might be true. in fact he went on record saying that reincarnation is merely a 'parsimonious explanation for the stories'

http://en.wikipedia.org...




"There is no alternative so therefore it is probably reincarnation."

Except that there is an alternative, a combination of fraud, faulty memories of informants, coincidence, genetic memories, vivid imaginations, self-delusions, and ESP that varies from case to case.





"Example: in the 1930s there was a girl named Shanti Devi who at 4 years old alerted her parents that her name is Lugdi Devi and....... (2 hours later).... Everything was verified as real."

Its not hard to believe that in a hell-hole country like India who's religion focuses almost entirely around reincarnation believed in the 1930's, a time when science was still in a primeval state, there was definite case of reincarnation and that was deemed to be true....... The 1930's was also the same time that 'scientists' in Nazi Germany had 'proven' that the Jews were an inferior race and that blonde hair blue eyed Germans were the 'master race'.....

This case is so ancient and likely to have been biased by those investigating it that it falls drastically short of proving that reincarnation is highly likely to be true. If reincarnation were real, then the most famous case and evidence behind it wouldnt have happened a century ago at a time when a majority of people still didnt even believe in Evolution.





"Example two: The case of James Leininger. James always played with airplanes so they took him to an airplane museum. 2 months later he ended up having severe nightmares. He talked about being another James and in his nightmares he screamed out "Crash! Plane on fire. Little man can't get out!"........ But he researched all the facts and they were all true. There was a James who was hit and flew down who had a friend named Jack Larson etc..."

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are a lot of people named Jack who flew planes in WWII against the Japanese.... Chances are there were also a lot of Dan's, Brian's, John's, Jack's, Paul's, Edward's, etc who also flew planes too, that doesnt mean that every Dan, Brian, and John who dreamed about fighting in WWII are actually reincarnated pilots.....



=====================================================================================



All the best cases implying that reincarnation exists either pre-dates the time when modern science even came or around, or fail to stand up to theories that the whole thing could simply be a coincidence, fraud, etc.

If reincarnation were 'highly likely' to be true, then the pro's case wouldnt be almost entirely centered around a single case from the 1930's in a country whose religion happens to be entirely based off of reincarnation
Debate Round No. 2
Ssunlimited

Pro

"Everything but reincarnation has been disproven including but not limit to fraud, faulty memories of informants, coincidence, genetic memories, vivid imaginations, self-delusions, ESP"

lol, all of those things most certainly have NOT been disproven in dealing with cases of reincarnation because defeating them one time in one scenario doesnt void them from being the case in other cases....

In every case the researchers were able to take all those off the table.

"A child is born with illnesses or marks and later talks about their past life of a person who died having those"

Illnesses and birth marks arent things that affect only a small handful of people.....

It can't be nowhere near a coincidence that a child talks with many details about their past lives and have the injuries in very EXACT places using measurements that the previous personality had.

"A dream that the parents had announcing the child's birth"

How in the hell does that in any way tie to reincarnation?

It just happens.

"Vivid and detailed memories that the child has of their past lives"

Could easily be a coincidence. I had a dream of living through the Great Depression which im pretty sure somewhat matches the experience that MILLIONS of other people actually experienced.... That doesnt imply reincarnation.

No, not at all. Knowing these details cannot be a coincidence:

Previous personality's(PP) full name
PPs date of death
PPs mode of death
PP's mode of death
PP's friends and families by name and look
PP's home
PP's information only known to PP and PP's family and friends

"Identification of the child with the previous personality"

Theres a very finite number of personalities a person, and since there have been over 100 billion people to ever live, its feasible that literally tens of billions of people had very similar personalities.

No, I meant the child thinks it's that person.

"Same personalities, physical characteristics, phobias, philias and others with the previous personality"

Having blue eyes and a fear of spiders fall squarely into the 'coincidence' category, not as solid evidence of reincarnation....

No having specific features of the PP carry on to this personality come out noticeable.

"Even Carl Sagan endorsed this investigation and said it might be true"

Sagan only said that some of the arguments that are related to reincarnation should be investigated, he never said that it might be true. in fact he went on record saying that reincarnation is merely a 'parsimonious explanation for the stories'

http://en.wikipedia.org......

He said it might be true.

"There is no alternative so therefore it is probably reincarnation."

Except that there is an alternative, a combination of fraud, faulty memories of informants, coincidence, genetic memories, vivid imaginations, self-delusions, and ESP that varies from case to case.

Not at all, all those were taken out in every case.

"Example: in the 1930s there was a girl named Shanti Devi who at 4 years old alerted her parents that her name is Lugdi Devi and....... (2 hours later).... Everything was verified as real."

Its not hard to believe that in a hell-hole country like India who's religion focuses almost entirely around reincarnation believed in the 1930's, a time when science was still in a primeval state, there was definite case of reincarnation and that was deemed to be true....... The 1930's was also the same time that 'scientists' in Nazi Germany had 'proven' that the Jews were an inferior race and that blonde hair blue eyed Germans were the 'master race'.....

This case is so ancient and likely to have been biased by those investigating it that it falls drastically short of proving that reincarnation is highly likely to be true. If reincarnation were real, then the most famous case and evidence behind it wouldnt have happened a century ago at a time when a majority of people still didnt even believe in Evolution.

Actually that case was very thoroughly investigated and investigated again after 1950s even in 1980s. All cases at the university of Virginia started out in 1960s to present day investigations.

"Example two: The case of James Leininger. James always played with airplanes so they took him to an airplane museum. 2 months later he ended up having severe nightmares. He talked about being another James and in his nightmares he screamed out "Crash! Plane on fire. Little man can't get out!"........ But he researched all the facts and they were all true. There was a James who was hit and flew down who had a friend named Jack Larson etc..."

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are a lot of people named Jack who flew planes in WWII against the Japanese.... Chances are there were also a lot of Dan's, Brian's, John's, Jack's, Paul's, Edward's, etc who also flew planes too, that doesnt mean that every Dan, Brian, and John who dreamed about fighting in WWII are actually reincarnated pilots.....

Jack Larson was at that fort and a friend of James Houston.

=====================================================================================

All the best cases implying that reincarnation exists either pre-dates the time when modern science even came or around, or fail to stand up to theories that the whole thing could simply be a coincidence, fraud, etc.

If reincarnation were 'highly likely' to be true, then the pro's case wouldnt be almost entirely centered around a single case from the 1930's in a country whose religion happens to be entirely based off of reincarnation

No only that case predates science but there was a thorough investigation using strict protocols and it was all verified to be true.
imabench

Con

"In every case the researchers were able to take all those off the table."

Except thats bullsh*t.... In EVERY case of reincarnation the possibilities of fraud, coincidence, etc are not all eliminated as possibilities, youre literally just saying that without any proof to cover your own a**.




"it can't be nowhere near a coincidence that a child talks with many details about their past lives and have the injuries in very EXACT places using measurements that the previous personality had."

Except IT KIND OF IS. I broke my thumb three times, my great grandfather broke his thumb three times too, and it was the same thumb. That doesnt mean Im his reincarnation, it just means that COINCIDENCES CAN BE WEIRD.




"It just happens."

Thats literally called a coincidence!

How can you deny that coincidences arent a factor and then immediately concede an argument on the grounds that sometime they simply are just coincidences???




"No, not at all. Knowing these details cannot be a coincidence:
Previous personality's(PP) full name
PPs date of death
PPs mode of death
PP's friends and families by name and look
PP's home
PP's information only known to PP and PP's family and friends"

You can literally find half of those with a quick internet search and BS the other half enough so that it fits the profile of what happened to the past person.




"No, I meant the child thinks it's that person."

Kids also think that Santa is real, and when you get a kid to believe in something he will cling to his belief no matter how unscientific their logic behind their beliefs may be, like believing they were reincarnated.

Just because a chlid thinks it is someone's reincarnation and can find maybe three things they have in common with their alleged past life, it doesnt mean that reincarnation is real.... It means kids will believe everything with barely a shred of evidence to reinforce their beliefs..... Like Scientologists.





"No having specific features of the PP carry on to this personality come out noticeable."

It seriously doesnt because again, there have been tens of billions to exist on earth when there arent that many personalities to go around, its feasible for billions of people to have the same kind of personality, and that does not prove reincarnation.




"He (Carl Sagan) said it (Reincarnation) might be true."

I literally posted his exact words and linked where he said that some of the arguments behind reincarnation are worth studying, but that reincarnation itself is a retarded idea.


================================================================================================


Rather then continue on with Pro's half-a**ed "arguments" ill cut to the chase and save everyone some time

Pro either uses his own opinions or ridiculously unsubstantiated claims as his rebuttals while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that many aspects of reincarnation cases can be debunked simply as coincidences. He also flat out denies that things like coincidences and fraud are possibilities at all by retardedly claiming that they've been disproven 'in every case'.....

Reincarnation is most certainly not 'highly likely' to be true, nor is it even remotely likely to be true.
Debate Round No. 3
Ssunlimited

Pro

Con obviously doesn't understand the kinds if cases these are. He haven't studied them in depth.

"In every case the researchers were able to take all those off the table."

Except thats bullsh*t.... In EVERY case of reincarnation the possibilities of fraud, coincidence, etc are not all eliminated as possibilities, youre literally just saying that without any proof to cover your own a**.

The researchers were able to take all those off the table

"it can't be nowhere near a coincidence that a child talks with many details about their past lives and have the injuries in very EXACT places using measurements that the previous personality had."

Except IT KIND OF IS. I broke my thumb three times, my great grandfather broke his thumb three times too, and it was the same thumb. That doesnt mean Im his reincarnation, it just means that COINCIDENCES CAN BE WEIRD.

Lol no. If your great grandfather died with a broken thumb and you were born with a broken thumb and then when you begin to talk you say you are your grandfather when you!re not supposed to know him and act like him and have his memories then it cannot be a coincidence.

"It just happens."

Thats literally called a coincidence!

How can you deny that coincidences arent a factor and then immediately concede an argument on the grounds that sometime they simply are just coincidences???

"No, not at all. Knowing these details cannot be a coincidence:
Previous personality's(PP) full name
PPs date of death
PPs mode of death
PP's friends and families by name and look
PP's home
PP's information only known to PP and PP's family and friends"

You can literally find half of those with a quick internet search and BS the other half enough so that it fits the profile of what happened to the past person.

No you can't. Children by themselves know all of those details so it cannot be a coincidence.

"No, I meant the child thinks it's that person."

Kids also think that Santa is real, and when you get a kid to believe in something he will cling to his belief no matter how unscientific their logic behind their beliefs may be, like believing they were reincarnated.

Just because a chlid thinks it is someone's reincarnation and can find maybe three things they have in common with their alleged past life, it doesnt mean that reincarnation is real.... It means kids will believe everything with barely a shred of evidence to reinforce their beliefs..... Like Scientologists.

These kids are too young to know who Santa is. This is not an argument. Children do not think hey are their belief.

"No having specific features of the PP carry on to this personality come out noticeable."

It seriously doesnt because again, there have been tens of billions to exist on earth when there arent that many personalities to go around, its feasible for billions of people to have the same kind of personality, and that does not prove reincarnation.

"He (Carl Sagan) said it (Reincarnation) might be true."

I literally posted his exact words and linked where he said that some of the arguments behind reincarnation are worth studying, but that reincarnation itself is a retarded idea.

Here is Carl Sagan's quote from his book The Demon Haunted World:
"At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true."

See, he says it might be true.


===============================================================================================

Con obviously doesn't understand the kind of cases we're dealing with and their magnitude. These cases could not be coincidences and everything else has been disproven.
imabench

Con

"If your great grandfather died with a broken thumb and you were born with a broken thumb and then when you begin to talk you say you are your grandfather when you!re not supposed to know him and act like him and have his memories then it cannot be a coincidence"

Sure it can. Individually all of those things can happen randomly, and when they all happen together they are all STILL coincidences that simply become less and less likely to have happened but still is possible.




"Children by themselves know all of those details so it cannot be a coincidence."

Saying it isnt a coincidence over and over just because thats your opinion doesnt make it fact though you idiot.... When somewhat rare coincidences stack up that doesnt mean that they are no longer coincidences and are proof of reincarnation, it just means its extremely rare since the odds of all of those COINCIDENCES happening at the same time is rare, but still possible.




"These kids are too young to know who Santa is. This is not an argument. Children do not think hey are their belief."

I dont know if youre stupid or just completely missed what my argument was, but let me go ahead and spell it out for you again...

Kids can convince themselves that what they believe is actually true by bending reality around them with little white lies... And if kids think they are the reincarnation of their grandparents, they can make up fake memories that are vague and common enough to have also happened to their grandparents and make it seem like they lived it..... Its much more likely that kids act like they are reincarnated simply for attention then that reincarnation actually exists.




""At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any way other than reincarnation. I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true."

See, he says it might be true."

If you could actually comprehend the meaning of words from the wikipedia articles you keep copy-pasting, then you could see that 1) He literally also says he doesnt think that reincarnation is valid, and 2) He only thinks some of these aspects deserves serious study.



===================================================================================



Seeing as how Pro has decided to keep talking with his head up his a** let em go ahead and bring this debate back to the core facts.

1 - Coincidences exist, and it is rare for them to stack up to an absurd degree but it is certainly possible and can even be fabricated to trick a few idiots into thinking Reincarnation is real......

2 - Coincidences, fraud, vivid imaginations, and self-delusions are all far more plausible options and possibilities for alleged cases of reincarnation then reincarnation itself. And to claim that all of these things have already been eliminated from every case of reincarnation is asinine and flat out retarded to do.

3 - The most famous cases of reincarnation happened at times when science was in its infancy and when belief in ridiculously idiotic ideas for how the world works was at an all time high. There simply isnt a case of 'Reincarnation' that has taken place in this day and age that defies every plausible scientific explanation.....
Debate Round No. 4
Ssunlimited

Pro

These cannot be coincidences because the child knows very intimate details including their past life's full name, date of death, mode of death, their intimate information, place of death and more. And if it were just coincidences, why hasn't after 3000 cases of such things has there not been ONE case where a child got something wrong or the person they describe was alive after the child was born? Not ONCE has this happened! And there were studies where a child made someone up and then they looked up that person. Some minor details were matched up but significant details were not such as age, date of death etc...

------

1) Con doesn't know what he's talking about and thinks its mere coincidences that children can knows. Lot about another person. I claim it isn't because of what I've written about as it couldn't.possibly be a coincidence.

2) Coincidence, vivid imaginations and fraud were disproven or made highly unlikely.

3) Science was not in its infancy at the time the cases were when they were studied. All these cases happened in 20th century and above.

4) Peer-reviewed books, journals and articles as well as Carl Sagan's quote say there is something interesting happenings here and deserve serious study.

Make a smart choice, vote pro!
imabench

Con

"These cannot be coincidences because the child knows very intimate details including their past life's full name, date of death, mode of death, their intimate information, place of death and more"

Except they dont.... Almost all alleged cases of reincarnation only has three of those things as proof behind the entire claim and can easily be explained as an eerie coincidences more then reincarnation.....





"And if it were just coincidences, why hasn't after 3000 cases of such things has there not been ONE case where a child got something wrong or the person they describe was alive after the child was born? Not ONCE has this happened!"

Are you retarded or something? Alleged cases of reincarnation get shot down or even exposed all the time: http://skeptico.blogs.com...

Cases of reincarnation get shot down so much that people dont even care that they get disproven since even they know that reincarnation is just some made up religious sh** invented hundreds of years ago by people who were too stubborn to admit their belief in reincarnation is idiotic since all of it can literally be explained by coincidence or staged fraud......






"1) Con doesn't know what he's talking about and thinks its mere coincidences that children can knows. Lot about another person. I claim it isn't because of what I've written about as it couldn't.possibly be a coincidence."

Jumping to the most logical conclusion doesnt mean I dont know what im talking about Pro.... If a bunch of coincidences start to stack up, they are still nothing more then a series of coincidences that themselves coincidentally happened at the same time... Seeing all of this and still yelling 'Reincarnation!' over and over makes you the one who has no idea what hes talking about.






"2) Coincidence, vivid imaginations and fraud were disproven or made highly unlikely."

This is basically every attempt at an argument pro tries to make..... He makes a retarded argument, says its true, and then says im the one who doesnt get it......

Saying that they have been disproven or made highly unlikely over and over doesnt make it true.... Its a fact that coincidences happen and its a fact that alleged cases of reincarnation are more easily explained by an eerie set of coincidences then the claim that reincarnation is involved.






"3) Science was not in its infancy at the time the cases were when they were studied. All these cases happened in 20th century and above."

In the 1930's, which is when pro's ONLY solid case of reincarnation comes from, Americans overwhelmingly believed in Creationism, Germans believed that Jews, Blacks, and Gypsies were genetically inferior, and India believed that reincarnation was 100% true!

Its painfully obvious that well known cases of Reincarnation recorded almost 100 years ago are likely to have be false since the governments that covered them likely helped stage the cases to legitimize their own religious beliefs..... If the indian government investigated a case of reincarnation, do you think they would try to find every possible way to debunk it or to try to make it look bulletproof to try to legitimize their entire religion? Its obviously the second one since we see that even in the modern world where psychotic regimes like North Korea and its government fabricates ludicrous 'facts' to legitimize their own leaders or beliefs......





"4) Peer-reviewed books, journals and articles as well as Carl Sagan's quote say there is something interesting happenings here and deserve serious study."

Yes, but theres a f*cking difference between saying 'Hey, maybe we should look into this a little' and 'Hey, Reincarnation must be true!' which you dont seem to be able to understand.....





"Make a smart choice, vote pro!"

Youre not in a place to ask people to make a smart choice when your entire debate strategy has been 'Nuh-uh! Youre wrong and im right!'

Pro flat out denies basic explanations for alleged cases of Reincarnation and makes wildly retarded claims that coincidence and fraud cant possibly explain the cases since they have all been ruled out in every case ever..... All evidence suggests that these cases are more closely explained by coincidence, vivid imaginations, and fraud then by reincarnation.

By extension, Reincarnation is not highly likely to be true, and its not even remotely likely to be true.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ssunlimited 3 years ago
Ssunlimited
Lmao he says I'm retarded when I am honors in college. Coincidences that the children know all these things? That's retarded. If it were true then most children should get details wrong. Nita. Single case was proven the child making an incorrect statement.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
An interesting fact is that many cultures separated by large distances like canadian indians , aborigines from australia, african tribes and eskimos i believe all believed in reincarnation .

Hypnosis can be used to regress to remember past lives, details of living conditions were exactly the same as historical records but obviously hypnosis is not as accurate as childs memories as imagination is a factor and can blend in with memories.

Pro , have you had memories as a child? , I personally have had some strange memories as a child .
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
Don't bother debating with this guy he's really ignorant , of course reincarnation is real why else would some people have harder/better lives than others.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
SsunlimitedimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins s/g for obvious reasons. Pro loses arguments for the multiple occasions where they tried to refute a rebuttal with the previously refuted argument. . . That didn't make much sense. Basically, the first 'argument' in round four.