The Instigator
Ethanthedebater1
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
bthr004
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Regardless of the existence of God, the Bible is wrong about many, many things.

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  
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: 11/13/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,006 times Debate No: 5964
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (98)
Votes (11)

 

Ethanthedebater1

Pro

This is 4 rounds simply because Round one will be the confirmation round. Simply join the debate, and announce your intention to debate.

God- Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah
Bible- Holy Bible of the Christian religion, as determined by the Council of Trent
wrong- not right

Burden: Self-explanatory, I must prove the resolution as defined to be true, my opponent must prove it "not true."
bthr004

Con

Assuming regardless of the existence equals to, not including the existence of God, I accept.

Council of Trent. If I am to adhere to the interpretations of the Bible by the Council of Trent,... I will expect my opponent to stay within those bounds as well, providing adequate sources from the exact doctrines of the church determined by the council.

Let it be known that I disagree with any notion implying the Council of Trent and its doctrines is the universal interpretation of the Holy Bible as followed by other churches.

My opponent, should as well be able to prove his "barometry" of correctness and wrongness as it relates.
Debate Round No. 1
Ethanthedebater1

Pro

This is pretty simple. If God doesn't exist, well, then the bible is wrong about God existing. If, he exists, as described by doctrine, as an almighty, righteous, and omnipotent God, then the Bible is wrong.

Basic doctrine says that we (humans) have free will. This free will allows us to do right, and wrong. If we do what is right, we go to heaven, and if we do wrong, we go to hell. Of course, the Bible also says that if you do wrong, you can be forgiven of your sins and still admitted to heaven. However, the Bible has God breaking this ideal. That is, God interferes with the Free Will of man. Numerous instances of this occur. The Great Flood, the destruction of Jericho, and pretty much any communication between man and his creator. The Great Flood violated this principle in several ways. First, it destroyed all mankind (excepting Noah), and killed even some good men. This violates the biblical principle of just desserts, as well as depriving them of free will. Other instances, wher God communicates with mankind violate free will as well. By proving his own existence, he is taking away the freedom not to believe.

As I am running low on time (several uncontrollable events have prevented my usage of my computer), I will end for now.
bthr004

Con

This is pretty simple. If God doesn't exist, well, then the bible is wrong about God existing. If, he exists, as described by doctrine, as an almighty, righteous, and omnipotent God, then the Bible is wrong."

---> Hmmm,... If he is as described by the doctrines,.. the Bible is wrong?,.. If the bible is right, then its wrong? I am not sure what my opponent is trying to say here.

"Basic doctrine says that we (humans) have free will."

--> What doctrines would these be,... please explain.

- God works in the regenerate. Phil 2:2

REGENERATE:
1. To become formed or constructed again.
2. To undergo spiritual conversion or rebirth; reform.
3. To effect regeneration.

UNREGENERATE:
1.
a. Not spiritually renewed or reformed; not repentant.
b. Sinful; dissolute.
2.
a. Not reconciled to change; unreconstructed.
b. Stubborn; obstinate.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Philippians 2:2
- Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

"However, the Bible has God breaking this ideal. That is, God interferes with the Free Will of man. Numerous instances of this occur. The Great Flood, the destruction of Jericho, and pretty much any communication between man and his creator."

---> Human choice of both good and evil originates within the person's own volition or will; it is free in the sense that he is conscious only of his own freedom of action. We are never as uninfluenced as we think.

- I defined the word unregenerate above because of my opponents following claims.
IN summary of claims,...

1.) The great flood killed innocent people
- No, it is said in Genesis, man was wicked,.. Satan worked within them, the unregenerate. Ephesians 2:2
2.) The flood killed all man except Noah
- Noah took with him his family. His 3 sons Ham, Japeth, Shem represented the main continents repopulating.
3.) Communicating with man is violation of free will
- If free will exists,.. this is impossible, as man would have free will to communicate back.
4.) God proved his own existence
- Faith requires no proof,..

Need I remind my opponent that his own resolution is REGARDLESS of existence of God. My opponent in pretty much his entire second round completely ignores his own resolution by calling regard to God and assuming the existence of God to back each of his claims.

All of my opponents claims are in regards to the existence of God,... It is my opponents platform to support that the Bible is wrong about many things, these "things" are to be without regard to the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 2
Ethanthedebater1

Pro

"---> Hmmm,... If he is as described by the doctrines,.. the Bible is wrong?,.. If the bible is right, then its wrong? I am not sure what my opponent is trying to say here."

No. I mean that if the Bible is right about God existing, it is still wrong about most other things.

"--> What doctrines would these be,... please explain."

The Council of Trent, the canon determining council for the Bible (although some prostestant denomnations made variations), made it basic doctrine, that continues today in most denominations. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

"---> Human choice of both good and evil originates within the person's own volition or will; it is free in the sense that he is conscious only of his own freedom of action. We are never as uninfluenced as we think."

Of course, but God is not allowed to go all deus ex machina on us and interfere in the works of man. If he does this, the divine has an undue influence, and he loses the impartiality upon which to judge us. Continuing on the impartiality point, the idea that God loves all equally, but treats all justly is contradicted several times throughout the Bible. The Israelites are God's chosen people, yet he still somehow is an impartial judge. God, by making any interference into the realm of men, has violated free will. This isn't to say however that he didn't make men, et cetera, as free will only had pertinence after the fall of man.

"- No, it is said in Genesis, man was wicked,.. Satan worked within them, the unregenerate. Ephesians 2:2"

All are to be given forgiveness if they ask. Also, even God admitted in Genesis that the Flood was wrong. This means that he wouldn't be all good, as he is supposed to be. In fact, several times throughout the Bible, GOd punishes people unduely, turning Lot's wife into salt, destroying Sodom and Gommorrah, et cetera. God is contradicting himself, acting beyond the prescibed punishment for the fall of man, and contradicting the free will gained by the knowledge of good and evil.

"- If free will exists,.. this is impossible, as man would have free will to communicate back."

I don't understand what you are saying here. Clarify.

"4.) God proved his own existence"

Exactly, and God proved his own existence in the Bible several times, appearing as a burning bush, making bread fall from the sky, et cetera. That violates free will.

"Need I remind my opponent that his own resolution is REGARDLESS of existence of God. My opponent in pretty much his entire second round completely ignores his own resolution by calling regard to God and assuming the existence of God to back each of his claims."

Regardless means that assuming God exists, the Bible is wrong, and that assuming God does not exist, the Bible is still wrong.
bthr004

Con

"The Council of Trent, the canon determining council for the Bible (although some prostestant denomnations made variations), made it basic doctrine, that continues today in most denominations."

--> The Council of Trent were Roman Catholic. This was their answer to the reforming of the other churches at the time. I assure the voters,... this is not the universal "laws" of Christianity.

- None the less my opponent failed to provide the decree and session that proved his claim of man having free will.
- This point is null and void.

"Of course, but God is not allowed to go all deus ex machina on us and interfere in the works of man."

--> According to the Bible it is man that are the works of God.

"All are to be given forgiveness if they ask."

--> All of my opponents claims are brought full circle to make the point that all is to be forgiven. The Bible tells us that foregiveness was not given, and repent was not part until God provided a son to be the Savior of man. All of my opponents claims in regards to contradicting Gods forgiveness are false,... as the Savior was not born until after ALL of the events my opponent has claimed above. The new testament speaks of foregiveness. Old testament speaks of damnation.

"- If free will exists,.. this is impossible, as man would have free will to communicate back."

"I don't understand what you are saying here. Clarify."

--> My opponent claims in one hand that free will exists,.. yet that free will goes away if God communicates with them,... I don't see this at all,... The will to act and be concious of the actions would not be limited in any ways, and my opponent has yet to prove otherwise.

"Regardless means that assuming God exists, the Bible is wrong, and that assuming God does not exist, the Bible is still wrong."

--> But the results of the assumptions are to seperate ones,... If you are to assume the existence or non existence,.. you are obviously giving FULL REGARD to the existence of God,...Your resolution calls for us to be unmindful, without concern towards, without regards towards the existence, ( non or otherwise), of God.

--If my opponent requires the assumption of Gods existence to back up his claims, he is in turn opposing his own resolution by asking all of us and himself to give regard to the existence of God.
Debate Round No. 3
Ethanthedebater1

Pro

"--> The Council of Trent were Roman Catholic. This was their answer to the reforming of the other churches at the time. I assure the voters,... this is not the universal 'laws' of Christianity."

I defined it as the Council of Trent's doctrine. This is because there are no "universal laws of Christianity." You accepted my definitions, you accepted the impacts of said definitions. Sorry.

"- None the less my opponent failed to provide the decree and session that proved his claim of man having free will.
- This point is null and void."

Even if you don't believe in free will, the ONLY denomination that even remotely rejects free will is Presbyterianism, as it follows the teachings of John Calvin, who teached that there was pre-destination of the saved. Free will is more or less universally accepted in Christianity, and I offered a link showing this.

"--> According to the Bible it is man that are the works of God."

And he gave us free will, that's doctrine, interfering with us is interfering with free will, he does not do that.

"--> All of my opponents claims are brought full circle to make the point that all is to be forgiven. The Bible tells us that foregiveness was not given, and repent was not part until God provided a son to be the Savior of man. All of my opponents claims in regards to contradicting Gods forgiveness are false,... as the Savior was not born until after ALL of the events my opponent has claimed above. The new testament speaks of foregiveness. Old testament speaks of damnation."

Thank you. You have proved my point. There is contradiction in the Bible. But, anyways, the coming of Jesus Christ, Our Savior was not due to the events I mentioned. The coming of Christ is not dependent on the obviously contradictory event sof the Old Testament. Furthermore, they were not given forgiveness simply because Christ came, Christ was the beacon of this, however, repentance was given as an option. Do you really think Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, Joshua, and David are all burning in Hell?

"--> My opponent claims in one hand that free will exists,.. yet that free will goes away if God communicates with them,... I don't see this at all,... The will to act and be concious of the actions would not be limited in any ways, and my opponent has yet to prove otherwise."

Not so, free will means you have the ability to choose whether or not to believe. If God communicates, he takes away this choice, by showing his existence, he takes away the very element that gives belief value.

"--> But the results of the assumptions are to seperate ones,... If you are to assume the existence or non existence,.. you are obviously giving FULL REGARD to the existence of God,...Your resolution calls for us to be unmindful, without concern towards, without regards towards the existence, ( non or otherwise), of God."

"Assuming regardless of the existence equals to, not including the existence of God, I accept."

These were your words, and you better hold to them. Furthermore, to prove something "regardless" you can prove it assuming both ends of the spectrum, so there is no contradiction.

"--If my opponent requires the assumption of Gods existence to back up his claims, he is in turn opposing his own resolution by asking all of us and himself to give regard to the existence of God."

I am disproving the claims of the Bible by accepting it as completely true, and showing how it contradicts itself, that is called a reductio ad absurdum my worthy opponent.
bthr004

Con

(Regardless of the existence of God,) the bible is wrong about many, many things.

re⋅gard⋅less 

–adjective 1. having or showing no regard; heedless; unmindful

–adverb 2. without concern as to advice, warning, hardship, etc.; anyway: I must make the decision regardless.

—Idiom3. regardless of, in spite of; without regard for: They'll do it regardless of the cost.

--> Every one of my opponents claims requires complete REGARD for the existence of God. This is an exact contradiction to his resolution.

*************

My opponent failed to attach his claim of free will to any canon of the Council of Trent. His claims that "most" denominations adopt this notion is both weak, and false. Even his own provided link from wikipedia provides adequate examples of the opposite.

The Council of Trent was organized to "combat," if you will the reformation going on at the time. The Council of Trent is Roman Catholic. Non the less,.. my opponent has not shown any canon from the Council of Trent to satisfy his resolution.

"Free will is more or less universally accepted,"

--> WEAK,... This more or less proves my opponent's point NULL.

"And he gave us free will, that's doctrine, interfering with us is interfering with free will, he does not do that."

--> Unless this is a mistake on my opponents part, he just conceded God does not interfere with free will.

My opponent claims that I proved his point in the Bible being contradictory,... this is not the case at all. You see, the bible is clear series of situations that led up to God determining the time of our Savior. Repentance was the requirement of salvation. Noah, Abraham, Jacob,..etc, etc, were chosen by GRACE of God, this is described in the Council of Trent's decrees. My opponent was using the Straw Man fallacy.

"If God communicates, he takes away, choice, by showing his existence, he takes away the very element that gives belief value."

--> Not that I concede that this proves the bible wrong, which it does not,... I am pretty sure that absolute knowledge of existence is what gives value to belief,.. certainly God communicating with someone wouldn't "de-value" someone belief. Of course the main point remains,... the bible does not claim free will,.. thus, ruling another point of my opponent, NULL.

"I am disproving the claims of the bible by accepting it as completely true, and showing how it contradicts itself, that is called a reductio ad absurdum my worthy opponent."

--> Haha,.. well ordinarily a clever maneuver,... however for you, my esteemed, opponent, you are missing several KEY elements to your entire argument showing reductio ad absurdium.

1.) My opponent never cleared a premise.
a.) My opponent claimed several times that God contradicts himself.
- This problematic because for one, we were not to assume existence of God,.. we were not even to give regard to his existence.
- for two, my opponent was to show that the Bible was wrong, not God.
b.) My opponent wanted us to adhere to the rulings by the Council of Trent
- My opponent never once provided a source of his own claims from the Council.
- His whole argument derived from anything other than the Council should be nullified.

2.) My opponent did not show a contradiction to a premise.
a.) My opponents attempt at pinning me with Straw Man fallacy failed.
b.) The bible says that Jesus WAS God in the body of man.
c.) The Bible never claimed free will and even if it did, my opponent failed to show that God disturbed free will of man.

************

Closing,..

My opponent says he accomplished reductio ad absurdum, however my opponent did not even relate to his own premise at any time, and of course failed at showing a contradiction to anything.

My opponent says Christianity widely adopts the idea of free will,... even if this is the case and he satisfied his own guidelines of relating to the Council of Trent,.. He still fails at proving his resolution true.

Say, free will exists, say God interferes with free will which contradicts the churches belief in free will,... say all that is taken into consideration. My opponent still fails to show that the Bible is wrong in many, many ways. Not one verse or quote was provided by my opponent from the Bible showing that free will exists to man according to the Bible. Ergo, the bible was not even remotely close to being proven wrong by my worthy opponent.

Thank you to my opponent,.. and thank you to the viewers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O
Debate Round No. 4
98 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
There's no principles of getting just deserts or in favor of free will. Free will is mostly unbiblical. So it doesn't violate any such rules.

John, I initially thought you were wrong with the spelling there.
http://www.snopes.com...

Learn something new every day.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
: "This violates the biblical principle of just desserts, as well as depriving them of free will."

-You spell just deserts wrong... It only has one 's.' However you pronounce it like it is a dessert. I'm usually not a grammar freak but that one drives me bonkers.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
No, I fully understood the rest of the theology but the relationship to the soldiers to other problems seemed a bit shallow... but it actually has a lot of support.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Yes, but freedoms and independence are not.

Duh.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Tatarize,.. do you know what a synonym is? Free= Independent!

Grrr,... AGAIN,.. this is, or at least it started out that way, a discussion on THEOLOGY, not the bible!!!!

You said,.. your exact quote that sparked this off, your resolution that I am against was: "I thought when they started to protest the funerals of soldiers that they were completely just being asses. However, after hearing more on the theological front, I think they have a legit argument to be made on everything."

--> THEOLOGICAL FRONT! Phelps IS wrong in accordance to such theology, and yes backed in the Bible. However, I am short of time right now,... I will post a couple verses from Corrinthians later and explain.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Independence has been won on the battlefield... freedoms are not.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Phelps is right. The Bible says he's right. What other people say about it doesn't matter, because Phelps is right. -- There's no such reasoned analysis as you suggest. You are accustomed to assuming you are right because you assume you are right. Well the same applies to Phelps and you are going to have to employ something more akin to an epistemology than a stomping foot. Seemingly to parse out who is right and wrong would requiring looking at the Bible, and the Bible is far more on Phelps' side on this issue than yours. There's nothing to suggest there is free will in the Bible.

Phelps is more consistent with the Bible and creates a much more consistent theology. You claim there is free will, not because the Bible gives you any reason, but because St. Augustine made it up. The Bible is pretty clear. God knows everything and you don't have magical powers to do something God doesn't know about or make choices God can't change.

Your responses on this issue have been hollow. Phelps is in line with the Bible and God. Why are you crowing about theology if it isn't in line with the Bible? You are in effect suggesting that Phelps is wrong because some people made up some stuff outside of the Bible that Phelps rejects because he accepts the Bible more than this "common theology".

---

Phelps is repugnant, because the Bible is repugnant. Phelps is very Biblical about everything he does.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
LOL,.. oh man,... this is getting stupid.

THIS is NO different than the debate I just had with Tarzan,... About bieng in the context of the Bible and of the religious doctrines, etc, etc.

The discussion I thought we were having anyways, is about Phelps bieng in line or not with CHRISTIAN theology! Not if Phelps is right or wrong in general. "Rational analysis" in regards to the analysis of common theology.

Or should I say, Given the bible, or Given Christian theology, Phelps is morally repugnant. LOL!
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
<<Ok,... we are getting no where.

Christian theology is discourse concerning Christian faith. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument to understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote Christianity. Through rational analysis, I and the vast majority of Christians dismiss Phelp's teachings. Yes, thats how that works.>>

Since when can the analysis of the irrational, by irrational people, lead to "rational analysis"? Also, why are you assuming that numerical superiority makes you right? The vast majority of Christians also believed that the world was flat.

Yes, that's how it *really* works.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Ok,... we are getting no where.

Christian theology is discourse concerning Christian faith. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument to understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote Christianity. Through rational analysis, I and the vast majority of Christians dismiss Phelp's teachings. Yes, thats how that works.

"Freedoms are not won on the battlefield."

-- Freedoms have been won, and defended on the battle field, ie; Americas Revolution for instance.

"You claim that the freedoms given by the United States should compel one to never employ them. Whereas I'm trying to make the point that even if you weren't allowed such freedoms by the government, your religion should compel you to act against the law."

--> I make NO such claims,.... Are you even reading my posts? I am arguing that Phelp's teachings are NOT in line with Christian Theology. The govt. is not preventing ANY "freedoms" from Phelps. In fact they are protecting those "freedoms." At any rate, we are not discussing law, we are discussing theology. Again, God is not commanding these actions, the Christian church has clear outlines of what is considered "just wars." Phelps have overstepped and disreguarded the teachings of our Savior.

********

"Fallacy of numbers does not establish predestination is wrong."

hmm,.. Numbers do matter when we are in a debate about Christian Theology, and establishing common belief, and consideration. If Phelps claim they are correct and we are wrong,.. that makes little difference if one shows common Christian Theology states otherwise. Ergo, Phelp's views would be considered "not in line." <-- my resolve.

"Wars do not grant freedoms."

--> The independence of the United States was claimed and defended in the revolution from Great Britain. After the battle at Yorktown, the British officially conceded defeat and the Treaty of Paris was organized, and signed in 1783, recognizing the independec of the USA.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pitz004 7 years ago
pitz004
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by draxxt 8 years ago
draxxt
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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 solo 8 years ago
solo
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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 KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Ethanthedebater1bthr004Tied
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:04