The Instigator
lovelife
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Bnesiba
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Mirza is SEXist and is using his religion as a sheild: also The Game

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 5 votes the winner is...
lovelife
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,016 times Debate No: 12784
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (5)

 

lovelife

Pro

I would like to state that this challenge was inspired by a thread titled "do muslims realy believe..."
http://www.debate.org...

In this thread Mirza keeps asserting that women are not the same as men, should not be treated as such, and equality is outdated.

Some of his quote's include:
"Yes, it is justified. And women are not obliged to cover their faces, but even if they were, it would still be justified."

"Feminism should not even be mentioned in this thread. It is a horrible concept and does not belong to any century."

"The way you and most other people define "sexism" is by measuring the level of equality of the genders.

I have said it and will say it again: Islam is not a religion that promotes equality. It regards women and men as unequal."

"No, they are not. Is a hurricane equal to a volcano? Is a planet equal to a star? Is a fruit equal to a stone? My friend, women and men are first and foremost different biologically. Can men give birth? No, never. How can they ever be equal to women, then? So, in this context, women are superior. Moving on, can women give birth without intervention of men? No, so in this context, men are superior. Because they are both superior to each other at certain points, adding it all gives you not equality, but . This is much better and not sexist at all. What are you thinking of when you say "sexist?" How can this be sexist? Women and men are different in too many aspects that I could write a book about it. Physically and mentally, they are not equal at all. In fact, view of them is . It is barbarically outdated because when you call them equal, you are violating a great established scientific fact that tells us the exact opposite. You are going against a scientific fact due to your possession of horribly outdated views. My religion is fully compatible with it."

"Why? Should it be compatible with outdated concepts and call men and women equal, while it is crystal clear that they are far from being equal?"

"I would laugh at your view of genders being equal, but it is sad. It is sad because it totally violates modern scientific research and scientific, psychological process. And it is sad because you think that equality is either justice or better than justice."

"Feminism harrases women who love this concept. Islam is not touched in any way by this. It is not touched by anything. It stands out as a religion of justice, not outdated concepts like equality."

Bnesiba

Con

I would like to begin by thanking lovelife for this interesting topic
due to character limit, Mirza will be referred to as M
Defn:
Sexism- I would like to condense the offered definitions into a more concise, single definition: believing that one gender or sex is inherently less valuable than another.

Analysis:
The resolution states both that M is sexist and that M uses his religion as a shield(spelling…) In order to win this debate the pro must prove that both of these statements are true.
Also, I have been away from debate.org for some time and have no idea who Mirza is. Because of this, and because it would be impossible for me to read every single post he has ever posted, this debate should be limited to the quotes provided in Pro's opening post.

Contention: I will first go down Lovelife's post and explain how the quotes provided do now show that M is sexist

"Yes, it is justified…. it would still be justified."
1. Cultural concept. In American society women are not allowed to go shirtless in most places for example. This is not deemed sexist because our culture deems shirtless women "indecent". The same applies to M's culture.
2. Uniforms are required in many places. Take any high ranking corporate worker for example. They are expected to be dressed "nicely" for their job, in fact most of these jobs require it. Similarly, plenty of clubs or other associations require uniforms, and these uniforms are usually NOT the same for men and women. the "covered face" is simply a uniform.

"Feminism should not even be mentioned in this thread. It is a horrible concept and does not belong to any century."
1. out of context, this has no meaning.
2. depending on the kind of feminism this is relating to it could either be female chauvinism (women men) or it will be covered later by my response to equality.

"The way you and most other people define "sexism" is by measuring the level of equality of the genders.
I have said it and will say it again: Islam is not a religion that promotes equality. It regards women and men as unequal."
1. Women and men are not the same… this is obvious to anyone who happens to have functioning eyes.
In practically every scientific study the results are divided into female and male. If you look on medicines they can have different side effects for women than men. If you look at brain chemistry women think differently from men. If you look at physical structure WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT THAN MEN.
This does not mean one is more valuable than another though. As M states later in the quotes:

" Can men give birth? … equality, but 1.notice how women are (obviously) superior at giving birth but men are superior at providing sperm. By saying this M has actually acknowledged that both are equally valuable, which is the opposite of sexism.

{Hurricanevolcano Quote}
1. see above. not equal and not equally valuable are not the same thing.
"Why? Should it be compatible with outdated concepts and call men and women equal, while it is crystal clear that they are far from being equal?"
1. again, see above.

"…you think that equality is either justice or better than justice."
1. for the first part, see above.
2. for the second part about equality: What M says here is true. The pro is confusing "equality" or sameness with
"having equal value". Two different things can have equal value while not being equal.

"Feminism harrases women who love this concept. Islam is not touched in any way by this. It is not touched by anything. It stands out as a religion of justice, not outdated concepts like equality."
1. this quote has nothing to do with sexism.
2. Feminism as M is probably seeing it (female chauvinism) does in fact subjugate women by separating them from the rest of the equal-value loving society.

"There is no hard case for me here because I can explain all those. In fact, to add more on the discrimination against me, you actually 1. this is irrelevant to resolution. rape is not just against women and even if it M very clearly does not claim that this action is ok by him or islam…

"Everybody should be treated justly. Not once have you explained why equality is better than justice. And both are 1. AGAIN M explicitly claims that people ought to have equal value, equal justice.
"What I am saying is … sister shoudn't, he ignored it"
1. if you look to any of the previous quotes by M this is actually exactly what he is proposing. That women and men have equal value and that this is ok even if they are not the same.
2. M has never in these quotes given any indication that men and women ought to be treated exactly the same way (men getting massages) this is ridiculous considering they are different (not equal) and that they have different experiences.

"They are pure and will make us both happy, ... This is all good and happy."
1. wanting both members of a marriage to be happy… such sexism…

"Yes, it is. It is based on debunked scientific theories where people thought that women and men were the same in psychology etc. Now, we know that they are different, and need to be treated differently"
1. men and women think differently and have different brain chemistry, this has been proven numerous times by practically every single test done on humans related to moods, thoughts, and things like depression drugs.

"No, if a man is on the verge of literally going crazy about his wife, he is allowed to calm himself down by lightly beating her with something"
1. people abuse each other all the time, that doesn't mean one is less valuable than the other. also he emphasizes lightly, clearly showing concern for the other party.

"… marriage contract."
1. actually agreeing to rules before marriage is a good idea. Of course, as M says, this can be changed if the women wants it to. Thus, there is no reason to believe that M is implying that women are less valuable than men.

"No, I am not going to be dumb and say that a man has the right to get pregnant and give birth to a child."
1. A man cannot give birth, and thus having the right to do this is entirely irrelevant.

"So, what is so bad about 1. again, M shows that he believes women and men to be of equal value. If the pro claims that any of the previous quotes are sexist against women, and yet implies that this could be sexist against men ("
"My position is Islam teaches sexism, and M agrees so uses it and common defenses of Islam from getting to be labled sexist." [and the quran stuff]
1. quran ! = modern beliefs.
Take a Christian(like me). I do not believe that it is a sin to eat meat or that murder is ok(neither does any Christian I know). Yet, both of things show up in the bible numerous times. JUST BECAUSE A HOLY BOOK SAYS SOMETHING DOES NOT MEAN ALL FOLLOW IT. As with the bible older rules designed to maintain religious control over society are dropping away.
2. none of the quotes from the link talk about the value of a women. One talks about rights in society which, again, has nothing to do with value.
For example, in our society children have less rights than adults, but are not regarded as less valuable. In fact many believe the exact opposite.

Given the quotes here it is clear that M does not believe that women are less valuable than men.
On "using religion as a shield":
First, by claiming that M used his religion as a shield Lovelife claims that he hides behind the mandate of his religion.

Considering that it appears the debate these quotes came from was religious in nature, M was not hiding behind his religion, but simply explaining what he believed. believing something due to faith and hiding behind faith are not the same
Debate Round No. 1
lovelife

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Mirza is well known for posting about how he thinks that women should be protected, or treated differently due to being weaker.

It may sound like it has good intentions but I would like to point out that by saying that women are weaker then men then you are hindering her right to grow as a person. Not all women are weaker and if a woman is stronger and more suited to take care of "her man" rather than him take care of her, that should be allowed.
Yes as a typical rule women tend to be weaker, but shouldn't that indicate that women should not be beaten, even if lightly? With this contradicition it is safe to say that the Qur'an is sexist. Mirza, like any decent Muslim, defends the Qur'an, no different than a Christian defending the bible.

My opponet claims " none of the quotes from the link talk about the value of a women. One talks about rights in society which, again, has nothing to do with value."

Let me post some of the ones I find that talk about value and having lesser rights:

"Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." "
"A woman is worth one-half a man"
"Males are to inherit twice that of females"
"Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them"
"Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. "
"A man cannot treat his wives fairly."
""Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females.""
"Men and women are enemies!"
"You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." "
"Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves."
"If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives."
"Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved)"
"Your wives and children are your enemies."
(lol didn't get that far earlier. Allah did support pedophilia? "Allah's rules for divorcing wives that have not yet reached puberty" this one is not an argument just I didn;t know that was there...)
"Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones."
"The wives of Noah and Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the Fire."
"Abu Lahab will die and be plunged in flaming Fire. His wife will have on her neck a halter of palm fiber. "

Unless con can explain how none of those said that women are lesser his argument is moot.

Each of those is a quote from the Koran, he defends every part of the Koran, as any good religious person would, but that in turn makes him sexist.
Islam is sexist. A definition that my opponent ommited clearly talks about enforcing gender roles. That alone is enough to say that Mirza and the koran are sexist, but I have proven that even by my opponents one deffinition they are still sexist.

The part about being happy was not what was sexist, it was the part of thinking that his wife should be a house wife and take care of the house while he goes out and works. It is sexist both ways, and no two wrongs do not make a right.

Although many religions are sexist, and "if followed propperly this would be sexist...", none of that refutes the fact that the Koran is sexist, and so is Mirza, who uses the Koran to fit his sexist ideology.

Mirza has set belief that women should act and dress a certain way just because if they don't it would make men lustful. Its the luster's problem if he is lusting, not the woman, why should she be forced to wear something because you can't control yourself? Why should anyone go out of their way to "not turn on the opposite sex"? People should be allowed to be who they are, dress how they wish, not be beaten for any of it and to be happy.
If she is happy with being a house wife that is her deal her world her life her choice, but his religion should not force that upon her, her religion should not force that upon her.

It would only be equal if both parties had the same opportunity and same rights and same obligations.
A man must work, that is sexist.
A woman must stay a housewife unless given permission by the husband sexist.
Both should be able to choose without being affected by "gender roles" Just capability of the idividual to do the work that needs done. If a man is better at cleaning and staying in an area than a woman then I would say he should be able to stay at home instead, but that would go against Mirza's beliefs. Mirza uses the Qu'ran to back his claim.
Reality is there would be no real harm in affording men and women the same rights, but Mirza argues that women should just stay at home and nothing is wrong with it because some women are happy with that. Most of which were taught that thats all they are allowed to do. Just because some are happy in a situation does not mean it would be right to force it on everyone else.

A man can beat his wife if he gets angry, what can she do? She is not allowed to hit back, but instead refuse to cook...so she can just not eat too! Great, so she can get beaten which does little/nothing to him, but if she wants to "punish" him she must also punish herself.

If a man did get pregnant somehow it is his right to get his tummy rubbed just as if he was a woman. Whether its possible or not does not matter. If it happened it should not be different, because he went through the pain and labor.
I am not saying everyone should always be treated the same, but people should be treated on if they earn it. Being a woman doesn't mean you earn anything differently than if you were a man (and vice versa), you should be treated on who you are, how you act and what you do. My point with the giving birth was he did not give birth he does not need the tummy rub. She did she deserves it. If he somehow went against all odds and gave birth he would deserve a tummy rub too.

I believe in equality, I believe in those who earn it get it, those who are more suited get it, those who have proven get it, but not based on gender, judging any of that on gender is sexist.
Bnesiba

Con

M = Mirza.
Before I begin I would like those of you reading to cross-apply all of my arguments to my opponents new post. It seems the pro has run out of argumentative steam and has decided to simply re-state their points from the beginning without making any new arguments…
I will first explain why the dropped points from my last post are important, then I will go down the pro's newest post and explain, again, why none of the quotes and evidence posted shows that M is sexist.
MY Last Post:
Analysis:
"The resolution states both that M is sexist and that M uses his religion as a shield(spelling…) In order to win this debate the pro must prove that both of these statements are true.
Also, I have been away from debate.org for some time and have no idea who Mirza is. Because of this, and because it would be impossible for me to read every single post he has ever posted, this debate should be limited to the quotes provided in Pro's opening post."
These points have not been contested, so they flow through. Therefore the pro is prohibited from posting new information and quotes from M and is required to explain the second part of the resolution as well.
If you read the Pro post they failed to even mention how M is hiding behind his religion, while I explained in detail why this was not the case.

"On "using religion as a shield":
First, by claiming that M used his religion as a shield Lovelife claims that he hides behind the mandate of his religion.
Considering that it appears the debate these quotes came from was religious in nature, M was not hiding behind his religion, but simply explaining what he believed. believing something due to faith and hiding behind faith are not the same"
Finally, I would also like to note that my interpretation of sexism was not contested:
"Sexism- I would like to condense the offered definitions into a more concise, single definition: believing that one gender or sex is inherently less valuable than another."
I will go in depth in response to the most recent pro claims, but I would like to also point out that the pro has failed to point out how ANYTHING they have said has shown that M believes that women are inherently less VALUABLE.

Pro:
"My opponet claims " none of the quotes from the link talk about the value of a women. One talks about rights in society which, again, has nothing to do with value.Let me post some of the ones I find that talk about value and having lesser rights:"
Before I get to the quotes, I would like to re-iterate my point about religion and sacred texts. Those who follow a given religion (like Islam or Christianity) do not necessarily follow all the rules in their holy book. Christians, for example, do not follow almost any of the laws in the book of Leviticus. Modern Christians do not stone those who violate gods laws and most of them eat meat. Just because the Quran (with a Q) says something, it does not mean that all of its followers believe it.
now, onto the quotes.

"Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." "
1.) This is simply talking about the rights of men versus women. It does not claim that women are less valuable, simply that, due to the society, they have different rights.
"A woman is worth one-half a man"
1.) If you actually click the link after this quote, you see that it only refers to the ANCIENT equivalent of a jury. and not only does not have any application to modern day life, but has nothing to do with women being less valuable either.
"Males are to inherit twice that of females"
1.) This again is a rule that is not followed anymore. If you look to modern day muslims, they can inherit as much as anyone else and gender does NOT come into the equation. Like Leviticus, this law is irrelevant.
"Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. "
1.) so because someone is stupid they are less valuable? NO. This is another antiquated passage that was from a time when women were not educated at all and therefore were usually quite feeble-minded.
"A man cannot treat his wives fairly."
1.) This has NOTHING to do with value at all. This quote is basically saying one cannot be impartial to two spouses even if one wants to. it goes on to recommend one tries to be fair anyway…
""Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females.""
1.) this is literally the exact same as the inheritance passage. LOOK TO MODERN LIFE! Muslim women can inherit just like anyone else.
"Men and women are enemies!"
1.) Another translation of this line simply claims that men and women do not understand eachother and will therefore always be at odds…
"You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." "
1.) Slaves are illegal everywhere… this is simply another antiquated law.
"Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves."
1.) in my last post I mentioned how in america and much of the rest of the world is it indecent for women to go topless. this is simply the ancient equivalent.
"If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives."
1.) seriously, look to modern life, noone follows this law.
"Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved)"
1.)The idea is that because the spouse is one's closest confidant, if one is continuously immoral it is unlikely that the spouse could remain in their position without also partaking in this evil. (of course I disagree and believe that, that everyone is saved anyway…)
"Your wives and children are your enemies."
1.) see the quote about women being enemies from earlier.

Basically, my opponent has come up with nothing new and continues to claim that antiquated laws in the Quaran somehow mean that M is sexist. Please look to modern muslims to see that these laws are clearly no longer followed.
"he defends every part of the Koran, as any good religious person would"
I like to think of myself and my pastors and such as religious people… but even they don't defend everything from the bible… you don't seriously believe that people still follow every rule written in every holy book do you?

"M has set belief that women should act and dress a certain way just because if they don't it would make men lustful. "
1.) Regardless of if he said this or not, it was not a quote from your first post, and since you dropped my analysis, must be ignored for this debate.
2.) In America it's illegal and scandalous to reveal oneself… man or women. yet, noone seems to have a problem with these laws… This is the same kind of thing.
"A man can beat his wife…she wants to "punish" him she must also punish herself."
1.) … it says nothing about cooking for oneself. Also in the modern world there are plenty of ways a women can deal with this.
look to any religious text, they all have crazy parts that claim followers should commit grievous wrongs. However these laws are not followed by the majority of the members of the religion, and thus one cannot possibly claim that because of them the whole religion is evil…

"If a man did get pregnant somehow…
I am not saying everyone should always be treated the same, but people should be treated on if they earn it. Being a woman doesn't mean you earn anything differently than if you were a man (and vice versa)"

1.) Nothing wrong with this. If a women were a man… and did everything he did she certainly would be treated like one. However, like a man cannot give birth, a women cannot be a man.
Because my opponent failed to make any new arguments and did not mention anything about hiding behind religion and using it as a shield I would like you to flow all of my untouched arguments to neg.

I also believe that people should be treated FAIRLY. Equal and fair are not the sam
Debate Round No. 2
lovelife

Pro

Its late and I probably wont do a good job but I can't stand to leave a debate unrefuted overnight.

Mirza has defended such things many times including the wife beating, you don't know if they still follow these systems and you said you don't know everything Mirza has said. Because of these two things you cannot just make assumptions about how he or anyone else follows that religion.

My opponent goes on to say that the modesty rules are no different then the rules about women going topless. Lol there are places women can go topless, and I veiw that law as sexist, wrong, immoral, and one that should be banished, unless males are prohibited from walking topless as well. I don't believe any amount of clothing should be dictated by anyone but the individual and if they choose to go naked, I don't see a problem with that. I don't see why people are so afraid of "omg the naked human body! Thats not natural! Seeing that might make my head explode!" seriously the more people try to enforce modesty ad clothing the more it makes people want to go against and have sex, and lust, sneak around, break the rules, see the forbidden etc.
I see all laws about clothing to be ridiculas, from the law about wearing boots to bed "It is unlawful to wear your boots to bed." http://travelsoklahoma.net...
The burqa ban in France is dumb "France's lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on wearing burqa-style Islamic veils Tuesday, part of a determined effort to define and protect French values that has disconcerted many in the country's large Muslim community." http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"indecent exposure laws" are laughable "Indecent exposure is a crime that is defined as exposing one's genitals or socially deemed "private parts" (such as behind or breasts) in a public place where others are present and may witness the act. A person who commits indecent exposure does so intentionally with an understanding that his/her conduct will likely alarm and offend others. Indecent exposure is often performed for the offender's personal sexual excitement or satisfaction, though in some cases it is a form of social rebellion. " http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com...
You'd think society will learn the more you criminalize something the more people want it. If being naked wasn't illegal so many people wouldn't want it. There would be far less criminals, and most people would wear clothes anyway if nothing else because it can get cold outside or because religion and society have always taught people to be ashamed of how they look.

Moving on away from that rant...I agree that sexism is thinking that one sex is better than another, but also forcing sexes to partake in set gender roles. As a general rule onoe sex is better at...not refuting that, what I'm refuting is that people should not be treated a certain way just because of their genetalia and generalizations. Personally I can tell you how hard it is living in a society that embraces sexism because its "scientific" and if my opponent wishes I will explain how it has personally affected me in the comments. I can identify such things as sexist all too easily because such things have been used against me, and other females. And how too often do males also get made fun of for having "girly" interests? I'd much rather take a math class than a home ec class, I cant survive in home ec and have no interest in it. I don't really like math either but I'm good at it. Not perfect so it doesn't count since I'm a girl, but if I was a guy I'd be considered good at it.

My opponent says he thinks everyone should be treated fairly and I agree. " as deserved; justly " http://dictionary.reference.com...
"without bias or distortion : impartially "
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The whole issue of judging what an individual should do, or how they should be treated based on their sex is unfair. Everyone should be treated as equal until they prove what their capable of and their fortes etc. Maybe a female fits classic gender roles, good for her. Maybe she fits reverse gender roles good for her. Maybe she fits somewhere in the middle good for her. But to judge how she should be treated or talked to based on her gender alone is and of itself sexist.

This is something that Mirza personally supports along with his religion thus they are both sexist.

I shouldn't have to prove how he is hiding behind his religion, but I will anyway.
My opponet himself claims that just because it is in ones religion does not mean they support it. That is enough proof. Mirza is capable of not accepting the sexist part of his religion but instead uses it to cloak his own sexist mindset and using it as a justification. By doing such he is hiding behind it and expecting "its the religion" to take all credit for his sexism, when that clearly isn't fair.
Bnesiba

Con

Bnesiba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lovelife

Pro

My opponent seems to have forfeited. I am not sure if that had anything to do with the site being down or not. All my points stand.
Bnesiba

Con

Bnesiba forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
You deserve 0% of the votes, and I would give you a big defeat if I had given no promise to debate others here first.
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
"hmm...? using his religion as a shield ?"

He uses his religion to justify his sexist thoughts and behaviours. That makes it a shield.
Posted by LFC9_muslimah 7 years ago
LFC9_muslimah
hmm...? using his religion as a shield ?
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
Bnesiba, PM me and I will help.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
Thanks and OK.
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
Yes you can help. Welcome back Mirza.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
May I help my defender? He may have a hard time explaining the Qur'anic verses. And you cited them falsely, lovelife. Much like with my statements.
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
Its fine.

Lol Mirza left, this was at first a challenge to him but shortly after I challenged him he deactivated her account
Posted by Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
sorry for the huge wall of text... i get a little carried away sometimes :/

also, i'm not Mirza, but i thought this debate looked fun, so sorry if you were hoping mirza would take it.
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
lovelife
Awww so cute, squirrel head spider body <3
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
lovelifeBnesibaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 7 years ago
Loserboi
lovelifeBnesibaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
lovelifeBnesibaTied
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 m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
lovelifeBnesibaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
lovelifeBnesibaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40