The Instigator
Renzzy
Pro (for)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
Sappho_Incarnate
Con (against)
Losing
37 Points

God loves homosexuals, but does not approve of their actions.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,202 times Debate No: 2129
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (28)

 

Renzzy

Pro

Your profile says that you believe in God, that you are homosexual, and that you believe God does not disapprove of homosexuality. You defend this by saying God does not disapprove of love. I believe that you are correct about God not disapproving of love, however I think you are incorrect in thinking that God approves of homosexuality.

God clearly states in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. It is directly addressed in Leviticus and Romans as a immoral act:

LEVITICUS 18:22---
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"

LEVITICUS 20:13---
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'"

ROMANS 1:26-27---
"26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

GENESIS 29:4-11---
"4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men (These men are said to be angels in earlier verses) who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door."

These verses make it uncomfortably evident that homosexuality is wrong, saying it is unnatural and sinful. Leviticus 20:13 says that homosexuality was even PUNISHABLE BY DEATH in the Old Testament. That rule only applied in the Covenant of Works, though, and was abolished in the New Testament when Jesus' death on the cross put the Covenant of Grace into affect. I must make it clean however that nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuals are worse than any other sinner, all it says is that it is a sin. Homosexuality was one of the main reasons Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (hence the names "sodomy" for homosexual sex).

You are right in saying that God approves of love. All throughout the Bible God is commanding us to love eachother. Romantic relationships, however, are defined as one man and one woman.

MATTHEW 19:4-5---
He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his WIFE (implying that it is a woman), and the two shall become one flesh."

All of these verses make it plainly evident that homosexuality is wrong, and that God does not approve of their actions. In your argument I would like you to explain why you think that God, Jesus, and homosexuality are compatible.

Thanks!
Sappho_Incarnate

Con

Dear friend,

Thank you for reading my page. I have indeed read the bible versus you have presented to me several times before and find that I must disagree when you say God "clearly states" that homosexuality is a sin.

Of all those versus, the only one that seems to be inexplicably against homosexuality is Leviticus, which most Chirstians dismiss as outdated. Even you probably break some of the laws in Leviticus. Do you wear polyester cotton blend? God clearly stated that wearing two differnt fibers at the same time is a sin. Have you ever hugged your friend while she was on her period? According to God, that makes you unclean, and you should not be touched for at least thirty days. As you can see, the Jewish laws established in Leviticus are spurned by most Chrisitians nowadays. One could also argue that the reason homosexuals were so abominable to the Jews during that time was because Abraham's descendents were to be as "countless as the stars," and two men settling down together was something that got in the way of that.

As for Romans, the title of this section, if I remember, is something about punishment of idolators, people who worshipped worldly things, and not God. The description given here is homosexuality driven purely by lust. Paul was most likely trying to emphasize on worship of the flesh and pleasure to his audience (especially the men) by including the aspect of sodomy. Back in the day, men were often justified for their many affairs with women because they had "special needs" that could only be fulfilled by sex with various women. It was only "natural". But for one to be so obsessed with sex, that one eventually tires of women and moves on to men was to be driven by a spirit of lust. While nowadays, there are indeed permiscuous homosexuals who have sex with several partners and are driven purely by lust, there are also homosexuals who merely want what anyone else would want: companionship and love, neither of which are worldly desires.

The story of Sodom, is also one that I don't think condemns homosexuality as much as you think it does. Once again, the men who come to Lot's house for the angels are also driven by lust, and not just a physical lust, but a lust to overpower with violence. Because Lot has taken these angels into his home, he is obliged to protect them from these men who threatened them. What appears to be the sin here, is not homosexuality, but rape. Ah, but Lot offered them his daughters, you say, which would have also been rape. However, the fact that Lot offered up his daughters instead of the angels could have simply been a demonstration of his devotion to God, that he would rather allow his own daughters to be harmed then the messengers of his Lord. This would also parallel his brother's own child sacrifice when Abraham offered Issac up to God. When the men reject the daughters, this is not necessarily proof of their homosexuality, but their proud stubborness by only settling with what they damand of Lot and nothing less. Either way, it was not necessarily homosexuality that was the major sin of Sodom, but destructiveness in itself.

I don't quite understand how the verse from Matthew that you presented to me in any way proves that romantic relationships are only to be between man and woman. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus was discouraging divorce in this verse, stating that, because in marriage men and women become one, they cannot simply be separated by legal means after being conjoined both physically and spiritually. He never says anything about this union being exclusively heterosexual, he only states that such has been the custom for every Jewish man.

And honestly, who choses who they fall in love with? One does not simply say "I cannot fall in love with you, you're the same gender as me!" Once one falls in love, the damage is done, there's no changing your mind. After all, it is not man who choses who one falls in love with, but God.
Debate Round No. 1
Renzzy

Pro

Sappho Incarnate,

Thank you for the well though out post! I admit I was not expecting such an in-depth argument, but I was pleasantly surprised! It is always a good thing when one is compeld to dig deeper into God's word! Now to the debate...

In your last argument you said that the verses that I quoted in Leviticus were to be disregarded, due to the fact that most Christians dismiss them today as outdated. There are many laws in the Old Testament that are to dimissed as outdated, however I don't think that homosexuality is one of them. Back in the days of the Covanent of Works, there were many things that made people "unclean", such as touching a woman while she is on her period, or wearing cotton polyester blends. However these things were abolished at the institution of baptism. The greek word for baptism is 'baptizmos' (bap-TEEZ-mahs), and its english translation is 'ritual washing'. In the Old Testament, things that made you seriously unclean, such as touching a woman while she is on her period, required a ritual washing or cleansing. Once this cleansing took place, the person was clean again. In the New Testament, when baptism took the place of circumcision, it also abolished the need for ritual cleansings, because the blood of Christ has cleansed us all permanently.

The Bible itself also states it's credability in second Timothy.

2 TIM 3:16---
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,"

Whae he says all, it obviously includes the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. Romans also has somthing to say about the credability of the law.

ROMANS 7:12---
"Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."

"The law" is refering to the old Testament, as it generally does in the New Testament. Finally, 1 Timothy states that the law is for the unrighteous; spacifically sodomites.

1 TIM. 1:9-10---
"...knowing that th law is not made for the righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for the sinners, for the unholy and profane, for muderers of fathers and muderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"

The New Testament, that which no Christian dismisses as outdated, says that the law (the Old Testament) is for the lawless. Sodomites make the list of lawless people.

In defense of the Romans passage, all I have to say is that you skipped over a rather important word: natural. God created man to do what is natural to do, and when Paul refers to men burning with lust for eachother, it is called unnaturaul. In the greek, Romans 1:27 has this phrase: 'para phusin' (para FOOseen). The english translation of this is 'contrary to nature or the natural order of thing; unnatural intercourse'. When it says that men exchanged their natural relations for unnatural ones, this is what it means. Gos created men (and women) to act naturally, the way he created them. Homosexuality is refered to as unnatural. This is rienforced in Jude:

Jude 7---
"as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after STRANGE flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengance of eternal fire."

The Bible is clear on the fact that sodomy is unnatural and strange, contrary to how God created man. In the New Testament, Paul even goes so far as to say that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of God:

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10---
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicartors, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor SODOMITES,nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Ths Bible puts it in plain terms that homosexuals and sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God. Obviously, then it is a sin.

I believe what I have writen above, namely the passage in Jude, defends the passage in Genesis sufficianly, so I will not take further measures to defend it in the argument. Depending on what you cover in your next argument, I will address it further in my next argument.

Thanks!
Sappho_Incarnate

Con

Renzzy,

May I first express my joy at having such a well-informed and challenging opponent. I was giddy the entire time as I read your response to my argument and found myself scouring the internet to find the verses necessary to formulate this response. I'm sorry I did not write it out earlier, I wasn't feeling up to a debate yesterday, but now I am ready to continue.

I found it interesting what you said about baptism replacing all the earlier practices of the Old Testament. I really had no idea. But now that I do know, I'll be sure to take that into consideration.

As for the verses you quoted in support of the Bible's credibility, 2 Timothy 3:16 had a very good point: "All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God." I do not doubt that the holy men of the Bible heard the voice of God or that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit, but the fact of the matter is, they were men. While God is infallible, man is not, yet unfortunately, the only way to record the word of God was to filter it through man. In a way, the Bible is the word of God as interpreted by man, and each man interpreted it differently.

As for the unnaturalness of homosexual relations, may I just point out that many of the sexual acts practiced by homosexuals such as fellatio's, cunnilingus, and sodomy are practiced, and were perhaps practiced first, by heterosexuals. Is it also a sin for a woman to perform a fellatio on her husband, or for her husband to give her oral pleasure or manual stimulation? I wonder if the actions of homosexuals are really that "strange" or if it is just that fact they are performed by two people of the same sex.

I agree with Jude 7 when it says that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were sexually immoral because they certainly were. By what was written in Genesis, they obviously had no problem with promiscuity, adultery, and rape. However, I must ask, what is it that makes sex immoral or not? Is it that it serves in procreation? Because Abraham made love to Sarah even when she was far beyond her childbearing years. Or is it that it is between two people devoted to each other, like a husband and wife? There are many homosexual couples who practiced such devotion throughout history and even now. The Ladies of Llangolen are one famous example. They were two upper-middle class Irish girls who fell in love and ran away together to live freely and happily in their romantic friendship. It was cause for shun by their families, who disapproved of their lifestyle until King George and his queen made clear their own approval. Was the relationship of these two girls, who stayed devoted to each other until death, also immoral?

Love is considered the greatest virtue in the Bible. It is even considered to surpass faith:

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing."
1 Corinthians 13

It is even considered cancel out sin in a way:

"Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs."
Proverbs 10:12

And according to the Bible, it is compatible with God's law:

"Loves does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Romans 13:10

So if a relationship holds true to the virtue of love, how can it be wrong? I anticipate your response.

Thank you!
Sappho
Debate Round No. 2
Renzzy

Pro

Sappho,

I would like to thank you for the happy and lively debate on such a contraversial subject, I enjoy a good theological debate, and a good theologoical debate is exactly what you have given me. Thanks again.

I think that I made a mistake when I made this debate only three arguments long, because it seems that both of us could go longer than that. It is what it is, though, and we will have to make due:) Now to my final argument.

"I do not doubt that the holy men of the Bible heard the voice of God or that they were influenced by the Holy Spirit, but the fact of the matter is, they were men. While God is infallible, man is not, yet unfortunately, the only way to record the word of God was to filter it through man. In a way, the Bible is the word of God as interpreted by man, and each man interpreted it differently."

I beg to differ. The Bible is the infallible Word of God, and though it was filtered through man, it is nonetheless infallible. You say also that the Bible is the Word of God as interpreted by man, but I believe that this is also incorrect. If the Bible was intended to be interpreted differantly by every man, then we would simply not have an unchanging God. In the Bible, God makes it clear that He never changes:

Hebrews 13:8---
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

Hebrews 1:12---
"Like a cloak you will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail."

If God allowed each man to interperate it differantly, He would have to change for everyones differant beliefs, and it would make Him a liar when He speaks in these verses. Having said this, the verses that I quoted in Leviticus still stand as able to be read literally, and applicable today.

In your next paragraph, you say that many of the sexual acts practiced by homosexuals were practiced first by heterosexuals, and this may be so, but I still believe that the Bible is clear on the fact that any sexual act is natural as long as it is performed on the oppisite sex within the bounds of marriage. The Romans passage that that I quoted still says that the men exchanged their NATURAL relations for UNNATURAL ones, and my argument that God created us to act naturally still stands.

"However, I must ask, what is it that makes sex immoral or not?"

Sex, when involving a man and a woman is not at all immoral. It is sodomy that is described as immoral. Like I said in my last argument, in 1 Tim. 1:9-10, sodomite make it onto the list of lawless. Why would sodomites make it onto the list of lawless if sodomy was not an immoral act? Why would homosexuals fail to enter the kingdom of God if homosexuality is not a sin (1 Cor. 6:9)?

As for the Ladies of Llangolen, I do believe that their relationship was immoral. Yes, they may have been devoted to eachother, and yes, they may have loved eachother, but once again, the Bible describes this kind of love as unnatural.

"It is even considered cancel out sin in a way"

I think that you took this verse a little bit out of context. When the Bible says "Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs.", it does not mean that love coveres sin, because the Bible is VERY clear on the fact that nothiong but the innocent blood of Jesus can take sin away. I believe that this verse is refering more to the "do not return evil for evil" idea. If this were to be refering to the actual covering of sin, it would creat an irreversable contradiction.

"So if a relationship holds true to the virtue of love, how can it be wrong?"

LEVITICUS 18:22---
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'"

This says it is wrong in plain terms. If it is detestable to God, you cannot rest assured that He will simply let it go on account of love. 1 Cor. 6:9 says that homosexuality is a sin, and even if it does involve true love, love is not enough to cover a sin that keeps one from the kingdom of God.

Thank you again for this very wnjoyable debate! I leardned a lot about your position, and learned a lot about mine as well! This has to be the most enjoyable debate that I have done so far.

God bless!

Renzzy
Sappho_Incarnate

Con

Renzzy,

Sorry again about being so late to get back to you. Last night I was at a friend's house and I was out all day with my friends today. In fact, I just got back a little while ago. Anyway, on to the debate.

First, may I say that your last few arguments were really tough and I did have to put a lot of thought into this response. I appreciate your ability to get me really thinking about this. Very few people have ever come up with such thought-provoking answers to my arguments. Now to begin:

"If the Bible was intended to be interpreted differantly by every man, then we would simply not have an unchanging God... If God allowed each man to interperate it differantly, He would have to change for everyones differant beliefs, and it would make Him a liar when He speaks in these verses."

I'm not sure if the Bible was *intended* to be interpreted differently, but because each human looks at it from a different perspective, it inevitably is. Even religious scholars don't see things eye to eye all the time. If I listened a priest's sermon about a reading, then went and listened to another priest's sermon about the same reading, there would probably be quite a bit of contrast between the two. The fact of the matter is, God is a very complex being and his Word is like a novel written by a genius. Though people may find some of the hidden meanings, other's will miss them or find something that isn't even there. That verse I sent you is a perfect example. While I thought it meant one thing, you interpreted it to mean something completely different, and it made sense.

Speaking of that verse, when I said it "cancels out" sin, I didn't really mean cancels out. I mean, I know I said that but I couldn't really find the words to express what I really meant. Err... I still don't really know how to put it.

"The Romans passage that that I quoted still says that the men exchanged their NATURAL relations for UNNATURAL ones, and my argument that God created us to act naturally still stands."

This is such a tricky argument when it comes to nature, God, and homosexuality because no matter what I say, it can be turned around and used agaist me. For example, if I argued that God condemns human nature throughout the Bible and that homosexuality is not a result of human nature but human affection, one could argue that there is a great difference between the nature of humans and the nature of, well, nature. However, if I argued that homosexuality has been observed in nature among several species of animals and that humans are merely included among them, one could just as easily argue that humans should not take their example from animals concidering that many of the things they do, we would see as immoral. Now there's a contradiction: we're suppose to act naturally, yet act against our nature. It's a double standard that we can only act naturally if our natural inclination is heterosexual. Some people believe that homosexuality is a psycholgical disorder, caused by not enough nurturing from a parent of the same sex or by rejection of one's own feminimity/masculinity. If this is the case, many Christian ministries attempt to solve these problems theraputically. However, as a homosexual myself, I have never experienced either of the above and I know others who feel similarly. Others argue that homosexuality is inbred, which is what the Catholic Church believes, yet we are told to act against this inclination in order to remain chaste. I don't understand, should we act naturally or shouldn't we? And why?

This is why I argue love. The one thing that seperates the humans from the animals is the ability to harbor a deep, emotional bond to accompany these natural inclinations. It is probably the one thing that keeps humans monogamous when they are so inclined to act otherwise. If our nature is so detestable to God, then why did he make us? Despite his obvious dislike for homosexuality, Paul speaks on this as well:

"'Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"'[a] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
Romans 9:20-21

As Paul also said, "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" If God made us this way, what else can we do but go with it, make what we can of it? If a commitment is what blossoms from this, then is that not the best that can be made of an unusual circumstance? Or should we go against our nature, marry one of the opposite sex, void of a love that could have been? Which is better: love or procreation?

That is what it comes down to after all: procreation. One asserts that heterosexuality is natural way things should be because it is only from man and woman that a child is born. God did say "be fruitful and multiply" but is that truly our only purpose, to have babies? Isn't that the sole purpose of animals? The Bible seems to teach that we are above animals, and if we are above animals, then our purpose should transcend that of an animal's as well. Could it not be that maybe some people aren't meant to have children? For example, as well as being a lesbian, I also show signs of infertility. Perhaps this is a sign. Perhaps the purpose of a homosexual lies beyond building a family.

I shall end my argument with that and thank you for this most enthralling debate. Though we may never be able to see eye to eye on this issue, at least we can now better understand each other's perspective on the matter. I pray that you lead a life of happiness and prosperity from here on out and that your already deep relationship with God grows even more profound throughout your journey.

God Bless!
Your Sappho
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I would like to debate you, but I honestly don;t know much about this at all. I would be getting myself into a losing debate simply for lack of facts. I am sorry, and it has nothing to do with you, but I am simply not learned enough when it comes to Roman Catholicism. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I do not know much. Thanks for the offer though!

Renzzy
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
"Bible Alone" i think this is the main reason why protestant leaved the catholic church. when we say bible alone, we refer to scriptures and nothing more. Would you want?
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Agent D,

Hmmmm... I would have to know what you would say are other rules of faith. It does sound interesting though.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Twisted Juliet: "God loves everyone because he created us. Anyone who says otherwise needs to go read their Bible or have a talk with the Father."

Perhaps the latter, the former doesn't give to much support to your claim.

Deut. 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Psalms 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalms 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
6:18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Hosea 9:15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Posted by Twisted_Juliet420 9 years ago
Twisted_Juliet420
God loves everyone because he created us. Anyone who says otherwise needs to go read their Bible or have a talk with the Father.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
"Bible alone is a rule of faith" I think is a good topic to debate. Do you agree Renzzy?
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Ok, sounds good! I am currently engaged in a debate that takes a lot of thought, though, and am not really wanting to put another debate on top of it. I will challenge you to a debate on this topic as soon as I am done with my current debate.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
OK, lets talk about Virgin Mary. and how catholics defend Her.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
Ok, let's debate about the eucharist if you want. (Most of the non-catholics didnt understand this.) You want this topic?
Posted by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Good debate Pro! I voted for you!
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by meganlg43 9 years ago
meganlg43
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kals 9 years ago
Kals
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Twisted_Juliet420 9 years ago
Twisted_Juliet420
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by The_Deeps 9 years ago
The_Deeps
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PeaceFinger 9 years ago
PeaceFinger
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Gao 9 years ago
Gao
RenzzySappho_IncarnateTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03