The Instigator
Cooperman88
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

If a creator and an anti-creator do exist then we should not follow the teachings of 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
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/3/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 3885
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (10)

 

Cooperman88

Con

I am referring to your previous debate that ended in a forfeit. I will start with arguing the points you presented.

"1. Everything outside of the kingdom of god is within the kingdom of darkness, commonly belonging to Satan. (This point might prove to be irrelevant but I like it anyways.)" Honestly, I do find this point to be irrelevant, but if you would like to show me its relevance, then I would be happy to argue it with you. I just don't see where it is leading at this current time.

"2. God occasionally tests man's faith. There are a great many ways that god tests man's faith. We have things ranging all the way from false idols to sin." My first argument here comes from the Bible. The reason I present the Bible as a legitimate source, is because you are saying it should not be followed. So therefore I am using it to show you why it should be followed. Hopefully that makes sense. First I would like you to look to the example of Job. He is probably the biggest example of God testing man's faith. I am not telling what the story is because I'm sure you can read it, but if you would like me to expound, then I will. Another is Abraham and his son Isaac. Now as far as your argument goes, I would first like you to present me specific examples of where God has used idols or sin to test man's faith. Now here is where I ask you to leave Jesus out of this specific argument as He will be addressed later. God does not use sin to test man's faith. Rather, He gave man the ability to choose. We see this with the fall of man in Genesis. This is where sin entered into the world. With the introductin of sin, idols were created and worshipped. God did not introduce idols. The reason we know this, is because the Bible says God is holy and cannot have anything to do with sin. So if He tests man with sin or with idols, this would not make Him the God of the Bible, and therefore does not fit under the category you have provided. So if the God of the Bible is who the God of the Bible says He is, then that God does not in fact test man's faith with sin or idols. So this argument falls.

"3. God allows Satan to act as a test of man's faith. For example look to all of the religions of the past and some in our current time. Satanism is a pretty sweet example, Hinduism, Judaism, Roman mythology, Greek mythology, Buddhism, Chinese universalism, Muslim, Taoism etc...." Once again, you are not talking about specific tests to man's faith. The way I see it, and I could be wrong so if I am please correct me, you are starting with the presumption that all people begin with faith and everything in the world is just used to pull them away from it. This is not true. The Bible says that man is born into sin, and that we must choose to accept God. This means that other religions are not in fact tests of faith, but rather shiny objects to distract us from getting faith, and believing in the one true God. Also, Satan isn't used as a test, rather he is used to test man's faith. This only applies to those who already have faith, not those who don't. So I believe this argument falls as well.

"Many of these religions reportedly have had representations of their gods that descended to earth and walked among the people. Considering that, if the christian god's existence is true then none of these other religions would be true. Thus many of those false religions would have to have been representations from Satan. Many of those false idols of Satan or parts of his fallen angel army." What you say here is true. "if the christian god's existence is true then none of these other religions would be true." That makes sense seeing as the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to heaven and no other way is possible. So all the other religions are in fact of Satan.

"4. God allows false religions to exist on earth, they function as a test to man's faith." I addressed this earlier by saying they don't act as a test to faith, rather as a sidetrack to faith. One must have faith before it is tested, therefore the use of other religions is used as a preemptive attack towards one having faith.

"5. Satan sends himself to earth more often than God does. Considering that most religions cannot co-exist without obvious contradictions this means that Satan is responsible for every religion not true. This also means that the divine beings in those religions were of Satan." First off, the God of the Bible is omnipresent which means that He is always everywhere, a little hard to comprehend but He isn't limited to human laws. But this isn't the place for that argument. And I already agreed that other religions are in fact of Satan.

"6. The best way for Satan to lead people away from God would be to send a representation of himself to the earth disguised as a representation of God. From their Satan could preform miracles in order to gain followers and convince people of his divine being. From their all Satan would have to do would be to preach an acceptable religion." My first point here is that Satan is not able to send a representation of God. Since God, the creator, and Satan, the anti-creator, are exact opposites and hate each other, they cannot do anything like the other. Satan cannot do good, and God cannot do evil. If they could, then they aren't in fact the creator and anti-creator. They would be creator and unlike-creator. Anti implies opposite. So Satan cannot perform good miracles. In fact, the religious leaders of the time said that Jesus was from Satan, and He said "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Meaning that Satan would not work against himself. Casting out demons, a good thing, cannot be done by satan who is completely evil. So because you provide Satan as the anti-creator, he is not able to do the thing you say here.

And now I am beginning to run out of room, so I will answer your general argument here. First and foremost, the fact that Satan cannot do anthing good since the Creator is perfect, the anti-creator must be the exact opposite. Jesus for the most part, has the same teachings as that of the old testament. This is where it is strictly God vs. Satan. So if Jesus portrays the same characteristics as the God of the Old Testament, He cannot be of the devil. The OT (old testament) says that the people need a sacrifice for the forgiveness of their sins. It needed to be a blood sacrifice. Jesus died and paid that blood sacrifice. In the OT it was symbolic of them overcoming death. Jesus' death solved it forever because He rose again on the third day, thus overcoming death entirely.

Also, throughout the OT, it prophesies about who the messiah would be. Jesus met all of them. Satan would not be able to do that even in disguise, as this would contradict who he is. The OT talks about people following God and choosing Him. Jesus says that we must follow God. He rebukes the religious leaders because they are only doing things on the outside and not meaning it in their heart. Jesus says that God looks for us to follow Him with all of our heart. Just as the creator of the OT says. The fact that there preachings are the same prove that Jesus could not in fact be of the anti-creator, as it is against his very nature.

So in conclusion, if a creator and anti-creator do exist then we should follow the teachings of the Bible because it shows exactly what needs to be done in order to reach the Creator. I hope that you accept this challenge, which I'm sure you will since you aren't the one to shirk from a challenge, and I wish you luck.

I would also like to point out, that I have stepped on many people's toes here today. I know that people are always going to vote based on what they feel, and not what they see or read. But I make the urge anyways, please vote on argumentation, not just on the fact that I pissed off about 2/3 of the world in one little debate round.
Yraelz

Pro

Hehehe, this will be exciting to say the least. Sorry I have taken so long to reply, but other debates are getting in the way.

Let us begin with separate observations.

1. God decides what is good, god decides what is bad. My opponent has stated that Satan can do no good, this is fine.

2. Satan has created many religions of bad, this as evidenced by the fact that so many of them exist.

3. If it is presumed as Satan's goal to lead as many people away from god as he can (as he is the anti-creator) the best way to do this would be to create a religion that was liked by the greatest number of people.

4. Thus Satan creates a book called the old testament with what would seem like morally acceptable ideals. He says that the book is from god, and through the book preaches the idea of absolute good and evil. He through the book dictates all that is good, little do the people know that everything they are learning to do is actually evil.

5. Years later Satan sends himself to earth as a man named Jesus who claims to be the son of god. He performs what look like miracles to the people (in the true god's eyes these would probably be considered to be abominations) in order to convince the people of his divinity. This simply furthers his goal in leading more people away from whichever religion happens to be the true religion.

6. Shortly after this time period Satan sends inspiration to a multitude of men that we now know as the apostles, through them he compiles the new testament avoiding flaws which he noticed in the old testament. After all, Satan is not perfect, as my opponent so aptly pointed out. =)

And a second logical progression.

1. My opponent agrees with the premise that an anti-creator would hold all of the religions excluding the creator's religion.

2. Therefor it is obvious that the anti-creator controls many more religions than the creator controls.

3. Religions have many texts however most of them preach about messiahs or divine representations of their deities walking on earth. Thus it is apparent that the anti-creator sends himself to earth more often than the creator has.

4. Therefor if one is to choose a religion it has a greater chance of being from the anti-creator than being from the creator.

Enjoy your next round. =)
Debate Round No. 1
Cooperman88

Con

This is a great debate, and I thank you very much. Now let's get down to business.

On your first example provided, I will skip right down to the third part because we both agree on the first two. Having to do with the third, I have one observation. According to the Bible, man has free will. Which means that Satan wouldn't know the religion he created would be liked by the most number of people. This is a small observation but plays a big role in this debate. The reasoning for this is because according to you, Satan could have created this religion to lead the most people away from the true God. But by doing this, he would not have known that it would lead the most people away from God. So he has no reason to assume this would work seeing as there are already a lot of other religions that have a great following.

On to your fourth point. You say that he created the OT (old testament) and taught what was "good" which in reality is evil. My points on this are as follows.
1. The OT teaches against Satan. As I stated in my first speech, Satan would not work to divide himself. So if he teaches against himself, then it is counter-intuitive.
2. Common sense tells us what is wrong and what is right. The book tells us that murdering is wrong, but helping others succeed is right. This makes sense. Our own knowledge, which the Bible says God provides us, allows us to determine what is good and right.
3. Some of the things in the Bible are not seen as beneficial for us. Take for instance tithing. Giving ten percent of what we have to God. This takes the focus away from ourselves and on to God. Satan would want our attention focused on ourselves in order to keep us away from faith. By giving us the idea of God, he allows us to seek out God for ourselves. If a person is seeking, that means they are closer to God than if they are not seeking. So by turning focus away from man, it hurts Satan.
4. Satan, being anti-creator, and therefore anti everything good, cannot even claim to do good. If the creator claims to do good, than the anti-creator cannot. So Satan couldn't have laid down this moral code and called it good. It would have to be from God.

Now for your fifth point. You say that Satan came to earth as Jesus. If this were true, then why would Satan have to tempt Jesus? It doesn't make sense. If Christ were from Satan, then he would not need to tempt him. Not only that, but Christ said that "I am the Way the Truth and the Light. No man comes to the Father except through me." If this were true, then all the other religions would have to be false. Why would Satan say that all the other religions he invented would be false? Again, he is fighting himself.

Now for your last point on this argument. You say that Satan sends his disciples throughout the earth and establishing this false religion. I bring you now to the words of the Bible. In the Bible, the Sanheidran, or the "Supreme Court" of the Jews are questioning themselves as to whether they should kill the Christians. They end up voting to do so, but one of them says that if it is not from God, then it will not last. If it is from God, then they can't stop it. Since they tried but couldn't stop it, this leads to the conclusion that it is from God. Not only that, but the Bible says that every word proceeds from the mouth of God, and that the Bible is the infallible word of God. If the anti-creator wrote it, then he wouldn't have said that. He couldn't have said that.

Now for your next scenario. I will again start with the third premise as we agree on the first two. You say it is apparent that the anti-creator sends himself to earth more often than the creator. My first argument here is that this doesn't make the Bible wrong. My second argument is that the anti-creator doesn't send himself to earth, but is already there. The Bible says that the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking those to devour. The devil is already there. God has to send himself down to earth.

But the real argumentation on this scenario goes on the last point. You say that the odds are against a man that chooses this religion. My first argument here is again that this doesn't disprove Christianity. Rather, by your logic, a man should never choose a religion, because by doing so the odds are against him. So no religion should be accepted because of pure odds. This isn't true, as you have said there is one true religion. So the problem of man is to find out which one is true. Now because we are arguing about the anti creator and creator that is described in the Bible, we are accepting the Bible as truth in order to show why we should or shouldn't follow the creator. So the Bible, as I have already showed you, proves itself to be true. This means that if the Creator and Anti-creator of the Bible exist, we should follow the creator. You have failed to show why we shouldn't. I bring up here burdens. As the pro, I must prove that we should follow the Creator if the creator and anti-creator of the Bible exist. I have done that. You must prove that the creator shouldn't be followed if they exist. You have failed to do that. This means that as the pro, I must win this round.

Thank you for this debate, and I apologize for how long it took to respond. I wish you luck.
Yraelz

Pro

Simple, really.

My opponent agrees with Premise one and Premise two thus he concedes that God decides what is good and that Satan creates all other religions.

=========
Premise Three
=========

My opponent begins by stating that people have free will thus it would be difficult for Satan to actually decide what religion would lead the most people away. My answer is empirically derived. Christianity is by far not the first religion or even close, thus it would stand to reason that having made many different religions in the past Satan would after time get a feel for what people liked and disliked.

Also, if Satan made the bible then it is perfectly acceptable that he lied, thus the bible stating man has free will is of little consequence.

==========
Premise Four
==========

1. My opponent states that the bible preaches against Satan thus Satan would not make it so. This is fallacious as it is readily apparent to myself and anyone reading this debate that people enjoy knowing that bad people will be punished for their actions. The bible teaches that people who do not follow the will of god will go to Satan and spend the afterlife repenting for what they did. Thus one of the greatest ways for Satan to attract people to his false religion would be to preach about a fallen angel that punishes sinners. (The irony of this is that he uses the bible to preach a moral code that is not true thus everyone is sinning through following the moral code they all believe is right.)

2. "Common sense."

This argument would have a great deal of stock in our current debate except for the fact that many many other religions preach against killing other human beings. In fact, many religions preach morals that are socially acceptable. In fact, myself as an athiest holds many morals of the bible. As many of these religions are already of Satan, this point holds no weight in this round.

3. "The bible gives us faith"

Not true, as long as Satan misleads people away from what it truly means to be close to god he can allow for faith all he wants. In all reality, because we do not know gods true will, giving us faith, having us seeking, may be the farthest possible step from god that there is. Side note, other religions also have faith and you have already conceded that they are of Satan.

4. "Satan can do no good"

This would once again be true except for the fact that many other religions have moral codes that are similar and have many societally "good" parts in them. The fact of the matter is, as long as people is leading people away from god in the long run (a BAD act) he can do minor acts of GOOD. In other words, the ends justify the means. His ultimate bad goal will make up for a few good acts, or perceivably good acts.

==========
Premise Five
==========

My opponent offers 2 points. (I am paraphrasing my opponents arguments by the way.)

1. "If Satan came to earth as Jesus why would he need to temp himself?"

The premise is simple really. If Satan were trying to get people to follow his religion the best way to do this would be to show the people a divine idol which they could follow. This divine idol was Jesus, the most important aspect of Jesus is the fact that he is of god, or all that is good. Thus it is necessary to show that he is good. The best way to show that he is a good being would be to show him rejecting all that is evil, Satan. Therefor, Satan, who presumably wrote the bible, added a few verses about how Jesus was tempted by himself and rejected himself. This of course is impossible to prove by anyone as no one actually saw it happen and it adds to the idea that Jesus must be good, even though he is actually Satan.

2. "The bible says all other religions must be false, why would Satan do this?"

Once again this is true of many other religions and is true for a rather obvious reason. If you include the idea that all other religions are false, people who are in a conflict will have to choose 1 religion or another. So imagine this, Satan, through the bible, gets perhaps 2% of the population of every other religion to follow christianity. This means that perhaps a combined 30% of already unintentional Satan worshipers stop worshiping there old religions and begin to worship the bible. Since the bible is of Satan, Satan doesn't actually lose any worshipers. However, the real god, and his religion will also lose the 2%, thus Satan overall benefits.

==========
Premise 6
==========

Two arguments once again.

1. "The Sanheidran decide to kill the Christians but cannot do so, the bible says this is because of god."

Once again this would obviously be Satan showing that his religion is true by adding this to the bible. And by the off chance this event actually happened all Satan had to do was intervene and stop them from killing the Christians. He then writes in his book of lies that this was because of god, which only helps to further his case and lead more people away.

2. "The Bible says that every word proceeds from the mouth of God, and that the Bible is the infallible word of God."

Keep in mind Satan is trying to lead people away from the true god. The best way to do this, as shown through every other religion he has ever made is present a false god. Thus Satan lies, something he is capable of, and says in his book that every word is of god. This once again furthers him getting people away from the true god.

SECOND LOGICAL PROGRESSION

My opponent once again agrees with Premise one and two thereby conceding that the anti-creator under the framework of christianity holds many more religions than the creator.

=========
PREMISE 3
=========

My opponent presents two arguments, neither of which hurt my case.

1. "The fact that the anti-creator sends himself to earth more than the creator doesn't disprove the bible."

This is true, all I am stating is this: Because Satan has influenced far more religions than this one, and has appeared as Messiahs in a great deal, it is of a higher probability that Satan would appear on earth in any given scenario than god. Clarification: Appear on earth in a significant roll, such as Jesus, or other divine figures.

2. "The anti-creator is always on earth"

Okay.... This only furthers my point, he is here more often and influences more often than God. He has made many more false idols than god.

=========
Premise 4
=========

My opponent once again presents two arguments, this is where I will make my point.

1. "Your points don't disprove Christianity they just show that we shouldn't follow any religion."

Yes, exactly, under my points, if we accept a creator and an anti-creator as the bible says then we should not accept any religion. If an anti-creator actually exists then probability has it, that the religion you choose is the wrong religion. And as we have no definite way to actually know if we are speaking to god or communicate with him/her period we have no way to verify.

2. "Since we are accepting one part of the bible to be true then we should accept all of the bible to be true."

No, this is my point exactly. If we are to follow christianity as a religion the number one premise of this religion is that an anti-creator exists and leads people away from god. Thus, under Christianities own framework it is actually more likely that Christianity itself is not from god, but rather from its own anti-creator. Therefor we should reject this religion on its own framework that effectively preaches against itself and locate a religion that does not preach of an anti-creator, as this religion would not statistically deny itself.

Hope you enjoy this.
Debate Round No. 2
Cooperman88

Con

Cooperman88 forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

Hehe, well I guess my opponent has nothing to respond with. I ask that my arguments are extended. Good debate while it lasted.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
I am truly sorry for not responding. I have been very busy with finals week this week and could not find time for it between studying. good debate. and I am sorry.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
I have some feedback Yraelz,

Not all religions that believe in the bible (or parts of it anyway) view Satan as "The Bad Guy." Some religions view both God and Satan as "The Good Guys"

1) The argument assumes that Satan only does bad things, wants what's bad for us, and is the cause of all evil. This may be assumed by Christianity (I am not fluent in christianity please correct me if I am wrong) But their are other religions that believe in the bible (as least parts of it) that reject this notion that satan wants what's bad for us, some even go as far to say that everything Satan does was meant to be and comes from God. Some view Satan as God's active servent.

2) The argument assumes Satan tries to test, mess up, or derail us into believing in the wrong faith. Some would reject this notion and say: Satan's purpose is not to try and get us to test our faith, rather, his purpose as God's servent is to test us to commit immoral ACTIONS, such as killing, stealing, adultery..ect. If we overpower satan and live moral lives, than not only is God happy, in fact, Satan is also happy that we passed God's moral test. Some say God creates the moral tests, and uses Satan as his servent to administer his tests of morality, not tests of faith.

3) Argument assumes Satan is independent of God, or that God gives satan permission to create false religions. Again, I am not fluent in Christianity, but I do know some other religions that believe in the bible (or parts of it at least) that completely reject the notion of God giving Satan permision to create false religions, they also reject the notion that Satan can do things without the permission of the creator.

4)"Satan has created many religions of bad, this as evidenced by the fact that so many of them exist."
The argument assumes that if something bad happens than "SATAN MUST HAVE DONE IT!" :) Again, there are religions that believe in the bible that just because something bad exists does not mean satan did it, the
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Someone should give me some feedback on this idea, I'm interested in hearing what anyone has to say.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
See my debate on this:

long-short: They are equally valid. G-d shows himself in many ways, and if we call him by another name it doesnt detract from the faith.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
What about all the other religions that spread the message of love?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
@Cooper: I wasn't calling you 'not an apologist'. If you're familiar with apologetics, I am shocked you didn't refer to perennialism or something similar. The concerance of "Satan creates all non-Christian religions" seemed narrow minded - not a mentality of a theological arguer.

But I digress - my purpose was to apologize if you feel insulted, and to tell Yraelz he has a challenger.

@Yraelz: I understand perfectly. Your premise is that Satan created the Bible.

I turned against this by saying, based on the message of love the Bible presented, this is contradictory to the goals of the anti-creator - and then gave the ironic biblical 'divided house shall fall' parable. So I actually understood it, and refuted it....
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Yraelz, I think a stronger debate resolution would be, "If a creator and an independent anti creator exist then we should not follow the teachings of the bible."
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
However I'm going to challenge you to a debate, and by the end of it I think you will understand.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
PublicForumG-d, I'm not sure if you understand what I am saying at all.....
Posted by Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
And I am not a catholic. I do believe that Satan actually exists. The Bible says he does, so he does. ANd PFG-d, I resent the fact that you say I'm not a true apologist. I first would like to say that pride comes before a fall, and that you should watch what you think of yourself. But secondly, I have studied under many noted apologists including Norm Geisler, many of his understudies, and Ravi Zaccarias. I have spent an entire year studying apologetics and philosophies of the Bible. So to assume that you only are the true apologist of debate.org is absurd.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
Cooperman88YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Cooperman88YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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 sillycow 8 years ago
sillycow
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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 Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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 FBJames 8 years ago
FBJames
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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 b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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 reaperofmen 8 years ago
reaperofmen
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Cooperman88YraelzTied
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