The Instigator
Kahvan
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Frodobaggins
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Mormons are Christians

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 10 votes the winner is...
Frodobaggins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,928 times Debate No: 10741
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (10)

 

Kahvan

Pro

My argument is that members of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are Christians. We are more commonly known as the Mormons.

My case is that Mormons, like Catholics and other faiths, are Christians.
Frodobaggins

Con

===> D E F I N I T I O N S <===

For clarity let me pose the following definitions:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -

Christians - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow only one religious text as the Bible. No other religious text besides the bible influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God.

Mormons - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow both the Bible and the book of Mormon. No other religious text besides the bible and the book of mormon influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God.

Catholics - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow only one religious text as the Bible. No other religious text besides the bible influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God.

Protestants - Those who believe Jesus is the Christ (God's son) and follow only one religious text as the Bible. No other religious text besides the bible influences their beliefs in what is and isn't sin or on what is or isn't God.

===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- R E S O L U T I O N <===

Without the Bible there would be no Christianity, Catholic or Protestant. Thus from this analysis one can logically conclude that the text from the bible determines sin/religion.

--Logical Premise --

Jews = Old Testament only
Christians (Catholics + Protestants) = Old Testament + New Testament
Muslims =Old Testament + Qua-ran
Latter Day Saints (Mormons) = Old Testament + New Testament + Book of Mormon

As one can see, to argue that the church of latter day saints are equivocal to Christians would be similar to saying that the Jews are Christians because they share the old testament or that Muslims are Christian because they too share the old testament.

Religious text one observes dictates one religion. The requirement to be Christian is to observe only the Old Testament and New Testament, accept Jesus Christ as your savior, and follow his commands.

I will leave my opponent with one Bible verse from the very end of the New Testament which I think makes clear Christ's position on the subject.

Revelation: 22:18
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Debate Round No. 1
Kahvan

Pro

First off I have no idea where you got your definition of Christian but I will tell you my definition as well as cite the source. (the noun not adjective)
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

now, these are all the multiple definitions of what a Christian is. Lets take a look at number seven shall we. It says that a Christian is "a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity." the adherent of Christianity basically means that it is the ultimate requirement.

Now as for your scriptural reference which holds up a lot of your argument aimed specifically against the Book of Mormon.

There are 2 ways we can take this that I would like to explore.

1)We can take this literally and throw out the rest of the bible because the books in the bible were written separately over hundreds of years and put together with the creed of Nicaea.

2)We can take it to mean specifically the book of Revelation in which case the Book of Mormon does not interfere with the mentioned scripture.

So based on the actual definition of what being Christian is as well as my rebuttal of my opponents irrelevant attack against the Book of Mormon I would say that Mormons are in fact Christians.
Frodobaggins

Con

===> I N T R O D U C T I O N <===
I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response and wish him well in the final round.

===> A R G U M E N T -- A G A I N S T -- D E F I N I T I O N -- OF -- C H R I S T I A N I T Y <===
My opponent is attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary. Not that I disrespect using dictionaries to define a topic as that is there purpose. However, when the word Christianity is so pertinent to the topic of the debate, I believe that one should logically back up the definition. Furthermore, I made a logical argument for my definition. That argument must be rebutted. It cannot be wholly ignored as my opponent has ignored it.

I derived my definition of Christianity from pure logic. I have shown how the addition or subtraction of a book makes a completely different religion. In this instance an online dictionary reference is insufficient enough to prove your claim. Logic must also be applied and in this instance rebutted if you are to succeed in proving your resolution.

I will reiterate. The addition of the New Testament as a religious text changes Judaism to Christianity. The addition of the Quran as a religious text(authority) to the Old Testament changes Judaism to Islam. It logically follows that the addition of the book of Mormon to the Old and New Testament changes Christianity to a new religion, Mormonism.

===> C R E E D -- O F -- N I C A E A <===

My opponent stated that the texts were put together at the creed of nicaea. This is completely incorrect. The creed of Nicaea is a creed that was adopted at the first council of nicaea. The Creed is recited in the Roman Rite Mass directly after the homily on all Sundays and Solemnities (Tridentine Feasts of the First Class), and in the Byzantine Rite Liturgy following the Litany of Supplication on all occasions.

I believe my opponent was referring to the First Council of Nicaea. If so then this is also incorrect and is most likely a belief that stems from the popular movie, the Davinci Code

SOURCE: http://www.beliefnet.com...

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other "sons of God" in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250���‚�"318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

SOURCE: http://www.ccel.org...

Scriptures were immediately recognized as being canonical as soon as they were written.

Want scriptural proof? Simple, Peter provides that for us in:

2 Peter 3:16

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The key words being "as they do do the other scriptures" This was directly addressing Paul's scriptures. The only scriptures that it would be fair to say that the Epistle of Barnibus was debated as being canonical. That was it. Later councils only accepted what was already accepted by the Christian Church.

However on another note I tend to completely drop this argument as it pertains little to the debate at hand which is mainly how do you define Christianity. My only point at bringing up the scripture in Revelation was to show the differences between Mormanism and Christianity. I realize that entire debates could be held about whether the book of morman logically follows the Bible, thus I intend to drop this argument as it pertains little to my main argument of defining Christianity.

===> C O N C L U S I O N <===

In conclusion my opponent has failed to offer any logical proof that rebuts my definition of Christianity nor upholds his own definition. A dictionary reference is insufficient to credit his definition as the definition itself relies on logic to support it in this particular instance of debate. Furthermore my opponent is completely wrong about the council of Nicaea and his belief that scriptures were canonized hundreds of years later, however I will drop this argument as it pertains little to my main argument that my opponent's definition of Christianity is flawed on a logical basis and that my own logical definition of Christianity has yet to be rebutted or even argued in the least.
Debate Round No. 2
Kahvan

Pro

My opponent is attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary. Not that I disrespect using dictionaries to define a topic as that is there purpose. However, when the word Christianity is so pertinent to the topic of the debate, I believe that one should logically back up the definition. Furthermore, I made a logical argument for my definition. That argument must be rebutted. It cannot be wholly ignored as my opponent has ignored it.

I derived my definition of Christianity from pure logic. I have shown how the addition or subtraction of a book makes a completely different religion. In this instance an online dictionary reference is insufficient enough to prove your claim. Logic must also be applied and in this instance rebutted if you are to succeed in proving your resolution."

I am not attempting to redefine Christianity, and your specific statement that I'm "attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary." is absurd. The dictionary defines what something is, and one of the ways that the dictionary defines Christians is "7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity." In fact this is such an inherently important definition that it says at the end that it is the adherent of Christianity. On top of this I see nowhere that a Christian has to believe in the bible. To be Christian one has t believe in Jesus Christ.

Now let me offer up some of the logic that you are asking for. First off before the Bible as we know it today was put together after having been written for hundreds of years. People were calling themselves Christian because they believed in Christ.

Now lets look at the actually word. C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Here are the 2 parts of the word. "Christ" and "ian." The Christ part refers to Jesus Christ. The second part "ian". Below is what "ian." means. (below that is the link)
-ian
suff.

1.

Of, relating to, or resembling: Bostonian.
2.

One relating to, belonging to, or resembling: academician.

So putting "Christ" and "Ian" together means Of, relating to, or resembling (or) One relating to, belonging to, or resembling to Christ.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

My point with this is that nowhere does it talk about the bible in the definition or in the broken-down meaning of the word.

CONCLUSION

To be Christian one must try to be like to him as shown in my breakdown of the word. Taking that literally one who does not believe he was Jehovah could still be Christian if he or she tried to be like Christ. However Christ has a religious sect called Christianity and today being Christian refers to believing in Christ. With both of these in mind Mormons are Christian because we believe in Christ as Jehovah and our religious group is focused around tying to become like him. So with all this in mind Mormons are Christian.
Frodobaggins

Con

===> D I C T I O N A R Y -- W A R S <===

"I am not attempting to redefine Christianity, and your specific statement that I'm "attempting to re-define Christianity using an online dictionary." is absurd."

Ad hominem. I defined Christianity because you offered no definition of it. Thus you are redefining it in the context of this debate as my definition was the first one given. Thus my definition must logically be rebutted.

"The dictionary defines what something is."

I agree, however when the entire debate hinges on the definition a dictionary reference does not suffice. I could simply whip out a dictionary reference which defines Christianity so that it is the inequivalent of Mormonism.

In fact let me do it.

Christianity - a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior
SOURCE: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Mormonism: the doctrines and practices of the Mormon Church based on the Book of Mormon)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

As is shown by my two definitions Christianity's definition is based upon the religious texts (Old Testament and New Testament) and Mormonism's definition is based upon the religious text(Book of Mormon).
Thus as the definitions clearly aren't equivalent Mormons are not Christians.

As is proven it would be completely pointless to see how many dictionary definitions we could use to prove our point. Thus using a dictionary to re-define my earlier definition is a moot purpose.

===> C H R I S T I A N S -- M U S T -- B E L I E V E -- I N -- T H E -- B I B L E <===

"On top of this I see nowhere that a Christian has to believe in the bible."

I assumed that it was a given however I suppose I was wrong in doing so?

A Christian must follow Christs commands. Christ says the following about the Bible.

--->Christ Affirms that the Bible is God's Word <----
"Genesis 2:24 (New International Version)
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Moses is clearly the author of Genesis 2. However when Jesus quotes him in

Mathew 19: 4-5
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'

He clearly says "the Creator...said" not Moses, not Genesis but the Creator(God).

John 17: (Prayer for the apostles)
9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.

14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify[b] them by the truth; your word is truth.

Jesus clearly states that "the word is truth" as in the Bible is the truth.

---->You are in error if you do not believe the scriptures<----

Matthew 22:29
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

SOURCE: http://www.relationalconcepts.org...

---->Jesus affirms the scriptures infallibility<----

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came"and the Scripture cannot be broken" 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

From this scripture we learn 4 things:

1. The scripture is law.
2. The scripture is the word of God.
3. It cannot be broken.
4. It is written.

---->Logical Premise<----
Given: Jesus is God
Given: Scripture = The Bible
Given: If you are a Christian you believe that God's words are truth.

A. You must follow God's commands.
B. God said you are in error if you do not follow the scripture, the scripture is the word of God.
C. Thus if you do not believe in the scripture you are in error and do not follow the word of God.
D. Thus if you do not believe in scripture/the word of God you are not a Christian.

===>I M P L I C A T I O N -- O F -- B I B L I C A L -- I N N C U R A C Y <===

"Now let me offer up some of the logic that you are asking for. First off before the Bible as we know it today was put together after having been written for hundreds of years."

This is not logic, but is a statement that has no logical backing or proof. The Bible (as I have shown previously) was immediately accepted as being canonical as soon as it was written. Thus, this statement fails.

===> N E W -- D E F I N I T I O N <===

"Now lets look at the actually word. C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N. Here are the 2 parts of the word. "Christ" and "ian." The Christ part refers to Jesus Christ. The second part "ian". Below is what "ian." means. (below that is the link)

So putting "Christ" and "Ian" together means Of, relating to, or resembling (or) One relating to, belonging to, or resembling to Christ.

My point with this is that nowhere does it talk about the bible in the definition or in the broken-down meaning of the word."

I completely agree with my opponent's attempt at another more logical definition of Christianity. However it does not negate my definition in any way. My opponent advocates that a Christian is of Christ. Thus a Christian follows Christ's commands in the Bible. Such as a Mormon is of the book of Mormon.

===> I G N O R A N C E -- O F -- M Y -- D E F I N I T I O N <===

I don't know whether my opponent thinks I or the voters will forget about it if he ignores it, but I can answer for myself in saying that I will not forget about it.

My opponent has again failed to offer any rebuttal to my point that ones religion relies upon a religious text and that the addition or subtraction of a religious text changes the religion.

I will reiterate. The addition of the New Testament as a religious text changes Judaism to Christianity. The addition of the Quran as a religious text(authority) to the Old Testament changes Judaism to Islam. It logically follows that the addition of the book of Mormon to the Old and New Testament changes Christianity to a new religion, Mormonism.

My opponent has not even so much as offered a response to this critical point. As it has not been rebutted by my opponent in any manner other than to state: "I have no idea where you got your definition of Christian", this premise that Mormonism is another religion and is not Christianity, holds water and has not been refuted.

===> C O N C L U S I O N <===

Since the premise that the addition or subtraction of a religious changes a religion has not been refuted, it has been affirmed in this debate. Since it has been affirmed, my opponent's affirmation that Mormons are Christians has been negated. I have clearly shown using simple logic how Mormonism is not Christianity. My opponent has not even offered a response and has made several erroneous claims that the Bible was not canonical until assembled, was assembled at the Council of Nicaea, and does not have to be followed by Christians.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jesusrules 6 years ago
Jesusrules
Mormons say that the book of Mormon was preached from an angel. However, in the New Testament, Galatians 1:8 says "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!". The book of mormon has a lot of things different from the Bible, so they are not Christians.
Posted by Frodobaggins 6 years ago
Frodobaggins
Kahvan remove your vote as I can't vote. also remove your friends vote as he is biased

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Frodobaggins 6 years ago
Frodobaggins
@The-good-teacher

While I'm sure accusing me of being a murder, I'm sure, makes you look vastly more credible than me, I'm going to have to kindly have to ask you to shut up.

Everyone's comments were relevant to the debate. Yours wasn't. Take a hint and don't post comments unless they are.

Thank you.
Posted by the-good-teacher 6 years ago
the-good-teacher
@Frodobaggins
listen to you with no fewer than 7 comments !!!,, and you moan at my one, just because your involved in a debate doesn't mean you become the new site owner !!
I hope nobody gave you a gun for Christmas, you seam the type that would shoot your wife for donning pajamas that clash with the colour of your teddy bear.
Posted by Frodobaggins 6 years ago
Frodobaggins
@the-good-teacher - this is a comments section to discuss the debate at hand, not a general Bash Mormonism thread. If you want to do this create a forum thread. Don't clog up the sections of this comment section with your rantings.
Posted by the-good-teacher 6 years ago
the-good-teacher
Mormons have Baal worship and think it's Christianity !,,

a. Counterfeit ministers, 2 Cor 11:13-15.

b. A counterfeit gospel, 2 Cor 11:3 & 4.

c. Counterfeit doctrines, 2 Tim 4:1-4.

d. A counterfeit spirituality, Gal 3:1-5.

e. A counterfeit righteousness, Matt 23:13-36.

f. A counterfeit communion table, 1 Cor 10:16-21.

g. Counterfeit power, 2 Thess 2:8-10.

h. A counterfeit god, 2 Thess 2:3 & 4.

5. Their characteristics:

a. They put up a phony pleasing front,(Prophet and Apostles are Freemasons) Matt 7:15 & Rom 16:18.

b. They are excellent speakers, using great and persuasive, but tricky words, 2 Pet 2:3, 13 & 14, and 18, and Jude ver 16.

c. They use philosophy, enticing words and tradition to steal rewards from God's children, Col 2:4-23.

d. They appeal to human pride, 2 Cor 10:12.

e. They often promote legalism, or stepping out of bounds and teaching what christians can and cannot do, and what pleases God when God's Word does not teach such things, 1 Tim 1:4-7.

f. They court God's true people, striving to obtain their confidence, Gal 4:17 & 18, 2 Tim 3:5-7, Jude ver 16.

g. They speak evil of God's chain of authority, Jude ver 8, and 2 Pet 2:10-12.

h. They are covetous, wanting things that are not theirs, 2 Pet 2:3.

Our protection from false teachers is to constantly stay in fellowship in accordance with 1 John 1:9 and to know what the Bible teaches on the subject in question, Col 2:9-14, Phil 1:9-11, Eph 6:10-18, 2 Pet 3:17 & 18, and Psa 138:2.
Posted by Frodobaggins 6 years ago
Frodobaggins
replace human with Judaism
Posted by Frodobaggins 6 years ago
Frodobaggins
Anyone can take apart any literal meaning of any word.

I can take apart the word human

Judaism = Juda + Ism = Juda - the Land of Juda. Ism - of or relating to or belonging to.

Thus Judiasm means of or relating to or belonging to the Land of Juda.

What it really means: Jews collectively who practice a religion based on the Torah and the Talmud.
Posted by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
are you forgetting that I took apart the word itself to prove what it means?
Posted by Frodobaggins 6 years ago
Frodobaggins
Again roy that's your own interpretation of the argument, had Pro given that argument I would have considered it and rebutted it. No such reasoning was given.

Are you saying that if I were to create a debate: Fetuses are human, find a dictionary reference that stated that all humans were born I would win the debate?

Protip: Philosophy, it exists.

What is a debate if not a battle of logic? To discard logic for a vague dictionary reference is a ridiculous advocation.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ciphermind 6 years ago
ciphermind
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 6 years ago
EHS_Debate
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
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 
Vote Placed by spear49 6 years ago
spear49
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by debatedave 6 years ago
debatedave
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
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 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 Volkov 6 years ago
Volkov
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
KahvanFrodobagginsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05