The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
artrice
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Jesus was NOT God

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 7 votes the winner is...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,814 times Debate No: 16763
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (7)

 

kohai

Pro

Jesus was NOT God

In this debate, I will attempt to show that Jesus was NOT, and could NOT be God.

Rules
1) We BOTH have BOP
2) The Bible must be used
3) We must show an open mind
4) We must show good conduct

Contention 1: Jesus lied

  1. God cannot lie
  2. Jesus lied
  3. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God

Assertion 1: God cannot lie

Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Furthermore, God has made the law “Thou shalt not bare false witnesses against thy neighbor (i.e. lie). Therefore, if he breaks that one law, he has broken the law of God and sinned.

Assertion 2: Jesus lied

Evidence 1

This is where I have the BOP. I have the BOP to show that Jesus lied.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. -John 13:12-14

How is this a lie? Well, many prayers fail to yield an answer. Therefore, his promise that he will do it if you ask anything in my name is a lie. He failed to do it.
We must also ask the question “Why do prayers work in other religions as well as Christianity?”

A common rebuttal is that Jesus was asserting that it was just if it was his will. However, we can clearly see that is NOT the case.

We see that Jesus lied, therefore he cannot be God.

Evidence 2

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. John 18:19-20

How is this a lie?

1) Jesus stated he EVER taught in the synagogue

2) Jesus stated he spoke openly to the world

3) Jesus stated he said nothing in secret

The word EVER means at all times, always, ever (1)
Jesus did NOT speak openly to the world
Matthew 13:10-11 contradicts number 3

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.-Matthew 13:10-11

Evidence 3

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Clearly, these are talking about the generation that Jesus was talking about. I can go into more detail to prove that these were talking about the second coming and not merely the resurrection or crucifixion.

Good luck in the debate.

One last assertion, I believe that Jesus claimed himself to be god because he wanted to start a revolution. The emporers at the time of Jesus started the tradition of calling themselves "God." So to call yourself "God" is to call yourself the emporer. Obviously, this had to have been stoped.

Source
1. http://www.blueletterbible.org...


artrice

Con

Jesus WAS and IS the Son Of God, as stated in the term:Trinity. Being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit could not be, however the three act as one. They have three different purposes and separations, but all are one. Kind of like in a marriage, you have two individuals, but when they marry the two become one body.

Biblical Evidence:

"And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."
—1 John 5:11-12 NKJV

John 1:14- "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the "One and Only", who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." And in John 5:22 Christ again calls Himself the Son of God, and elaborates:
Something TO Think About:
The term "Son of Man" is a term used in reference to the Messiah found in Daniel 7:13. Even the Quran calls Jesus the Messiah (3:45).
2 Samuel 7:14
"I will be his father, and he will be my son...." Here God says He will be a Father. Couldn't Jesus fall under this category – one of being a "son" by simply being under God's protection?

I Chr 22:10

"He is the one who will build a house for My Name, He will be my son, and I will be his Father." Couldn't this verse also be applied to Jesus, one of simply being a special relationship of care and providence between God, and one of His prophets?

Jesus never denied that He was the Son of God. When Jesus was questioned by the High Priest in Matthew 26:63, "I charge you under oath, by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God?". Jesus replied "Yes, it is as you say." And in John 3:16 you see Christ referring specifically to Himself as the unique Son of God.

Second, even the demons knew who He was, i.e. the Son of God. They obeyed him (Mark 1:25).

Third, this event occurred early in Christ's ministry. Jesus wanted to establish the kind of Messiah he really was by His deeds. The Jews at that time expected a Messiah to bring them military victory over the Romans. Jesus was not going to do that; instead He wanted to lay a foundation of actions that the general populace could see and acknowledge. One that proved He was the Messiah. He did this by traveling and teaching throughout the land. And even as the Bible accurately states of the many signs and wonders he performed; of the miracles and healing he administered, people still choose to deny his very being and title as the Son Of God.

ADDITIONAL SCRIPTURES IN WHICH JESUS CALLS HIMSELF THE SON OF GOD, OR IS CALLED THE SON OF GOD BY GOD THE FATHER:
JOHN 17:1-5 Note here that this is Christ's prayer before His arrest. And note that Christ says that He was with God before the world began.

JOHN 5:18-27 - Note here that Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of God about 10 times.

JOHN 8:36, JOHN 10:36, JOHN 11:4

MATT 17:5 - GOD HIMSELF calls Jesus His Son.

MATT 22:2 - Jesus alludes to Himself as the King's Son

MATT 26:63,64 - Jesus answers Pilate that he is the Son of God.

LUKE 3:22 - Again GOD HIMSELF calls Jesus His Son.

LUKE 1:35 - Even the Angel in talking to Mary says that her son will be the Son of God.

JESUS NEVER LIED. He never sinned the entire time he was on this Earth. He lived a perfect life and paved the way for his children to do live, walk, and act as he did.

Sources:
www.jesustheevidence.com/notes.html

www.abrahamic-faith.com/Jesus-son-of-God.html
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for his speedy reply. I find it quite amusing that he did not respond to a single argument I made.

There is biblical evidence to show Jesus was god. However, for any of that to hold water, you need to prove the Bible is the Word of God and is infallible. Once you do that, you win. However, it is clear not only from logic, but from the Bible, that Jesus was not god. Therefore, the Bible is false and Jesus is not god.

Furthermore, my opponent uses the faulty assumption that because jesus claimed to be god, he is god. Anyone can claim to be god, that does not make them God.

As stated in my previous round, I have shown many arguments as to why Jesus cannot be God. Here, I'll give you more.

In duteronomy 18, God gives us a way to test to see if a prophet is really from god or not. This test is simple. If the prophecy comes true, he is a true prophet from God. But, if the prophecy fails, he is NOT from God. Let's see how well Jesus did.

In Matthew 24, Jesus gives his disciples signs to look for, announcing the end of the world and his second coming.� After giving these signs, Jesus says...

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Notice here that Jesus says "this" generation; he is speaking in the present tense.� Clearly he is talking about his generation.� Since his generation passed almost 2,000 years ago, then all those signs in Matthew 24 should have already been fulfilled, and his second coming should have already taken place.

I have gotten four different explanations as to what Jesus is "really" saying here.

"Jesus is not talking about his generation, but the generation in which these events will happen, and when his second coming will occur."

That can't be right.� If that were the case, then Jesus would have said "that" generation shall not pass...future tense.

"Jesus is actually talking about the Jews.� In this sense, "generation" means a race of people, so Jesus is actually saying that the Jewish people will not pass away until all those things are fulfilled."

Although "generation" can mean a race of people; that is not what is being talked about here.� Every time "this generation" is mentioned in the New Testament, it is always spoken by Jesus (Mat.11:16; 12:41-42, Mark 8:12, Luke 7:31; 11:30-32, 50, 51; 17:25). In each and every verse, it refers to the generation that was alive during Jesus' time.� There are also instances in the gospels in which Jesus' claims that people living at that time would not die until they saw his second coming.

Matthew 16:28� Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1� And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

"Jesus is referring to mankind."

Yep, this person told me that Jesus was saying that the whole human race would not pass until all those signs were fulfilled.

Jesus' prophecies failed and thus makes him a false prophet.

In Revelation, Jesus is allegedly speaking. He says "I will come quickly..." the word quickly means speedily, in a short period of time, without delay. However, 2000+ years have gone by and Jesus hasn't returned.

Back to you, Artrice.
Forgive this terrible formatting, I did it on my iPad!
artrice

Con

My opponent's argument that Jesus is not the Son Of God(by the term Trinity thenceforth being a part of God) is supported by scriptures from the Holy Bible. How is it then that he should argue the idea of there being even partial or minor fallacy in the Holy Bible? It's kind of like saying 2+ 2= 4 and then saying you don't believe in mathematics or you believe that some parts of Mathematics are flawed. How then can you differenciate between what is and isn't false or inconclusive pertaining to the subject at hand?

My opponent said that if I can prove that the Bible is God's Word and it is infallible, I have won the debate. I not only intend to prove to him that the Bible is God's Word, but I will also prove that the Holy Bible is in fact infallible.

Jesus being the perfect, sinless being that he was and is, could not have lied and had no reason to lie. he did not come to condemn the World but to save it. (John 12:47). My opponent states that the Son Of God will fulfill the prophecy. While on Earth, Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies.(virgin birth, Born in Bethleham, would be a Nazarene, etc.). Therefor, because it says in Deuteromety that the Messiah will fulfill the pprophecies, Jesus must be the Messiah.

Notice that in my opponent's arguments, there are many faulty points. When mentions Matthew 16:28, Jesus clearly says SOME will not see a kiss of death before the Son Of Man returns. This is traditionally interpreted to mean that some will not die before they see Jesus in his kingdom. There are two known cases recorded in the Bible as to where someone has descended into the sky while alive(Elijah and another unknown person). Thus, that scripture was fulfilled and valid.

In Revelations when Jesus says he will come swiftly. Meaning that when he does come again(The Rapture), it will happen quickly. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and foretold events that have already come to town(earthquakes in diverse places, daughters will rise against Mothers, sons against Fathers, etc.). If you look at the list, alot of what he foretold has come to past.

Come on now, only a total fool(one who has said in his heart there is no God) can truly deny the powr and majesticness of Jesus. The Holy Bible is comprised of seperate Books all conjoined by the common ordinance by God to write his Word.

John1:1- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". If you Believe in the Holy Bible, you have to believe in God and vice-versa. It says it right there in the scripture.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

Thank you for a good debate—I wish we could have more rounds! Well, these are my closing arguments

My opponent asks the question why I should argue the idea of there being a minor fallacy in the Bible? Because if I can show the Bible is fallible, I have destroyed the very heart of Christianity. Christianity relies on the Bible being accurate. If it is not, then it can't be the word of god.

"I not only intend to prove to him that the Bible is God's Word, but I will also prove that the Holy Bible is in fact infallible."

Then do it! You cannot show the Bible is the word of God by pulling out a few verses that says that it is, because the Koran and other holy books also say they are the word of god. Just because something claims to be from god doesn't mean that it is!

"Jesus being the perfect, sinless being that he was and is, could not have lied and had no reason to lie. he did not come to condemn the World but to save it. (John 12:47). My opponent states that the Son Of God will fulfill the prophecy. While on Earth, Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies.(virgin birth, Born in Bethleham, would be a Nazarene, etc.). Therefor, because it says in Deuteromety that the Messiah will fulfill the pprophecies, Jesus must be the Messiah."

Many of the alleged prophecies are misquotes, misapplied and misrepresented verses. Furthermore,the gospels were diapered by the writers. The gospels were written long after the alleged events,
As for the first part, I have shown many cases where Jesus lies—AND YOU IGNORE IT! (all caps for emphasis)

"Notice that in my opponent's arguments, there are many faulty points. When mentions Matthew 16:28, Jesus clearly says SOME will not see a kiss of death before the Son Of Man returns. This is traditionally interpreted to mean that some will not die before they see Jesus in his kingdom. There are two known cases recorded in the Bible as to where someone has descended into the sky while alive(Elijah and another unknown person). Thus, that scripture was fulfilled and valid."

My opponent has misquoted the verse. Ot plainly says "[t]this generation. Elijah and Enoch were not part of that generation. I am so glad my opponent brought up the Elijah story as it opened up a new can of worms.

John 3:13� And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Clearly, that verse contradicts the possibility of ELIJAH being brought up into heaven.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. amein. Even so come Lord Jesus. I.e. "Surely I come without delay..." and it has been 2,000 year delay.

Why vote pro?
1) My opponent forgot that the resolution was to test whether or not Jesus was God, not if the Bible teaches that.
2) My opponent has given no response to the lies Jesus told. "Jesus never sinned and lied..." is an invalid point as I have given examples of Jesus' lies
3) I have refuted each of con's arguments

Vote pro!
artrice

Con

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate. His efforts and obvious commitment toward his beliefs are impressing and I wish more youth would fight for and show more interest toward what they believe in. Here are my closing statements/arguments.

No believer can truly be a Christian unless they have faith. (Hebrews 11:1)- Now Faith is the substance of all things hoped for and the evidence of all things unseen. Without Faith, it is impossible to please God. Without it, it is impossible to even believe in Him. That Faith that every Christian has was dealt to them as the size of a grain of a mustard seed. As we progress and go further in our Christian walk, we build on that Faith. This Faith is more importantly used to believe in God and His Word. Believe that His Word is a guide to live by and follow. That it will not lead us astray. Sort of like in school. When your teacher hands you a history book. Looking through it, you find out something new every time you flip through the pages. Do you question if the material is accurate? When your teacher gives you a quiz on chapters 6-8, do you try and find inconsistencies or fallacies in the literature? I highly doubt it, sure you may find a grammar mistake here or there, but the inflrmation being given, we must assume it's the truth. How can we say otherwise, we weren't there when Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and we weren't there when the Japs struck Pearl Harbor, but someone was. And they were sure to record the event in some form of documentation because they were told to or felt compelled to do so.

Thats all the Holy Bible is. God ordained certain prophets and others to record certain happenings and other events and words of encouragement as a tool for His children to use. With that being said, there is no need to address every "misquote, Or misrepresented" verse my opponent has claimed to be in error, because if by Faith, you believe that The Holy Bible is God's Word, then it has to be perfect and without flaw because God is perfect and without flaw.

"My opponent has misquoted the verse. Ot plainly says "[t]this generation. Elijah and Enoch were not part of that generation. I am so glad my opponent brought up the Elijah story as it opened up a new can of beans"
I never said that Elijah and Enoch were a part of Hesus's generation. I was simply imsinuatin that if we only knew of 2 cases where people had ascended into Heaven without dieing, what are the chances of there being more that have done so without us knowing. The odds lean more toward there bein a case where someone did.
"John 3:13� And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Clearly, that verse contradicts the possibility of ELIJAH being brought up into heaven."

Since you're such a fan of taking scripture literally an for what's on the cover, not the inside, you should be a fan of this one. It clearly says that no man has ascended to Heaven but the Son Of Man(Jesus). I made a mistake in terminology. To ascend biblically is to go into Heaven on your own power, which is what Jesus did. Elijah, Enoch and Mary(now that I remember) were all assumed(taken by God to Heaven). Mary was assumed in body and spirit, Elijah was taken in a whirlwind, chariots of fire, and Enoch was just assumed(thats all the scripture says). So thus this scripture is valid when it says that no man but the Son of Man hath ascended into Heaven, because Elijah, Enoch and Mary were all assumed.

"Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. amein. Even so come Lord Jesus. I.e. "Surely I come without delay..." and it has been 2,000 year delay."

All I can say to this is that God's time is not our time. He is much more patient than us. And we don't necessarily know what time is like to him. 1 day might be like 100 years(Earth) to him. So soon may be like 2000+ years to Jesus, who are we to say otherwise?

Why vote con:

1)I have pinpointed specific scriptures(and provided proof of their validity) where Jesus is established as the Son of God. And therefor by the term Trinity is God.
2)I have shown that God cannot sin or lie and is perfect which why when Jesus was on Earth, he never lied, or sinned(which refutes every scripture my opponent has misinterpreted and claims that Jesus is lieing).
3)I have refuted the very basis of my opponent's argument.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Then you need to make your argument clear. Because what is in the argument is "The Bible says Jesus Lied" and then "The Bible is unreliable."
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Exactly what raisor said!
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
To the people saying "you cant use the bible and then say its wrong"

Kohai doesnt really make this clear and I certainly think he mishandled the issue, but I think what he is trying to do is this:

First, Assume the Bible is correct. Second, show that this assumption leads to the conclusion that Jesus isnt God.

When his opponent says "the Bible says Jesus IS God," then Pro just has to say, well since I showed that the Bible also says Jesus isnt God, the Bible is contradictory and therefore false. This means that the claim that the Bible shows Jesus is God doesnt stand. Therefore there is no support for the claim that Jesus is God.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Kohai... you did it again as you did in our debate...

You cannot use the Bible to prove your point, but then try to undermine your opponent by saying the Bible is faulty. Either it is a valid source, or it is not.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I feel I will have him beat in the next round. I thought I made this debate 5 Ronda...I guess we can pick up where we left off
Posted by artrice 5 years ago
artrice
I did not bother adressing most of the "inconsistencies" stated because my statements an scripture references superceded, overruled, and discounted them as even being possible valid generalizations or arguments. In doing so, I sought to have my words speak for themselves because the words of a wise man are gracious....(Eclesiastes 10:12)
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
Both sides are disappointing me here.

Pro, you explicitly make Rule #2 "The Bible must be used," then proceed to tell Con that he must prove the Bible to be the Word of God. To me, it seems to be a bait and switch, as Rule #2 would indicate that the Bible is taken as an assumption for the purpose of this debate. In fact, given your opening round, I understood this to be a theological debate, yet you seem to be arguing a purely philosophical one.

That being said, Con, you're simply glossing over Pro's arguments, which is severely disappointing. I mean, it's good that your showing scripture in which Jesus claimed to be God, but Pro has several exhibits of biblical inconsistencies that need addressing. With one round to go, I'm afraid you have an uphill battle.
Posted by Merda 5 years ago
Merda
I like arguing different viewpoints. I just finished a debate against gay marriage.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
But you're an atheist...
Posted by Merda 5 years ago
Merda
I rly want to take this.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
kohaiartriceTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely ignored Pro's argument. All his arguments were irrelevant. Consequentially, he loses arguments, conducts as well as sources. I agree with Pro for different reasons.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
kohaiartriceTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesnt respond to any of Pro's R1 arguments. By the same measure, Pro drops most of his own R1 arguments by R3. Pro needs to maintain a consistent case rather than bouncing around to whatever Con feels like talking about.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaiartriceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely ignored Pro's argument, all points are conceded. Trivial win for Pro.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
kohaiartriceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses spelling and grammar... apologizing for bad formatting does not change the fact that there is bad formatting. Also, Kohai, your burden of proof is to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that what you are arguing is true, you did not do that. The verses that you have selected to prove that Jesus "lied" are ambiguous an easily explainable. However, Con did not adequately address them, nor was his argument conclusive. In terms of sources, Kohai, you use verse out of context... that's a
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
kohaiartriceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is conflicted. He uses the Bible to make his case, but denies it to refute con's case. Win for con.
Vote Placed by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
kohaiartriceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never disputed any of pro's arguments, and he used fallacious logic (i.e. "because if by Faith, you believe that The Holy Bible is God's Word, then it has to be perfect and without flaw because God is perfect and without flaw").
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
kohaiartriceTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument goes to Pro because his allegations were unanswered. Conduct went to Con because I still feel that Pro pulled a bait-and-switch. I also gave reliable sources to Con because Pro chose to use the bible only and then proceeded to discredit it, i.e., he discredited the only sources he permitted in the debate. It's obvious, I'm purposely giving a tie vote because I thought both sides dropped the ball in one way or another.