The Instigator
fishing_007
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
RebelOfTheSacredHeart
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points

I know that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the church found in the Bible.

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: 1/26/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,113 times Debate No: 2211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (14)

 

fishing_007

Pro

I am a Christian and believe that the Bible shows that there is one church that Jesus bought with His own blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 1:5). I believe that we all need to study the Scriptures carefully to see the things that are being taught are true and valid (Acts 17:11). I am glad that I obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ when I was eleven years old. I realized in my life that I had sinned against God and violated His law. God had made a marvelous plan which He had constructed and implemented across the ages even before time began so that I could be saved from my sins if I obeyed what Jesus said by believing on the Son of God, repenting of my sins, confessing my faith in the Christ, and being immersed in water for the forgiveness of sins so that my sins could be washed away by the blood of the Lamb! How truly I am thankful and always will be thankful for the grace of God! [Tit. 2:11-14] (Heb. 5:8,9; Mk. 16:15,16; Matt. 28:18-20; John 8:24; Lk. 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:9,10; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 6:3,4; Acts 17:30; Acts 22:16 and many other passages). I have been added by the Lord to the one church that Jesus bought with His own blood (Acts 2:47).
If we look to the pattern of the New Testament. it can easily be seen what the church of our Lord was structured like. The organization of the church was that Jesus Christ was the Head over His body, the church (Eph. 1:22,23). We can also see that Jesus wanted the apostles to appoint elders over congregations. (Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5). So we can see that it was kind of like this illustration:

God the Father
----------
Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 28:18-20)
-----------
God the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16; Acts 2:1-4)
---------
Apostles & Prophets of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:1-4; Eph. 3:3-6; Eph. 4)
----------
[Let me issue right here a break showing that I believe in the full verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures (2nd Tim. 3:16,17) and I believe that miracles ceased back in the first century because revelation was fully complete when all of the New Testament was written (1st Cor. 13:8-10 and Eph. 4 and Mark 16:17-20). I believe that miracles were for the valid purpose of confirming the Word of God such as the example of John 3:2. We can see that the Bible has been confirmed and sealed by the Holy Spirit. It has been authenticated by miracles, wonders, and signs (John 20:30,31). So I know that miracles have ceased which might be another reason later why I believe Joseph Smith could not have had any revelations. This will be another discussion later ]
----------
Plurality of elders under each congregation (Tit. 1:5 and the rest of the chapter and 1st Tim. 3; 1st Pet. 5:1-4; Heb. 13:17)
----------
Members, Deacons, Preachers (letters of 1st, 2nd Timothy and Titus)

Is this the organization we see in the Latter-Day Saints church? If the church was supposedly fully restored as they claim, then why isn't this pattern present in their structure of the LDS church? They have wards, stakes, apostles, elders (who are young men who are not married which violates the qualifications of "husband of one wife" and "not a novice").

I just want to get back to what the Bible says. Now I know that the argument will be produced that the Bible has been corrupted throughout the centuries. Anyone who makes this claim is ignorant of the evidence of the availability of New Testament manuscripts and Old Testament manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls discovery) that have thousands and thousands of copies that show the accuracy of the text. How dare someone make this type of argument. It is very fruitless. I also would point out that it would seem very wonderful to know that God's wonderful providence can be seen over the process of the transmission of the text. Thank you Lord for providing us everything that we need that pertains to life and godliness (2nd Pet. 1:3).

There will be a series of arguments that will be given later on this topic. Let me say that I love people and I care about people and always want what is best for them. Love "rejoices in the truth" (1st Cor. 13:4-8) and the truth must be spoken in love (Eph. 4:15). This debate is not given to deliberately embarrass or hate Latter Day Saints. I am just trying to help each of you come to the knowledge of the truth. (1st Tim. 2:4) But I must be like the apostle Paul and confront error, but yet still speak the truth in love. I will do that to the best of my ability. I hope we can have a debate that will be fruitful and challenging.
RebelOfTheSacredHeart

Con

RebelOfTheSacredHeart forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
fishing_007

Pro

I would like to post an illustration to give an understanding of what I am leading to next. Let say you are in the backyard and you find a big snake. You are scared of snakes, but you decide to take the courage and want to kill the snake. You decide to go to the toolshed and happen to see an ax that is right next to the door. You pick it up and you head back over to where the snake was. You then use the ax to cut the snake's head off. After doing so, the snake is struggling endlessly and eventually dies. My next series of arguments have to do with this same scenario. I believe that if you can go back to the very foundation (snake's head) of the LDS church and see that it was like a slithering snake (full of hypocrisy, lies, fraud - an allusion to Gen. 3 where Satan acted as the snake in the garden) , then you can cut it heads off and the rest will die with it.
Remember that I am not doing this to bash the LDS church. I am not doing this to make myself popular. I am not doing this to think that I am better in so way or smarter than anybody. My sole purpose is to offer the truth to anyone who truly desires with reason and rationality and examine the evidence that can be clearly presented. Either the LDS church is the true church of the Bible or it is not. It is either the embodiment of all truth or the devil's lair of all lies. There is no middle ground. (Eph. 4:15; Jn. 8:32)

1. The Melchizedek Priesthood

If you read very, very carefully the chapter 7 of Hebrews, we find that Jesus Christ was to be the high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Who was Melchizedek? Well, we read about him back in Gen. 14 and Ps. 110. He was a priest of the most High God. Hebrews is a wonderful book to study. It defintely shines forth the statement: "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." The old covenant had its types and shadows (Heb. 10:1-4) which was to point to Christ Jesus our Savior. The animal sacrifices, the tabernacle, etc. were all pointing to the redemptive work that would be accomplished by Christ. What an amazing thought. Only Jesus Christ has the right to the order of Melchizedek. Read very carefully Hebrews 7 and you will come away with this. If this be the case, then why is it that Joseph Smith was told to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood? Is it possible that Joseph Smith obtained this from another source? I believe the historical evidence can be shown that Joseph Smith was a Mason. In the Masonry religion, there was a high regard for what was known as "Melchizedek Priesthood." Some of these references can be found in Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia (New York: Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Company, 1961), s.v. "Webb, Thomas Smith," p. 681), Thomas Smith Webb, The Freemason's Monitor or Illustrations of Masonry: In Two Parts, by Thomas S. Webb, Past Master of Temple Lodge, Albany; and H.P. of the Providence Royal Arch Chapter (New York: Printed by Southwick and Crooker, No. 354, Walter-Street, 1802), pp. 197-199, Albert G. Mackey, author, William J. Hughan and Edward L. Hawkins, revisers, A New and Revised Edition: An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (New York: The Masonic History Company, 1916), s.v. "Melchizedek," p. 478, Arthur E. White, A New Encyclopedia of Free Masonry (New York: Weathervan Books, reprint 1970), p. 343.
The historical evidence shows that Joseph Smith did not receive the Melchizedek Priesthood by divine revelation, but rather borrowed it from Masonry and mixed it in to his theology.

2. The Book of Mormon

I have read the book of Mormon almost three times now. I try to come to it with an unbiased mind as I would do with the Bible and the Qu'ran. As I have studied the Qu'ran I realize that it did not come from God, but rather many Jewish legends have been incorporated into it. I could give more evidence for this if I desired. Everyone has the right to look to the evidence. A prophet in 600 A.D. tried to make a new religion even though God had shown the Christian system would be the end of all revelation. Look at Dan. 9 very closely of the 70 weeks and notice the phrase: "to seal up vision and prophecy." That seems to mean that all revelation would finally be complete before the end of the first century A.D. Look closely also at Jude 3 where the faith (the Christian system) has been once for all delivered to the saints. Look at Peter's statement in 2nd Pet. 1;3 where he states by inspiration that we have all things that pertain to life and godliness. That is why I know the Qu'ran is not from God. I know that all revelation ceased and the fruits of the Qu'ran show this as well with its contradictions and inconsistencies. Then we have another book called the Book of Mormon that claims to be from God 1200 years later. Well, let us apply the same techniques that we did for the Bible and the Qu'ran to see if it comes from Divine origin: Are the historical accounts accurate? Any contradictions? Does it claim to be inspired? Any prophecies that were fulfilled? Scientific foreknowledge? The list could go on. Does the Book of Mormon pass the test? If you look closely in the book of Alma which claimed to be written in 60s B.C., you will find anachronisms. There are a lot of verses from the book of Hebrews which was written at least after 40 A.D. but before 70 A.D. So there is a gap of almost 100 years. Yet, the book of Alma contains alot of verses that come straight from the book of Hebrews. If you look in 3rd Nephi, you will find the Sermon on the Mount and in that Sermon it is exactly as found in the King James Version. The translators added some words to the KJV that are ALSO found in the Book of Mormon. It is most certain that this is not an ancient document but rather someone who used the KJV in helping them compile the Book of Mormon. I believe Sidney Rigdon had a lot to do with the existence of the Book of Mormon. There is historical evidence that he knew that the book was coming, but yet he was supposedly a convert to the LDS church in November of 1830 after the church had been established for a few months. Look closely in Google and look up: Sidney Rigdon and the Book of Mormon." You should come across the very first hit and go there and look at all the historical evidence. This will defintely help explain its very existence. That is why we can find alot of the percentage of the Book of Mormon is made up of the Bible such as the Sermon on the Mount, 2 Nephi has alot of chapters from the book of Isaiah, and there are many many other allusions to it. I hope and pray that each of you will look at the evidence and come away understanding that if you are wrong, then you can be like Saul of Tarsus and realize that you are wrong. It is alright to admit you are wrong, but what are you going to do next? What I would suggest is that you learn the truth? I would love to have a Bible study with you and help you to come to know the truth. I will pray for you and everyone who reads this.
RebelOfTheSacredHeart

Con

RebelOfTheSacredHeart forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
fishing_007

Pro

I would like to post an illustration to give an understanding of what I am leading to next. Let say you are in the backyard and you find a big snake. You are scared of snakes, but you decide to take the courage and want to kill the snake. You decide to go to the toolshed and happen to see an ax that is right next to the door. You pick it up and you head back over to where the snake was. You then use the ax to cut the snake's head off. After doing so, the snake is struggling endlessly and eventually dies. My next series of arguments have to do with this same scenario. I believe that if you can go back to the very foundation (snake's head) of the LDS church and see that it was like a slithering snake (full of hypocrisy, lies, fraud - an allusion to Gen. 3 where Satan acted as the snake in the garden) , then you can cut it heads off and the rest will die with it.
Remember that I am not doing this to bash the LDS church. I am not doing this to make myself popular. I am not doing this to think that I am better in so way or smarter than anybody. My sole purpose is to offer the truth to anyone who truly desires with reason and rationality and examine the evidence that can be clearly presented. Either the LDS church is the true church of the Bible or it is not. It is either the embodiment of all truth or the devil's lair of all lies. There is no middle ground. (Eph. 4:15; Jn. 8:32)

1. The Melchizedek Priesthood

If you read very, very carefully the chapter 7 of Hebrews, we find that Jesus Christ was to be the high priest after the order of Melchizedek. Who was Melchizedek? Well, we read about him back in Gen. 14 and Ps. 110. He was a priest of the most High God. Hebrews is a wonderful book to study. It defintely shines forth the statement: "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed; the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." The old covenant had its types and shadows (Heb. 10:1-4) which was to point to Christ Jesus our Savior. The animal sacrifices, the tabernacle, etc. were all pointing to the redemptive work that would be accomplished by Christ. What an amazing thought. Only Jesus Christ has the right to the order of Melchizedek. Read very carefully Hebrews 7 and you will come away with this. If this be the case, then why is it that Joseph Smith was told to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood? Is it possible that Joseph Smith obtained this from another source? I believe the historical evidence can be shown that Joseph Smith was a Mason. In the Masonry religion, there was a high regard for what was known as "Melchizedek Priesthood." Some of these references can be found in Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia (New York: Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Company, 1961), s.v. "Webb, Thomas Smith," p. 681), Thomas Smith Webb, The Freemason's Monitor or Illustrations of Masonry: In Two Parts, by Thomas S. Webb, Past Master of Temple Lodge, Albany; and H.P. of the Providence Royal Arch Chapter (New York: Printed by Southwick and Crooker, No. 354, Walter-Street, 1802), pp. 197-199, Albert G. Mackey, author, William J. Hughan and Edward L. Hawkins, revisers, A New and Revised Edition: An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (New York: The Masonic History Company, 1916), s.v. "Melchizedek," p. 478, Arthur E. White, A New Encyclopedia of Free Masonry (New York: Weathervan Books, reprint 1970), p. 343.
The historical evidence shows that Joseph Smith did not receive the Melchizedek Priesthood by divine revelation, but rather borrowed it from Masonry and mixed it in to his theology.

2. The Book of Mormon

I have read the book of Mormon almost three times now. I try to come to it with an unbiased mind as I would do with the Bible and the Qu'ran. As I have studied the Qu'ran I realize that it did not come from God, but rather many Jewish legends have been incorporated into it. I could give more evidence for this if I desired. Everyone has the right to look to the evidence. A prophet in 600 A.D. tried to make a new religion even though God had shown the Christian system would be the end of all revelation. Look at Dan. 9 very closely of the 70 weeks and notice the phrase: "to seal up vision and prophecy." That seems to mean that all revelation would finally be complete before the end of the first century A.D. Look closely also at Jude 3 where the faith (the Christian system) has been once for all delivered to the saints. Look at Peter's statement in 2nd Pet. 1;3 where he states by inspiration that we have all things that pertain to life and godliness. That is why I know the Qu'ran is not from God. I know that all revelation ceased and the fruits of the Qu'ran show this as well with its contradictions and inconsistencies. Then we have another book called the Book of Mormon that claims to be from God 1200 years later. Well, let us apply the same techniques that we did for the Bible and the Qu'ran to see if it comes from Divine origin: Are the historical accounts accurate? Any contradictions? Does it claim to be inspired? Any prophecies that were fulfilled? Scientific foreknowledge? The list could go on. Does the Book of Mormon pass the test? If you look closely in the book of Alma which claimed to be written in 60s B.C., you will find anachronisms. There are a lot of verses from the book of Hebrews which was written at least after 40 A.D. but before 70 A.D. So there is a gap of almost 100 years. Yet, the book of Alma contains alot of verses that come straight from the book of Hebrews. If you look in 3rd Nephi, you will find the Sermon on the Mount and in that Sermon it is exactly as found in the King James Version. The translators added some words to the KJV that are ALSO found in the Book of Mormon. It is most certain that this is not an ancient document but rather someone who used the KJV in helping them compile the Book of Mormon. I believe Sidney Rigdon had a lot to do with the existence of the Book of Mormon. There is historical evidence that he knew that the book was coming, but yet he was supposedly a convert to the LDS church in November of 1830 after the church had been established for a few months. Look closely in Google and look up: Sidney Rigdon and the Book of Mormon." You should come across the very first hit and go there and look at all the historical evidence. This will defintely help explain its very existence. That is why we can find alot of the percentage of the Book of Mormon is made up of the Bible such as the Sermon on the Mount, 2 Nephi has alot of chapters from the book of Isaiah, and there are many many other allusions to it. I hope and pray that each of you will look at the evidence and come away understanding that if you are wrong, then you can be like Saul of Tarsus and realize that you are wrong. It is alright to admit you are wrong, but what are you going to do next? What I would suggest is that you learn the truth? I would love to have a Bible study with you and help you to come to know the truth. I will pray for you and everyone who reads this.
RebelOfTheSacredHeart

Con

RebelOfTheSacredHeart forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I must disagree with your comment that faith is based on evidence. I do agree that after faith, evidence may come in the form of a miracle or a spiritual witness, but to put those things before faith is to put the cart before the horse. True faith comes without the proof.
Posted by fishing_007 9 years ago
fishing_007
Dear mikelwallce,
If you think that my arguments were so easy to refute, then why did you not debate me before? Remember that faith is based on evidence. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is true that Jesus said, "Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe." I believe because of the historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. It is very, very important that we see this. Thank you. Remember that I love you as I want what it best in your interest.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
why in the world would you take this debate and not post a single argument? I dont like debating my faith, but this would have been an easy one to refute, i dont understand taking a debate and then forfeiting every round.
Posted by fishing_007 9 years ago
fishing_007
I appreciate those comments. I always want to make sure that I am looking at the context in the light of its historicity. I will defintely take that into consideration. It does make sense with the other passages of Scripture that Paul is addressing to the church at Corinth. I appreciate that once again. Thank you
Posted by proflandsurveyor 9 years ago
proflandsurveyor
"Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so" [Heb. 6:1-3]. As long as people dwell in the realm of the partial, completeness eludes them. However, when we build upon the foundation, in time completeness comes. The mission of Paul in his daily ministry for Christ Jesus was to bring the disciples of Christ to a state of maturity, so that one day, as he stood before the Judge, he could present to Him these converts as mature men (and women). At the time that Paul penned 1 Corinthians, the church there was very young; the congregation had only been established about three years before. They were babes; maturity had not yet come ... and this fact was visible in almost every area of their interpersonal relationships (as the epistle reflects). When "the perfect" came, however, the childish pursuits would be left behind, and they would behave as mature adults in the Lord. This was the goal for which the apostle Paul labored ... and prayed [as did Epaphras -- Col. 4:12]. Not only for Corinth, but for all those with whom he had influence. James, the brother of our Lord, also desired his brethren to be "perfect (same word) and complete" [James 1:4], something that would come as they grew through various trials and afflictions.
Posted by proflandsurveyor 9 years ago
proflandsurveyor
Throughout the writings (and the ministry) of the apostle Paul, he seeks to instill spiritual growth and development in the lives of his fellow Christians. He does not desire for them to remain "babes," but rather to "grow up" and "mature" in Christ. In the very next chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthian brethren, Paul writes, "Brethren, do not be children in your thinking, ... but in your thinking be mature" [1 Cor. 14:20]. Again, this is the very same Greek word. Thus, contextually, Paul is clearly seeking to mature the brethren in Corinth, desiring for them to get beyond that which is incomplete or partial, thus allowing maturity to "come" into their lives. When that took place, the foundational gifts and principles upon which they were placing so much importance would become less so, giving way to the fuller expressions of LOVE in their daily walk. "When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things" [1 Cor. 13:11]. Clearly, Paul is giving an illustration of what it means to move beyond the incompleteness of immaturity and to realize the fullness and completeness of maturity in Christ Jesus -- something desperately needed in the lives of the brethren in Corinth!! "Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly -- mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready" [1 Cor. 3:1-2]. The brethren in Corinth needed for "the perfect" to come!! They needed to move beyond childhood and progress to manhood (spiritual maturity).
Posted by proflandsurveyor 9 years ago
proflandsurveyor
The Greek word employed by the apostle Paul in this particular phrase [1 Cor. 13:10], the one that is generally rendered by the English word "perfect" in most of our translations, is teleios. This does not refer to "an end; a final act." It does not refer to that which is "brought to completion." Thus, the idea of completeness and wholeness is conveyed by this word at times. One of the major meanings of this term, however, and it is frequently translated this way in Scripture, is "maturity; full grown." I appreciate the fact that Dr. Jimmy Allen, in his above mentioned commentary, declared that "all authorities" he had consulted in his study "indicate the word can mean mature or full grown" [p. 165]. This fact is often completely overlooked in one's effort to interpret 1 Cor. 13:10, and, in my view, that is a rather significant failing. After a considerable amount of careful, prayerful study and reflection on this passage, I have come to the conclusion (and the conviction) that Paul, when using the phrase "the perfect," is speaking of a state of spiritual maturity. I believe this fits not only the immediate and remote contexts, but also is completely consistent with Paul's stated mission for his ministry. "Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily" [Col. 1:28-29, NKJV]. This, by the way, is the very same Greek word that appears in 1 Cor. 13:10. Paul's goal in his ministry is to present his converts, and indeed all disciples of Christ, to the Lord in a state of spiritual maturity.
Posted by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
All hail teh Bibel.

Major lawl.
Posted by cinderella1992 9 years ago
cinderella1992
One thing I have to say is that I belong to the LDS church.You say you have read the Book of Mormon 3 times. If you have truly read it and actually wanted to know if it was true then you wouldnt have this arguement! I wont debate you because I dont want to go on about a never ending arguement over my religion. If you or anyone else have any questions about LDS members. Feel free to email me
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Are you guys serious? Voting for a guy that never posted ANYTHING?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by padfo0t 9 years ago
padfo0t
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 cinderella1992 9 years ago
cinderella1992
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 fishing_007 9 years ago
fishing_007
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 gogott 9 years ago
gogott
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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 els21 9 years ago
els21
fishing_007RebelOfTheSacredHeartTied
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