The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
118 Points

Are the presents of Hell not worth dodging this life for everlasting life?

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 20 votes the winner is...
beem0r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,726 times Debate No: 6434
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (256)
Votes (20)

 

GodSands

Pro

Thank you, read this carefully It may change you?

Hell! Through out history it has been thought of as the most foolish and regretful place to end up out of the whole existence of everything. If I was confronted with a slight possibility of a place like this where you end up after your "first death" I would consider to think about the wording of "what if and "if only". Although there is no proof in the physical world that such a please existence. It would be wise to try and understand the strange spiritual world. By finding out if God does actually exist or not by close (not skeptical) examination of God's ever lasting love. By saying
"I know what love feels like, so why do I need God's love?" I will answer....
"All love is from God even from other people as it hell there is no love, and all the love you feel now is spiritual love." As science can not excitement with love emotions. It could be possible to decrease or increase the amount of love you feel. But not get rid of it, this occurs naturally anyway, when you injure emotions. There is no such thing as a emotion with no love.

You may think hate is a emotion with no love. But you only truly really feel bad emotions in hell. As there is no God to offer good emotions. (God will be none existent to you in hell) Likewise you may blame God for curtin emotions, but God is actually the one not to blame since He is giving all the love He can to you but you simply reject it by blaming God.

Hell is a place where you know all the sins which appeared good turn out to be evil and corrupt, Jesus said "Turn from your sins now" Jesus did not say that to spoil your enjoyment but to give you ever lasting enjoyment. Love is enjoyable, enjoyment is love-able. Sin is selfish, selfish is sin. Example: Getting into a drunken state leads to bad atmosphere, making it unconformable, disrespectful and insecure. But you are having fun. No? By not getting drunk will allow you to see clearly at the foolishness which occurs. Get drunk in the Holy Spirit and you can see what is foolish. Even one sin will, even if you steal a paper clip. God sees material thing unworthy of heaven, so what you still is not the point, It is the very thought of making the thought come true. Even by taking a paper clip will make you injure endless suffering and pain in hell.

If I mention the "not so good" news, I must give you the good. Jesus Christ can save you from hell if you trust in him by giving your sins to Him. As Jesus lived a perfect life He should of lived but instead God decided to make Him Son injure instead. So you selfish people (including me) can have ever lasting life.

From DE's, people have said hell seems more real than this life and having no sense of the time. Once in hell you will see a faint bright light which contained all the love aviaible to you in heaven, But instead you having it God rejects you like you rejected Jesus Christ. Making a perfect man die for nothing. If you were the only person Jesus could die for on earth Jesus would still have died for you! Yet every time you sin it is like spitting in His face. If you sin once a day that's spitting 3550 times in Jesus' face for 10 years. If you sin 10 times a day that's 35500 times in 10 years. And that's only one person. It seems people forget Jesus was perfect. And they (sinners) are not.

As a child you believe in Santa Claus? Most children do. You enjoyed the fact that Santa was a cheerful man, who deserved to give gifts to your children. (If you are a parent you get no credit for Christmas when you have young children as Santa does all the work) You as a Child are born enjoying Christmas every year believe that Santa will come into your house (If Santa was to visit ever house in one night, He would have to spend a 1 millionth of a second at each house) Moving that fast is supernatural. Like the devil who hides, it would be impossible for the eye to see Santa as your eye can only see a maximum of a 20th of a second. So Santa is the devils way for bring in the children into the Physical world (mentioned in my other debate, "Randomness is a lack of knowledge in the Spiritual and Physical world")
As a Child the Devil acts like the child is in control by doing nothing on Christmas and the devil (now known to me as Santa) has the burden of running about after presents. When you Grow older you become the devils slave as you do not believe in Santa and therefore the devil anymore. Making your life style converted by physical not spiritual beliefs. And now as a adult with money "You can not serve two masters, money and God." is more avaible, again more involved in the physical world. So now the burden is on you to run into shops buying gifts you are now the devils slave who has seemed to have disappeared as quickly as Santa did.

The trap is hell and if you are still a sinner you will go there unless you trust in Jesus (spiritual) and confess you are a evil person in a physical world.

Thank You

Josh Crisp (GodStands)
beem0r

Con

Thanks for the challenge, GodSands, and I wish you the best of luck. I also thank the readers for reading this - I know it's hard.

===
Resolutional Vagueness
=
I'll first point out that this resolution is very vague. Due to the lack of proper english usage, it is very difficult to understand exactly what my opponent's position is. However, I will attempt to explain what it seems to be:
My opponent is advocating the avoidance of sin in this life due to the existence of a hell where sinners will suffer eternally. I'll ask my opponent to clarify if that is not a correct interpretation.

===
Examining God's Love
=
My opponent asks us to find out if god really exists or not. He tells us that this can be done by a close examination of God's love [though we must also not be skeptical, for whatever reason].
Let me explain this as bluntly as I can. "God's love" cannot be examined, especially by those who don't even believe in his existence. The only people who would even think they can examine God's love are people who already believe in God.

===
Good emotions
=
My opponent also claims that all good emotions come from God. Uhh, I don't think so. A friend I know did some drugs the other day, and he felt euphoria. I'm certainly not condoning drugs, but we cannot ignore the fact that 'sinful' behavior leads to good emotions most ofthe time - that is what makes 'sin' so tempting. If god is the one supplying all positive emotions, why would he make such sinful behavior so pleasurable?

===
Bad emotions
=
Next, my opponent claims that we [I assume he is talking about non-believers] blame god for certain bad emotions. This is simply not true. Many of us do not believe in God, and those of us who do rarely blame him for much of anything. I, for example, do not believe in god - this makes it impossible for me to blame him for anything.

===
Paper clip
=
My opponent explains that, according to his God's sense of justice, stealing a paper clip is worthy of an eternity of suffering and pain. Nothing is worth such an infinite punishment, let alone a crime so petty. If a god did exist as an infinite intelligence, one would wager it would have a sense of justice at least on par with what us humans have come up with, if not far better.

===
The Good News
=
My opponent explains his belief that Jesus died for all of our sins, that way we won't have to endure an eternity of suffering for being imperfect. First, if Jesus actually died for our supposed sins, then we should be fine. It does not make sense to place a stipulation on Jesus' sacrifice - that he only took the sins of those who would believe in him. Knowing how unfair the current justice system was, and being the noble mangod he was, why would he not simply take all our sins and call it a day? Why do we have to believe in him for his sacrifice to actually work? It makes no sense.
Add that to the fact that my opponent has done nothing to support his supposition that God exists and Jesus was his son, and my opponent should find himself in a real pickle.

===
Hell
=
My opponent says that even if you were the only person on earth, Jesus would still have died for you. He then says that sinning is like spitting in Jesus' face, but I say that it would be the opposite. If you didn't sin, then Jesus would truly have died in vain. If you sin, at least his death does something.
Not that his supposed death could be considered much of a sacrifice - it was far more short-lived than a normal person's death, according to biblical mythology. Even so, sinning gets you the best bang for your buck - it's not like Jesus has to go die a second time just because you sinned a bit more.

===
Santa/Satan
=
My opponent also pasted some copypasta, which he has used in a few of his debates now. It has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about - it's an intricate, broken comparison between the devil and Santa. It really doesn't belong here, and it didn't really belong in any of the other debates he used it in. Even if it was relevant to our discussion, the comparison is flawed and illogical, but there's no need to waste any of our time with rebutting it, since it's not even on topic.

And now I'll let my opponent respond. Hopefully he can clarify his position and maybe even make some rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

I have nothing to say, what Is done is done, It is finish (Jesus' last words) It's now a question of accept or do not accept the truth.

Thank You

Josh
beem0r

Con

Well, I gave my opponent a well organized response - with each point in its own header - and I asked for clarification on exactly what the resolution is supposed to mean. Since my opponent has not corrected me, I will assume that my interpretation was indeed correct: My opponent is advocating the avoidance of sin in this life due to the existence of a hell where sinners will suffer eternally. It would also make sense to assume that my opponent concedes to all my points, as he has not corrected me.

In addition to all the points I brought up last round, which my opponent did not address, I will bring up a few more that deal a little bit more directly with the resolution.

1. Hell, in all likelihood, does not exist.
First, we have no data suggesting the existence of hell, except for various religious texts. Even so, there is an obvious reason a religion would insert threats of hell into their holy books - it gives people one more reason to believe in that religion. While it is a cowardly reason to believe, the fear of hell has persuaded many people to belief, which certainly helps these religious organizations gain more political power.
Also, let us examine the absurdity of hell. We know that our bodies here on earth are regulated by our physical components - our memories are physically stored in our brain, our personality is determined by our brain, what we feel is determined by our entire nervous system, etc. When we die, all of this deteriorates. We can no longer feel pain - we have no nervous system, and no brain to interpret the data even if we had one. We no longer have memories - these are stored in our brain, which is no longer active. Our personality, too. So then, even if there was some sort of 'afterlife,' how would we get there? Without our memories and personality, we could hardly be called the same person. Even if we could, we wouldn't have the capacity to think, to feel pain or pleasure, or really do anything. Every single thing we do is explained by a physical part of our body - and our bodeis certainly don't come with us to the afterlife - they are either rotting in the ground or have been incinerated into ashes.
My opponent has done nothing to show that hell exists.

2. Avoiding sin would not affect one's chances to get into hell
Like my opponent said - even just stealing a paperclip is enough to warrant placement in hell for eternity. In fact, according to my opponent's religion, we are born with sin - so even if we live a sin free life, a nigh impossible task in itself, we're still sinners! According to my opponent, the only real way to avoid hell is to believe in Jesus, etc. It doesn't matter how much you sin. Sin half as much or ten times as much, and there is no difference. You either go to heaven because you believe in Jesus, or you go to hell because you don't. As much as that smacks of being made up, it's what Christianity says.

Thus, by not only the reasons I gave last round, I will have to negate this resolution. Avoiding sin in this life to avoid going to hell is foolish. Not only does hell probably not exist, but since we are all sinners [even from birth], sinning more or less in the future does not change anything. All that matters is that we believe in Jesus, that we cave into the fear the church places on us.

Until next time,
beem0r
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

Let me sum up what I have proven Fact.

Either way you look at this I have won. If you think that Science can prove the reason why this universe is here then that proves my point by you are believeing that science can find all the answers. As science is physical. The more deeping you believe in science the more the Devil has corrupted you. Like the Devil corrupted you into thinking Santa was real as a child. But was not. The devil has made you believe in physical things and merterail things. So how do you find out how you thought the universe started? By physical tools, probes and satilites. To find out how the universe started. Tools like that can not be trusted. Can you trust that your TV will be able to turn on? So the Devils plan is to convert you from knowing the spiritual side of life. And doubt it.

I will break this into sections. So you will understand. Starting with the Big Bang.

1) The Big Bang: The Big Bang contains all the matter in one small compact space then imploded And scince then galaxies have been "falling" apart (Notice the words falling apart, Toys fall apart)

Ok so I know the universe is eternal and it still had a beginning, this is why. The further away from earth you get the slower time will tick. The closer you are to earth the faster the closk will tick. The way you tell time is by the earth rotating around the earth. Day and night = 24 hours = 7 days in one week = 4 weeks in 1 month = 12 months in one year = 10 years in one decade = 10 dacades in one century = 10 centuries in 1 milleniumon then it ends. This is proof that earth is only 6000 years old as in till and if the earth reaches 10,000 years old, a new name will be made up. But this is how we measure time by those terms, by rotation around the sun. But if there was no sun to rotate around there would be no way of telling what the time was. (In a voied) And that there is no time there is no mass stopping time from happening then there is no time limit therefore time is unlimited like God "God stretched out the heavens" If you say the moon is being pulled towards the sun by "gravity" then why when the Big Bang imploded did not the "gravity" given by mass bring in the parts moving away? And even more so if gravity exists then why did the Big Bang implode In the FIRST place? (Take note on the word first) As the Big Bang is a lie like Santa is. You can match Santas' sack or gifts and toys to the Big Bang. Like I have said, if santa could travel to every house in one night, He would need to spend a millionth of a second at one house. This matches the Big Bang when it imploded it covered a distance supernaturaly as for gravity to take place, light needs to be slower than gravity (there is no time between "gravity" and the effect) so the Big Bang was a supernatrual event. Again this leads to the spirt world and Not God's creation.
So as santa dishes out the gifts around the world to little children in 12 hours or less. This acts like the Big Bang imploding, as the galaxies act like ground of presents and the presents as stars. This too proves no new stars are formed. If you ask "Ok then what if a child makes his own toy" I will say..."This implies creation of human made by a child and children are not as good as a toy maker making is." This also imples that we are God children and like toys God made us for His pleasure. Like a clock ticks around because earth spints around. Because of "gravity" the Big Bang would, by the fact tha suns explode. And if you state that the Big Bang acted or even was a sun imploding (as then like stars are far apart so are the I'll give it to you the Big Bang happened as a sun imploding. As the sun implodes (Big Bang) the planets are destroyed since no matter leaves the universe the planets reform by "gravity". There are many universes which form from dying suns. God is still fact. But the reason why I agree why the Big Bang (suns imploding) exists (after thinking very hard) Just shows God's unlimited power. The earth is not 4.5 billion years old still as time is only told by a sun. (as I explained that space is timless) This also shows that suns do create other suns the same matter is used to make a new sun. Like a baby from the mother.

So are you still not convist? I've used science in this one and logic linking to the Bible. To understand God's unlimited powers, intelligents and strenge is beyond me. The Big Bang could be called itelligent imploding. For a moment I have serious doubts that God did not exist. Flip that was mad! I stupidly forgot that God is etenal therefore unlimted in all ways. The Devil is still trying to make know God does not exist by adding only physical things in mind when you look for the truth. As in that case you will find the truth pointing to a unlimited God.

Case closed.
beem0r

Con

My opponent opens up his third round by claiming that he has proven facts to us. This is simply not true. My opponent has proven nothing - he has simply used faulty reasoning to come to faulty conclusions. Conclusions such as 'intelligent falling' or whatever he calls his variation of the big bang. Conclusions such as that we should avoid sin in order to gain eternal life.

My opponent apparently broke his final round into numbered points, with #1 being the Big Bang.... but it seems he did not get to number two. I'll address this singular point in a second, but first, a preface:

The big bang has absolutely NOTHING to do with this topic. Whether the theory is 100% true, 100% false, or anywhere in between, this topic remains unaffected. We are talking about whether a person should avoid sin to reach eternal life; we are not talking about the Big Bang - or rather, we shouldn't be.

However, I feel I must correct at least the big problems with my opponent's view of the Big Bang. I'll number all the misconceptions he has.
===
1. In the Big Bang theory, all the matter was contained in one compact space, _then it imploded_.

Me: NO. The big bang was an EXplosion of matter. That is the opposite of an IMplosion.

===
2. Since the Big Bang, galaxies have been falling apart, like toys.

Me: First, the analogy is completely unecessary and doesn't show anything. Second, galaxies aren't "falling apart." Perhaps my opponent means they are moving apart from one another, and this is true - just like the fragments of a grenade move apart from one another after an explosion, so too do the various bodies of matter.

===
3. My opponent knows that the universe is eternal and still had a beginning.

Me: No. My opponent does not know this, he thinks this. The universe probably did have a beginning, though it may not have. It also may or may not be eternal, though the likelihood of it being eternal is much less if it had a beginning.

===
4. "The further away from earth you get the slower time will tick. The closer you are to earth the faster the closk will tick."

Me: No. Certain types of clocks may become inaccurate [such as a grandfather clock or any oter pendulum-based clock], but time still goes by the same. It goes by the same in every galaxy.

===
5. The way you tell time is by the earth rotating.

Me: NO. That is ONE way to tell time. Another way is to use the earth's revolution - which takes a whole year rather than a day. Another way is a pendulum based clock, which would workeven if the earth was stationary. A computer's clock works differently still, and the clock in a timex watch works another way [both of these would work in the void of space]. There are many ways to tell time - telling it by the earth's rotation was simply the most primitive way we humans did so.

===
6. "Day and night = 24 hours = 7 days in one week = 4 weeks in 1 month = 12 months in one year = 10 years in one decade = 10 dacades in one century = 10 centuries in 1 milleniumon then it ends. This is proof that earth is only 6000 years old as in till and if the earth reaches 10,000 years old, a new name will be made up"

Me: NO. Nowhere in there did my opponent prove that the earth was only six thousand years old. Milleniums aren't even the biggest measurement of time. A Myr is a million years. A galactic year is about 225 million years. In fact, the sun is about 20 Galactic Years old - far more than 6000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

===
7. "But if there was no sun to rotate around there would be no way of telling what the time was. (In a voied) And that there is no time there is no mass stopping time from happening then there is no time limit therefore time is unlimited like God"

Me: There are plenty of ways to measure time in a void. A computer can do it, and chances are, your watch could do it. Mass does not affect the passing of time in any huge way, like my opponent suggests it does.

===
8. If you say the moon is being pulled towards the sun by "gravity" then why when the Big Bang imploded did not the "gravity" given by mass bring in the parts moving away?

Me: The same reason gravity doesn't pull together the fragments of a bomb when said bomb goes off. The mass was moving away from the central point too fast to be pulled in by gravity.

===
9. If gravity exists then why did the Big Bang implode In the FIRST place?

Me: Not because of gravity. No one is claiming gravity was the cause of the explosion. As a matter of fact, we don't know the cause of the big bang. There simply isn't any data from which to reach a valid scientific conclusion at this time.

===
10. You can match Santas' sack or gifts and toys to the Big Bang.

Me: That doesn't even make sense, nor can we make conclusions about the big bang from this analogy. My opponent seriously needs to learn how analogies work.

===
11. "[...] This matches the Big Bang when it imploded it covered a distance supernaturaly as for gravity to take place, light needs to be slower than gravity (there is no time between "gravity" and the effect) so the Big Bang was a supernatrual event."

Me: NO. Light moves at a specific speed, and gravity gives things a certain ACCELERATION. They are two different things - it is improper to say that light is faster than gravity, or gravity is faster than light. Gravity does not have a speed, it causes a gradual change in speed over time. This means my opponent's statment makes no sense - "Light needs to be slower than gravity" is a nonsensical statement. Further, gravity's effect DOES move at the speed of light rather than instantly, a fact that we've been able to confirm through observation.

===
12. "So as santa dishes out the gifts around the world to little children in 12 hours or less. This acts like the Big Bang imploding, as the galaxies act like ground of presents and the presents as stars. This too proves no new stars are formed. [...] This also imples that we are God children and like toys God made us for His pleasure."

Me: This is yet another baseless analogy. My opponent says that this analogy proves that no new stars are formed, but it proves nothing - it is no more than a flawed comparison.
Further, we have OBSERVED stars forming.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It also doesn't prove anything about a God.

===
13. "As the sun implodes (Big Bang)"

Me: The big bang has NOTHING to do with either suns or imploding. No one ever said it was, except my opponent. And of course, as always, his theory is based wholely on him 'thinking,' not based off any observations, not based on any real data.

===
14. "So are you still not convist? I've used science in this one and logic linking to the Bible."

Me: No, you haven't.
My opponent has used cmplete nonsense that he himself just made up. None of his 'theories' are scientific, they are plain fabrications.

===
15. "Case closed."

Me: Indeed.

I'd like everyone to notice something. NONE of my opponent's 3rd round had anything to do with the topic. Thus, all my previous points still stand.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
256 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Same bandwagon that attacks all thinkers....
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
You know, he was loosing all 14 of his debates... all of a sudden he's winning 8 out of the 14, all in the past 2 days. Strange... nay?
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Yeah thank you people for voting.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
And strangely, all of the votes he got were from a whole bunch of "Not saying"s and two conservative christians.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Pro has more points than usual...
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
God is disappointed by you. Shame on you!
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
In the Bible in Genesis it says "Each kind of animal will only preduce its own kind." What are you talking about God wanted or knew that getting to us would take billions of years. You surly are a let down. God is disapointed with every human everyday and you are one of those reasons.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
You want the truth? THE UNIVERSE IS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Why do young earth creationist think they know things more than God himself? God knows that he created the universe in billions of years. Why, GS, do you call God a liar?
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
DUMMY? YOM MEANS AN AMOUNT OF TIME UNSPECIFIED which probably means billions of years.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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 sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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 bigg3r_trigg3r 8 years ago
bigg3r_trigg3r
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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 SixSigma 8 years ago
SixSigma
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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 pisatelq 8 years ago
pisatelq
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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 Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
GodSandsbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
GodSandsbeem0rTied
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