The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

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...
ReformedArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,979 times Debate No: 14569
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

I as the Pro in this debate will be raising objections to the belief that "Jesus died" for our sins.

My opponent as the Con will defend against my objections.

VERY IMPORTANT !!!!!!! ---- > This is a debate based on arguments and reason, thus it is expected that you take time to understand the objection raised, and to show where its reasoning is faulty.

No bible thumping or preaching thanks, if you can't argue with reason, based upon the merit of the arguments given, then step aside and let some one who will.

Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins"

I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........

1) Everyone is a sinner
2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness
3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners

Objection 1) The debt and payment of sin..........

A common analogy used is that of debt, where some one is in debt, and some one else pays for that debt. In the analogy debt = sin , Jesus = the payer of that debt, God = the one who is owed the debt.

Now, I have no objection say for instance to some one else paying some ones parking fine, I do not consider this a breach of justice. So at this point Con could say well there you go, you don't object in principle to some one else paying debt so you don't have an objection here. Well not so fast, the objection is raised because there is a HUGE difference between some one paying some one else parking fine, and some one paying for some one else's rape or murder.

Consider this example, some one is guilty of murder or rape or genocide etc, some one else steps in and offers to bear the punishment instead of the guilty, although a noble act, it would not matter, to allow the guilty to go free, while punishing the innocent, would be morally wrong, and no justice system that we regard as civilized would do it.

With this in mind, lets be clear, the claim that Jesus died for our sins, is not Jesus paying our parking fines, but rather our sins that are so great, that it requires God to send people to hell for eternity because of them.

In summary we would reject a justice system that let some one go unpunished and declared innocent who is guilty of rape, torture, murder, genocide etc, by punishing a volunteered innocent in the place of the guilty, thus we should reject the Jesus died for our sins claim on these unjust grounds.

I do have more objections, but I would rather see Cons reply to this objection first, after all we have 5 rounds.

I look forward to Cons response.
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank Pro for posing this argument and for his desire to base it in logic and reason.

In a formal debate, the burden of proof falls on Pro. Because of this, rather than assert a formal argument, I shall simply respond to (and hopefully debunk) Pro's contentions. He may then choose to either attempt to reinforce his original contention by undermining my rebuttal, or launch a new contention.

In order to secure victory, he must successfully show reasonable proof that I cannot bring reasonable doubt to. This is the nature of formal debate.

There are several flaws in Pro's argument. As pro stated, it is not realistic to launch into a formal explanation of attonement theory. However, it is important to understand that there are multiple views on that attonement. Pro has explained only one of these theories, and has explained it somewhat incorrectly. I do not want to equivocate about terms, so I will make a slight correction.

Pro used the word debt, as if our sin was somehow a borrowed thing... perhaps goodness. We then try to repay the debt. However, this is inaccurate. Hell is not a fine the sinner pays for their wrong doing. It is a place that people go who are in rebellion to God, and biblically was created as a place to send the fallen angels who rebelled against God. It is probably better to view it as a prison where people are punished for their crimes.

This view is called Penal Substitution/Satisfaction and is the leading and historically orthodox view of the Attonement

The next is called Propitiationary Satisfacction. This view asserts that God is angry with sin, and his wrath must be appeased for our sin. This is done through the sacrifice of lambs in the Old Testament, and through the eternal sacrifice of Christ in the new testament.

There is another view called Chritus Victor, in which Christ did battle with Satan over the souls of humanity and the world, and secured victory through his work on the Cross.

In order to validate the resolution, Pro would need to prove not only that Penal Substitution was objectionable, but also the way the attonement functioned/functions.

To respond to his contention directly, our justice system does allow for people to go unpunished. In the American Justice system, it is the executive branch that is responsible or carrying out the punishment of persons who are deemed guilty of a Crime. The ultimate authority for that punishment is the executive person of the government body in which the Crime is committed (Governor for States, President for Federal). If that executive body sees fit to pardon a person, for whatever reason, they have the ability to do so. While this is uncommon, it happens. For example, a pair of twin sisters who committed murder together were just excused. The reason was that one sister agreed to give a kidney to the other.

Finally, in Penal Substitution theory, it is not simply Christ agreeing to pay for our sins... metaphysically Christ BECOMES us and pays our sin, and then imputes his righteousness onto us. Imputing his righteousness in effect takes the sinful life we live and replaces it with the sinless life he lived. It is not simply that our sin is paid for, our sin is removed from existence, metaphysically it is as though we never sinned. A more fair comparison to our justice system would be if a person comitted a crime, and then the judge went back in time and prevented them from comitting the crime and comitted it himself instead. This analogy (like all analogies) breaks down, but is a more accurate picture than the one painted by Pro's simplistic attonement explanation.

Thank you for reading, I look forward to Pro's next round.

Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their response.

Con says "In order to validate the resolution, Pro would need to prove not only that Penal Substitution was objectionable, but also the way the atonement functioned/functions."

Yes I am raising objections to the penal substitution theory.

Con says "Pro used the word debt, as if our sin was somehow a borrowed thing... perhaps goodness. We then try to repay the debt. However, this is inaccurate"

Its not important to my argument, that goodness is borrowed, the focus and my objections are based on the other end of the transaction, the payment of sin. So I will agree that goodness is not something borrowed unlike debt.

I bought up the objection of a justice system that allows the guilty to go free because a volunteered innocent accepts punishment on their behalf, Con has sought to justify this, for example Con uses the illustration of......Con says "If that executive body sees fit to pardon a person, for whatever reason, they have the ability to do so."

How does this help Cons argument ?, I could just agree to the principles in this illustration and say sure ok, God can forgive for what ever reason, so God can forgive just because God choose too. Trouble is this contradicts the claim "3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners" So how does this illustration support Cons argument ?

Con then goes on too say in their illustration " For example, a pair of twin sisters who committed murder together were just excused. The reason was that one sister agreed to give a kidney to the other."

But notice what the connection here is, the good act of giving a kidney to the other, is the reason given for the forgiveness. If we were to apply this illustration to God then God could forgive us if we do a kind/good act. Trouble is this contradicts "3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners", again how does this illustration help cons argument ?

Con says "Finally, in Penal Substitution theory, it is not simply Christ agreeing to pay for our sins"

Sure, it may not be as simply as that, but it still doesn't change the fact that the claim still is Jesus paid for others sin.

Con says "metaphysically Christ BECOMES us and pays our sin," What's the difference between christ becoming some one else, and christ metaphysically becoming some one else ? I think further explanation is needed here.

Con says "It is not simply that our sin is paid for, our sin is removed from existence, metaphysically it is as though we never sinned" What's the difference between never sinning, and metaphysically never sinning ?

Con says "A more fair comparison to our justice system would be if a person comitted a crime, and then the judge went back in time and prevented them from comitting the crime and comitted it himself instead"

So the judge prevented the crime (so it didn't happen), but commits the crime himself (so it did happen).

Also what ever happened to Jesus being sinless, in this illustration the judge is guilty because they themselves commit the crime.

I suspect that Con realizes the contradictions here, Jesus is himself and some one else and some one has sinned but has never sinned. So I suspect Con is trying to justify these contradictions by implying that some how metaphysics allow for these contradictions, like I said further explanation is required here.

In summary

The earlier illustrations of the twins, even if accepted does not support Jesus death as necessary for the forgiveness of sin, and the last illustration is based on contradictions and just saying they are "metaphysical" doesn't change that.

I look forward to Cons response.
ReformedArsenal

Con

Although Pro is not right about my usage of the word Metaphysical, I am choosing to abandon that line of argumentation as its full impact will not be able to be realized in such a short text space.

However, I would like to point out that Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof in showing that the Penal Substitution Atonement that he is objecting to is actually the way the Bible presents the function of the death of Christ on the Cross.

Jesus himself said he came to "Set the Captives Free." Later on, Paul tells us that we were once slaves to sin and death. One of the leading theories on the Atonement is called "Christus Victor" and essentially argues that the world is a battlefield. In this battlefield we are caught in the crossfire of sorts, and our souls are forfeit. The death of Christ on the Cross was the decisive victory blow of God over the forces of the devil, and secures victory for all who align themselves with Christ.

The reason that this competing view is pertinent to our debate, is that if this is indeed how the atonement functions... your argument does not hold water. No one would object to a general in a battle sacrificing himself to secure victory. Nor would anyone object to a general sacrificing one of the soldiers under his command to secure victory. That is the ugly nature of war.

To summarize, Pro is arguing that Christ dying as our Penal Substitution is objectionable. However, the Resolution is only that Christ dying on the Cross is objectionable. If he died as a means of securing victory, rather than as a penal substitution... Pro's argument is invalid.

Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "Although Pro is not right about my usage of the word Metaphysical, I am choosing to abandon that line of argumentation as its full impact will not be able to be realized in such a short text space."

If your going to drop an argument, fine drop it, but don't assert I am wrong, then give NO justification for this assertion other than your say so, that's just annoying also You have 8,000 characters per round, with a total of 5 rounds, and according to Con "will not be able to be realized in such a short text space."...... Really ? what are you doing writing the great American novel ?

Con says "However, I would like to point out that Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof in showing that the Penal Substitution Atonement that he is objecting to is actually the way the Bible presents the function of the death of Christ on the Cross"

What the hell ? Why is Con just making stuff up, my arguments were never based on whether the bible presents a substitution atonement, I present my own objections INDEPENDENTLY of what the bible does or does not say. I ask Con to acknoweldge my objections exist on their own merits and not what the bible says or doesn't say.

Con brings up the "Christius Victor" , and claim that I have to refute this other wise they win be default.

When setting up this debate I had said "I as the Pro in this debate will be raising objections to the belief that "Jesus died" for our sins.

My opponent as the Con will defend against my objections"

I raised my objections, I defeated Con counter arguments, now they are trying to shift even more of a burden unto me, by demanding that I refute every single claim made in the name of atonement.

Did I present reasons why Jesus dying our sins is objectionable? yes I did
Was Con able to show these objections were false and or unwarranted ? no
Does this support my claim that Jesus for our sins is objectionable ?, yup.

So Con, Is this the best you got ? trying to move the goal posts ? shifting the burden of proof ? If that's the best you got for defending that Jesus died for our sins.....................

Con might have a technical point here, but I made this debate assuming that the debate would be taken in good faith, considering the Con would be defending the claim Jesus died for your sins.

Even at the start of the debate I had said "Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins"

I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........

1) Everyone is a sinner
2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness
3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners"

Clearly Con new what I had in mind because previously they had said "This view is called Penal Substitution/Satisfaction and is the leading and historically orthodox view of the Attonement"

Con did try to defend against my objections (see round 1), at which point I showed why their defense was false (see round 2), now that they lost that argument, they try to shift the burden unto me, by claiming unless I prove all atonement theories false, they win by default.

Really, is this what you have to resort too ?

Con has not being able to prove my objections that Jesus dying for our sins is false, or unreasonable or without warrant.

I look forward to Pros response
ReformedArsenal

Con

First of all, act like an adult, or don't participate in these debates.

Phrases like "What the hell?" are not appropriate, and have no place.

Second, you characterize my use of the word Metaphysics incorrectly. You state that it is simply me using a word to allow for contradiction, which is untrue. 8000 Characters is not a lot of space. I am a graduate student that regularly writes 25-30 page papers on these kinds of topics, to summarize it in 40,000 characters would be doing injustice to a complex topic, so I am refraining from doing so.

Your argument that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable" is based entirely on you refuting substitutionary atonement. Your argument is that "we would reject a justice system that let some one go unpunished and declared innocent who is guilty of rape by punishing a volunteered innocent in the place of the guilty, thus we should reject the Jesus died for our sins claim on these unjust grounds." You have not proven that "the Jesus died for our sins claim" is even what is claimed in the atonement. Since that claim is simply asserted, it is an unsupported proposition... which is a problem for Pro, who has the burden of proof. Which you have not fulfilled. For example, if Christus Victor is accurate, then Jesus did not die in our place for our sins. He died to secure the decisive victory that rescued the hostages of Sin and Death.

Did you present reasons why Jesus dying for our sins is objectionable? Perhaps, IF an innocent is dying in the place of the guilty... which is what your argument hinges on. However, you have not proven that this is the function of Christ's death on the cross. You cannot prove your conclusion without also proving your propositions.
Was Con able to show these objections ere false and or unwarranted? Yes, Con showed that a system where the guilty are pardoned by the executive officer of the jurisdiction is not rejected out of hand, which is the second part of your argument.
Does this support your claim that Jesus for our sins is objectionable? No it does not... you have not proved that Christ's death functions the way you are describing it... if it does not function the way you are describing it your argument does not hold water.

A side note: "My arguments were never based on whether the bible presents a substitution atonement, I present my own objections INDEPENDENTLY of what the bible does or does not say." So... are you traveling in time to witness the events? How do you have knowledge of said events? What is your source of evidence that Jesus ever died for our sins? You cannot base an argument merely on your own ideas... especially an argument about a historic event... without referencing historic documents.

Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "Second, you characterize my use of the word Metaphysics incorrectly. You state that it is simply me using a word to allow for contradiction, which is untrue. 8000 Characters is not a lot of space. I am a graduate student that regularly writes 25-30 page papers on these kinds of topics, to summarize it in 40,000 characters would be doing injustice to a complex topic, so I am refraining from doing so."

In a debate, its the arguments that matter, not whether some one is a graduate student who regularly writes papers. In other words your own personal life is not a substitute for a good argument. You made a claim, I made an objection to it, you don't want to defend YOUR claim, that's your problem not mine.

Con says "Your argument that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable" is based entirely on you refuting substitutionary atonement" Yes, I elaborate on this in round 1 where I had said.........

"Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins"

I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........
1) Everyone is a sinner
2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness
3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners"

Con says in the previous rounds "However, I would like to point out that Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof in showing that the Penal Substitution Atonement that he is objecting to is actually the way the Bible presents the function of the death of Christ on the Cross."

I ask Con to explain why they think that I need to prove the bible presents penal atonement theory or ANY atonement theory for that matter, in order for me to object to penal atonement.

My objections are based on a moral ground and reasoning, not on what the bible says, or the quran, or an episode of the simpsons.

Con says "Was Con able to show these objections ere false and or unwarranted? Yes, Con showed that a system where the guilty are pardoned by the executive officer of the jurisdiction is not rejected out of hand, which is the second part of your argument.
Does this support your claim that Jesus for our sins is objectionable?"

Con left out a very important component of my argument against his illustration, and that was that the the claim is made that Jesus death by crucifixion is NECESSARY for the forgiveness of sins, and thus their illustration of people being forgiven just because the state choose too doesn't help defend penal atonement.

Con says "So... are you traveling in time to witness the events? How do you have knowledge of said events? What is your source of evidence that Jesus ever died for our sins? You cannot base an argument merely on your own ideas... especially an argument about a historic event... without referencing historic documents."

Oh ok, I'll answer the questions, No I am not a time traveler, and no I did not witness the events that are claimed to have taken place in the new testament. My objections are based on reasoning, not on whether certain events did or did not occur. So with that in mind, what is your argument here ? Why does Con think I need to prove or assume that the new testament is historically accurate for me to objection to penal atonement theory ?

I remind Con of the two questions I asked in this round which are.........

1) Why does Con think that I need to prove or assume the bible presents penal atonement theory or ANY atonement theory for that matter, in order for me to object to penal atonement ?

2) Why does Con think I need to prove or assume that the new testament is historically accurate for me to object to penal atonement theory ?

I look forward to Cons response.
ReformedArsenal

Con

Pro is welcome to object to penal atonement, however that is not what the resolution says. The resolution says "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable"

Pro needs to show why Jesus dying for our sins is objectionable. He attempted to do so by arguing against the death of Jesus in penal substitution. The reason you need to prove that penal substitution is the function of Christ's death is because otherwise the whole premise of your argument becomes an unsupported contention. If we want to simply debate on unsupported contentions, then I can simply come in and say "Not it isn't" and we have a stalemate.

In terms of arguing about the historicity of the New Testament, or anything like that. Your resolution does not state "The concept of Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." It states that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." If you did not want to argue about the historic event, then you need to learn to craft your resolutions more carefully, or more clearly define them in your opening round.

To conclude, you have the burden of proof to not only show that Penal Substitution is the theory that matches the historical event pointed to in your Resolution. If you are somehow able to do this without appealing to the most significant historical document regarding the event (The Bible) then you are welcome to. However, your resolution does not indicate that we are simply arguing about Penal Substitution theory, nor did you define that clearly in your opening resolution. I will summarize my argument in simple numerical order, to make it extremely clear.

1) Pro is arguing that the death of Jesus functions as a Penal Substitution
2) Pro has not proven that the death of Jesus functions as a Penal Substitution
3) It is possible that the death of Jesus functions in the Cristus Victor model, or as a Propitiation
4) Christus Victor or Propitiation do not function in the "Unjust" way that Pro is arguing, and would in fact be considered just.
Ergo) Pro has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that: Jesus dying for our sins is objectionable and therefore has failed to prove the resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I think it is quite clear that Con wants to win on a technical point, and not the core issues at had. If you care more about winning this debate on a technical point rather than all the issues referred to in the first round, you do that.

Con says "In terms of arguing about the historicity of the New Testament, or anything like that. Your resolution does not state "The concept of Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." It states that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable." If you did not want to argue about the historic event, then you need to learn to craft your resolutions more carefully, or more clearly define them in your opening round."

I have no idea why Con would accept this debate when I had said this in the first round....

"Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins"

I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........

1) Everyone is a sinner
2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness
3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners"

You know exactly what I was arguing against, you can't appeal to ignorance.

I am not going to ask for an apology, but I think you should apologize to the people who read this debate, looking too see objections and a defense on this whole Jesus died for our sins, and so forth.

I am not impressed, maybe next time I will get some one who will defend it.

Tell you what Con, you want to win so bad, just admit that I squashed your pathetic defense of penal atonement, and I will concede you as the winner of this debate.

You had 5 rounds to defend penal atonement, you didn't do it, so don't bother now cause I can't respond, just admit I nailed your defense of it , and if you do, I declare you the winner of this debate.

As such IF Con admits I refuted their penal theory defense, I declare Con the winner, and thus IF con does this urge voters to vote Con, infact If Con admits that I refuted their penal atonement defense, I urge voters to vote bomb for him.

There is your precious win, take it punk, I mean you do want to win right ? It means so much to you, you are willing to resort to word play on the resolution ? so go on, just admit I refuted your defense of penal atonement, and I concede defeat and you the winner of this debate.

If Con does not concede that I refuted their defense of penal atonement then I don't concede defeat, then I refer voters to round 1 and 2, where this was actually debated to decided who won.

So whats it gonna be Con ?
ReformedArsenal

Con

Here is what I will concede to you, and if the voters feel it meets your requirements... they can feel free to vote as they choose.

I will concede that you raise reasonable QUESTIONS that we must ask of the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory. You make reasonable analogical comparisons to our penal system, and I applaud you for thinking through the issues.

I do want to apologize to the readers, I took this debate and did not realize how much of my time my new courses and travel was going to take. I was not able to prepare for this debate as much as it deserves, and for that I'm sorry.

However, I do want Pro (and the readers) to consider the following: Would you object to this type of Penal system if YOU were the rapist? If you were the one who was being pardoned and freed of guilt, would you question the means? My answer (and your answer if you are honest) is no. That is the question at hand, we must not look at OTHERS and ask if it is fair for THEM to be pardoned, we must look at ourselves and ask if it is objectionable that WE are pardoned. I acknowledge that Pro cannot respond, so I encourage him to respond in comments and would like the readers to take his response into consideration.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you Pro for your participation in this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Sins are personal acts of immorality. So how can the responsibility or the fact that sins occured be transferred to another? After Con explained it, it still makes no rational sense. It may make religious sense, because religion can embrace miracles that defy reason, but the mutually accepted groundrule was to rely upon reason.

Pro violated conduct with the "what the hell?...", but Con responded with a counter insult. It's best to just point out the conduct violation and not retaliate. As it is, conduct is tied.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
My personal beliefs do not bear impact on if your argument was able to be undermined in this way.

But if you insist on an answer, Yes I believe that Penal Substitution was a significant portion of what was happening during Christ's atoning work on the cross (But not the entirety).
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Do you believe in penal atonement theory ?

Do you believe that people who adhere to penal atonement theory are wrong ?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I will have this debate again but with some one else, some one who will actually engage on the core issues at hand and not try to win on a semantic point, you are not that person."

The core issues at hand (as defined by your resolution) is "Jesus Christ dying for our sin" and "is objectionable."

In order to win the debate, you would need to define the reason for his death being objectionable... your argument was that if it was a penal substitution, that would be morally objectionable... my counter-argument was that it was not a penal substitution... or at the very least, might not have been.

You somehow believe that you can argue about a historical fact without reference to or support of the primary historical document that describes the event and significance of it. That's sloppy and going to cause you losses. Debates are based on evidence, and you seem to think that you can put forward assertions without using any... ESPECIALLY when you are pro... this isn't going to work.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"I will have this debate again but with some one else, some one who will actually engage on the core issues at hand and not try to win on a semantic point, you are not that person."

While I agree that it was a matter of semantics, it was not a trivial semantic issue, you did link the death to atonement and it is not a matter without conflict that this is 100% the case. Though I would think that a comment to clarify would have settled this before the debate, such semantic debates are easily a signficant portion of the way debates are argued on DDO, simply look at the ongoing debate between Grape and Roy right now, it is clear that Roy is exploiting very well a semantic weakness in the way Grape wrote the resolution.

If you really have no desire for such debates then you need to make this very clear in the opening, as otherwise there is a large body of the DDO members which will attack a position which has a weak semantic opening simply to get themselves an easy win.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Con says "I acknowledge that Pro cannot respond, so I encourage him to respond in comments and would like the readers to take his response into consideration."

I have three responses

1) You wasted all those rounds and NOW at the end, where I can not respond present a new defense of penal atonement.

2) I will have this debate again but with some one else, some one who will actually engage on the core issues at hand and not try to win on a semantic point, you are not that person.

3) I will not debate the core issues of this debate in the comments section now that the debate has ended with some one who had 5 rounds to actually debate this but choose not to use most of those rounds to defend penal atonement.

Have a nice day.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
IllegalcombatantReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sojourner 6 years ago
Sojourner
IllegalcombatantReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "I think it is quite clear that Con wants to win on a technical point, and not the core issues at had. " Debates are technical, language is important.