The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Human Propensity to "Sin"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,776 times Debate No: 13383
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)




Greetings to my opponent and all viewers. Have fun and good luck in the proceeding rounds.

Right, now to express my argument; it is the belief of many that humans are not inherently good, but instead possess the hereditary propensity to "sin." I will advocate this viewpoint.

Firstly, we must establish that "sin" exists in religious (and secular) moral and ethical standards, and thus this can't be debated in the argument. defines "sin" as follows,
"transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, esp. a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time."

While this debate is foremost about the propensity to sin over being morally sound, "Original Sin" is correlated and will likely be integrated into the debate at some point.

On another note, I see no reason why Biblical references should be excluded from the debate.

Having stated that, I will briefly assert a few points and then allow my opponent to introduce the retaliatory argument (that the human is naturally "good" rather than "sinful").


To begin, I will select a verse from the Bible which seems to indicate that humans are inherently sinful, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? ... 17. But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." (Romans 6, verse 1, 2, 17).*

I would say then that the Bible is clearly announcing that the human is filled with sin and prone to contravene the law.

As another example, one can see that those who haven't received any moral upbringing are not wonderful model citizens - upright, true and virtuous. Rather, these individuals are crude and culpable. I will utilize the pirate, as an example. Many of these men were cast from the dregs of society, and they hesitated not to plunder, rape, loot, destroy and kill - even among themselves.

If the opportunity is there, will not one of us at certain times fall to lust rather than upholding the law? There is not one individual among us who can tell us that they are morally perfect - never having committed a misdemeanor or unjust act, never having cheated, lied, stolen etc.

I think I shall leave it there and wait for my opponent. Thanks for accepting, in advance, and may we have a most enjoyable debate!




Greetings to my opponent, and to the rest of the readership as well. Hopefully this will be a good debate for all those involved.

The Resolution: "Humans are not inherently good, but instead possess the hereditary propensity to 'sin.'"
Since the title of the debate is not a grammatical resolution, and my opponent specifically said this was the viewpoint he was advocating, I am taking this to be the resolution. I'll ask my opponent to please correct me if he wanted the resolution to be something else.

I negate on the grounds that humans do not possess the propensity to "sin."

Contention 1:
The primary definition of sin is transgression against divine law. To affirm the resolution by this definition, my opponent must show that humans have a propensity for transgression against divine law. This is not possible if there is no such thing as divine law. Thus, in order to affirm the resolution, my opponent must demonstrate, among other things, that divine law exists, which is something he has not done yet.

However, that will not be my main contention, as I will adopt a secondary, more applicable definition of sin in the spirit of good debate.

* Secondary definition of sin: "Intentional wrongdoing."
* Definition of propensity: "An inclination or natural tendency to behave in a particular way." [1]
* Definition of hereditary: "determined by genetic factors and therefore able to be passed on from parents to their offspring or descendants" OR "relating to inheritance." [2]

* Biblical references may certainly be used, but unless my opponent is able to first demonstrate their correctness these references should not be taken as authoritative.
* Romans 6, verses 1,2, and 17 have not been shown to be authoritative, thus their words are bare assertion. When they speak on the very issue we are debating, it is unjustifiable to not consider that these verses may simply be incorrect.
* Individuals who have received no moral upbringing are an aberration from the norm, and not representative of the state of humanity. Human society tends to instill moral teaching in its members, so it is not useful in this debate to look at those who are rare exceptions. However, I will discuss the issue slightly more in contention 2b.
* That humans sometimes commit wrongdoing is not indicative of a propensity for wrongdoing. My opponent is setting up a false dichotomy between having a propensity for sin and being morally perfect. There is a wide gap in between where people sin sometimes, but they don't have a tendency toward it. See contention 2a.

More contentions:
2: The stability and tendency toward order of human societies shows that we do not have a propensity for wrongdoing. Wrongdoings are at a great minority compared to all the neutral and positive actions human beings willfully take. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to recall the last time you were out in public. No doubt if you're observant, you saw people interacting with one another. If so, chances are you also saw people generally treating each other quite decently. Perhaps you were in a grocery store; one person in the store may have been stealing, but all the others were abiding by the rules of society. Thus, it is wrong to say we have a propensity for intentional wrongdoing, as it is rare compared to decent behavior. We have a propensity for behaving decently, not for sin.

2a: Take a 20-sided die. It sometimes lands on a 1. It usually does not. We would say it has a propensity for not rolling ones. We would not say it has a propensity for rolling ones. There is a difference between a propensity [tendency] and mere capability. Sins are rare events. Any existing 20-sided die has likely landed on 1 many times in the past, just as most humans have committed many wrongdoings in the past, but in both cases the events are rare.

2b: Consider heavily weighted dice that usually roll 1's. These represent those members of society for whom wrongdoing is the norm. This includes some psycho/sociopaths and many who did not receive the normal moral guidance. That these dice roll ones often does not allow us to conclude anything about dice in general. Likewise, a few bad apples who sin often are not representative of humans in general.

3: My opponent has failed to show that sinning is in any way hereditary.

I'll now cede the floor to my opponent, and wish him good luck. Good luck, 1stLordofTheVenerability. The floor is yours.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks, again, for accepting this debate!

Right, I don't wish to engage in semantics, as that would valuable space. You are proceeding in a manner that I had anticipated. : )

Firstly, Divine Law would be the basis for the natural law of today. As far as history can predict, the Mosaic Code was one of the very first legal systems. Supposing that the Bible is the Divine Word of God, then the Mosaic Law and further assertions listed in it would thence be "Divine Law," also. The Common system of law today has encompassed the principles of the Mosaic Law. I can't spend much time proving that Divine Law exists, as this debate is not inherently about the existence of Divine Law - whether or not it exists is irrelevant to the arguments I outlined in the first round. As the reader can attest, and my opponent conceded, there are other definitions of "Sin."

This debate is not about the authenticity of the Bible, and thence I can't grant much space in proving its authoritative nature. As I have aforementioned, in that the Bible has been utilized by legal institutions as a framework is definitely reason enough to take the segments regarding morality and the law as "Correct" and "Profound." One cannot possibly assert that common law was instituted before Biblical law or thereafter without it.

I do not concede that those who weren't brought up to adhere to the law or moral standards are the exception. I will expound later.

My opponent raises a valid point regarding the difference between moral perfection and natural sin. But, if we weren't natural sinners, why can't we be morally perfect? If human did not infringe the law or commit amoral acts, wouldn't we all be thoroughly sinless and upright denizens mirroring the flawless Garden of Eden?

As has been proved throughout the history of mankind, humans are not guiltless. Indeed, we often attempt to uphold a moral belief according to the law, but is it not easier to succumb to sinful deeds in many situations? As an example, statistics for adolescent marijuana use has risen 275%. [1] Whether or not peer pressure (others influencing one to make an unlawful decision) is factored in, the rates of those who commit amoral activity have risen (As a note, marijuana smoking among teens is illegal, and thence a transgression of the law. On a second note, if humankind isn't prone to sin, why do people struggle with peer pressure?).

Humans are equipped with a "conscience" and typically some form of "moral value" (often in conjunction with the law). But if the law is all that dictates ethics, then what would occur if there is no law? Is the human propensity to sin the reason for legal structure? Of course! Without common law, the non-religious human possesses no moral value to uphold (even without the law, many fall to "sinful" desires, as that is the propensity of human nature). Many philosophers can't agree on how ethics are established, unless the dictates of the law or "consequences" can compel one to determine a proper decision.

Thence, according to my opponent's reasoning, if there were not any "rules of society" to govern human and ensure that peace and lawful behaviour governed, human would act in a manner inconsistent with moral or ethical values - due to "natural sin" (to reiterate, even strong governance doesn't deter amoral behaviour among humans). As a brief testimony, consider the Red Army in Eastern Germany as they invaded in WWII - these were regular men during a harsh era, but they engaged in an appalling orgy of looting, raping and murdering. [6]

My opponent requests that I prove that the human propensity to sin is hereditary. I will then refer to the young child. An infant is prone to poor behaviour of all sorts, and the mentor must resort to various forms of discipline to instruct and chastise the child - attempting to deter the child from acts of unacceptable behaviour and to inculcate into them known values (and thence to overrule the reigning propensity to act in an iniquitous manner). If one never disciplines or instructs a child, then the child will not result as a "Generally good" citizen. [2] To commence life in a reprehensible manner, then "natural sin" must be hereditary.

Next, I think it will be appropriate that I introduce some moral questions and statistics in order to rebut the "rarity" of "sin" that my opponent supports.

1. "Human Propensity to Sin" is demonstrated effectively by the criminal underworld. North American prisons alone are filled with millions of felons. The United States places first as the nation with the most crime with 11,877,218 crimes committed on average per year. [3] I would hardly think this to be the exception - and this is in a society with legal systems, common law, religious principles and "family values." The "good life" can be had in the "Land of Opportunity" without unlawful behaviour, so the human propensity to sin must be a factor.

2. Why does crime exist? Why are people amoral? Why do people lust for wealth to such means that they will illicitly attain it? Why, then, do people wilfully break the law or succumb to desire (from administering illicit substances to shoplifting)?

3. Why were laws created? Why has anarchy reigned in nations before? Why is there civil war and discontent with "Just" law? Why do people wish to infringe the law? Codes such as the Mosaic Law and the Law of Hammurabi were crucial to the ancients - to keep them from shameful activity and anarchy.

And let us consider a portion of the scale of people affected by the criminal behaviour of others:

"An estimated 27 million people are enslaved around the world, including an estimated 20 million people held in bonded labour (forced to work in order to pay off a debt, also known as 'debt bondage'). At least 700,000 people annually, and up to 2 million, mostly women and children, are victims of human trafficking worldwide (a modern form of slavery -- bought, sold, transported and held against their will in slave-like conditions).
About 246 million, or 1 out of 6, children ages 5 to 17 worldwide are involved in child labor. Nearly three-fourths of these, about 180 million children, including 110 million under age 15, are exposed to the worst forms of, or hazardous, child labor. Some estimated 8.4 million children are trapped in the most abhorrent forms of child labour - slavery, trafficking, debt bondage, prostitution, pornography and other such activities.
Women account for 70 percent of the world's people who live in absolute poverty. Worldwide, a quarter of all women are raped during their lifetime. Depending on the country, 25 to 75 percent of women are regularly beaten at home." [5]

If we were all naturally "good," then why do these problems exist? Why do nations suffer under despotic, corrupt and avaricious rulers? Even stable nations such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom have evicted their share of corrupt or scandalous rulers from Government positions.

I shall thence conclude my arguments here and allow my opponent to contend.

Thanks for perusing this far. It's been enjoyable.







Some other Sites:


General Rebuttals/Responses:
* The Mosaic code has not been demonstrated to be of divine origin, and it is certainly not the oldest code of laws. Hammurabi's Code predates Mosaic Law by several hundred years, as do Cuneiform Law, the Code of Urukagina, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the Laws of Eshnunna, the Codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, the Code of Nesilim, and the Hittite laws[1].
* Systems of law today do not rely heavily on mosaic law. There are no longer laws against working on the sabbath, or eating shellfish, or wearing clothing of two different types of cloth, or any of the other uncommon laws found in Mosaic law. Modern law codes call for very few offenses to be punishable by death, in contrast with Mosaic law. The parts of Mosaic Law that are also a part of modern codes of law tend to be laws that have been prevalent throughout the history of law, even before Mosaic law.
* My opponent has not provided sufficient reason for us to "suppose" that the Bible is the divine word of a god. Thus, unless my opponent is willing to substantiate his claims, my Contention 1 succeeds. However, many voters will look to the other definitions of sin, so I will continue to argue on other grounds using the secondary definition of sin.
* We cannot be morally perfect because while we do not tend to sin, we are capable of it by pure chance we would all commit wrongdoings several times throughout our lives. I am not arguing in this debate that we do not sin, I am arguing that we do not have a propensity for sin. A twenty-sided die rolls ones occasionally, but it does not have a propensity for it.
* As noted above, my opponent's arguments that we aren't "guiltless" are irrelevant. I am not claiming that we are guiltless.
* It is irrelevant that we "struggle" with peer pressure and with whether or not we should commit wrongdoings. Peer pressure may in certain social circumstances lead to immoral behavior, but in many other situations this regard for what others think about us is a great motivator for moral behavior. Further, the plain fact remains that wrongdoings or "bad actions" are rare events compared with neutral and good actions, it seems the overall winner of the struggle is not sin.
* The very establishment of moral codes within a society is part of human nature, so it is irrelevant to take a hypothetical look at what humans might have a propensity for without those codes or any other rules of society. Further, there is much disagreement as to what the long-term outcome would be in a world without laws; there are many who believe that society would end up better off for not having laws - most anarchists hold this position.
* Small children are prone to immoral behavior because they are ignorant of right and wrong, of the expectations set on them, and of the consequences of wrongdoings. Thus, it cannot be said that they are committing intentional societal wrongdoings, and therefore this is not an instance of sin and does not show that sin is hereditary. Ironically, what COULD be considered hereditary are the moral values and decency that parents instill in their children - the very things that make sin rare.

Responses to numbered points:
1: Millions of felons is not indicative of a propensity to sin in humans. It is not even indicative of such a propensity in those millions of felons. It is merely indicative of the fact that at least once in their lifetimes, those people committed serious wrongdoings. However, even those felons likely were decent in most of their interactions with others, and wrongdoings were likely still rare.
My opponent cites a statistic that 11,877,218 crimes are committed per year in the United States. I officially accept this statistic. There are over 310,000,000 people living in the United States[2]. Most people take a large number of actions every day. Let us provisionally make the extremely conservative assumption that people take, on average, one action per day. This results in over 113,150,000,000 actions being taken per year. Given that I am accepting my opponent's statistic for the number of crimes committed as being authoritative, this leads to the conclusion that just over ONE IN EVERY TEN THOUSAND actions is a crime. When we take into consideration that people tend to take far more than one action per day, we see that crime is even more rare than this. This matter of factly IS the exception and not the rule. One in every ten thousand actions is not the norm, it is a deviation from the norm.

2: Crime exists because people have needs, and every once in a while people will resort to unlawful means to fulfill those needs. However, as noted above, crime exists as a very small portion of the actions humans take.

3: Laws were created because people who took control of societies and realized there needed to be standard punishments for misdeeds, rather than allowing for whatever form of retaliation a victim decided proper. As I noted already, though, laws are now a part of the very nature of human society, along with language and many other things our extremely ancient ancestors may not have had, so it is irrelevant to consider a time before laws.

My opponent cites some statistics of those who are affected by wrongdoing across the globe. These are all completely irrelevant. We are not arguing whether there is a propensity among humans for being affected by wrongdoing, or whether wrongdoing often has major negative consequences. Wrongdoing certainly is a major problem in society, but that is not what this debate is about.

As an aside, it's quite ironic that my opponent chooses to cite slavery as a major example when it is not condemned, and in fact is explicitly allowed for, in the Mosaic law he was attempting to use as an example of divine law.

Having responded to my opponent's claims, I will leave it at that, as I have addressed my opponent's relevant concerns. I cede the floor to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2


Note, readers, that I did not say the first code, as my opponent asserts, but merely implied it as such and as the most predominant. Any devotee of history should realize that the Cuneiform Law predates many others, and, as my opponent asserts, there were other legal systems - all of which were designed to control the people's unashamed sinful activities.

My opponent is pressing a case that proclaims that the human being does not sin constantly. He is quite effectively creating the proverbial "straw man." I have never claimed that human will sin constantly, as any person can see this is not the case. But rather we are naturally drawn to sin. It is the propensity of human beings to do so - that has been my contention throughout the debate. If the human has a choice without consequences between delightful sin and dull righteousness, nine times out of ten that person will select the sin. I am sure that many of you have heard the phrase, "Rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the Saints"? (by Billy Joel). From various statements I have reviewed on this topic, the majority of the people will gleefully admit that they would rather enjoy themselves while engaging in questionable activities. Of course, this depends dramatically on one's ethics, but cities like Las Vegas encourage even the strong of moral to drink to a point of intoxication, gamble life funds away and possibly corrupt themselves with other controversial behaviour.

In this way, my opponent's contention regarding the inanimate dice is fallacious. By chance a die can land on any number. An inanimate object such as the die has no inner thoughts, no desires, no morals to infringe. There is no inner predilection toward enjoying oneself without considering consequences or morals. As I asserted in round 1, every one of us has caved to emotions or desire - perhaps it is as simple as abusive anger towards another (I think we can all admit times when we have become frustrated, sarcastic, bitterly angry, and said words or committed deeds to even a loved one that we later regretted) or as unlikely as serial murder.

My opponent contends that modern law is not founded upon Mosaic Laws. I ask, then, how did law progress? It obviously progressed from the basis offered by the Mosaic Law and then expanded upon or discarded those that no longer applied (for example, the New Testament teaches of forgiveness, and so much punishment by death was filtered out of the law.) Many Legal codes and Constitutions of today have history of being established in accordance to the Mosaic Law. My opponent skilfully selects a few laws which have been discarded by modern law, but murder, cheating, lying under oath, prostitution, committing sex with a minor or relative, slander ("Bearing false witness against a neighbour"), desecration of Holy relics etc. are all still quite illegal. These are laws that applied to Jew or Gentile then, and apply to Jew or Gentile now. Even now Jews obey a great many of the laws prescribed by the Mosaic Law, whereas the Gentile treats them only as moral suggestions (or in terms of comestibles or dress, not at all).

"Ironically, what COULD be considered hereditary are the moral values and decency that parents instill in their children - the very things that make sin rare."

By "instilling" moral values and decency into a child, my opponent then refutes his own argument and states that without such training, a child will likely become prone to sinful behaviour, unless mentored by another who "instills" proper behaviour into them. By his very words, my opponent concedes that children to receive a hereditary natural sin, as they require training and discipline to discourage sinful acts. Throughout a child's life, even when the child becomes knowledgeable of "right and wrong," the child will still choose to sin - this is why parents struggle with discipline. Parents assume personal responsibility and state that "they have failed" or "if only" if a child follows the natural propensity to sin.

I contend that my opponent can't prove that a felon was "likely decent" in most of their reactions. Suppose the felon was captured after a string of robberies; perhaps never before had that person been caught. It likely would have started with a small theft - an eraser or something trivial. Then the propensity to sin becomes harder to resist.

2. " Crime exists because people have needs"

This is a very poor excuse to disguise the human propensity to sin in order to meet those "needs." If a human were not naturally sinful, why would we feel obligated to commit sinful acts? Needs can be met in other manners. I would also like my opponent to explain why money laundering, murder, incest, rape, kidnapping, abuse, illicit substances, trafficking etc. occurs. These are quite extravagant "needs." The wealthy businessperson "needs" more, so s/he sets of an extortion racket.

3. I concede to my opponent that discipline is required - in order to deter humans from the natural propensity to sin. As I have aforementioned, many times, laws do not deter millions of individuals, even though they are there to assist in resisting the natural sin. By observing consequences, it becomes easier to resist the natural tendency to sin.

Slavery was never explicitly permitted as just throughout Biblical law (unless it became a form of bond punishment), and cruelty toward those subject to one's power wasn't tolerated by the law. A slave of the Jews was expected to work hard, but was not beaten, starved or mistreated in any manner. Many slaves became fond of their masters. Slavery was tolerated - not outlawed, but not approved, either.

I request that one view the people in a nation plagued by war. Looters, child soldiers, avaricious individuals, illicit substances and illicit behaviour of numerous types are not uncommon occurrences. Without stability or the law, what consequences are there to those who follow their predilections of sin?

I do not think there is any more that already has been said, so I shall conclude with the note that I personally believe that the human propensity to sin can be resisted. Individuals, especially those in civilized society with a stable Government and a decent standard of living, are capable of resisting (perhaps by adhering to religion, perhaps not). But this does not mean that individuals will never sin; due to the propensity, humans will be plagued with strife and difficult decisions throughout life. One can only hope that the person resist the urge and bear through as best one is able.

Thanks for the debate! May we both do well in the voting period.



Ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you of an all-important fact. This debate is not about whether humans have the desire to sin, or whether humans would have a tendency to sin if there were no consequences for it. This debate is about whether humans actually do have a tendency to sin.

I will give an analogy for those who do not understand the difference. Consider a scenario where eating meat were made punishable by death tomorrow. Let's assume that people followed this law most of the time, and instances of eating meat became rare. Let's also assume that people still loved meat, and had intense cravings for it. It would simply be incorrect to say that these people have a propensity [tendency] to eat meat. Rather, they have a tendency to avoid meat, even though it's something that in one sense they desire. This is because in another, stronger sense, they desire not eating meat [due to the negative consequences of eating meat].

It should be remarkably clear now that an instinct or desire to commit sin does not fulfill the resolution. It is frankly irrelevant how much people have a low-level DESIRE to sin, or how much they WOULD do it if laws were abolished. Thus, the majority of my opponent's arguments are irrelevant to the resolution, and need not speak more on them. What if's don't matter - this debate is strictly about whether people actually DO tend to sin.

My opponent asks how modern law arrived if not through modification of Mosaic law, so I shall answer. Modern systems of law are based far more heavily on ancient Roman and Greek legal systems, and on new ideas that have come about since then. Neither ancient Roman nor Greek legal systems have a basis in Mosaic Law, as Judaism had a very minimal impact in the early development of either nation.

Allow me now to finish off with a bulleted recap important points I haven't went over yet this round.


* My opponent never demonstrated that there was such a thing as divine law. Thus, any voters who choose to hold PRO to the primary definition he gave for sin in R1 should vote CON, as PRO has necessarily failed to affirm the resolution by this standard. Note that all my other arguments were secondary arguments using an alternate definition of sin.

* The only example of sin, using the secondary definition, given throughout the first two rounds of this debate was the example of crime. My opponent noted that every year, 11,877,218 crimes are committed in the US. I accepted this statistic as authoritative. Since this is the only statistic given and it was given by my opponent and I have no objection, we should provisionally accept it as representative of humans overall.

* Using my opponent's own statistics, if we assume that crime only represents 1% of all wrongdoing in the US - an assumption quite in my opponent's favor when we consider that crime is the only example we've talked about - people seem to sin only an average of once every 100 days. This is extremely rare, considering the frequency with which we interact with one another. For every sinful interaction, there are thousands of non-sinful interactions. Sinning is simply not something humans have a tendency to do. It's a rarity, perhaps thanks in part to criminal justice systems, moral philosophies, good parenting, and perhaps even religion. Sin is not the norm, it's an aberration from the norm. It's not the rule, it's a rare exception to it. Thanks to the social devices in place combating sin, humans are inclined not to sin. And that's enough to negate the resolution.

* Further, my opponent has not demonstrated that any desire to sin is hereditary, so even those who are unconvinced by my previous argument should not vote PRO.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you'll join me in saying that the resolution, at least insofar as this debate and the definitions governing it, has been negated. I thank you for reading, and I thank my opponent for the enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
Same to you. : ) Thanks also for not voting; I can't, either.
Posted by beem0r 7 years ago
Thanks for the interesting debate, 1stLord.
Posted by beem0r 7 years ago
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
Very stimulating debate, Beem0r. I'm enjoying it, immensely.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
Nevertheless, your advice is appreciated, I'm sure. Thanks. : )
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
You are assuming substantially; this is not my first debate, nor could it be my first victory. I merely mentioned that I am returning after an eventful summer.

And, of course, perhaps I haven't unleashed the full potential of my argument until next round. Create an impregnable argument in the opener, and who would wish to debate, I ask? :P
Posted by gerrandesquire 7 years ago
Humans do have a propensity to sin, but you are doing a poor job of proving it. Better buckle up. Since this is your first debate, i suggest that you try to actually prove the claim. Don't rely on bible, that will not support your case. Try giving examples of everyday experiences.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by sllewuy 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50