The Instigator
borisjavier
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Network
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Christian Faith Against Islam

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,484 times Debate No: 68026
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

borisjavier

Con

Islam has so many historical and doctrinal mistakes that it should be considered as a fake religion. The world just cannot afford to live with a hostile neighbor which is persistently trying to force everyone else to believe in his credo with acts like assassinations, rape, sexual slavery, kidnapping and terror. We as Christians should preach our faith to every creature, but the decision of becoming a believer in Jesus comes to everyone before G-d. For us Christians, there is no reason to judge a person for his faith but rather than that we show love, care and the power of the Holy Spirit in order to make them really believers.
Network

Pro

The fact that there are terrorists claiming to be muslims doesn't change anything on the prophethood of Muhammad, Islam's funder. If Islam is true, banning it is a sin. Now since the question is directed towards Christians, we will have to examine the Muslim faith : is it of God, or was Muhammad a false prophet? Since the question concerns Christians and Muslims, the debate can only be done on the assumption that God exists, so we may reject this third option. We are left with a dichotomy.

The Apostle John gives clear directives as to how to recognize false prophets:
1 John 4:1-3: " Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. "
From this we can verify the authenticity of prophets. Those that attest that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh attest that he is the Word of God. The question, then, is whether Muhammad attested it, or not?

There are three sources from which we can know the teachings of Muhammad: the Quran, the Hadiths, and his letters. Muslims only recognize the first two, but the letters of Muhammad to kings appear to be authentic (and many Hadiths attest to their early existence, if not authenticity).

Due to the nature of the Hadiths, and the assumption held by many (even among some Muslim scholars) that the Quran has been edited (The Apology of Al-Kindy is an early assertion of this belief), the most trustworthy source of knowledge on Islam has to be the letters, so what do they say on Jesus?

Here is Muhammad's letter to the King of Ethiopia:
" In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful: From Muhammad the Prophet of Islam to the Negus, the king of Ethiopia: peace be on you, I thank God for you, The God, [out of which there is no god], the King, the Holy, the Guardian, and I witness that Jesus, the son of Mary is the Spirit (ruh) of God and His Word. The word he gave to the pure and believer Mary, and from this word she gave birth to Jesus. God made Jesus from his Spirit (ruh) just as he made Adam from his hand. I invite you and your soldiers to believe the God the Almighty. I wrote and advised you, so accept my advise. Peace upon those who follow the right way. "
Not only does Muhammad recognizes Jesus as the Word of God, but he makes it clear that Jesus's birth is unlike that of Adam. God made Jesus from his Spirit, which means that Jesus was begotten from the Holy Spirit. Unlike Adam, who was a body of clay filled with the breath of life (Genesis 2:7), Jesus was a spiritual entity (1 Corinthians 15:46). By the criteria of John, the author of the letter has to be a person of God. If Muhamma wrote the letter as supposed, this must mean he was a prophet.
Debate Round No. 1
borisjavier

Con

My main objective for this debate is to demonstrate that Islam is fake. It is logic, that if a religion is but deception, its founder should be false too. So let's examine Muhammad as prophet to see if there is credibility in his teachings:

The basic averment of Islam about the prophet Muhammad is: "We have a superior revelation, redemption and Salvation than that from Prophet Jesus-Christ", which is obscene for Christians but also nonsense for muslims if they are to seek the truth honestly. There is no superior revelation of God than God himself incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ, this is a Central point in Christian apologetics. Paul, foreseeing the danger of blasphemers wrote full stop to the Revelation in his letter to Galatians:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8-9

The Quran says:

Sura 10:94-95 So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters. And never be of those who deny the signs [revelations] of Allah and [thus] be among the losers.

This referred to ancient prophets of the OT (The Jewish Tanaj) and apostles of the NT (The Gospel). Apparently Muhammad did not follow the commandment nor he did understand the Revelation, because for some reason he denies the Death and Resurrection, foretold in the Tanaj (Isaiah 53:3-6; Zech 12:10; Psalm 16:8-11; Is 25:8) and declared in the whole NT:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS FROM THE DEAD, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 1Pe 1:3-4

Nonetheless, Islam asserts that Jesus did not die on the cross as it was preached for centuries in the testimony:

Sura 4:157-158 And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

This is a contradiction to the Scriptures given by God (Tanaj and Gospel) -according to the Quran- and to the Quran itself since purportedly Allah warned the prophet to be a believer -not a doubter- of the Scriptures. Therefore, the Quran is a fake revelation or nothing more than the artifice of a man. Hence, the founder of Islam, Muhammad is NOT a prophet from G-d.
Network

Pro

In face of Con's assertions, it would be important to note that the Quran is not a fully consistent narrative, but it gives credence to the Christian view on Jesus in some places and oppose it in others. For example, Surah 2:62, 3:45, 3:55*, 4:171*, 5:117* and 19:30-34 make statements that seem to affirm the Christian view on Jesus (although the verses with a star are very often edited by translators trying to change their meaning), while Surah 3:47, 3:59, 4:157, 9:30, 19:35 seemingly contradict these claims (Surah 3:47, 3:59, 9:30 and 19:35 being in all likelihood not attributable to Muhammad, while Surah 4:157 has an ambiguous meaning that was further distorted by translators).

2:62 states that Jews and Christians will be saved by their Lord, but anyone familiar with Christianity knows that the Lord of a Christian is none other than Jesus Christ himself. And the Jews themselves recognize that the Messiah is or will be their Lord (see Matthew 22:42-45). At least one translation tried to "correct" the meaning of the surah, but most would agree with it.

Surah 3:45, 4:171 and 19:34 all identify Jesus as the Word of God (19:34 says the Word of Truth, but this is in accordance with John's view on the Logos) ; Surah 3:45 even makes clear that the Word is named Jesus, not that Jesus is born "from" the Word (as in Surah 3:59) ; 4:171 adds that Jesus is the Spirit of God (translators have tried to change it to Spirit from God, Spirit created by God, or to change Spirit for Soul in the text, but the Arabic text does not suggest it is created, and Spirit and Soul are different (see Genesis 2:7)). The end of 4:171 is strickingly similar to 19:35 and can thereby be discounted.

3:55 and 5:117 put the death of Jesus in the past (this is suppressed in many translations), while 4:157 does not actually deny it. The exact Surah is as follow : " They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam, the Rasool of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus). " The rebuked statement is that the Jews murdered Jesus, not that Jesus died. From Luke 23:46 we can conclude that it was Jesus who decided the moment of his death - not the Jews. There is reason to believe the Quran was opposing Jews who would boast "we killed Jesus" as a way to deny his Messianism and Lordship, not those who would merely make the statement "Jesus died", because he decided when to die.

The Quran even make indirect statements about the divinity of Jesus : Surah 3:50 says Jesus ordered the submission of people to himself, but 3:79 states that no human prophet would order obedience to himself rather than God. This is, of course, because Jesus is God.

I don't have the space to analyze 19:30-33, but I did in comments.
Debate Round No. 2
borisjavier

Con

The center of this debate is “Islam is fake”. But I cannot find a single reasonable argument against my affirmation. I find in your counter-arguments support for the fact that Islam is a false religion. I will expose in a comment the simple reason that debunks your argument that Islam considers Jesus as divine, Son of God and the Word of God, Creator of the Universe. But for now, this is my third argument to affirm that effectively Islam is a false religion:

Islam as religion was born circa 610-630 a.D., that means 600 years after the birth of the Church of Christ and almost two thousand years after the law of Moses. At that time: Jews and Christian communities were very respected and flourishing in Arabia. Muhammad took certain teachings from these two sister religions: the Monotheism, the belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Scriptures, then he gave it a different hue, let's say, a version for Arabs that would then "conquer" the entire world -by the word or by the sword-. We can readily assert that the Quran is not a book of revelation from God but a human artifice -in the best of cases- or a demonic inspiration supported by three reasons:

A. There is no new message or revelation. Every acknowledged prophet in the OT until John the Baptist brought a "new" and "seasonable" message from God, but the Quran only comprises comments -some of them absurd- purportedly from G-d (Allah) to a man about the Scriptures and apocryphal traditions.

B. Salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). The Bible tells us the history of Salvation of human kind. God chose a lineage and brought the Salvation through Jesus Christ -the son of David, the son of Abraham-. Ishmael, son of Abram -not yet Abraham-, forefather of the Arab people went out of the line of Blessing just as Esau, Zarah and many others. So why would the Lord bring a "new revelation" -if any further revelation required- through a non-Jew, non-Christian?

C. Islam absolutely contradicts the Revelation of Jesus Christ: He freed us from the Law (Moses Law). Although the law is absolutely necessary to worship G-d in Truth, He knows our weakness and gives us The Holy Spirit to be in us, with us and above us to help us accomplish the law in truth and love.

But the fruit of the Spirit is Love Gal 5:22

Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Rom 13:10

Jesus was against the Pharisees by two main reasons: they sat in Moses' seat and filled it with human traditions, rituals and rules that were not from God. They bound heavy burdens to people and then condemned them -even though they didn't observe Moses' law-. And that is exactly what Islam is: phrases purportedly told to Muhammad, to see whom are believers and whom are not, and whom they would take as enemies and even kill. The Sharia Law -Islamic legal branch- is nothing but a swarm of human rituals and rules enslaving human beings by telling them "Submission to Allah", while they are from men, which is nonsense.
Network

Pro

Con assumes that Islam was violent from the beginning, but this is contestable. The Muslim calendar began when Muhammad and his followers were expelled from Mecca and took refuge in the city of Medina. From there, the early Mulims were under constant siege from Middle Eastern armies. The Muslim army spared still living enemies at the end of battles, which was very different from what other armies used to do at that time period. Some of those who were spared joined the followers of Muhammad, and it is this mercy that led to the rapid rise of Islam.

Muhammad and his army later signed a peace treaty with pagans and returned to Mecca. The short battle that took place here was defensive, because Muslims had the right to come to Mecca. Those that surrendered were spared, while those that did not attack Muslims in the first place were left alone.

Under Muslim occupation, those of other faiths were well treated. There was no compulsion in religion (Surah 2:256), and people of any faith were welcome to live among the Muslims as long as they paid their taxes (the Zakat for the Muslims, and the Jizya for people of other faiths) and followed other basic rules. Muhammad and his successors were in the right to ask these things because they were civil authorities as well as religious (unity of civil and religious authority is seen everywhere. Even France has some control over what the Catholic Church do despite its supposed laicity. And civil authorities have the right to ask taxs, said Hobbes). In fact, throughout the Middle Age, Jews were better treated by Muslims than by Catholics. At least they weren't accused of eating babies. It is only in the last century that the major churches stopped being so antisemitic (Protestant Churches as much as the others. Martin Luther was a major antisemite even during his time). Even Christians with beliefs such as Monophysitism or Nestorianism (both of which were condemned by the Catholic Church as heresies) were possibly better in the lands of Muslims than in the lands of Catholics, because Catholics were quick to persecute heretics. Waraka ibn Nawfal is reportedly an unconverted Nestorian Christian who was counted amongst Muhammad's followers (he also allegedly attested to Muhammad's orthodoxy on matter of faith, but this rumor could be based on false Hadiths. If true, this would give support to my conjecture that Muhammad himself agreed with the Gospels).

There is evidence that Muslims persecuted Christians for no apparent reason, but I didn't find record of it until the 11th century, long after Muhammad's death. Even then, not all Muslims would agree with it. Ibadi (members of the 3rd most important school of Islam) are said to have been open to Christians and Jews in all time periods, and still are today, while the current terrorist attack made by Muslims do not have the approval of the Muslim community - even the attack on Charlie Hebdo was criticized by (visibly Muslim) caricaturists in Muslim countries.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by borisjavier 2 years ago
borisjavier
Can you believe it? Three voters, three of them did not seem to understand the point of this debate. The point is this: Islam is fake. And it is easy to prove with the exposed arguments. If Islam takes as foundation the truth of the Scriptures (Tanaj and Gospel) brought by Allah -according to the Quran-, then why it denies them both? Is there any Gospel apart from the Gospel revealed in the NT? Did Muhammad have a superior revelation than Jesus? If so, why Jesus is center figure in the Quran? Even more than the prophet himself. No. According to the evidence, Muhammad took information about Jesus from the Tanaj and from the NT and arranged it all in a new doctrine which at the end has no sense.
Posted by borisjavier 2 years ago
borisjavier
Exactly. As Wiki-Islam states in fact the word Assassin has its Arabic roots in the fact that muslim killers used to drug (with Hashish) themselves in order to perpetrate their violent acts: Hash-Hashins. Lewis, Bernard (1967), The Assassins: a Radical Sect of Islam, pp 30-31, Oxford University Press.
Posted by Network 2 years ago
Network
Sorry, I assumed that if I was able to prove Islam was " not so violent " in the beginning, the existence of non-violent Muslims would be self-evident. You did make the claim that Islam was violent, most notably in the first round.

So much for a non-violent Islam. Wiki-Islam gives a pretty interesting list that seems to prove it doesn't exist.
Posted by borisjavier 2 years ago
borisjavier
Thanks, you based your last argument in a supposed assumption by me. I did not centered my arguments in the fact that Islam is violent but rather in the falshood of his doctrine. And I didn't mentioned it has been violent from the beginning. But now that you touch it, I have evidence that the modern radical terrorists of Islam are not quite different from Muhammad, here are some of his acts documented in this http://wikiislam.net...:

Ordered assassination 120-year-old Abu Afak (Ibn-Sa"d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, vol. 2, Trans. S. Moinul, p. 31), Ka"b ibn al-Ashraf (Bukhari 5.59.369; Muslim 19.4436),
Abu Rafi Salaam (Bukhari 5.59.371; 4.52.264)
Massacre of the tribe of Banu Qurayza, the last Jewish tribe in Medina, 627 AD. 800-900 men -all of them- of the tribe were beheaded in cold blood (al-Ahzab 33: 26; Bukhari 4.52.280)
Torture of Kinana ibn-Rabi, the treasurer of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir in order to get information on the location of the tribe"s treasure. Kinana was brutally tortured with fire until he was nearly dead. Then he was beheaded. He had a beautiful wife called Safiyya bint Huyai whose father and brothers Muhammad had killed. Muhammad took her for himself, and forced her to marry him completely disregarding her feelings about her murdered father, brothers and husband (Bukhari 1.8.367; 5.59.522; Muslim 8.3329) According to Kitab Futuh al-Buldan of Baladhuri (ninth century), after the death of Muhammad, Safiyya admitted that: of all men, she hated the prophet the most"for he killed her husband, brothers and father, before raping her. He also took Rayhanah bint Amr for a concubine after murdering all the men of her family in the massacre of Banu Qurayza completely disregarding her feelings. Those women hated Muhammad for killing the men of their families. He raped them.
Posted by Network 2 years ago
Network
Wow... I finished to write my third round of argument in the last 5 seconds, sorry if you think it ends abruptly. This was a tough debate, you were a challenging opponent. I'd like to know who wins this, because I have no idea.
Posted by borisjavier 2 years ago
borisjavier
Muslims killing others is just one of the consequences of the fake religion, but not the only one as I stated in all previous arguments. About the said that "faith has no grounds to condemn another faith", let's be clear, Faith is a term that has a specific definition, the Bible says Faith is a substance of things hoped for (Heb 11:1) and it is from God as a gift (1Co_12:9). We believe, we have conviction and the evidence of what the Lord gives us is what we call "Faith". There is one faith and there is no other. Faith comes from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus (Jn 14:26). How, then someone who does not believe in Jesus can have the Faith from God?
Let's call things by its name, you are talking about creeds, then the phrase would be "a creed has no grounds to condemn another creed" which seems to have more sense. However, if a "creed" tells its followers to kill people outside the creed, then should we remain silent about the falsehood of that creed? In this case, are Christians forbidden to condemn the harmful behavior of Islam followers? I don't think so. And despite the fact that some people like it or not, Judeo-Christian principles have been instrumental to conceive our (western) legal systems. So if yesterday's attackers were terminated by police force in Paris, it was because of the arm of the law is there by God to condemn all those transgressors, as it is written:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Rom 13:4
Posted by borisjavier 2 years ago
borisjavier
You suggest that "real" Islam supports the Divinity of Jesus since some verses in the Quran say that Jesus is the Word of God. But those verses are ambiguous about Jesus, some saying He is "a word from Allah", some "the word of Allah"... but even if we were to believe that Islam really supports the divinity of Christ as the One and Only begotten Son of God then why Muhammad gives himself a superior authority than that of His creator Jesus?

The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. Mat 10:24

The truth is that for Islam and Muhammad, Jesus is just a prophet like others before Him:

5:75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

3:84 Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him."

So your point lacks of coherence with what real Islam teaches about Jesus Christ, which is entirely different than the revealed Jesus in the Whole NT and a perversion of the Gospel according to Paul.
Posted by Network 2 years ago
Network
I intent to make my 3rd round different from rounds 1 and 2. I'll try to prove the existence of moderate Islam, instead of the orthodoxy of Muhammad.
Posted by Network 2 years ago
Network
On surah 19:30-34 :
v30 is standard - Jesus is a prophet.
v31 states that Jesus had to do prayers and zakah (charity) as long as he lives. There is no need to pray in Heaven, because you are in God's presence, nor is there any poor to give money to (but of riches there is). This was a special obligation of Jesus, and claiming he ascended alive to Heaven before dying would be claiming he wasn't following an obligation that was explicitely ordered of him to God. But Jesus does not sin (Hebrews 4:15, Surah 19:19), thus he cannot break an oath, and he had to follow his obligations until his death. The only acceptable conclusion is that he did, indeed, die, and there is no need to claim he did anywhere but on the Cross.
v32 says Jesus was thankful to God for not being a wretched tyrant. But being a tyrant implies both power and evil. We know Jesus has no evil, so what would be the point of saying he isn't a wretched tyrant, if he didn't have power (and so neither power nor evil - none what it takes to be a tyrant)? We have to assume this verse is in accordance with the Lordship of Jesus.
v33 talks about the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but the chronology apparently not obvious to translators. It is apparently the same tense that is used in 19:15, which is about the death of John the Baptist. I do not know Arabic well enough, but if one verse is to be understood in the past (to mean that John has died), then the other is probably, also, in the past.
v34 identifies Jesus as the Word of Truth and state that he is source of dispute among " they ", of which we should probably understand Christians, Jews, and Muslims - because these are the ones that disagree on Jesus.

As I mentioned earlier, v35 is probably an insertion by another author, because immediately after identifying Jesus as the Word, it tries to explain that Jesus is not the Son of God, with a vocabulary that reminds both Surah 3:59 and the end of 4:171, which leads me to be believe they're fals
Posted by Network 2 years ago
Network
This only applies if :
1- The believer doesn't examine the morality of his faith.
2- The believer doesn't question the knowledge on which he bases his faith.
3- The believer did not actually receive a personal revelation from God.

Point 1 assumes a person has a morality outside of his religion. From Paul's epistles I have concluded that something is good when it contributes to a more general good (of the Church and of the State), or when it contributes to me without hurting the well-being of others. The law is not intrinsically good ; it is when it leads to a common good, and it is useless when it doesn't. Murder goes against the general good and so is to be avoided, but it is in the best interest of my comrades if I propagate the Gospel, because I am convinced that it leads people to be good and that they'll get rewarded for it. This objective morality (or so I would call it) is not present in those that commit murders or acts of terrorism, because they are acting against the interests of the State of which they are members.

On 2, I have examined the texts on which I base my beliefs and I found many reasons to trust the New Testament, but little to trust mainstream Islam - especially because so many people had the opportunity - and good reasons - to change the things on which Islam was based, while the same does not apply to the New Testament (parts of the Old Testament show signs of editing, but they are not the theologically relevant ones, unlike Islam where most of their theology is based on dubious traditions). For this I think many Muslims (especially those that engage in terrorist acts) show great naivety in their religion.

As for 3, I don't think any terrorist leader actually received revelations from God - and very few would even claim it. If they are unable to back up their claim, or if they oppose the most reliable parts of Scripture, they can't be trusted. If a terrorist leader was indeed a prophet, he would have to explain his ways in light
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
borisjavierNetworkTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I can't give this debate to either debater. Both try and prove the truth of their religious by appealing to their religious text. But how does that prove it is true. If you wish to prove a book true, the truth of the book lies outside the book, not in it. Neither debater ever goes outside their own text to demonstrate it is true. This debate boiled down to "my religious text says this." "well my religious text say this." Truths are discovered not asserted. Debate is a tie.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
borisjavierNetworkTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side sufficiently proved that Christianity or Islam is better than the other, so no points are granted to either side. Pro could have instead argued that Islam is just as good as Christianity, but he didnt go that route.
Vote Placed by Beagle_hugs 2 years ago
Beagle_hugs
borisjavierNetworkTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither advocate expresses a position that is convincing unless the reader holds one faith or the other. The only one who lost was me, for actually reading this.