We thought that green = pro and red = con, is kind of universally agreed upon, no?

The most common misunderstanding is the one mentioned before, a con to a con, indirectly supports the thesis, but is red.

But changing that around is even more confusing. Especially when the parent to that con is then used as a pro somewhere else (and the con now having to be labeled red again).

We consider pros and cons always to be relating to the parent directly above them. This allows them to be linked or copied between debates, irrespective of what debate they originally were a part of.