The Instigator
Renzzy
Pro (for)
Winning
84 Points
The Contender
Im_always_right
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

According to the Bible, Homosexuality is a Sin.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,741 times Debate No: 4897
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (26)

 

Renzzy

Pro

Hello I Am Always Right, and thank you for accepting my debate challenge.

I have debated this topic before, twice actually, but when a Christian comes along claiming that homosexuality is not a sin, I simply cannot pass up the opportunity for debate :) This is a topic that I have spent a decent amount of time looking into, and a topic that I feel very strongly about.

With that, let the debate begin!

I, as PRO, am affirming that:

"According to the Bible, Homosexuality is a Sin."

I will stick mainly to scripture. It is the backbone of my life, and will therefore be the backbone of my arguments.

------------------------------------------

You said in your comments earlier that you believe homosexuality is wrong for christians. You also say it is a right for non-christians to be homosexual, and you will defend homosexuality for non-christians.

I say that God speaks out blatently against homosexuality, and that He says in no uncertain terms that it is a blatent sin. Take for example the following scriptures:

LEVITICUS 18:22---
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"

LEVITICUS 20:13---
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

I personally dont know how you could argue with that. The only thing you could bring up is that these were given in the Old Testament, and were therefore outdated with the institution of the covanent of grace.

Some would argue that these laws forbidding homosexuality were abolished with the laws that prohibitted playing with pigskin, wearing cotton-polyester blends, etc., however I do not think this is the case.

When God instituted the convanent of grace, many of the Old Testament laws were abolished. Like I said above, playing with pigskin and wearing cotton-polyester blends were among these laws.

First, lets look at what they meant.

In the Old Testament, if you played with pigskin, you were considered "unclean". This meant that nobody could touch you, and people had to generally avoid you. In order to fix this, you would have to go through a waiting period, and then undergo a ritual washing or cleansing. once this cleansing took place you were considered clean again.

Once the covanent of grace (New Testament) replaced the convanent of works (Old Testament), the sacrament of baptism (New Testament) replaced the sacrament of circumcision (Old Testament).

The Greek word for bapism is "bap-TEEZ-mos", or "baptizmos". Translated literally, it means "ritual washing or cleansing".

Once baptism was instituted, it abolished all of the laws that had to do with being "unclean". This is because baptism represents dying with Christ, and being washed in His blood; which is the ultimate cleansing.

There were certain laws, however, like the Ten Commandments and the laws concerning homosexuality. Why do I think this? Simply because homosexuality is also spoken against in the New Testament. Take these passages for example:

1 TIM. 1:9-10---
"...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for the unholy and profane, for muderers of fathers and muderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10---
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

--- 1 TIM. 1:9-10---
"...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate...FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers..."

I think we both know the defenition of "sodomite", or "sodomy".

I think this will do for my opening argument!

Thanks a bunch!

Renzzy
Im_always_right

Con

Thank you for challanging me, I always like a debate that is pretty challenging.

"I have debated this topic before, twice actually, but when a Christian comes along claiming that homosexuality is not a sin, I simply cannot pass up the opportunity for debate :) This is a topic that I have spent a decent amount of time looking into, and a topic that I feel very strongly about."

LOL, no arguement against wanting a good debate about something you feel strongly about. After all isn't that the purpose of debate.org?

"You said in your comments earlier that you believe homosexuality is wrong for christians. You also say it is a right for non-christians to be homosexual, and you will defend homosexuality for non-christians."

This is true, because if you are a non-christian you have just as many rights as a Cchristian to do anything you want, within the law of the land you are in.

Such as The US, and whatever state/county/town you are in. Thus if the law let those marry who wish to be married, who are we to stand in the way? It's not like banning homosexuals from marrying they wont "Lie with another man as thy lieth with a woman", so all arguements against it are void, for the moment unless you can refute that fact. People say "Well homosexuals CAN get marrid...just not to the person they want." Well if that's the case, let's all get an aranged marriage, ho cares if you love her, this is a girl the law says you can marry. See how rediculous that is, that is what homo-phobes sound like trying to keep homosexual couples from marrying?

"I say that God speaks out blatently against homosexuality, and that He says in no uncertain terms that it is a blatent sin. Take for example the following scriptures:"

Those scriptures may be true, but again we are talking about non-christians, no matter how many scriptures you type up, and show them, they are entitled to their own opinion, and their opinion may very well be that god doesn't exist, thus it wouldn't stop them from doing what they want. In the US man is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happieness. By denying them the right to marry who they want you are not allowing them the pursuit of happieness. Anyway if they get married how will that affect you at all? If your best friend is gay and never told you, and after 6 years of friendship, he tells you are you going to treat him differnetly? Will you not be his friend anymore? Will you recite bible verses to try and stop him from being gay?

"I personally dont know how you could argue with that. The only thing you could bring up is that these were given in the Old Testament, and were therefore outdated with the institution of the covanent of grace."

LOL, no that gets used to much around here, so I thought I'd use what I use against my father, who is homophbic, he has never come up with an arguement so I want to see the arguement against it.

"Some would argue that these laws forbidding homosexuality were abolished with the laws that prohibitted playing with pigskin, wearing cotton-polyester blends, etc., however I do not think this is the case."

Maybe so maybe not it doesn't matter, if I remember correcly we are debating no-christians right to marry whoever in the world they want.

"In the Old Testament, if you played with pigskin, you were considered "unclean". This meant that nobody could touch you, and people had to generally avoid you. In order to fix this, you would have to go through a waiting period, and then undergo a ritual washing or cleansing. once this cleansing took place you were considered clean again."

We are not talking about pigskin are we? On the plus side, I now have an arguement for why I hate football...

"Once the covanent of grace (New Testament) replaced the convanent of works (Old Testament), the sacrament of baptism (New Testament) replaced the sacrament of circumcision (Old Testament)."

So what you are saying is if you get babtised over and over again you can cleanse all your sins? I believe it is a one time only deal personally. Otherwise, the arguement has no place in this debate.

"Once baptism was instituted, it abolished all of the laws that had to do with being "unclean". This is because baptism represents dying with Christ, and being washed in His blood; which is the ultimate cleansing."

So are you saying that every time you sin you can just be baptised and be completely clean? Or are you saying that because god said that it is unclean for two men to lie together, that it is erased because of the new testament?
I'm now confused on what side you are on.

"There were certain laws, however, like the Ten Commandments and the laws concerning homosexuality. Why do I think this? Simply because homosexuality is also spoken against in the New Testament. Take these passages for example:"

See now you are making sense. Again, I am not debating bible verses unless they pertain to non-christians, and every non-christian (or the vast majority at least) can agree with it. Thus the versus are void in our debate. If the debate was "Homo-sexuality is wrong for christians" than I would concede your point, but that's not what it is now is it?

"I think we both know the defenition of "sodomite", or "sodomy".

I think this will do for my opening argument!

Thanks a bunch!

Renzzy"

Yes we both know, as I have said in the comments. I can't wait for your second round arguement.
Debate Round No. 1
Renzzy

Pro

I am sorry to say that you completely missed the point of my whole argument. That is ok though, because it is kind of a confusing thing to grasp at first. I will try to simplify it a little more in this argument.

"...because if you are a non-christian you have just as many rights as a Cchristian to do anything you want, within the law of the land you are in."

This is quite true, however we are not talking about the laws of the land, but the laws in the Bible. Remeber the thesis of the debate is:

According to the BIBLE, homosexuality is a sin.

"Thus if the law let those marry who wish to be married, who are we to stand in the way? It's not like banning homosexuals from marrying they wont "Lie with another man as thy lieth with a woman", so all arguements against it are void, for the moment unless you can refute that fact."

We are not arguing whether or not homosexuals CAN marry according to the laws here on earth, but rather whether or not they SHOULD be able to marry according to the laws writen in the Bible. As Christians, we are bound to the laws of the Bible, so we should stand by the fact that God considers homosexuality a sin, and we should oppose it's legality.

"...again we are talking about non-christians, no matter how many scriptures you type up, and show them, they are entitled to their own opinion, and their opinion may very well be that god doesn't exist, thus it wouldn't stop them from doing what they want."

Again, you missed the point. We are talking about the laws of the Bible in this debate. In the title, I did not say "according to the laws of the land", I said "According to the Bible".

Like I said, you as a Christian should be opposed to gay marraige. Why? Because God says it is a sin. Being a non-believer does not give people the right to sin, nor you the right to support them in their sin.

"LOL, no that gets used to much around here, so I thought I'd use what I use against my father, who is homophbic, he has never come up with an arguement so I want to see the arguement against it."

You very well might, but not in this debate. This debate is not about the laws of the land. We are talking biblically.

In this next sction, you COMPLETELY missed the entire point of my argument. This I do not blame you for, because I'm quite sure I did not word it as well as a could, and it is an over all confusing topic. I will try to restate more clearly.

What I was trying to do was give examples of sins that were abolished with the institution of the Covanent of Grace, and tell why they were abolished.

Law such as touching pigskin were abolished with the institution of baptism because baptism represented the ultimate cleansing, or the once-for-all cleansing in the death of Christ.

Homosexuality was not included, and we know this because it is spoken against in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.

I did not go off topic, rather I went into an in-depth explaination. Perhaps more in-depth than was necessary, but I like to close that point right off the start so it is not an issue.

"...if I remember correcly we are debating no-christians right to marry whoever in the world they want."

Unfortunately you do not remember correctly. We are debating Whether or not homosexuality is a sin, and whether or not Christians should support it.

"So what you are saying is if you get babtised over and over again you can cleanse all your sins?"

No that is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that baptism is symbolic of the cleansing found in the death of Christ. Thus it is a one time thing. I believe that if you are a christian, and you go your whole life without baptism, you will still go to heaven. I also believe that baptism is noting more than a sacrament, and though we are commanded by God to do it as Christians, salvation is not dependant on it.

I hope the whole baptism issue is cleared up now.

"Again, I am not debating bible verses unless they pertain to non-christians, and every non-christian (or the vast majority at least) can agree with it."

Again, we are debating according to the Bible. However, I can provide you with verses that meet those standards if you wish...

Jude 7---
"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after STRANGE flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengance of eternal fire."

This verse, being ambiguous on the spiritual state of said people, refers to both Christians and non-christiasns.

ROMANS 1:21-27---
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

This scripture passage refers to people who have never believed in or worshiped God.

Besides this, in all of the other verses I have quoted, it does not say "Christian sodomites", but rather refers to sodomites in generl.

Having said that, all of my previous arguments still stand.

I hope that cleared things up!

Thanks!

Renzzy
Im_always_right

Con

Homosexuality may be a sin, but you are never going to convince homosexuals that they are going to Hell, just because they love someone from the same sex.
You warned me you would use scriptures to bacxk up your points, but here are my scriptures:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.--ST MATTHEW v. 43-48."

Which in this case can mean that you thnk you are supposed to hate homosexuals, but in fact you need to love them. It is not up to us to say what can and cannot be. I am not saying that christians should be gay, but they should not have a problem with gay people, and should not lable them or think less of them. It may be true that it is a sin, but think of this, God created all, God thereby created homosexuality, God loves everybody, thus God must love homosexuals. Yes, or no?

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27"

If God created man in his own mage, wouldn't it stand to reason, that God doesn't hate homosexuals? Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, it is not even on the top 17 sins, which are the 10 commandments, and the 7 deadly sins, the list of those sins are:

And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

Which it doesn't make it any better, but it is not a sin:

ttp://en.wikipedia.org...

According to my resources, homosexuality is not a sin and christians should not interfere with their relationship, and the right to marry.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
Renzzy

Pro

"Which in this case can mean that you thnk you are supposed to hate homosexuals, but in fact you need to love them. It is not up to us to say what can and cannot be."

I never once said I hate homosexuals. I love them just like any other person, and respect them as individuals. I do not hate them, nor am I what you you would call a "homophobe". I do not think Christians are supposed to hate homosexuals, nor do I think we should hate those who kill people or rape children. We are, like this passage says, to love all people.

All I sid was that we as Christians should nor be SUPPORTIVE of the homosexual lifestyle. I have presented verses that support my claim, and say homosexuality is a sin. You have neither refuted these verses nor presented any or you own concerning homosexuality. Thebest verses you could present in you favor would be those commanding us to love eachother, but once again this says nothing concerning homosexual love.

"...God thereby created homosexuality..."

God what?

LEVITICUS 18:22---
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"

God creaqted homosexuality, but He detests it? This is simply LUDICROUS. I am sorry, but claiming that a perfect God created something He hates is a completely RIDICULOUS thing to say. End of story.

"...God loves everybody..."

What I am about to say you will only hear from five point Calvinist, Orthodox Presbyterian. It is deffinately not the most popular view to take, but I believe firmly that it is the correct one. If you believe otherwise, feel free to challenge me to a debate.

Malachi 1:2-3---
" 'I have loved you,' says the LORD. 'But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' 'Was not Esau Jacob's brother?' the LORD says. 'Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.' "

"Esau I have hated..."

Wait, God hated somone? Yes He did. As an Orthodox Presbyterian, I firmly believe this passage is literal and true, and that God does not love all people. Does this mean that He hates all homosexuals? No it does not. What it means is that He loves His elect. We do not know who His elect are, so we cannot say for sure that He love all homosexuals, murderers, rapists, or anyone for that matter.

If you think I am crazy, and that I have totally skewed God into something bad, read Romans 9. I will explain better than I can. Also, like I said, feel fre to challenge me to a debate.

"...thus God must love homosexuals. Yes, or no?"

No.

"If God created man in his own mage, wouldn't it stand to reason, that God doesn't hate homosexuals?"

No it would not. God created man in His own image, yes, but man fell, and therefore seperated himself from God completely. Being created in God's image does not redeem this situation. however, like I said, I cannot say who God loves and does not love, all I can say is that god does not love ALL homosexuals.

"Homosexuality is not an unforgivable sin, it is not even on the top 17 sins, which are the 10 commandments, and the 7 deadly sins..."

The what? The top 17 sins? There are no "top sins". The ten commandments are not the worst sins, but they were given as the guidline for us to follow. Their purpose was to show God's people that they cannot keep even one of the commandments.

Why those ten?

Name one sin. any sin you can think of, and it will fall under one of those ten. Hate? It falls under #6. Pornography? It falls under #7. Homosexuality wouls also fall under #7 as a sexual sin. That is why those particular ten were chosen. They are not the "top ten" sins.

The "seven deadly sins" are simply, on a general basis, the easiest for humans to fall into, and therefore one we ought to be careful of. not the "worst" sins.

Just because homosexuaity does not fall into this list does not mean it is not a sin. Just look at the verses I presented.

"According to my resources, homosexuality is not a sin and christians should not interfere with their relationship, and the right to marry."

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10---
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

LEVITICUS 20:13---
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' "

Now tell me it is not a sin. God is quite clear in these verses.

Thanks a bunch! It was a good debate!

Renzzy
Im_always_right

Con

Homosexuality is NOT a sin, the bible only talks about MEN lying with other MEN, not woman and woman, therefore, SODOMITES are the real sinners. Not homosexuals.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
That Corinthians verse you quoted that includes the words homosexual offenders. Just an FYI, that was only added to versions of the Bible in the 1950's, prior to that, it was not in any version of the Bible. The word effeminate was used, which could pertain to anyone (example)......A coward, someone who is afraid of hard work and doesn't want to get their hands dirty etc. I find it interesting that homosexual offenders was added to that verse but didn't exist in that verse prior to the 50's in ANY version of the Bible.
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
good job lovelessrenenity...
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
hey aaltobartok, says what I believe about the bible+gays...
Posted by lovelessserenity 9 years ago
lovelessserenity
http://www.lionking.org...

It seems that people with PHDs and scholars who have studied the bible and the past of the bible, think differently... There are other websites that go into further depth than this one, and even show homosexual relations that are not a abomination... *shrug*
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
REALLY BTHR004????

Why would you straight up LIE to me?

Wikipedia:

"The condition of being uninformed or uneducated. Lacking knowledge or information."
http://en.wiktionary.org...

Merriam-Webster:
"the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

neither of those sites even hint at the def. u put forth.

Dictionary.com:

"the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."
"The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. "
"The condition of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed."

It briefly states that your definition is mentioned in the book of common prayer. That is IT. And that certainly isn't the standard definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

The holocaust comment was given to provide an example, not to imply something you believed.
Posted by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
Oh god.

So you know what? Maybe the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin.

But why should one person's private morality affect another's public human rights?
Posted by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
Actually I provide very much evidence that the Holocaust did happen.

Secondly my defintion of ignorance according to merriam-webster, dictionary.com, and wykopedia.
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
ig·no·rance
n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. <dictionary.com>

"ignore" and "ignorance" have the same roots but not same meanings as you are suggesting.

I disagree with whatever it is that you have quoted.
When it comes to matters of faith not only do i have a desire to understand it but i actually do understand it. And very well, i used to be very faithful. Your explanation doesn't apply to me, but even if it did your explanation holds no water anyway.

consider the possible senario

Your friend believes the holocaust didn't happen and provides NO evidence or reason for this belief. You "have [no] desire to understand yet have every ounce of motivation to continually argue that [he is] ignorant in [his] beliefs."

In such a senario, you wouldn't necessarily be ignorant.
I'm sorry but your explanation holds no water.
Posted by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
Here is the problem,.. zero,...

In accusing the people that put the bible into text as bieng ignorant,.. you essentially saying all those that today believe and follow the bible as the word of god, are well,.. ignorant,...

That is what I have problem with,..

"Ignorance is often in the eye beholder,.. one may not assume another is ignorant until they are able to understand their approach,.. if one chooses NOT to understand another, then they are in fact of the most ignorance!"

This means,.. that if you choose not to understand someone else, or the belief, and have know desire to understand yet have every ounce of motivation to continually argue that others are ignorant in their beliefs,.. etc. That in fact makes you of the most ignorance,.. as the definition of ignorance:

-A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have.
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
bthr004

i absolutely agree with you in every way. thats meant. I call them ignorant not as an insult but as people who simply were not as aware as we are today.

just as we will all be ignorant in comparison to our great grant children.

The people who wrote the bible certainly were the leading intellectuals of their day.
but ignorant in comparison to us.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 KRFournier 9 years ago
KRFournier
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 Killer542 9 years ago
Killer542
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 tribefan011 9 years ago
tribefan011
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 Jamesothy 9 years ago
Jamesothy
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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 DylanAsdale 9 years ago
DylanAsdale
RenzzyIm_always_rightTied
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