The Instigator
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Cogito-ergo-sum
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

God, as defined by the (Christian) Bible, is not real.

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...
Cogito-ergo-sum
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,531 times Debate No: 12333
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Well, I must start out by admitting that I only find intense joy in debating religion now a days. Politics is fun and all, and ethics and morality are ok by themselves, but there is nothing like a good ol' religious debate. Besides, everyone knows that they secretly love cliche debates. Anywho, without further ado---The plan.

I don't want Semantics about the resolution. You know what I mean. That's all about that.

Round 1 (this one) I will present this prologue and Aff Pro will present reasons for, (as pro has a burden of proof. It's not right to have to prove a negative without the affirmative going first!) Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguments. New ones are permitted in these rounds. Round 4 is the rebuttal. No new arguments please. And now I will present the clash needed to start off this debate.

1. CLASH

God, the Christian one, does not exist.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Pro

Thanks to Con for making this debate.

I am taking the role of Pro in that I stand for the 'Clash'. My opponent has the burden of proof as he has to affirm that the God of the Christian Bible exists. I as Pro do not have to affirm anything as it not proved that the God of the Christian Bible exists, merely that 'it' is believed to exist.

No semantics intended, Resolution understood.

Since we are in agreement about keeping semantics out of the debate, I want Con to affirm the existence of something as of yet unproven without begging the question by referring to the Bible. The Bible as is known, has been written by many men and translated from its original format many times. This has led to mistranslations, mispunctuations etc, ie the validity is not 100% for what is purported to be the word of God dictated to Man.

I look forward to my opponents Round 2 argument that the God of the Christian Bible exists.
Debate Round No. 1
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Please refer to the 'comments' section to understand what has happened in the first round. I am taking the role of Con, arguing against God not existing. This means that I believe God exists. Moving on to the body of me 'case'.

*Burden of Proof, for Dummies*

I realize that anyone who uses this site on a regular basis is not a dummy, but the subject of "Burden of Proof" is pivotal to the formation of my arguments. It is 100% necessary that it is understood, which is why I am so lovingly giving a nice, clear description of it. First of all, burden of proof in a nutshell means this: "When attempting to argue something, it is necessary that the Affirmative side has adequate proof of such thing. Otherwise the Negative side would be stuck attempting to prove a negative." This is one of the most common rules of any debate, and it is a necessary component to create a successful debate. For example, imagine a box. Now Pro affirms that there is an orange in the box. Con denies that there is an orange in that box. The burden of proof necessitates that Pro prove that the orange is in there, as opposed to Con proving there isn't. The Con's job then, would be to show why the Pro's proof is inadequate in showing that an orange is in that box.

*On to the argument*

Now here is a rather tricky situation we are in. It may seem that the Con is taking a Pro side, but this is simply because of preconceptions we have about the default setting of the statements like, "God exists." Obviously this can be a Pro statement. Also, someone could say that, "God does not exist." This is still a statement, and an obvious challenge, and is still considered to be a Pro statement. The Pro is AFFIRMING that no such entity of said 'God' exists. So when instigating such a challenge, it is still necessary that the Pro have proof of his claims.
Therefore, Pro must absolutely prove that there can in NO WAY be a God that is described in the Christian Bible. Even if there is an extremely minute chance, this leaves the possibility, and Aff does not meet the burden of proof, and loses the debate.

*So what did the opponent SAY????*

Well let's take a look at my opponent arguments affirming the non-existence of God.

1. The Bible might not be real, because multiple translations and such may make it fallible.

This is the ONLY argument made. He said the Bible *might* not be real. But this does leave the *possibility* of it being true, doesn't it? Pro, as according to his burden of proof, had to PROVE, 100% PROVE that God was not real. He has not PROVEN the non-existence of God in ANY WAY, and has not PROVED the Bible to be false, merely saying that it COULD be false.

Until my opponent does prove what he is holding to be true, it is necessary that the round go to the Con. How is it that the Con should clash with nothing? Just as a note, my opponent may state that the position he is in is 'unfair', but he and the voter must remember that it is HE who decided to accept this debate, not I. So when he plays the 'abuse' card, he should know that he only has himself to blame.

I look forward to my opponent's response to this debate, as I am quite interested in what he might say. Thank you.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Pro

Good day to Con, readers, debaters.

'Now Pro affirms that there is an orange in the box. Con denies that there is an orange in that box. The burden of proof necessitates that Pro prove that the orange is in there, as opposed to Con proving there isn't. The Con's job then, would be to show why the Pro's proof is inadequate in showing that an orange is in that box.' -

This is a nice example. Let us look at it closely to see that Con is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters and myself. 'Pro affirms that there is an orange in the box' - This comes down to who makes a claim first; Con created this debate and has subsequently created a double negative in his position making him Pro 'God of the Christian Bible exists' - This means, metaphorically as Con mentioned, that he is Pro and he is stating there is an orange in a box. Until this claim is made, Con (myself, Pro) can not make a claim against an orange in a box until I am aware that someone is stating that said orange in a box is there. Con's point refuted.

'The Pro is AFFIRMING that no such entity of said 'God' exists. So when instigating such a challenge, it is still necessary that the Pro have proof of his claims.'
'Therefore, Pro must absolutely prove that there can in NO WAY be a God that is described in the Christian Bible. Even if there is an extremely minute chance, this leaves the possibility, and Aff does not meet the burden of proof, and loses the debate.' -

See above refutation of Con's points re - the orange in a box metaphor. I am affirming that no such entity as the 'God of Christianity in the Bible' exists. This can only follow on as a product of causality due to my opponent making the claim that the 'God of Christianity in the Bible' exists.
I will endeavour to prove that the 'Christian God of the Bible' does not exist. In this debate though, as per Con's layout of the rounds, round 1 was for a set up and agreement of terms of debate and positions adopted. Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments to be put forward. No argument was presented by Con for the existence of God, Con's round nullified. Con's only point is that Con claims for esoteric knowledge being held back from people who subsequently (note -subsequently - you can not refute something if you don't know someone is claiming something extraordinary) disagree.

Con has argued that ' The burden of proof necessitates that Pro prove that the orange is in there ' - translate this to, Con (Mr_Jack_Nixon) is Pro that 'The Christian God of the Bible' exists. Proof rests with Pro (Con - Mr_Jack_Nixon)

'Well let's take a look at my opponent arguments affirming the non-existence of God.' -

As I mentioned above, I am sticking to Con's layout of the rounds. In the spirit of avoiding semantics and such, I make the request that Con resist begging the question by referring to Bible passages/quotes. As I mentioned also, the Bible is an old book, subject to translations from foreign languages in which the accuracy is no longer 100% as compared as the original scriptures - e.g. if a word cannot be translated the next best word will be used in its place. Grammar has evolved from the times of the original scriptures being written and as such, first, second, third person positions may be written from a different perspective. Con's point refuted.

I do not recognise my position to be unfair. Burden of proof lies with Con.

Proofs of the Christian God's non-existence.

Omnipresent - God is everywhere = God is everything. Self-refuting as God could not have been self-creating. Presupposes that God would have needed to be something before God was recognised as God - Who created the creator, who designed the designer etc - refuted.

Omnipotent - Ockham's razor. As above Omnipresent argument, the presupposition that God was something else before God became God means that God's original form was more powerful than the incarnation of God we now have - God's former self either reduced in power to take a lower form, or, created an inferior being - refuted

Omniscient - Omnipotence would make God able to create an unanswerable question. This refutes the ability to know everything as, why would God not know the answer the to the unanswerable question that God can make? - Refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response, and I look forward to the remainder of this round and the next that are soon to come. I will dive right in.

'Let us look at it closely to see that Con is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters and myself.'

Look closely at what my opponent is stating here. He is saying that I *really* have the role of Pro, because I am shooting for a positive. But, as I previously stated (and as my opponent has not understood), I am shooting for a positive, but I AM NOT AFFIRMING that the positive is true. I am opposing what the Pro affirms. The Pro (as what pro means) has a job to AFFIRM the resolution, which he is trying to get out of. While this is a tricky case, do not think I have tricked you as Pro tries to make it seem. He WILLINGLY accepted this debate, and claimed explicitly that he understood the rules and meaning of it. So his difficult task is only his own fault as he accepted this debate, not I. He has instigated it, and it is his *responsibility* to show affirm the resolution, that God ABSOLUTELY does not exist.

His second point was regarding the first, which I have just proved inaccurate and incorrect. So now we are left with a situation that the Pro must prove that God can not under any circumstances exist.

'Accuracy is no longer 100% what is was'

This, as I stated, is quite possibly, and probably true. Translations will change words, but will it necessarily change the ideas represented. Let's take a look at an example:

ORIGINAL: Jesus walked through the meadow, took an apple from the tree, and ate it. He was glad that it was filling.

TRANSLATED: Jesus strolled through the field, took some berries from a bush, and ate them. He was happy it filled him.

Now if you look at the actual words, they are VERY different. So the careless observer might come along and say that it is false, because of the change. But the studious reader will notice that, though the words are different, they mean the exact same thing. Jesus ate, and he was satiated. While the words were different, the idea behind the words went unchanged. So the claim that the words are not accurate does not neccesitate that he meaning of the words is not accurate.

Secondly, even if the idea is different, who's to say that it doesn't affirm the existence of God. It may portray some evil, baby killing God (imagine that) but nevertheless it still portrays the Christian God. So this point made by the Pro is hardly of consequence, and certainly does not prove God faulty.

*PROOFS OF GOD'S NON-EXISTENCE*

*Omnipresent*

I'm not sure what this attack is saying. Perhaps he means that if God envelops all, then there is no room to make a creation. Now, there is a difference between being everyWHERE and being everyTHING. Being everywhere can mean a knowledge of all existing events, while not necessarily being them. So I can see a whole room on camera, and be (partially) omni-present, without actually being the room itself. This argument is flawed, and does not refute God.

Also, I noticed the creator's creator argument. This is simple, it is only logical that at one point there was an uncaused cause, else where did everything come from? It only makes sense that God is this cause, uncaused.

*Omnipotent*

I believe I have refuted this in the last argument. But just as a clarification to my opponent, I understood what you meant by this argument. But I would like you to know that Ockham's razor does not mean what you portrayed it as. Ockham's razor says that "Entities should not me multiplied unecessarily". In laymen terms, it means that you shouldn't pick a more complicated reason if a simpler one already exists.

*Omniscient*

What you have shown is what SEEMS to be a logical incompatibility. There is, however, a simple answer. That God is currently omnipotent, but he has the ability (as omnipotence would show) to take away his own abilities. So if God was to make such a 'question', then he would be destroying his ability to be omniscient and omnipotent. So a smart God, (perhaps all knowing?) would surely not destroy all of his power, simply because he could.

I believe I have completely shown my opponent's points to be false. I have provided all of the clash POSSIBLE, and I certainly look forward to the next round with this opponent. Thank you.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Pro

Good day Con, readers and voters.

Thanks to Con for a quick response, it is greatly appreciated.

This have gone downhill in to the realms of semantics, I want to go back to the summit. To clarify, Yes, given the nature of the resolution and positions we are in, I am in the affirmative that the 'God of the Christian Bible' does not exist - however, some clarifications:
'has a job to AFFIRM the resolution, which he is trying to get out of.' - I have offered argument against God's existence, Con has offered none for God's Existence.
'So his difficult task is only his own fault as he accepted this debate, not I.' - See my round 2, I have made no complaints, Con is making whole cloth fabrications of what I am to have said and done in regards to my own position.
'He has instigated it,' - It looks to me as though my posts appear after yours. You take the first turn in each round as you are the instigator.
Con is shifting all matters of actual debate because in hindsight he has realised he made a booboo in choosing whether to be Con or Pro.

Bible Validity.
I have not used the Bible as a reason against God, as Con still has some actual debate to bring forth, I merely he asked (and he agreed - 'This, as I stated, is quite possibly, and probably true.') that he refrain from using it due to it's nature of being known to not be as accurate as it once was in relation to the original scriptures.
Please leave it at that, Con, your point in a non sequitur.

Omnipresent
Everywhere = Everything - If you are everywhere, you occupy all spaces and permeate all things, making you everything. Con's Point refuted.
'So I can see a whole room on camera, and be (partially) omni-present' - You are not even partially omnipresent, your are just bearing witness to a room you do not occupy.
Con's attempted refutation of my 'Creator's creator' arguments can be justified thusly - http://www.debate.org...
This link will take you to a debate where Con has (it seems history repeats itself) adopted the wrong position but argued from the other side (To which his opponent agreed, though did note the flaw in the resolution and his position)

Though I used Ockham's Razor against Omnipotence, Con used it prior against Omnipresence.
As per Con for further reading.
'Occam's Razor dictates: "Do not multiply entities" This means that when given a situation, the simplest answer is most likely the answer. So it is much more likely that choice (1) is the answer as it is simplest. The extra medium of some God is ridiculous, as no evidence is for it.'

I would like Con to stick to his own words 'I would also like to point out that must because my opponent's asserts something as fact, does make it fact without logical or evidential backup.' - So prove the God of the Christian Bible exists.

Omnipotent
Ockham's Razor still stands - ' In laymen terms, it means that you shouldn't pick a more complicated reason if a simpler one already exists.' Even from two sides of theistic argument this refutes itself.
To extrapolate your point further - 1. God is infinitely powerful Vs 2. God is powerful enough. Using Ockham's Razor which one do you choose?

As per Con for further reading -
'The God of the Bible is supposed to be omnipotent (all powerful). An all powerful God can do anything. This creates an inherent paradox. For example, can God create a stone He can't lift. If he can't create the stone, he is not omnipotent. If He can create the stone, he won't be able to lift it, and is not omnipotent. The idea of omnipotence is impossible, therefore God is impossible.'

Omniscient
Bravo to Con for trying to be dastardly :P
You concede in this point that God would know he can ruin himself. Thanks. Con's point refuted, my argument still stands.

As per Con for further reading -
'The God of the Bible is said to have free will and be all knowing. An all knowing God would know the future. This would mean he would know His own future actions. Because he knows His actions, they are determined and He can't change them. So he is a slave bound by His own omniscience.'

My points still stand, Resolution proved, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr_Jack_Nixon

Con

Hello. This has been an exciting debate so far, and now I will rebut, and hope that my arguments hold Pro's final rebuttal. I thank Pro for his timely response, and we shall begin.

'I have offered argument against God's existence, Con has offered none for God's existence'

As stated, I am Con. My job is to refute the points you make. If I can refute your points, or show that you are wrong, I win by default, however odd it may seem in this case. The Pro made a 'booboo' so to speak, when he accepted the challenge of having to prove a negative. As long as I show he hasn't proven that negative, the round will go to me. This is all that was meant by the Burden of proof argument, and for the sake of not repeating the same thing I have before, I will leave it to the voters to decide if that point is legitimate.

Bible Validity

Alright, as my opponent agreed, we will let this 'be'.

Omnipresent

I will break this up into two points.

Alright, my previous argument did not seem to hold scrutiny, so I will present a different twist. That twist is that God can be everything, and yet not be everything. Basically, that infinity is not comprehensible, because of flaws within the ability to rationalize it. For example. There are an infinite amount of positive numbers, and an infinite amount of negative numbers. But, it's only logical that there are more numbers period, then only positive numbers. So you see, infinity can not be brought up in this argument because of it's characteristic of being illogical in principle.

Creator's Creator

I would like to point out, that in the debate linked I am on the right side. My intent of this debate was to be on Con, I merely turned the resolution inside out. I just didn't want the Pro having false preconceptions. Anyway, I wish I could see you, so I could slap you. Using my own arguments from a different debate against myself: That's just wrong. Anywho, you failed to explain what the evidence you proposed means. You say that your evidence will justify your claim, but you do not say how. Providing evidence, and not explaining it, is a big debate no no. So because you did not interpret it, I have to do that myself. I believe your words were: "Con's refutation can be justified thusly - (link)" So does he mean that my arguments can be justified to be true by following this link? I followed the link, and found a whole lot of stuff saying that God does exist. Because my opponent did not interpret the evidence he provided, then the interpretation I provided must go. And I have interpreted as not only proving my argument correct, but showing Jesus to be 100% true.

A Side Note

Now as you know, I stated no new arguments in round 4. And lucky me, my opponent presented all of my arguments for me, in the evidence that he provided. So carry over all argument that the Pro made in the evidence provided, as they are now my attacks as well. It is now pro's responsibility to refute those attacks as well as show his attacks full proof.

"Assertions to no make fact. So prove it."

Yes Pro, I did say that. But that's because I was Con, and my opponent was Pro. It was his job to PROVE what he said, and not assert it. You can't stick this to me,because I am not pro. You are, therefore you have an obligation to PROVE that there can in no way be the God mentioned.

"This extra medium of god is ridiculous"

Notice that in Ockham's Razor, it says the simplest is 'most likely' the true choice. It does NOT, however, say that it is always the truth. Pro has used a flawed device, as it does not prove god untrue, he only shows it's unlikely. Maybe Pro doesn't understand that he must prove this negative 110% true because of the position he is in. Maybes and most likelys simply don't cut it in the realm of proof.

Omnipotent

Notice, voters, that the opponent gave two possibilities. Both of them, to work, would necessitate the existence of God. So, according to my opponent, God must exist. Regarding the stone, this is the same as the next argument.

Omniscient

Tell me, how does this refute the point? God can ruin himself, but he doesn't, so he can still be all knowing, all powerful, and all present. This doesn't refute my point at all. Please explain the connection, because right now, you don't have one.

Ok, here is a little problem. You have created an inherent paradox, in order to trick me, and all of the voters. I only just realized it myself. You are using me, to refute me. But if I am wrong, then I can't be worthy of proving myself wrong, which means I'm right, and the cycle continues. The Pro's evidence is flawed and should not be used, because of the way he presented it. In laymen terms : The pro says that I am right, to prove I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, then I can't be right. If there was never something right, then how on earth was I proved wrong?

You see, my opponent accepted a debate, and then realized he had an impossible task ahead of him: Proving a negative. He has used many ruses to try and trick you, and has attempted to undermine the very core rules that debate stands on. Don't allow my opponent to play you like a fool, and puppet you into being comforted by false pretenses, baseless illusions, and incoherent arguments that my opponent relies on. Vote Con. Thank you.
Cogito-ergo-sum

Pro

Good day to Con, readers and debaters.

As per Con this round follows thusly -
'Round 4 is the rebuttal. No new arguments please.'

'So you see, infinity can not be brought up in this argument because of it's characteristic of being illogical in principle.'

This is self refuting of Con's defence of my assertions re - God of the Christian Bible. On all 3 points I have raised an infinite quality/quantity of 'X' is the attribute Christian's give to God.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...

All my points remain, Con has failed as he has now acceded to a finite God, which is not what Christian doctrine dictates God to be.

That is all I have to rebut regarding the points I have raised in this debate.

A few minor points for rebuttal.

' I believe your words were: "Con's refutation can be justified thusly - (link)"' - Wrong, do not misquote, it is lazy, especially when the information is directly above. Actual Quote -
'Con's attempted refutation of my 'Creator's creator' arguments can be justified thusly '

Contradictory Point -
'Now as you know, I stated no new arguments in round 4. And lucky me, my opponent presented all of my arguments for me, in the evidence that he provided. So carry over all argument that the Pro made in the evidence provided, as they are now my attacks as well. It is now pro's responsibility to refute those attacks as well as show his attacks full proof.'
You claim you make no new arguments, but you'd like to state now in round 4, that you'll have all of the arguments some other guy makes in another debate? (Who did offer up his own evidences for God's existence, please note this) I have no refutations to make to someone else's arguments in another debate, who, regardless of your not understanding which position to choose in a debate in regards to the resolution, was also Pro with a similar Subject matter, please make sense!

'Notice that in Ockham's Razor, it says the simplest is 'most likely' the true choice. It does NOT, however, say that it is always the truth. Pro has used a flawed device, as it does not prove god untrue, he only shows it's unlikely. Maybe Pro doesn't understand that he must prove this negative 110% true because of the position he is in. Maybes and most likelys simply don't cut it in the realm of proof.'
Unlikelihood in a sublime perfect being refutes that it can be sublime and perfect, point remains.

'Tell me, how does this refute the point? God can ruin himself, but he doesn't, so he can still be all knowing, all powerful, and all present. This doesn't refute my point at all. Please explain the connection, because right now, you don't have one.'
What room is there for doubt and possibility of God ruining himself in a sublime perfect creator? This would not occur if the tenets of Christian doctrine held true, it would be impossible to point out a flaw in something, which in fact is self decreeing to be perfect?

'As per Con for further reading.'
Those are the words I wrote. I did not use Con's arguments from a previous debate as my own, only to show that these are the opinions he wanted to put across if I adopted the position in this debate that he would have wanted me to. The point of using these quotes was also to illustrate the inherent flaw in condemning one person for saying something similar to yourself, this is not plagiarism; these terms and methods of debate are used frequently in religious discourse.

To end I would to quote Con, once more - 'I suppose I will go against my very grain as a person and argue for the existence of God.'

Vote which way you think you should.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
There wasn't much I could do with that one. I messed up from the start with the definition.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Thanks, Kinesis.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
RFD = Reason for decision. An explanation of the vote.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Please don't unleash any of it upon myself but, what is RFD?
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
It was simply an RFD. I glorified it. XD. I was letting out my NERDRAGE!
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Please write it again Atheism. I am intrigued.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
OI! WHERE DID MY COMMENT GO!? It was nicely written, too. NOW IT'S GONE!
It was so long, and detailed. And now its gone. -Cry-
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Haha. Using me against me? Well I feel important but that's just not right.
Posted by Mr_Jack_Nixon 6 years ago
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Silly, silly me. I have made a double negative. The resolution was what my original stance was. When I posted my side I put Con because I was against the idea of God. ...%^&*.... Oh well. I suppose I will go against my very grain as a person and argue for the existence of God. I do ask that the voters ignore my *original* argument creating clash, and only focus on the arguments made in the rounds 1.5, on to 4. Sorry opponent, and thank you.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
You're Con, yet you argue God does not exist.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
Mr_Jack_NixonCogito-ergo-sumTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Mr_Jack_NixonCogito-ergo-sumTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Mr_Jack_NixonCogito-ergo-sumTied
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