The Instigator
sonofzapp
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Dr_Harvey
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Jesus should not be worshiped as God or anthing above the average man.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 7/31/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,046 times Debate No: 4853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (13)

 

sonofzapp

Pro

First off allow me to state that I am a muslim. Though many of my beliefs are have roots in my religion this one does not. I am commenly considered to be a rational, relatively intellegant human being, just like most other people. As such I strongly disagree with the way he is viewed in many christian related faiths. Just so you know, I'm not going to use bible or quran verses a million times [like some before me] to help back my arguments, a few here and there will do nicely. Nor am I going to try and shove my beliefs down my opponants throat. This is going to be a simple debate, that is argued through a logical POV. Now, LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!!! [lol]

I'm not christian, but much of my family is and as a result I catch myself attending church with them sometimes. When I do, I tend to find myself very, uncomfortable and confused, because I'll often hear some church gooer scream something like "PRAISE JESUS!", or "PRAISE THE LORD!" I hear this far too often, to the point where I ask myself weather its Jesus their worshiping or God? In most cases I find that it is indeed Jesus that is being worshiped.
Not that Jesus isn't worthy of praise, [I mean come on! The guy lived a sinless life and was born of a virgin mother. If that isn't worthy of praise, nothing is.] he simply isn't worthy of worship. No human is. As far as the "Praise the lord thing goes" half the time I'm not sure weather or not people are reffering to God or Jesus when they say this.

Now, some people would argue that "Well Jesus was born of a virgin mother, and lived a sinnless life. If that doesn't scream DIVINE SIGNIFIGANCE, nothing can.", and those people would be right, but some people forget that there were many before Jesus with a unique touch of divinity. People like Samson, Moses, and Noah would be perfect examples.

Samson completely destroyed over 1000 Palestinans with a donkey's jaw bone and with his immense strength. If you ask me that pretty divine as well, but people don't go around worshiping Samson, or saying "PRAISE SAMSON!", now do they?

Moses rose the Hebrew slaves up out of Egypt and parted the red sea. But we don't worship him as the son of god.

And Noah built a GIGANTIC, durable, ark, and gathered 2 of every species of animal onto it while he was supposedly between the ages of 500-600 years old! Nuff said.

Point is that there were pleanty of prophets before Jesus who preformed spectacular acts and were, themselves, spectacular humans, but people back in these times had enough common sense not to worship these guys as "God", "The only begotten son of God", or some odd mixture of the two. Jesus, like everybody else, walked the same earth as us, and breathed the same air as us. No man, I don't care who he is, should be worshiped if he walked the same earth, breathed the same air, and did the same crap as us. As a muslim I don't believe Jesus died on the cross, but I do believe that he died, as do all christians and muslims. [though christians believed he came back from the dead]Jesus died, why worship anything that can die a mortal death just like the rest of us!?

I believe that Jesus was a bleassed prophet. Blessed with the glory of God through the holy spirit, and able to touch the lives and hearts of those around him because of it. I also believe that like all other prophets he was a perosn with a purpose, that purpose was to spread love, faith, and the teachings of peace to the world. Cross or no cross Jesus got that point across, and thats it. I,as a Muslim, also believe in the holy trinity to a certian extent. I believe in the "Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit" in this context. "The Father" being God, but not in a sense that God is exclusively the father of Jesus, but in a sense that God is the father of all things and that Jesus is just one of his many children. "The Son", being Jesus, who was the son of Mary and Johseph. And "The Holy Spirit", thats pretty self explanitory. The holy spirit was the spirit within him that allowed his to accomplish such feats as walking on watr and bringing back the dead ect. He has no divinity beyond that. He's not God, he's not the only begotten son of God, and he certianly isnt any odd fusion of the two concepts.

I don't think Jesus should be worshiped, I think thats already been established, what funny is that Jesus himself renounced any forms of worship, and openly worshiped God himself. Now what kind of sence would it make for Jesus to be worshiping God if he was God? Thats just not logical. In fact there are pleanty of places in the Bible that relay Jesus's relationship with God.
[Matthew 4:2] And when he [Jesus] had fasted for forty days and forty nights, he was afterward hungered.
Question? Why would Jesus fast for God if he was God? Can't answer that logically can ya?

[Matthew 4:10] Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan, for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy God, and only him shalt thou serve.

In this passage Jesus outright says thatonly GOD is to be worshiped, NOTHING ELSE. And Jesus in no way implied that he was God. Whats more; this entire time Satan had been trying to get Jesus to worship him by offering him the world, LITERALLY! Now, I want you Jesus Freaks to honestly ask yourselves, what kind of sense would it make for Satan to be trying to get God [if Jesus were God] to kneel at his feet. He's God. I'm pretty sure Satan knows God bows to no being.
Not only that but Satan was offering him the world if he did. The world, and everything in it belongs to God. It makes no sense at all for Satan to be trying to bribe GOD with things already in Gods possesion. That would be like me walking up to you and saying "Kneel at my feet and I will give you this." then I point to your house, as if its actually mine to give away.

Ultimately I'm not trying to offend, upset, convert, judge, or look down upon anyone with these beliefs, and I hope you all don't take it that way. [except for the Jesus Freak comment. I couldn't get mad at you for being upset about that] No person should look down upon another religion that worships God in a positive manner. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps there isn't a flaw in the christian faith and in fact, the only thing that is flawed is my own logic. Perhaps not. Either way is my opponants argument. I hope this debate can go on as friendly [and indiscriminatly] as possible. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you. :)
Dr_Harvey

Con

You have presented an argument that has been made throughout history from the time the Jesus walked the earth to the present day. Anyone who would claim that He was not God and not worthy of being worshiped as God has a mountain of evidence to overcome both from the historical account of Roman and Jewish historians as well as the recorded claims Jesus made about himself.Let me say also that whether or not Jesus should be worshiped is a matter of opinion to each person and a choice they have to make for themselves. I will demonstrate why I think Jesus is worthy to be worshiped. So I'll begin...

You said,
"hear this far too often, to the point where I ask myself weather its Jesus their worshiping or God? In most cases I find that it is indeed Jesus that is being worshiped."

Christians worship Jesus because of the incarnation. This is the idea that the spirit of God came and dwelled among man in human form in the physical Character of Jesus who they call the Christ. Christians worship Jesus because to them, He is God. Christians believe this because Jesus says things like, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. (John 14:9) Christians believe that God is represented in three persons acting in one accord. The Father (the celestial spiritual form of God) The Son (The physical embodiment of God) and the holy spirit (the spirit of God which dwells in human hearts). I don't understand why it surprises you that Christians worship Jesus as they believe that He is God.

"he [Jesus] simply isn't worthy of worship. No human is."

I agree that no Human being is worthy of praise, except in the case of Jesus for this reason: Jesus claimed to be God [and he was]he was both fully God and fully a man, and His death freed us from the punishment due to us for our trespass. Muslims [before they were muslims] during the time of Abraham practiced ritual sacrifice. Wouldn't you agree that if Jesus was God then the sacrifice He made by being taken into the hands of imperfect men willingly and dying as a sacrifice to cover our trespass the he would be worthy of worship? If someone took a bullet for you wouldn't you be grateful? That is the frame of reference Christians have when they praise Jesus. He is not just a man to them.

"some people forget that there were many before Jesus with a unique touch of divinity. People like Samson, Moses, and Noah would be perfect examples."

These people did not come to die for the sins of all of mankind. None of them claimed to be divine.

"Point is that there were pleanty of prophets before Jesus who preformed spectacular acts and were, themselves, spectacular humans, but people back in these times had enough common sense not to worship these guys as "God""

That is not entirely accurate in that people back then often times worshiped little wooden statues believed that kings who won many battles should be worshiped as a god. You might want to re-think how you define common sense.

"As a muslim I don't believe Jesus died on the cross, but I do believe that he died, as do all christians and muslims"

Jesus' execution is reported in a number of ancient sources: Christian and non-Christian. In addition to the four Gospels and a number of letters contained in the New Testament, all of which were written in the first century, Jesus' execution is even reported by a number of ancient non-Christian sources. Josephus (late first century), Tacitus (early second century), Lucian (early to mid second century), and Mara bar Serapion (second to third centuries) all report the event. The fact that these non-Christians mentioned Jesus in their writings shows that Jesus' death was known outside of Christian circles and was not something the Christians invented.

"why worship anything that can die a mortal death just like the rest of us!?"

Because that death was the sacrifice that paid a price and a debt for the wrongdoing of every person from creation to revelation.

"I don't think Jesus should be worshiped, I think thats already been established, what funny is that Jesus himself renounced any forms of worship, and openly worshiped God himself."

Actually that's incorrect, there are many instances of Jesus openly receiving acts of worship. Jesus was anointed by the woman at Bethany which given the cultural context would have been seen as worship. He also received worship upon his entry into Jerusalem preceding his death. People cried Hosanna as he rode by on Donkey and lowered palm branches at his feet.

"Why would Jesus fast for God if he was God?"

The text never says Jesus fasted for God and the story actually explained why he was fasting, he was fasting to prove that he was sinless.

"Now, I want you Jesus Freaks to honestly ask yourselves, what kind of sense would it make for Satan to be trying to get God [if Jesus were God] to kneel at his feet."

Satan knew that only a perfect sacrifice could bring forgiveness to man's sins. If Jesus was fully man and fully god, then Satan could appeal to his human weakness to try and tarnish the sacrifice to be made.

In conclusion, the arguments you have made are nothing new, however, it is up to the human to decide who they will worship. I believe that the evidence supports a divine savior in Jesus
Debate Round No. 1
sonofzapp

Pro

sonofzapp forfeited this round.
Dr_Harvey

Con

There is a lot to be said on a topic such as this so I hope my opponent will respond eventually. Next round maybe?
Debate Round No. 2
sonofzapp

Pro

To my opponent and all interested debaters, I apologise. I am currently over my cousin's place and the only web connection he has is a laptop that belongs 2 his sister, who's too much of an assh0le to let me use it, and a PS3 with very limited charecter space, which Im typing this on. Soon as I get a decent computer I'm gonna start up a 2 round debate (Granted my opponent accepts the challenge) to finish up where this left off. I'd also like to ask that the voters dont automatically take my opponent's side because I failed to respond during the 2nd round. There was no way could given my situation. It may take me a few days to set up the debate. Once again I apologize.
Dr_Harvey

Con

I understand things come up and i will gladly debate this issue again. Please understand however, that if you choose you can continue the debate in the comment area
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
First of all, you have to understand that Mormonism is viewed by the majority of bible believing evangelicals as a cult."

And.... Christianity was viewed by the majority of Old-Testament believing Jews as a cult. What's your point?

"The mark of a cult is defined by a relinquishment of intellectualism and a weakening sense of self."

um.... Where's this mysterious non-cult religion?

"I see a God who welcomes our questions, he invites us to reason. "

Where? Not in the Bible quote I gave you.

"The Christian New Testament is not a reliable historical document." I was saying that in matters of history, it is not reliable. That is specific. The bible's accounts of history are either true or false." Not necessarily, because it has more than one account of history, and it is possible for it's accounts to contain true descriptions and false descriptions. It is possible, for example, for it to be correct when it comes to quoting the historical figure Jesus Christ and to be incorrect when it comes to describing the resurrection of said Jesus Christ. :P
Posted by Dr_Harvey 9 years ago
Dr_Harvey
"I've investigated several models... Catholicism, Lutheranism, and most closely Mormonism, since I was involved in that church at age 11. Their doctrines all agree that "faith" depends on the lack of evidence in order to be faith. Also, the standard theological objection to the question "Why doesn't God show up and prove himself?" states that proof would mean it wouldn't be faith anymore. I wasn't given one model, I was given plenty of models. Models like these proliferate. I've never seen a model which didn't have this or a related problem."

First of all, you have to understand that Mormonism is viewed by the majority of bible believing evangelicals as a cult. I can't answer for Lutherans as I have met both ends of the spectrum. The mark of a cult is defined by a relinquishment of intellectualism and a weakening sense of self. I will tell you that I know that God created me with a brain. He gave me the ability to think and feel and create and choose. I could see how Christianity would seem repulsive if it seemed that they worshiped a God who required them to not use the intellect he gave them. That would not sense. However, I see a different God formed through scriptures. (I have studied them, I have a degree in theology) I see a God who welcomes our questions, he invites us to reason. I have done the work to wrestle through intellectual objections, four years of constant work. Granted I gave God and Christianity merit, but I would never describe my faith as blind. BTW when I wrote "The Christian New Testament is not a reliable historical document." I was saying that in matters of history, it is not reliable. That is specific. The bible's accounts of history are either true or false. (Fair enough?) Are you going to issue the debate challenge?
Posted by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
Ragnar already addressed this, but just to restate it.

IAR, Ragnar didn't quote Hitler to show how christians are. He quoted Hitler to show that Hitler knew the immense power one could have if they simply told people to believe things without any evidence/reason.

As long as people believe things and don't ask for evidence/reason for those beliefs then whoever told you to believe them has immense power to do what ever they want to do. Whether it is Hitler, Osama bin laden, or the Pope during the crusades.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Obviously, if we evaluated a faith by it's followers we would find many religious beliefs to be stupid."

The key here is I was evaluating it BY ITS FOLLOWERS DEFINITION'S. Not their nature, just their definitions, their arguments. So, straw man.

"
Both of your resolutions are far to vague"

How so? What is "vague" about "No omnipotent being exists?"

"Both the resolutions you wrote assure a long run around with no real conclusion."

You still aren't reading back where I told you. The other resolution might, I already gave reasons to make the one about omnipotence quite short and conclusive.

"The Christian New Testament is not a reliable historical document.

Now THAT is too vague. Reliable FOR WHAT? By what standard of reliability (there are several because most historical documents aren't that reliable). Reliable to what standard of specificity, of accuracy? Reliable to give the absolute truth blatantly, or to consistently give a transparent enough lie that you can often determine the truth from it?

"God, as seen through the eyes of the biblical account cannot exist."

Fair enough.

I believe that the character of God is such that he can stand up to any intellectual objection and is not offended by objection"

Read your bible more carefully Mr. Christian :D

"Truly I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter: but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they say, ‘He has an unclean spirit'"- Mark 3:28-29

The "Holy Spirit," according to Christian doctrine, is also God. Therefore, God is clearly offended if he will NEVER forgive a thing :D.

If you wish to doubt the authority of the Bible, by all means, be my guest, but you still have not presented an alternate authority :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Ragnar Rahl, about your WAY previous posts, Hitler was NOT how Christians typically are..."

Did I SAY hitler was typical of Christians? No, I said his followers were (and if you doubt that, I present you with the evidence of... the behavior of "Christendom" during the Middle Ages). Difference. Most Christians wouldn't have the audacity to actually be the one in charge of such a thing.

"
Using him as a source is wrong,"

I only used him as a source, I repeat, on the question of what constitutes destructive capacity. I challenge you to tell me IN WHAT WAY I am wrong to regard Hitler as an expert on destruction?

"
The words are rooted the ancient Greek language not the New Testament"
Ignoration elenchi. Your "faith" is what is rooted in the New Testament. If what is applicable to the Greek Language roots of faith is not applicable to the New Testament, the definition of Faith derived from the Greek Language roots is not applicable to Christians.

"The point I am making is that many people who define faith as a blind following, do not know what they are talking about"

So, Tertullius did not know what he was talking about? Martin Luther maybe? Which Christian leaders then do?

"It sounds to me like you were given a poor model of what genuine faith is."

I've investigated several models... Catholicism, Lutheranism, and most closely Mormonism, since I was involved in that church at age 11. Their doctrines all agree that "faith" depends on the lack of evidence in order to be faith. Also, the standard theological objection to the question "Why doesn't God show up and prove himself?" states that proof would mean it wouldn't be faith anymore. I wasn't given one model, I was given plenty of models. Models like these proliferate. I've never seen a model which didn't have this or a related problem.
Posted by Dr_Harvey 9 years ago
Dr_Harvey
Ragnar We can start talking some hard facts when we actually debate
Posted by Dr_Harvey 9 years ago
Dr_Harvey
"This inversion of the definition of faith is not tenable, because YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THE NEW TESTAMENT IS RELIABLE. Even if the New Testament claims that the beliefs of the people in it were backed by "evidence," this means either you do not have faith or that definition does not apply to you, because you don't have access to their supposed evidence."

The words are rooted the ancient Greek language not the New Testament. It was used by writers like Socrates and Aristotle, who were themselves not Christian people. You can read and find people who used this same word to define the same thing. The nature of the word, which early Christians used to define faith, was reason. The point I am making is that many people who define faith as a blind following, do not know what they are talking about. I would argue that many people misconstrue what faith means as a means to be intellectually lazy. A healthy follower of Christ Wrestles through difficult intellectual issues and doesn't use faith as an excuse for avoiding them. It sounds to me like you were given a poor model of what genuine faith is. Obviously, if we evaluated a faith by it's followers we would find many religious beliefs to be stupid. Atheism as well would be jaded by the many rude uninformed atheists, but thats not you.

Both of your resolutions are far to vague. If you want to write a resolutions go with something very specific like, "The Christian New Testament is not a reliable historical document." Or "God, as seen through the eyes of the biblical account cannot exist." Both the resolutions you wrote assure a long run around with no real conclusion. Give me something that can argue facts on from a very specific field. I appreciate your dissent, I really do. I hope that we can have a good debate regarding your objections as I too have objections that I wrestle with. I believe that the character of God is such that he can stand up to any intellectual objection and is not offended by objection
Posted by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
Ragnar Rahl, about your WAY previous posts, Hitler was NOT how Christians typically are...

Using him as a source is wrong, and I hope you lose your debate with Dr. Harvey, i also hope for a very interesting and well thought out debate between you two....
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"So you pick the resolution, because your beliefs seem immovable and therefore I am the one being challenged."

Here are a few

1: No omnipotent being exists.

2 (I am Con): Christian belief is based on valid evidence.

We could debate ethical questions too, but there is not a whole lot of point until the metaphysical and epistemological ones are settled.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"hile neither of our points are provable, as I believe you would agree with,"

You haven't been paying attention. I already presented the proof. A formal, logical proof by contradiction, that there is no omnipotent being. Go back a page or so in the comments, read it, have fun, and fix that silly belief of yours about what I would agree with.

"there is evidence pointing in both directions."

Present the evidence in yours. I already presented the (deductive, absolute) evidence in mine :D.

"A logical person examines the evidence and decides base on that. "

Which you haven't been doing, because you've already proven you haven't read the evidence I presented in this debate before you got here.

"It is not that I believe with 100% certainty that Jesus was the incarnate God sent to pay a price for our sins. I believe however that the evidence for this is greater than the evidence against."

You haven't examined the evidence against... or presented the evidence for.

"f I didn't view it that way I would be forsaking one of the greatest faculties I believe man has, his intellect"

How? Demonstrate how not viewing the evidence for God as being greater than that against would constitute "Forsaking intellect."

"IF there is indeed a God who is intimately involved with human kind then he gave me that intellect"

Does not follow. Even if you could demonstrate that some sort of "God" (which you haven't given your own definition for, let alone a demonstration) was "intimately involved with humankind," that alone would not prove that he gave you your intellect :D. A whore will be intimately involved with you if you pay her, but intellect is not what she grants you.

(ooh, irrelevant comment: The song "Leper Messiah" came on while I was typing this :D.)
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Blown2Bits4ever 8 years ago
Blown2Bits4ever
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by sonofzapp 9 years ago
sonofzapp
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 Arnaud 9 years ago
Arnaud
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 B2BCHAOS 9 years ago
B2BCHAOS
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 doesitmatter 9 years ago
doesitmatter
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 InquireTruth 9 years ago
InquireTruth
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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 Karoz 9 years ago
Karoz
sonofzappDr_HarveyTied
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