The Instigator
Mylynes
Pro (for)
Winning
56 Points
The Contender
smsiebe
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

A decent god should not send people to hell for an eternity for merely not believing in him.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 14 votes the winner is...
Mylynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,965 times Debate No: 5919
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (14)

 

Mylynes

Pro

First of all I would like to point out that I am referring to the Christian god. According to the Christian bible(perhaps not all Christian bibles but you understand which ones I am talking about) to get into heaven you pretty much need to believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness for your sins.

So what happens when you do not believe in the Christian god? You can't get into heaven right? So then I guess you go to hell.. Doesn't that seem like a bit much? He doesn't even seem to want to give us any real proof that he exists. He let human hands write the bibles and sure he supposedly performs miraculous healings even today but you would think with our eternal souls at stake and being all powerful he could at least show himself to us or make some crazy voice echo from the skies letting us know he is still there but no.. it's as if he is purposely trying to tempt a lot of decent people into thinking he is imaginary.

Why did God even have to create hell in the first place? Then he sends us there just for not believing in his book. If he is all powerful then surely he knew that he would be creating a lot of people who he knew would not believe and would be sent to hell.

Pretend for a second a kid decides to get an ant farm so he can enjoy watching them. That sounds ok right? Well what about when the kid decides to take some of the ants he doesn't like and burn them with a magnifying glass? Fry puny ants fry!

If you could please give me some reasons as to how burning someone for eternity is the right thing to do to someone who doesn't believe in you I would like to hear them.
smsiebe

Con

Before I start my actual arguments, I would just like to say this is my first debate on this site, and I don't necessarily believe in the position I'm advocating. But I do have experience debating in college, so here goes…

There are a few things I would like to state that I believe are important to my argument. First, I will contend that god has given man free will. I believe this is in line with the most reasonable sects of Christianity. Having said this, I will first address my opponents arguments.

My opponent contends that sending people to hell for not believing is excessive considering god offers no proof of his existence. The problem here is that god has offered proof of his existence, his word (the bible) and his son (Jesus). God offers a direct path and method to reach him, this alone should be enough to justify ones belief. One has the choice to embrace or reject god, if one requires more evidence to believe, then one must also accept the risks of not believing. This argument seems based on the idea that reaching heaven should be easy. God gives us the ability to live our life the way we wish. If man should choose to reject god, why should god choose to accept them?

My opponents next point is that hell should not be created in the first place. When one really thinks through the concept of hell, one clearly sees its purpose and necessity of it, If man has free will, he has a choose to good or evil. If man believes that there is only a good place to go when he dies (heaven), then what incentive does man have to do good. Hell exists so man has an incentive to do good. God would hope that man does good, but if man does bad, then why reward that person?

As for the ant example, I don't really believe this applies in this instance, but if later I am proven wrong on this point, I will answer it at that time.

Now to why sending people to hell for not believing is good. Believing in god is the path to heaven. As stated in my opponents introduction, believing is Jesus and god is the only way to have one's sins forgiven. If one has rejected the only path to forgiveness, then god is justified in sending those people to hell. The evil they have done in this world remains a stain upon them, and so they must pay for their wrongs.

God has given us life, and has given us the ability to live our lives the way we wish. Our very existence is due to him. God has given us everything, and offers paradise upon our death, and what does he ask in return? Simply to believe, and not even for your entire life, just that you eventually come to believe in him. For everything god gives us, if we are unwilling to offer anything in return, then god is more than justified in punishing us.
Debate Round No. 1
Mylynes

Pro

I would like to apologize for the wait I have just recently woken up. I would also like to thank my opponent for this is also my first debate on the site.

I believe I did mention that god supposedly gave us the bible although I believe it would be a lot easier to believe in it if God himself had come to earth and written it in front of a large amount of people. However the bible was written by humans which does not mean that it can not be true however it does mean that there is a good chance that it could not be true. I would like to not go deep into that however because that is an entirely different debate. My opponent states that god offers a direct path and method to reach him but despite that I believe it is wrong to send someone to hell merely for not believing in him.

"My opponents next point is that hell should not be created in the first place. When one really thinks through the concept of hell, one clearly sees its purpose and necessity of it, If man has free will, he has a choose to good or evil. If man believes that there is only a good place to go when he dies (heaven), then what incentive does man have to do good. Hell exists so man has an incentive to do good. God would hope that man does good, but if man does bad, then why reward that person?"

I would like to debate this by pointing out that we are not talking about whether a person is good or bad. I would like to throw out an example. Right now despite how insanely large Christianity is picture for a second you are in a place where people are somewhat cut off from the world. People are raised and live then die full lives in tribes where nobody has even heard about god. They have never had a chance to believe in God because nobody has told them that he exist.. and yet according to the bible no matter how good or bad these people were they will be spending eternity in hell because there was no way for them to be saved.

What about people from other religions? Many of them are raised to believe in other things because other holy books and people tell them to believe in things other than the Christian god. Because of the amount of religions out there it really is hard to believe that Christianity is correct and they will go to hell for believing in the wrong thing.

I would like to give another example.
I am not saying all Christians believe in original sin but many do.
From the glossary in the Catechism: Original Sin: "The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandments of God,...Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the "new Adam," came to redeem us. "

More from the Catechism: CCC 407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of the redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man's situation and activity in the world. By our first parents' sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.... Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social actions and morals.

So according to original sin this means that basically until you do something to be saved you are a sinner and will go to hell. By these rules all of the babies who suffer from crib death and haven't been saved will go to hell. Wouldn't people who get aborted also go to hell? My point is that if a person is killed before they can be saved then according to the rules they get punished for something they had no control over which is not right.

My opponent then goes on to mention that if one has "rejected" the only path to forgiveness then God is justified in sending them to hell. I would like to point out two things. First, since we are talking about people who do not believe in God I have decided to focus on those who have 0% chance to be saved. They have not rejected God but instead have never been given a chance to know God. God has created people and set them up to have no chance which is not right. Second I would like to point out that being sent to hell is no light punishment. Being tortured for eternity is insane for ANY crime you could commit down here. People have debates over whether the death penalty is a good or bad idea and mere death is nothing compared to eternal torture. Eternity is a very very long time and it is really difficult for me to believe a loving god could do that to any of his creations much less the ones who do not or can not believe in him.
smsiebe

Con

I think before continuing, I would like to clarify the ground on which we are debating. I have conceded that we can debate using the Christian god, but I believe we should embrace the moderate interpretation of Christianity and of god, and not the extremes on either end of the spectrum.

I suppose right now the argument being the word of god is secondary to most of the debate, but if necessary we can come back to it in the final round.

My opponent has decided to debate about a minor portion of the topic. The simple reality is that even if he is to prove sending to hell those who have zero chance of being saved is not decent, I believe I will still win because the vast majority of people within this topic do have a choice to accept or reject god. Since it effectively conceded that it is just to punish these individuals, then I believe I have already proven a decent god can send to hell those who do not believe. Again, we must focus on everyone, and not simply a small portion of people. Having said this, for the sake of debate I will engage my oppoent on his arguments.

As for the tribes argument, I would again like to point out this is a incredibly tiny portion of the population. And, with the spread of Christian missionaries across the world, there are few if any who no longer are aware of Christianity. If a tribe chooses to reject these missionaries, then it is right for them to face the consequences, which in this case is hell. Also, as stated earlier, if accepting Jesus and god is the only way to reach heaven, and if the tribe has not done this, then god is right to reject them.

On the argument about people from other religions, some major religions are closely tied to Christianity, and by embracing the same god, they may still be saved. Having said this, free will solves back for this argument. Even if one is raised to follow one religion, they still have the ability to embrace Jesus. If they do not embrace the correct path to salvation and instead embrace a false belief, then god has no reason to save them or offer salvation since they had every chance to embrace the correct path.

As for infants, while I can not say with absolute certainty, I am relatively certain that most sects of Christianity would send them to purgatory. I think reasonability factors into this, if Jesus washed away our sins, then infants and aborted fetuses who never had a chance to sin have no reason to be punished, meaning they would either go to purgatory or heaven. Only the most extreme sects of Christianity would argue otherwise, and we are not discussing those.

My opponent contends that hell is an excessive punishment. But why? Those in question have rejected their creator, shown no gratitude, and lived a life detached from the road to salvation. Hell is a just punishment for those who did not seek salvation in life. God should not reward those who do not live a just life in service to him. Purgatory is also a potential destination for many in question, though I can not speak intelligently on who goes to hell and who goes to purgatory.

To conclude I believe it is clear that not embracing salvation in life justifies punishment in death. I believe I am winning that nearly all people we are discussing in this debate are justly sent to hell because they have a choice. I also believe I have shown how those my opponent discusses are either not sent to hell or are sent to hell for just reasons.
Debate Round No. 2
Mylynes

Pro

Time to close things up.

"My opponent has decided to debate about a minor portion of the topic. The simple reality is that even if he is to prove sending to hell those who have zero chance of being saved is not decent, I believe I will still win because the vast majority of people within this topic do have a choice to accept or reject god. Since it effectively conceded that it is just to punish these individuals, then I believe I have already proved a decent god can send to hell those who do not believe. Again, we must focus on everyone, and not simply a small portion of people. Having said this, for the sake of debate I will engage my opponent on his arguments."

Here is why I should win this debate. My opponent thinks he can win the debate merely by ignoring my points but I believe my points are valid. The topic is "A decent god should not send people to hell for an eternity for merely not believing in him." I chose to focus on the people who do not believe due to not being able to believe and my opponent thinks that because god gives most people a chance to be saved it is ok to simply ignore those who have no chance at all.

I would also like to point out that although my opponent keeps referring to these people as a minority and therefore unimportant EVERY soul is important and nobody should suffer eternal damnation over something they have no control over. Also I am not talking about small groups of people here because if people truly are sent to hell for being unable to believe take a moment to think about just how large that number would be.

"As for the tribes argument, I would again like to point out this is a incredibly tiny portion of the population. And, with the spread of Christian missionaries across the world, there are few if any who no longer are aware of Christianity. If a tribe chooses to reject these missionaries, then it is right for them to face the consequences, which in this case is hell. Also, as stated earlier, if accepting Jesus and god is the only way to reach heaven, and if the tribe has not done this, then god is right to reject them."

My opponent thinks that number is smaller than it really is. Sure the Christian bible has made it to a lot of places but this was not always the case. MANY people for MANY years have lived their lives completely unable to access a bible. People have been around waaay before the bible was even created and when it was first created it took a long time to grow and spread to what it has become today. Think about how many people really had no chance to know God.

"On the argument about people from other religions, some major religions are closely tied to Christianity, and by embracing the same god, they may still be saved. Having said this, free will solves back for this argument. Even if one is raised to follow one religion, they still have the ability to embrace Jesus. If they do not embrace the correct path to salvation and instead embrace a false belief, then god has no reason to save them or offer salvation since they had every chance to embrace the correct path."

Some major religions are closely tied to Christianity yes but many of them are not. And I do not believe that free will just "solves" this problem. Lets pretend for a brief second that Christianity is all wrong and religion number 2 is correct and because all Christians did not fulfill the requirements of religion 2 they all went to hell. Next lets look here in America. A person is born and raised by Christian parents in a Christian community. Most likely that person will remain a Christian. There IS a decent chance because of this being the wonderful America that it is that the person may choose to adopt another religion but the chance that they will end up following the correct religion 2 is fairly small considering the vast amount of choices. So reverse this. Chances are greater if you are raised non Christian you will be non Christian. Just because the chance to be saved exists does not mean the chance to not be saved isn't higher which is why my point with other religions is valid.

"As for infants, while I can not say with absolute certainty, I am relatively certain that most sects of Christianity would send them to purgatory. I think reasonability factors into this, if Jesus washed away our sins, then infants and aborted fetuses who never had a chance to sin have no reason to be punished, meaning they would either go to purgatory or heaven. Only the most extreme sects of Christianity would argue otherwise, and we are not discussing those."

Would just like to point out that although you say they have no reason to be punished according to original sin they do.
Original sin is believed by more people than you think and purgatory is also not that big of a Christian belief. Being raised as a Methodist and having friends in other various flavors of Christianity some of us were told to believe in original sin and not in purgatory because that is what our bible told us to believe. So my point here is merely that Methodist is by no means one of the most extreme sects and yet we were still made to "argue otherwise".

"My opponent contends that hell is an excessive punishment. But why? Those in question have rejected their creator, shown no gratitude, and lived a life detached from the road to salvation. Hell is a just punishment for those who did not seek salvation in life. God should not reward those who do not live a just life in service to him. Purgatory is also a potential destination for many in question, though I can not speak intelligently on who goes to hell and who goes to purgatory.
To conclude I believe it is clear that not embracing salvation in life justifies punishment in death. I believe I am winning that nearly all people we are discussing in this debate are justly sent to hell because they have a choice. I also believe I have shown how those my opponent discusses are either not sent to hell or are sent to hell for just reasons."

My opponent is trying to say that those in question have rejected their creator. For the purpose of this debate I have focused on the people who have done nothing wrong. I am talking about people who have had either little or no chance to know that the Christian god even exists. And I would very much like for my opponent to try and justify eternal torment for people who have done nothing wrong but instead he just tries to ignore them and say that it's ok because most people have a chance to get into heaven. It's not ok. It's not ok to pick and choose who has a chance to get into heaven. A decent god would not give out such a cruel punishment to so many innocent people. I personally would like to believe that this is not the case. I would like to believe that all people have a chance to go to heaven but in the least I would like to believe that just because someone can't get into heaven then they wont be sent to hell. I would rather just god leave me alone and not put me in hell or heaven. Just let me die in peace.

Wrapping this up this argument is about all of the innocent people God has given the worst possible punishment to. If any god really has sent countless good people to eternal torture merely for not knowing about him than he is not a decent god. That sounds too evil to be something that a loving god would do. You cant justify putting such a harsh punishment on so many people who had no chance to be saved.

That is all. Thanks for the debate.
smsiebe

Con

I believe that by the end of this you will clearly see why I have negated my opponents arguments and proved the con arguments to be true.

My opponent points out every soul is important. This is true, but does not refute my argument. If every soul is important than those who could be saved and those who could not be saved stand in equal value, and since those who could be saved are substantially greater in number than those who can not be saved, you will always find god to be decent and just since he offers salvation to most..

I would like to isolate one statement my opponent makes. He asks you ton consider how many people have zero chance of following Christianity. I believe my arguments prove that number to be close to zero. This means that you will always vote con since I am the only one who actually addresses the whole of the topic and prove that god would be just to send these individuals. My opponent isolates a tiny portion of the topic and tries to win by only talking about this tiny slice of the debate. Don't allow him to do this, vote con because I address the entirety of the topic

On the tribe argument, I don't believe this argument is answered well. My argument about Christian missionaries proves that Christianity has reached primitive tribes, and if they reject Christianity at this point, their damnation is just.

On the argument over people of other religions, I believe that I am winning this argument as well. His argument seems to be that the chances of someone not born into the Christian faith embracing Christianity is slim. I have two response that I believe will answer this argument effectively. First, we have both agreed Christianity has spread and is known across the globe. Nearly all individuals will encounter Christianity at some point in their life, so everyone will have the chance to embrace the correct faith. Second, as long as that chance exists, then the blame still lies on the individual if they choose to not embrace god. My point over freewill solving back for most of his argument has been drastically covered, meaning you will always vote con since I have proved that free will and choice justifies damnation.

As for the infant argument, there are a few things I would like to point out. The actual argument from round two was not extended through, he merely pointed out some potential flaws within my argument. I believe my argument that the infants in question would go to purgatory still stands. Even if you do not believe this, he did not extend his argument, so don't give any weight to this portion of the debate.

I will answer the final argument in my summary

I would like to extend my argument about free will solving back for his arguments. This argument has gone conceded, meaning that he concedes that most of the people that would fall under the resolution are justly sent to hell. By this alone I should win the round since I have prove that, on balance, god is decent and just.

My opponent contends that sending innocent people to hell is bad. That is really his argument. I believe that by taking this ground, he has guaranteed you will vote con. Go back to the resolution, it speaks to ALL non believers, not just the innocent. I believe my purgatory argument and missionary argument solve for nearly all the people he discusses.

Here is your choice at the end of the round. You can vote pro and affirm that sending a couple people to hell is bad, even though this does not actually support the topic put forth at the start of the debate. Or you can vote con on a few grounds, first I have addressed the entirety of the topic, second I have refuted most of my opponents arguments and proved how they are solved back, and third, I have proven that god is just in sending people non believers to hell. Even if you buy 100% of my opponents arguments, you will still vote con because I have proven that god is just in sending nearly all non believers to hell, meaning that god will always at least be mostly decent and just. You will not vote pro because you don't really know who he is discussing, he says god unjustly condemns a lot of people, but offers no evidence that I have not already refuted. You simply don't know what you are affirming if you vote pro. You are definitely not affirming the topic. For that reason alone you will vote con.

Thanks for a good debate. I enjoyed it.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
what would you say if I said I was the son of god incarnate? Jesus could've simply used Psi for his 'miracles', and after I start trying, I, too, could probably use psi.

I'd say.. Deliver yourself to your enemies.. allow yourself to be tortured, mocked and then nailed to a wooden cross, charged with a crime you did not commit to die in naked shame and agony..
THEN on the 3rd day RAISE YOURSELF FROM THE DEAD with the keys of death and hell in your hands and then I'LL BELIEVE IN YOU..
Jesus Christ did ALL THIS and He now lives in my Heart.. Invite Him into yours!
Posted by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
venomousninja is a shining light of brilliance
Posted by VenomousNinja 8 years ago
VenomousNinja
I don't know if this has been said before, the bible is not god's word, it is the word of man, and we have no way of proving that jesus is god's son. For all we know, it could be some crackpot who thinks he's holy and can't be touched.

And, to make sure no one challenges me on this(I'll probably not come back to this debate, anyway), what would you say if I said I was the son of god incarnate? Jesus could've simply used Psi for his 'miracles', and after I start trying, I, too, could probably use psi.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
I'm not as convinced as my fellow readers.
I'm not impressed by Con's refusal to accept the validity of the "small portion" argument.
As it stands, I understand the Bible itself makes an exception for those who had no opportunity to know Christ in the first place. However, even if I'm right, Con never raised that. An omnipotent God could come up with a better system than to sacrifice a few "innocents" in order to punish a larger number of guilty ones.

Argument: Pro
Resources: Pro
Language: Tie
Conduct: Tie

Con did appear better versed but not enough to give him a language or conduct advantage, in my opinion.

Enjoyable debate. Thanks, folks.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
This was really a debate about Christian theology, so Con was at the advantage by arguing for what the Bible says. Whether or not we like what it says is irrelevant. Con did an excellent job refuting his opponents arguments and consistently reinforcing his own. I have him the vote for grammar and argument. I felt conduct and reliable sources were both a Tie. Pro used the Catechism even though he established the Bible as the authority of the debate.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
mrsmooth27
I agree fully with the Pro side of this argument, but Mylynes's debating was flawed. smsiebe did not win my vote because his side is one to be agreed with, but he won my vote because his arguments were direct, tactical, logical, and complete, and because his opponent failed to present arguments that addressed his opponents arguments and that accurately and logically supported his views. Though I currently lack the phone required to vote, I consider the Contender the victor.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
You are right. Decent isn't a very good adjective for God whether he exists or not as decency requires judgment. Of course those who disagree with God's laws would call him indecent and unjust in either case.
Posted by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
I will explain my vote and then make a couple comments

Agree before: CON- I agree with con on this one
Agree after: CON- Pro did not sway me with his arguments.
Better conduct: CON- I felt Con was more respectful than Pro, though only by a little, both were pretty respectful towards one another. Pro did seem more condescending in his rounds, in my opinion.
Spelling and Grammer: CON- I felt Con used good syntax and sentence structure, where Pro typed as though he was using IM.
Convincing argument: CON- Con was able to refute more of Pro's arguments than Pro was able to of Con's.
Reliable sources: Pro- Pro did a good job of looking up some older catholic doctrine, although Vatican 2 in the 1970s changed that so that original sin only applies to people that are aware, children and the severely handicapped aren't in original sin. However, not a whole lot of people liked Vatican 2, so not a lot of people talk about it.

Personal remarks:
I nearly voted Pro for one reason. As I said before, I think "decent" is a word with interesting connotations and denotations. I would have preferred "just", although Pro would have definitely lost on that one. However, that is an argument for semantics I think.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
I voted Con. His arguments were great. Pro's were full of assumptions and misunderstandings, and thought that may just be my opinion, Con argued these points masterfully.

I do think that one must have a clear understanding of the teachings of a religion vs. the content of scripture vs. popular beliefs within the religion vs. theology vs. historical validity before one can have a true debate about God especially when your argument is based on your own misunderstandings or lack of knowledge on the subject.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
inb4 Hypocrisy and Casiopia's voting blocks.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ItalianStalian7 8 years ago
ItalianStalian7
MylynessmsiebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
MylynessmsiebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MarcusMang 8 years ago
MarcusMang
MylynessmsiebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
MylynessmsiebeTied
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 
Vote Placed by symphonyofdissent 8 years ago
symphonyofdissent
MylynessmsiebeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aelsi 8 years ago
aelsi
MylynessmsiebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Revolution1902 8 years ago
Revolution1902
MylynessmsiebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by smsiebe 8 years ago
smsiebe
MylynessmsiebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
MylynessmsiebeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Jerred102 8 years ago
Jerred102
MylynessmsiebeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30