The Instigator
ImAJesusFreak
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Toxifrost
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

God is better than you and me

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 8 votes the winner is...
Toxifrost
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,340 times Debate No: 70369
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (123)
Votes (8)

 

ImAJesusFreak

Pro

A atheist or someone who wants to disprove God may accept this debate. They will argue first that God is not real, and then follow that with a whole bunch of other stuff. God is very real, believe me, I've had my experiences, and I needed a lot more than will power for some. But I want you to pretend God is real (believe or not), and base our facts off the Bible. This debate will focus primarily how God (real or not) is still better than you.
My first argument, where in the Bible does it say God cheats, steals, commits adultery, lie, argue, or even sin/do evil/do wrong at all for that matter? God says in the Bible that he has unconditional love for us, that no matter what happens to us, we believe in him or not, he still loves us. The Con may say that Con can have unconditional love too, but if you started dating a women/man, and you loved him/her, than if she turned evil and called you names, and cursed you out, blame you for every wrong thing in the world, than would you still love that person?
You could curse God out, flip him off, or even moon him and worship the devil, and his love wouldn't change for you.
We love because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19
God IS better than YOU AND ME!
Toxifrost

Con

I accept this challenge and am looking forward to a constructive debate. Good luck to pro.
Debate Round No. 1
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

Ummm. go ahead
Toxifrost

Con

Now while I could have made the case that something would have to be real to be better than anyone according to pro I am supposed to pretend he exists. Considering pro seems like he is going to use the Bible to prove his point I find it fitting that I can use it for mine.

Some Major Offenses
Now while I could cite the Bible for Gods petty offenses such as cheating in a wrestling match (and still losing for some reason?) I'm going to be focusing on Gods main guilty pleasure for my first argument, genocide. Now throughout the Bible God has a tendancy to get really mad at one particular group of people however instead of simply changing the way they do things with his omnipotency he decides to kill them all off! This is seen earliest in the story of the bilical flood. Now in this story, if readers are not aware, God decides to drown each and every thing because man has become too corrupt. That's right because one species of people has defied the etherial sky daddy's instructions he decides to drown every single species of living thing, oh except 2 of each species and one family of eight people. The main point of my argument here is that most if not all humans today would not kill every single species because a group of people has not obeyed their instructions!

This is not the only example of Gods genocidal tendancies however. This is also extremely prominant in the story of Moses and the Pharaoh. In this uplifiting tale Moses tries to convince the Pharaoh to (as the famous quote goes) let his people go. God tells Moses to go tell the Pharaoh to let his people go and to show him a miracle. And Moses does this like a good little prophet.


7:9 When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying, Shew a miracle for you: then thou shalt say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and cast it before Pharaoh, and it shall become a serpent.
7:10 And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the LORD had commanded: andAaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.


However the Pharoahs magicians counter this! This miracle-counter routine goes on for a few more verses. Moses warns the Pharaoh that he will send more plagues upon him if he does not let his people go but the Pharaoh still refuses! Why? Is it because he was just being a general jerk? Was the Pharaoh just having a bad day? Or did God INTENTIONALLY "harden the pharaohs heart" to make sure he could say no so that God could send down his plagues and show off for a bit? Im going to argue the later simple from these verses alone


7:3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.
7:4 But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.



10:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:
10:2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD.


14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.

14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.


Now we can see that God had planned to make his plagues cast throughout Egypt but what plagues were cast? Well his grand masterpiece of a plague is to murder all firstborn Egyptian babies throughout the land despite them having no part in the enslavement of the Hebrews. God forcibly manipulates the Pharaohs mind in order to justify his genocide of an entire generation of Egyptian kids. Again this rests upon the fact that essentially no human alive today would even think of doing such a thing for such a fallacious reason!

Of course I could cite God's killings for days and I likely don't have the room to do so due to the character limit. Pro has also asked that I keep this argument short so I may cite them in later arguments seeing on how this goes however from this round I have established that the majority of humans are morally superior to the Christian concept of God.

Sources:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://io9.com...
http://irregulartimes.com...
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

Ok, towards the end of your first paragraph, you say"That's right because one species of people has defied the etherial sky daddy's instructions he decides to drown every single species of living thing, oh except 2 of each species and one family of eight people." Then you go on to say, the sentence right after, "The main point of my argument here is that most if not all humans today would not kill every single species because a group of people has not obeyed their instructions!" Umm...did I read that right. In the sentence I first quoted, you said that "he decides to drown every single species of living thing, oh except 2 of each species and one family of eight people." He decides to drown Every single species, except 2 of EVERY species? Just in that one sentence you contradict yourself. (Then, after I post this, you will say something about Dinosaurs or something not getting on the ark, or at least someone will in the comments. Well, if Dinosaurs is brought up, think about it in a logical way, and even humanly way. Really, the Ark was big, but not big enough to hold 2 of every species of dinosaurs that are, say, 50 feet tall!) The point is that you said that every species was killed, but 2 of every species was taken on the ark.
Ok so you bring up Pharoah and the hardening the heart so I look it up, and found a good argument on http://www.gotquestions.org... that deals exactly with your argument/ claim.
Here is what it says(if your too lazy, like me, to even click the link)
"Answer: Exodus 7:3-4 says, "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my people the Israelites." It seems unjust for God to harden Pharaoh"s heart and then to punish Pharaoh and Egypt for what Pharaoh decided when his heart was hardened. Why would God harden Pharaoh"s heart just so He could judge Egypt more severely with additional plagues?

First, Pharaoh was not an innocent or godly man. He was a brutal dictator overseeing the terrible abuse and oppression of the Israelites, who likely numbered over 1.5 million people at that time. The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh"possibly even the pharaoh in question"ordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions.

Second, before the first few plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go. "Pharaoh's heart became hard" (Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:19). "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart" (Exodus 8:15). "But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart" (Exodus 8:32). Pharaoh could have spared Egypt of all the plagues if he had not hardened his own heart. God was giving Pharaoh increasingly severe warnings of the judgment that was to come. Pharaoh chose to bring judgment on himself and on his nation by hardening his own heart against God"s commands.

As a result of Pharaoh"s hard-heartedness, God hardened Pharaoh"s heart even further, allowing for the last few plagues (Exodus 9:12; 10:20, 27). Pharaoh and Egypt had brought these judgments on themselves with 400 years of slavery and mass murder. Since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and Pharaoh and Egypt had horribly sinned against God, it would have been just if God had completely annihilated Egypt. Therefore, God"s hardening Pharaoh"s heart was not unjust, and His bringing additional plagues against Egypt was not unjust. The plagues, as terrible as they were, actually demonstrate God"s mercy in not completely destroying Egypt, which would have been a perfectly just penalty.

Romans 9:17-18 declares, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden." From a human perspective, it seems wrong for God to harden a person and then punish the person He has hardened. Biblically speaking, however, we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23), and the just penalty for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, God"s hardening and punishing a person is not unjust; it is actually merciful in comparison to what the person deserves."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org...
Toxifrost

Con

Readers keep in mind that this argument to me is like arguing about spells in Harry Potter. I don't believe any of this is actually true it's just debating the details of a work of literature albeit a work of literature that claims to be reality.

Dodging Bullets That Hit Their Mark
So I love how you completely ignore the fact that God still commited genocide in the flood and decided to focus on the semantics of what I said about species and then brought up some weird tangent and conjecture about what I might say about dinosaurs. First off let's just clear up your weird dinosaur thing. The dinosaurs did not live at the same time as humans so they wouldn't have been on the ark.

Nowhere in my first argument did I actually contradict myself. Logically speaking to fufill the requirement of drowning every species one would simply have to drown one of every species. However this is not what I was stating and you very well know it. In the story of the flood God spares two of every species but he drowns the rest of everything. Do you prefer that wording better?

Copy Pasted Arguments
So by "found a good argument" you really mean "stole an argument"? Right? This argument is really easily struck down as so much of it is so wrong. First off while the Pharaoh did indeed harded his own heart once or twice before God did it was God who hardened it 7-8 times after that in order to ensure that the pharaoh would not let the Isrealites go (which is another point I'll bring up later) in order to show off his fancy plagues. The other thing that's important to note is that God actually punished every single person in Egypt for the actions of one man. No sane person would think that was justified and it just shows how cruel your God really is.

"First the Pharaoh was not an innocent or godly man" Actually yes he was. Innocence is a subective term and doesn't actually literally mean anything on it's own. Now while I would consider enslaving a race of people is guilty beyond belief the Pharaoh most likely never actually did such a thing. That's right the entire book of Exodus is based on a lie. Allow me to explain. Now while it does say in the Bible that the Isrealites were enslaved the Bible is not by any means an accurate historical document due to its hundreds of contradictions and tons of historical inaccuracies. This being said there is absolutely no archealogical evidence to support the claim that 2 million Jews were enslaved in Egypt at the time the Bible states. There are no records from the Egyptians that 1/4 their population up and left nor are there any records of labor shortages around this time. Also with 600,000 families moving across a desert you would figure that they would have left some pottery or carvings with hebrew on it anywhere in the desert however this is not what we find. Instead we find no sort of evidence for such a migration nor do we find any records from natives of Isreal about a population influx of this magnitude.

The other claim is that the Pharaoh was not a godly man and this is simply not true as (If were pretending that mythologies such as Christianity are true here) he was a god in human form. Specifically the god Horus, or at least an aspect of him as they also believed he became Osiris when he died. The Pharaoh was an extremely godly man, just not towards your god.

You (or more accurately the website you copied this from) also state that bringing the multitude of extra plagues down on the entire population was justified punishment for the Pharaoh for enslaving the Jews (which I have already established is not founded in any sort of archaeological evidence) and that by not destroying egypt he is showing his mercy however this proposterous. Is it merciful for me to kill and torment an entire race of people because of the actions of one man? I should certainly think not.

http://www.haaretz.com...
http://classroom.synonym.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ImAJesusFreak

Pro

Ive read like 2 out of the new 50 comments I got, ive got to say, what non- believers. Hipocrats. Liars. Persucuters. Jerks. Hard hearted. Hard headed. Stubborn. Unfollowers. Nasty. Rude. Blasphemous. Haters. Sinners. I had a revelation at church camp this past weekend. Im closer to god, rededicated myself to him, and repented. I am SICK of this site. It makes me SICK to my stomach, to see all these hateful sinners persecuting christians for what they believe in. You will hate on christians, then get all offended when they something about your religion. I hate this site. Its hard to look around this site and not see the stupid people that think unicorns are real, then compare a unicorn to a cucumber. ( or in some cases God) and your right, there is no evidence that the jews were captive. But that doesnt mean that the whole bible isnt true. And you think the pharoah was a good godly man. HAH. , if hitler was right in front of you, standing in front of thousands of enslaved jews with his nazis torturing them, not for what they believed in, but what race they were, and you had a gun in your hand, and noone could stop you from doing it, would you do it, take him out? If you didnt take the shot that would have saved thousands of people, how does that make you better than god. Im a good thinker, i really am. Im guessing that after this, people will say that god is like that guy with a gun that couldve taken the shot on hitler, and didnt. But I say to that, god gave us free will, and hitler was killing jews, and he was going to go to hell. Why didnt god stand in? Cause he gae us free will. If he would have stepped in, that wouldve ruined te point of free will. My point is, im getting off this site for good, not because there is no more arguments left in me, but because have you ever heard of a guy getting saved through a debate? At first i was fired up to just get on here and beat, but I saw it was much more than that. This was a one way trip to crazy town. Its insane here. Whats the point of debating people who are given good real true evidence, reject that evidence as lies, and then ask for real evidence, and repeat. People will hear only what they want to hear, not what they need to here. I wish any of you guys struggling with faith and stuff to stay off this site. Its just depresses you even more and makes you think bad untrue things about christians and god.I just keep you guys in my prayers, and stay off this site, because this is not a very good place to argue apologetics. May the bible be with you. Goodbye, im leaving crazy town back home to logic city, where people actually make sense. God loves you! Goodnight and goooooodddbbyyyyeee!!!!!!!!
Toxifrost

Con

What An Exit!
Well since this person deleted their account actually I suppose theres really no point to respond to everything but for the sake of being thorough I will. First off your spelled hypocrits wrong and noone was actually hypocritical. Second of all noone persecuted you and I'm not sure that being a non-believer or blasphemous can even be considered an insult. As for your magical revelation at church camp would you kindly turn off the sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude please? It's really harshin my vibe here. Does this site make you sick to your stomach because you have beliefs that you held dear to you demolished by oh I don't know evidence? Also noone on this site persecutes Christians! You have one of the biggest victim complexes I've ever seen and I read tumblr feminist blogs for fun! That really says something. Also I'm fairly certain noone honestly believes unicorns are real they just use them as a comparison to God because it's just as rediculous to believe in unicorns to them.

Oh wow! An actual argument! Good thing it's so poorly thought out that it can be taken down with minimal effort which is good because I'm writing this at about midnight. I never stated that the whole Bible isn't true because of the lack of evidence of Hebrew enslavement. I said the Bible was unreliable as a historical or scientific reference source not due to the innacuracies of one story but of 90% of the stories combined with it's own contradictions!

I've already established that the Pharaoh was godly just not towards your god in particular so the "HAH" is undeserved. You want to "HAH"? Then make a rational argument. This next Hitler argument is written so poorly and is rediculously irrelevant so I find no reason to even exert effort responding to this nonesense.

"I'm a good thinker"...debatable but go on.

What you "guess" people will say after this is irrelevant but yes God would be that guy who wouldn't take the shot because God clearly has no real problem with genocide as I have shown before and as you have not refuted. "Why didn't God stand in" well I would only assume it's because he doesn't exist, any god described as omnibenevolent would certainly stop the suffering of people but no instead your concept of god continues to let people die for no reason and let disease, war, and hunger ravage his "creation". Theres a great quote by Douglas Adams in The Restaurant At the End Of The Universe that TBR actually gave to me but that I was already planning on using. In fact that was going to be part of my last argument. The quote is “The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
If God is this perfect being and he created the universe then why is the universe riddled with imperfections? And not just small inperfections glaring problems. I could go through all the atrocities on Earth but all you really need to do is turn on the news to see it for yourself.

Well people don't reject your "evidence" as lies. They reject it as evidence because it's either biased to the point where it skews facts or it's just plain wrong and they refute it. That's just the way debate works and if you don't like it then maybe you should.....oh wait.

Why do you urge those struggling with faith to stay off this site? Because they'll get a dose of reality and actually see some truth in things? Before I got super into what was on the internet I hadn't even known that not believing in a god was a concept but after actually looking into rational arguments and debates such as these I starting losing faith in what I believed. And it wasn't a bad thing! For the first time in my life I finally had an outlook that made sense. Sure it didn't have ALL the answers but it didn't claim to and any questions I had were answered rather than punished. I broke free from the shackles of religion and I encourage anyone struggling with faith to stay on this site and form your own opinions about things. If you still end up on the side of theism then good for you at least your making an informed decision rather than being led like a sheep into the wolfs mouth.

Also this site isn't a good place to argue apologetics because apologetics is irrational and has been debunked so many times it's shocking people still use it as an argument. In terms of your goodbye I think you have it quite backwards but have fun hiding behind your Bible.

For those who think this response was a personal attack, it sorta was. It's childish of someone to delete their account and quite just because people don't agree with you especially in the middle of a debate and I think the practice of doing so sets a bad precedent. If you'd like to take of conduct points so be it but since pro has forfeited I urge you to vote con and thank pro for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
123 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Uzume 2 years ago
Uzume
I don't think God has anything to do with fairness. I think he's more about justice. Justice doesn't seem fair to the recipient, right?
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
TheCalmCanadian. 7 points to Pro. Removed because: failure to explain every single point and voted based on personal bias.

Reasons for voting decision: Atheistic and liberal scum ruining society and morals.
====================================================================

-bluesteel (voting moderator)
Posted by ProfessorPufferfloob 2 years ago
ProfessorPufferfloob
The spelling is rather abonimable. "You spelled hypocrits wrong." Correction: Hypocrites. And on for several other such cases.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
That was, that is why God never gives us nice things to play with.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
I don't know... This seems solid - "Atheistic and liberal scum ruining society and morals.". You know this God never gives us nice things.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Reported that biased punk...
Posted by Toxifrost 2 years ago
Toxifrost
lol TheCalmCanadian votebombed so hard.
Posted by EdRoKe 2 years ago
EdRoKe
This debate was hilarious. I was kind of disappointed that it didn't get carried through to the end though.. It was interesting.
Posted by mdmark 2 years ago
mdmark
@rextr05
I have been reading your argument against @fascist.
I must ask if you believe that your God created everything from nothing?
If so, where did God come from? If there was truly nothing in the beginning how is an omnipotent being possible?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A total ass kicking.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Conduct: Pro lost their temper against Con and was infuriated by Con's arguments. Pro also insulted users who commented on this debate, calling them "disbelieving hypocrites". 2. Spelling & Grammar: While both sides had poor spelling and grammar, Con gets a slight edge for more major mistakes by Pro. (extremely slight edge to Con) 3. Made more convincing arguments: Clear edge to Con; even when Con's arguments were often weak, Pro's arguments and rebuttals were weaker and brief. 4. Used the most reliable sources: Pro barely used a source, while Con used many sources to back their arguments.
Vote Placed by Zack95 2 years ago
Zack95
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have kept calm, and countered- there was so many good counters to con's refutes, such as the reasoning why he committed genocide. but your temper got a hold of you. Cons arguments were not even strong, but yours was weaker still. also, plagiarism, use your own insight.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro essentially conceded and decided not to make any arguments in Round Four (forfeited). I'm going on "goooooodddbbyyyyeee!!!!!!!!" when I say that Pro conceded and Pro's claims that they were quitting the site.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not entirely sure what pro was doing. Skipping a turn; using terrible grammar; copying an entire source (even if citing it); and "Goood byeeeeeeeee"
Vote Placed by ButterCatX 2 years ago
ButterCatX
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: There are literally a million reasons con gets all of my points, including terrible spelling by pro, insults against people who haven't even done anything wrong other than exercise their right to free speech and freedom of religion, he basically only uses the bible as a source (proven unreliable), and he makes terrible arguments (Dinosaurs and Hitler)
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con should get full points for no other reason than Pro's impressive temper tantrum in the final round. Ignoring that, Con made better arguments, thoroughly dismantling Pro's. Con cited several sources and used better spelling and grammar. Lastly, Pro largely plagiarized his Round 2 arguments.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
ImAJesusFreakToxifrostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro pretty much raged quit. Had terrible grammar, no original arguments and did not speak much to the "betterness" of God over mortals.