The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

God is Dead

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 99165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




I'd like to have a civil, evidence-based debate with someone who really believes in the Abrahamic / Judeo-Christian God. The opponent must agree to the following format and rules:
R1: Acceptance Round, where the opponent states their religious persuasion for clarity.
R2: Opening Remarks.
R3: Pro Question and Answer Round, where Pro asks as many questions as they want, and Con answers all accordingly.
R4: Con Question and Answer Round, where Con asks as many questions as they want, and Pro answers all accordingly.
R5: Closing Remarks

--The definition of God for the purposes of this debate will be the following: An all powerful, all knowing, personal force of love that is responsible for the creation of the world and humanity, and has revealed itself to humanity in the form of a Holy Text or Holy Prophet. As stated above, please state your religion to clarify (Muslim, Catholic, etc. No deist gods allowed, as these are impossible to verify).
--The debate must remain civil at all times, with no character attacks or name-calling.
--Any trolling will result in termination of the debate.

I look forward to the challenge!


I accept. I thank my opponent for instigating this debate.
About myself:
I'm an Evangelical Protestant Christian. I believe the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God and the only authority in Christian doctrine and practice. Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to my opponent for agreeing to this debate.
I'll begin by dismantling the idea that the Bible is an authoritative document. I sincerely hope that my opponent doesn't believe in the literal reality of Genesis, since modern science has demonstrated it to be false. If he doesn't, why did Jesus? Jesus clearly believed Genesis to be true, as evidenced by his references to Adam and Noah within the book of Matthew. Did he know they were myths and not say anything? For anyone to argue that Jesus knew the Flood and the Fall to be myths, they'd have to explain what purpose he would have had for spreading what he knew to be a lie.
If Jesus knew that Genesis wasn't true, isn't Matthew 24 ("For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away." - NIV) a blatant example of Jesus lying? If he didn't know Genesis was false, why? The omniscience of the Son only goes so far I suppose.
Not to mention the shaky ground Jesus stands on as it is. Bible scholars like Richard Smoley and Bart Ehrman have pointed out that we really know nothing about Jesus. Though many people believe that the Biblical Gospels were written as first person accounts (by people who saw and knew Jesus) Ehrman shows that the Gospels were really written decades after Jesus died. The language spoken by Jesus and his followers was Aramaic, and he lived at a time when very, very few people could read or write, and even fewer could read or write well. The Gospels were written in Greek in a different period by several different authors who were clearly highly educated. Not only this, but they get more mythic in nature as they go forward (Matthew - the first, barely has any miracles, while John, the last, has the iconic water and wine scene, the raising of Lazarus, etc). This is clear evidence of how the mystique of Jesus became more grand as time went on. You know, like an urban legend. More time and more retellings equal more spectacular legends.
How can my opponent argue that Scripture is "inerrant" when there are so many contradictions within it? The Bible claims that Jesus had divine authority to perform miracles, and yet Pharaoh"s magicians had the ability to perform miracles as well. Jesus says that immediately after death, a soul is judged and can not come back to the living, and yet the story of King Saul says that he spoke with the ghost of the prophet Samuel. Genesis 11 says that God caused confusion at the Tower of Babel, but 1 Corinthians 14 says that God can"t cause confusion. In Romans and Matthew, we are told to love nonbelievers as ourselves, and yet the book of Deuteronomy tells us to stone them to death.
And what about the horrifying acts of violence sanctioned by God? The book of Leviticus (chapter 21, when God tells the Jews how the priests are to conduct themselves) says: "If a priest"s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire." Three chapters later we read: "anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them."
A common cop-out used by Christians is to say that the myths and horrors of the Old Testament deserve to be separated from the feel-good message of the New. I urge voters to be on the lookout for this tactic. Realize that both Testaments are held to be the inspired word of God. Why would a righteous creator leave his chosen people with the idea that dissenters are to be executed and homosexuals persecuted? Why the obvious mythology? Why blame the problems of the world on giants, and witches, and evil spirits, and sea monsters? My opponent is a conservative; why didn't his God introduce democracy, and science, and industry instead of myths, intolerance, and passages he knew would be used to justify genocide and war?
Thank you for your time.


Thanks for my opponent's argument. I will refute some claims made by opponent made about Christianity.
1) My opponent claimed modern science has demonstrated the Genesis account of Creation to be false. I would like to ask my opponent evidence for this claim as according to my knowledge, science has neither proven nor disproven Genesis. If my opponent is referring to the claim that the earth is 6,000 years old made by some Christians, I agree, that is completely false. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth or the universe was created 6,000 years ago. And science has proven the earth to be a lot older than 6,000 years. I believe the six days of Creation are not six literal 24-hour days but each "day" a period lasting for millions or billions of years. Jesus did not lie when He referenced the Genesis account which I firmly believe to be true.

2) My opponent claimed the New Testament wasn't written by the disciples of Jesus. All historical evidence shows that the New Testament was indeed written by the Apostles a few years after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension. The majority of the New Testament was written by the Apostle Paul. And there is no reason to believe the Gospel of John was written after Matthew just because it is placed after Matthew in the Bible. And Matthew has as many great miracles as John, Mark and Luke.

3) My opponent claimed the Bible contradicts itself. He/she gave a few examples. I'll refute them one by one.
i. Pro claimed both Jesus and magicians in Egypt performed miracles. Jesus performed miracles while the magicians practiced magic. They're not the same thing. The power and authority of Jesus come from the Holy Spirit while the magicians were likely empowered by Satan and demons. And the Bible never claims Jesus is the only one who can do miracles. The Antichrist will also do miracles to deceive many people to worshipping him.
ii. Pro claimed the ghost of Samuel contradicts the notion that the soul is judged after death. This is not contradictory because technically a ghost is not the same as coming back to life. But Christ did come back to life so it is no wonder if Samuel can also come back to life if God wanted him to.
iii. Pro claims Deuteronomy says we should stone our enemies or death while the New Testament says we should love our enemies. This is not a contradiction because Deuteronomy was written to the Jewish nation of Israel not Christians. While both the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the context of the Old Testament doesn't apply to the Christians of the New Covenant. The Law of Moses was only given to Israel as a national law not as the high moral standard of God. The high moral standard of God is revealed in Jesus Christ who commands Christians to love their neighbour as self. This is one of the two Greatest Commandments.

4) My opponent asked why God didn't introduce democracy in the Bible? It's because the Bible is not a social textbook. Democracy, communism, capitalism, socialism, these are all human concepts. God is not interested in changing societies but changing hearts of people. No matter how "great" a society is, people will still be evil and selfish in their heart. That's why God wants to change the inside of every person not the material, outside world.
Debate Round No. 2


1) Please clarify what parts of the Bible you think are myths. You say you believe Genesis to be true, but only talk about Creation. A lot more mythical stuff happens in Genesis after Creation. Do you believe a snake spoke to the first humans? Biology tells us that there was never a "first" human. What about the Flood? Is there any geological evidence that the world was underwater for a full year? Do you believe two of every animal on earth fit on a boat that was 450 ft long? Do you believe Methuselah lived to be 969 years old? Do you believe demons married human women, who then gave birth to giants? Or that mankind only had one language before the Tower of Babel? If you say: "no, of course I don't believe all that," I would ask you how you can believe anything else the Bible says. Jesus and everyone he lived with thought the Flood, the Fall, and all the rest of it was real. They also thought the world was flat. Doesn't that call into question everything you believe? If not, why not?

2) Please provide an example of a non-fundamentalist Bible scholar who thinks the Gospels were written as first person accounts. I couldn't find one. The theology department at Boston College says: "the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70." That's forty or so years after Jesus died. National Geographic says: "The New Testament Gospels were written between AD 65 and 95." I provided an analysis of the languages used at the time and drew on the works of two respected religious scholars, one of whom is a professor who lost his faith in God after studying the Bible. Where are your sources?

3) Why do Christians dislike paganism so much when we know for a fact that Yahweh was one of several gods worshipped by the ancient Israelites? (In Genesis, God says "Let us make mankind in our image" because the Hebrew word used here is "elohim", which literally means "many gods". They stole this myth, and others, from the pagan Babylonians. In many ways Yahweh is just a rehashed form of the god Marduk; much like Zeus and Jupiter.) If you don't believe me, google a goddess named "Asherah", who was worshipped as Yahweh's wife for several hundred years. You know, like mythology.

4) How can the Gospels be inerrant when they were thrown together so haphazardly? National Geographic says: "Their prominence is due in part to St. Irenaeus, a second-century bishop of Lyon in Roman Gaul and an aggressive enemy of texts and beliefs considered to be heretical. In an attempt to unify the church he declared Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John the only Gospels that Christians should read." If someone else were in charge at that time, we"d have a totally different canon. If they wanted Jesus to have a wife, they would have included the Gospel of Thomas. If they disliked Jews they would have included the Gnostic Gospels. Doesn't that call their authority into question?

5) You say that the despicable things in the Old Testament do not represent the high moral standards of God as if that somehow justifies them. What about Numbers 31, where God's chosen prophet Moses commands the murder of thousands of boys and rape of thousands of girls? Or Exodus 12, where God smites all firstborn children in Egypt? Aren't passages like these fundamentally at odds with the definition of God agreed to in this debate? If a human thought this was okay, we'd call them a psychopath, but because this person is invisible, that makes it a matter of "national law"?

6) With our advances in science, we are expected to discover the source of life and the Big Bang within the next century. As we learn more, isn't the Christian God more like a God of the Gaps? Christians say: "yes, science has covered everything after the Big Bang, but it hasn't covered the Big Bang!" Isn't this an argument from ignorance? We don't know, therefore magic did it?

I will provide all sources for my arguments in the closing round.
Thank you.


1) As a believer of evolution as opposed to Biblical Creationism, how do you explain your morals and where they come from? I'm not making the claim that atheists can't be moral people or that people need to read the Bible to good deeds. Evolution does not teach good or bad morals. Evolution is "survival of the fittest". There is no place for morality or rational thought, only animal instinct. I believe God has put a moral conscious of good and evil within every person. Animals don't know the difference between good and evil in the sense that we do. How can evolution explain the existence of human morality?

2) The Cell Theory states all living organisms and cells originate from pre-existing organisms and cells. If this is the case, how can you explain how the first cell came into existence without pre-existing life to create it? If you claim the Cell Theory is false and life came from non-living matter, why isn't it possible to replicate this in the laboratory or why don't we see this in the natural world today?

3) You claim that Christianity is false and that the Bible isn't authoritative scripture. By this, I presume you also reject the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 , Paul says if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, the Christian faith is in vain. Let me ask you this. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead and the Apostles fabricated the whole thing and probably hid His body, why did they die for His sake? Why would someone wilfully die for something they know is a lie? The disciples of Jesus were absolutely certain of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, claimed to witnesses His miracles first hand, and gave their lives believing in Him.

4) How do you explain all the visions and dreams of Jesus witnessed by people all over the world? You might say it's all fake and people do it for fame or money. But what about the people who have no gain in telling their story or converting to Christ? Many Muslims for example, claim to have seen Jesus in visions and have converted to Christianity. And their reward? Abandoned by family, friends, community and sometimes beaten or even killed. Do you think all these Muslims are lying for no reason except to lose their lives? Why aren't thousands of people coming out claiming to have seen Allah or Vishnu? Oh yeah, maybe they didn't. And hallucinations isn't a convincing answer. If a Christian claimed to have seen Jesus, we could say it's possibly a hallucination but someone of different faith especially one that is unexposed to Christianity claiming to have seen Jesus is not a coincidence.

5) If the Bible is not the Word of God, how do you explain all the prophecies that have been fulfilled and continue to be fulfilled. Is coincidence to be blamed for the hundreds of predictions accurately fulfilled as written in the Bible? Here is a link to few Bible prophecies miraculously fulfilled:
Debate Round No. 3


1) Great question! I had the same question when I was a Creationist, and when I got the answer, evolution finally made good sense. Let me start by saying that the idea that animals don't have morals, or that evolution has no place for morality is a bit of a fallacy. Evolution itself is a process of kill or be killed, true, but groups of very intelligent social animals (dolphins, wolves, apes, whales, elephants etc.) tend to develop rules of fairness and empathy in order to keep the herd together (I've heard this informally referred to as 'social glue' theory).Over evolutionary time, this feeling of empathy will develop into things like the Golden Rule and social contracts. Imagine if you and your friends were in a free-for-all paintball match, where the rules were 'shoot or be shot'. Wouldn't it make sense that the smartest among you would form alliances to survive longer? If you want to know more, there's a book called "Wild Justice" by professor Marc Bekoff about this very topic.

2) Life today is very complex. This would mean that life long ago was much simpler. The first form of life would have been much, much simpler than a cell - perhaps only a highly adaptable enzyme that reproduced itself before it was destroyed by the elements. After this self-replicating enzyme came into existence, it would adapt over generations to suit the needs of its environment, and there we have the beginnings of natural selection. As for why we can't see this in a lab, maybe it's because our atmosphere has changed. Because we can't observe it in a lab that means it isn't real? Don't you think that question's a little silly given the current topic? And, here's the thing: even if life was seeded here by some god or alien, why the god of the Bible? Why not Zenu or the gods of Valhalla?

3) Actually, given all available historic records, the body of Jesus was most likely fed to animals after his crucifixion. I have no doubt the Apostles really believed he was resurrected; belief can make people do crazy things. Why did all of Jonestown murder themselves? Belief. I just think it's far more likely that illiterate peasants gave in to mass hysteria than the idea that the creator of the universe would send his son (who was also himself) to be tortured to death in Bronze Age Palestine. People witnessed the miracles Buddha, Viracocha, Krishna, Mahavira, and the Catholic Saints performed. Does that make them true?

4) Are you aware that you can speak to people today who claim to have seen the Virgin Mary and Catholic Saints? Why aren't you a Catholic? If you use apparitions and miracles as proof for Protestantism, you have to apply the same rule to all religions. There are many people who claim to have seen Vishnu and Allah. They aren't as numerous because Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and western society has been shaped by Christianity. If you were reading an Egyptian or Saudi tabloid you'd hear nothing about Jesus. Why don't you think hallucinations are convincing? I'd be willing to bet the people who claim to have seen Bigfoot or a UFO is larger than those who have seen Jesus. People see what they want to see, otherwise how do you explain all the different world religions? Was Satan responsible for all of those, or is it likely that people are not infallible? Do you believe in the Miracle of the Sun in Brazil, where the sun supposedly did cartwheels in the sky in front of 10,000 people? Because if it really happened we'd all be dead. Also, how do they know it was Jesus they saw? Nobody knows what he looks like! What if it was Zeus in white robes?

5) Richard Smoley, in his book "How God Became God" has a great takedown of these prophecies. The simple truth is that many of them were written long after the actual events happened, and then ascribed to mythical prophets who never lived. The biblical narratives were oral traditions long before anyone ever wrote them down, so it's no wonder it has so much mythology.

Thank you.


1) Wow, that's a lot of questions! Yes, I believe the Book of Genesis is an authentic and reliable text. The Bible tells us that Satan took the form of a serpent to deceive Eve into eating the fruit. Can snakes today talk? No, because it wasn't a snake talking with Eve. It was Satan who took the form of a snake. Honestly, for evolutionists, this shouldn't be hard to believe because maybe *cough* the snake evolved to be able to speak *cough*, 😂. If apes can become humans, a snake shouldn't take much to speak. Biology doesn't tell us there was no first human. The theory of evolution claims that. Again, evolution is a THEORY not a fact. The Flood actually has much scientific evidence:
And your claim that the earth was flat is completely false. The Bible is actually the first to claim the earth was round not flat. Read Isaiah 40:22. So, I believe the Bible 100% because it has thus far not been proven wrong.

2) I can't find any non-fundamentalist Bible scholar who thinks the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples because everyone who has already has converted to Christianity. This is a self-contradictory question. Because once you know the Gospels were written by the disciples of Jesus, there is no reason to not accept Christianity. A Muslim scholar converted to Christianity after he questioned the authenticity of the Bible and studied it:

3) I need to see a proper source that shows people worshipped other gods alongside Yahweh. Even if that's the case, that doesn't prove Yahweh is pagan because it was common for pagans at that time to worship their idols alongside the God of Israel. Even today, many Hindus in India worship Jesus as another god besides Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, etc. Does this mean Christians also believe in the Hindu gods? Of course not. There may have been pagans in the past who worshipped Yahweh as a pagan god and asserted wives to Him but this doesn't change Yahweh's true identity.

4) No, the Gospels weren't chosen randomly or on the basis of the church leaders' interpretations. There was a standardized procedure which tested the authenticity of the Biblical Gospels. For example, the gospel of Thomas claims Jesus had a wife. However, no other text during that time claimed this and therefore it was a heretical belief. The four Gospels in the Bible were historically accurate and authentic in the eyes of the early Christian writings. The other "gospels" were later texts that weren't written by the Apostles.

5) I never said the things in the Old Testament were despicable. You think passages like Number 31 aren't just because you don't see God's intention in destroying the evil people at that time. For example, God destroyed Sodom because they were very vile and even tried to rape angels! So God poured out his righteous wrath upon them. What seems to be the problem in the righteous commands of judgement in the Old Testament? When US bombed Japan to end WWII, it was okay. When Europeans invaded North America, it was okay. When US killed Osama bin Laden, it was okay. But the Creator of the universe punishing evil people is not okay. Makes sense.

6) I think your argument is weak that we WILL find the source of life or the Big Bang. The fact is we haven't and Creationism is the most logical solution. Your argument is like time travel is possible. How? By building a time machine. Just saying we will prove the Big Bang is not evidence for the Big Bang. I could use your own logic to say science will 100% prove Creationism in the future. I am confident science will never prove the Big Bang or evolution.
Debate Round No. 4


Much thanks to my opponent for his wit and candor. He is welcome to challenge me to a debate at any time.

Ladies and gentlemen who will be voting on this debate, I ask you to only consider the evidences on both sides. Throughout the discussion, we have heard the proponent of theism ignore scientific consensus, historical consensus, and Christian consensus on the nature of the Bible and Christianity - all of which claim that it can not be taken literally.

We have heard him try to justify the atrocities of Yahweh, from the immolation of priests' daughters commanded in Leviticus 21 and murder of all nonbelievers in Deuteronomy 13 and Leviticus 24 to the sanctioning of the mass murder and rape of children in Numbers 31 and Exodus 12. From the genocide of whole cities in Joshua 10 to the notion that those without faith will be forced to eat their own children found in Deuteronomy 28, my opponent has so far failed to offer a convincing argument as to why an all-good being of love and righteousness would think these acts were justified. What crimes were the children guilty of? What crimes were the innocent Amalekites whom Joshua had murdered guilty of? Are we to believe that the Christian claim that "God is Love" is compatible with the god who chose to drown a planet because it angered him? God rained fire on Gomorrah because it was filled with homosexuals, but did nothing about the Nazis, who threw six million of his 'chosen people' into furnaces? Why the sudden change of character? Or is it maybe possible that this god doesn't exist in the first place?

My opponent has failed to refute my assertion that no serious, non-creationist scholar (whether Christian or not) actually believes the Gospels were written as first person accounts. He has failed to refute the fact that we know the ancient Israelites as a whole (not a few isolated individuals) worshipped Yahweh as one of many gods of equal power. He has offered nothing to refute my claim that Christianity has taken it's creation story, many of it's narratives, and even it's God from it's pagan neighbors. He has offered nothing to justify the reliability of the Bible save obviously biased sources and the claim that it is non-falsifiable (which, aside from being blatantly incorrect, is the sign of a weak argument). By denying evolution, cosmology, and common sense, he has shown that he has more faith in fairy-tales written by desert scribes three thousand years ago than the cutting edge sciences of today.

I have shown that the Bible is unreliable, filled with myths and war crimes, and is against all of modern science. I have shown God to be a jealous, hateful character created by ignorant, sexist, pagan peasants thousands of years ago. Therefore, God is Dead, and the resolution is affirmed.

Thank you for your attention. - A massive project that examines many places the Bible contradicts itself or preaches hate/violence. - A handy list of Bible contradictions. - National Geographic Article. - Boston College Link. - Interview with Bart Ehrman. - A video on how I feel talking to Christians about the Bible.
"Wild Justice" by Marc Bekoff, an ecologist and professor.
"The Unseen Realm" by Michael Heiser, a Christian scholar of Israelite polytheism.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and professor.
"Misquoting Jesus" and "How Jesus Became God" by Bart Ehrman, a Bible scholar and professor.
"How God Became God" by Richard Smoley, a religious scholar and graduate of both Oxford and Harvard Universities.
All Bible quotations taken from the New International Version; a very commonly used translation.


I thank my opponent for this debate. I'd be happy to debate with you again in the future.

For those voting, I ask you see the evidence for the Bible which is supported by science, history and archeology. The Bible is not an ordinary religious book. It has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, scientific miracles and historical accuracies not found in any other text. The argument my opponent gave on evolution and the Big Bang that we will prove these in the future is a very weak argument and easily refutable. However, the evidence I provided for the Bible has historical and scientific basis. The Bible is not the best selling book for no reason.

I believe my opponent has failed to answer how humans can have morals if we evolved from animals or why animals don't have morals when they're apparently related to humans. Morality is the notion of good and evil. Again, evolution doesn't teach what's good and what's not. It's only "survival of the fittest". My opponent falsely related animals working together with morality. They're totally different things. I could be a completely ruthless and evil person and still work in a team for my own survival and benefit. I believe my case that humans didn't evolve form animals and that we are created separately and uniquely as stated in the Bible is the most logical assumption to make.

I also would like to answer a question my opponent asked me in their answer. Why Yahweh, the God of the Bible? Why not Zeus or Thor? Because these are clearly myths and have been proven to be. There is no historical and/or scientific basis for the stories told in the Greek/Norse/Roman mythologies. On the flip side, the Bible as I mentioned has tons of evidence which you would have to literally shut your brain down to ignore and come to a conclusion that the Bible is unreliable.

My opponent claimed Jesus' body was fed to the animals. A very new and intriguing argument but one with no basis. Also, if this was the case, it doesn't explain why the Apostles claimed to have seen Jesus after His resurrection and died for that belief. And my opponent's statement that all the visions and dreams of Jesus are hallucinations is false assumption. It's very unlikely all these people around the world (especially non-Christians) would have such similar dreams and convert to Christianity. The odds are so slim, such an assumption can't be made. It's either a super slim chance they all have similar hallucinations or God is indeed real and what they see is true. I let the voters make the decision.

In conclusion, I thank my opponent once again for instigating this debate and I ask the voters to examine both sides and decide which path is the most logical and true path.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rjupudi18 11 months ago
No problem. I was just busy with some work. Sorry for the delay.
Posted by Amarandum 11 months ago
Most excellent. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Rjupudi18 11 months ago
Sure round 3 will be question round.
Posted by Amarandum 11 months ago
Because I go first. I see. Thanks JonHouser. Okay Rjupudi18, How about in round three we both post questions, then round four will be the answer round. That'll work.
Posted by JonHouser 11 months ago
Q&A only works if one of you gets to go last in round 3 and then first in round 4. Otherwise, he would have to ask his questions at the end of his responses to you in round 3.
Posted by divergent_ambon 11 months ago
Not ever what "God is Dead" means...
Posted by Amarandum 11 months ago
All good.
Posted by Rjupudi18 11 months ago
Sorry was busy I'll post in a few hours.
Posted by Amarandum 11 months ago
Right? Why accept if you're not going to argue?
Posted by DrCereal 11 months ago
I'm sorry to say this, but this debate is dead.
Rjupudi never responds after the acceptance round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.