The Instigator
Amphibian
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
charles15
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Religion is a modern day myth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
charles15
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,409 times Debate No: 6883
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (12)

 

Amphibian

Pro

Human beings have always had myths to explane things they cannot understand, rainbows for example. Myth dates back to the Egyptians and most famously the Greeks. One by one science is catching up to and eradicating these stories. Galileo, now considered a scientific genius, was considered by the church to be a heretic and a mad man because he was trying to prove that we did indeed revolve around the sun. The Roman Catholic church threatened him with torture and exile if he did not recant the ideas which turned out to be absolutely correct.
Organized religions are based on incentives programs. If you do this you get this, if not you burn in hell forever. A pure idea should never involve a threat. And of course there is the hold up with the afterlife. When you die you are dead, no second chances no just deserts. We are biological beings, when we die nothing remains but our atoms. The soul which many people claim to posses is nothing more than a vague idea used as a means to dominate or inspire. The religious person is, essentially the loser, the only winner is the person who invented the religion. If a person can be convinced that their actions will be rewarded in another life they can be tricked into do anything. They blow themselves up, pray to nothing, give ten percent of their earnings to their church. The obvious gains are made on the part of the individual or organization who provided these people with a false plan and in return received undying loyalty and absolute fealty.
Yet another flaw in religion the world over is secularism. First we come up with a crazy idea about a mystical being who can't be heard seen felt or touched and then they start building up armies to defend said being against slander and dishonor. Who knows how many lives have been thrown away over that virtually useless piece of ground Israel. The terrorism that is haunting the globe is a direct result of radical religious zealots working themselves into a frenzy over nothing and attacking innocent civilians. God is a story made up to explain things that we cannot yet understand and the ideas has been taken entirely too far. If we could only stop the wasted effort and funds pouring into religion and instead focus on science and free thought then progress would follow close behind.
charles15

Con

Thank you for writing your first argument.

Now, to start off, I agree with Amphibian to an extent. When I am debating Amphibian, I will probably use the word "God" many times throughout my arguments, but whenever I use God, I am referring to the Christian God. This is why I say that I agree with Amphibian partially, because all other religions are, I believe, are false and made up.

"One by one science is catching up to and eradicating these stories."

I beg to differ, Christianity is not just a blind faith, proven by nothing but spiritual beliefs. This topic is still widely debated, and there is enough scientific evidence to prove that the odds of there being a God are the same odds, if not better, to the theory of evolution. According to "Channel 1 News" they are now considering to put print science books that support the evidence of God, in Texas. These science text books would then be printed and shipped to all public schools. It could seem that the facts of evolution are actually becoming weaker and weaker and the facts of there being a God stronger and stronger as technology increases and becomes more advanced. You say in your opening
argument just the opposite. Also there are so many topics of humans that evolution can not and never will be able to explain. Why? because in order to believe in the theory of evolution you must exclude all possible evidence of God.

If you do not believe in a religion I am assuming you believe in evolution. So my debate will be against that Scientific theory.

Proving evolution wrong:
Evolution is based upon Darwin's "idea" of Natural Selection, natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. It also explains why all animals evolved different traits to cope inside their habitat more efficiently. But there are many flaws within this theory, for instance, why is it still true that whales can not breath under water, or the fact that eskimos always had a mixed sin, instead of a dark skin that helps take in the sons heat? Also, why is it that countries near the equator tend to have populations of people with dark skin, instead of a lighter skin which wold reflect the sun, therefore making it seem less hot?
Another thing worth highlighting is, evolution fails to show any fossils that support the time between a fish per say evolving into a land creature, again I repeat, evolution does not show any fossil evidence of missing leeks (the stages of an animal gradually evolving). If this evolution is true shouldn't there be millions of fossils showing the evidence of missing links and yet there is none. so, here is a question why should one believe evolution, when the it can't even scientifically prove the process of animals gradually evolving? The only answer for this is "well, because there can't be a God." Saying this holds know impact in a debate if you cannot prove the non existence of God.
Here is a challenge, Amphibian, in your next debate don't just say there are missing links from the evolution of one animal to the next, PROVE IT by giving me some source (link) that I can access that backs up you argument, you had none of these in your opening argument.
Also, how did life begin? The Big Bang? Do you believe that it always? These are somethings you should have explained before saying that religion is just a myth. Can you explain how the universe began? There are a lot of different theories, none of which science can prove. Yo see, if one does not believe in God the beginning of the Universe can not be answered without there being a God to start it all in the first place.
Besides evolution being ultimately unproven it is the only scientific theory that makes things better instead of worst. For instance, thermodynamics prove that if something is hot it will eventually cool down, or medal starts off clean and overtime deteriorates, stars are massive balls of gas and eventually die out, all living organisms live and then die. These are all principles of science. But evolution goes against the whole aspect of science entirely, you see, in evolution everything tightens up and gets better with everything else it is just the opposite.

Proving God's existence:

1. The non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a Universal negative.
2. The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate need an intelligent designer.
3. Proving God's existence is like proving whether sugar is sweet or not, there is nothing that says it is, accept your senses. One could say that God does not exist because I can not see him. Well, you cant see love but it obviously is real. You cannot see an idea but our ideas are being expressed through these debates, thus, they are real. The point is, if you say God does not exist then your very ideas have no meaning, in fact, how do you even know that the air your breathing is actual air? I know because I believe in a God who designed the universe. Any of these questions have still been unanswered out side the idea of God. Nothing is for sure with out God. Please feel free to argue against this point in you response. (This was a broad summary of a much more complex issue that would take more than the remaining characters I am aloud to type.)
4. One may say "if God were real then why does he not show himself, if he did then i would believe." God did show himself, Jesus was God. Many NON-CHRISTIANS even have written about Jesus' miracles, some of them were healing the sick, and raising people from the dead, again non-Christians recorded these things. Historians also say that Jesus was not only seen by his apostles after his resurrection but by 500 other recorded witnesses as well. C.S. Lewis stated that "he couldn't have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn't even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so he had to be God."

Please answer these questions in your next response:

1. Prove to everyone that will read this debate that God is not real, give scientific evidence to back it up along with sources?
2. If God is not real than how do we know we are not all in some kind of delusional world where there are no morals or real objects?
3. Explain how it is possible for evolution to be true with no fossils that give scientists evidence of an animal gradually showing an animal evolve?

I look forward to your response.
charles15
Debate Round No. 1
Amphibian

Pro

Thank you for debating this topic.

First of all I will address the issue of evolution. It is entirely untrue that there are no animals that fill in the gaps. Just this month there was nearly complete fossil found in Pakistan of an ancient whale that had short legs and lived in the ocean though it gave birth on land. This made the whale vulnerable and the whales who could give birth closer to sea began to reproduce more often. Over hundreds and thousands of years whales began to develop the ability to give birth in the open ocean where they where most at home. I think that this is a clear example of the evolutionary process.

http://www.wildlifeofpakistan.com...

>>"One could say that God does not exist because I can not see him. Well, you cant see love but it obviously is real. You cannot see an idea but our ideas are being expressed through these debates, thus, they are real."

This is true, you cannot see love or ideas, this is because both of these things are contained solely within our heads, so does god.

>>"why is it still true that whales can not breath under water, or the fact that Eskimos always had a mixed sin, instead of a dark skin that helps take in the sons heat? Also, why is it that countries near the equator tend to have populations of people with dark skin, instead of a lighter skin which would reflect the sun, therefore making it seem less hot?"

First of all and as I have already shown the whale evolved from a land animal and has not yet fully evolved to it's environment.

Also, the process of evolution does not apply to modern man, if I am going to choose a mate I don't go by their ability to survive the environmental conditions, I don't know anyone who does this. We have the intelligence to survive even when a climate does not suit us perfectly.

The big bang is the most likely occurrence although I personally believe in the big crunch. It is true that science cannot explain the origins of the universe but neither can any religion I know of. If god created it then who created god? If god has been around forever then why doesn't the same principle apply to the universe?

I would also like to point out that the burden of evidence lies on my opponent, I am saying that god does not exist, he is the one who needs to prove that he does.

I can challenge god to a duel right now, a battle of wits or something like it and nothing will happen because there is no god. I bet my life on it, god cannot smite me dead, he does not exist.

I would also like to ask a question of my opponent, how long ago do you consider the earth to have been created?
charles15

Con

Thank you for writing your second argument.
The whale you found is called a "Maiacetus inuus."

To respond to your opening statement. In order for Darwinism to be true the theory requires a continuous record of animals gradually evolving new traits that make the animal more suitable for its environment. Not only does the website you provided for me and the voters, give only one fossil record, of what some scientists believe to be an ancient whale, but you have failed to give the ENTIRE fossil record of a whale, evolving over millions of years. Why is this important? Because a whale does not loose its feet over one generation, according to evolution it happens over millions of years. The evidence you gave only supports one generation. Thus, it does not meet the requirements of proving Darwinism.
You said: "Over hundreds and thousands of years whales began to develop the ability to give birth in the open ocean..." Okay for the sake of argument lets say that's true, but your source only gives one generation of the whales fossil record, when it needs to include a fossil record from each generation (this record does not exist because evolution is only a theory, if it does exist prove it and show me another source). So again, where is the evidence of fossils from the point after (such as the process of the whale losing its feet) or before the whale? You see, there are so many gaps in between the evolutionary fossil record. Since this is true (and you have not proven other wise) it is impossible for evolution to be true as well; evolution can not be a reliable theory when so many pieces of its puzzle are not there an will never be there. This is one out of the many flaws in evolution.
Another issue in evolutionary fossil records is the attempt to prove the evolutionary process of insects and bugs. According to Dr. David Berlinski, there is very little or arguably no fossil records of spiders, given to us by evolutionary scientists.

You said: "This is true, you cannot see love or ideas, this is because both of these things are contained solely within our heads, so does god."
I am trying to figure out whether or not you were debating why God does NOT exist within that sentence. If you were, well then, are you denying that love and your ideas are non-existent since they are only in you head? I don't understand. Please, go into more depth about the non-existents of God in your next response.

You said: "First of all and as I have already shown the whale evolved from a land animal and has not yet fully evolved to it's environment."
Are you saying that whales have been able to evolve, so that they can breed, communicate, swim ect... in water, but have not yet learned to breath under water, after a time of over hundreds and thousands of years? Plus, why is it that a whale "evolved" the ability to hold its breath under water for long periods of time, instead of just evolving gills? Wouldn't evolving gills make it much easier for a whale to cope with its environment, thus, following the patterns of evolution through natural selection. But it doesn't does it? Instead the whale evolves a less efficient way of coping (holding it's breath for a long period of time), so this fact, then goes against the basis on which the theory of natural selection lies, ultimately disproving it. This is just one out of many examples on how natural selection contradicts itself.

You said: "...the process of evolution does not apply to modern man..."
What makes you thing that evolution no longer applies to modern man? Because, according to evolution do not all organisms (including humans) evolve in ways that suit better to their environment. In a human's case we still can ketch diseases and become very sick or even die. Now, you say, "We have the intelligence to survive even when a climate does not suit us perfectly." But that is not what natural selection is about, natural selection, forces all organisms (including humans) to continue to evolve until they are matched perfectly to there environment. I seems to me that you do not even understand the basic laws of natural selection because no one in the scientific community supporting evolution would agree with your statement written above.

You said: "If god created it then who created god? If god has been around forever then why doesn't the same principle apply to the universe?"
For the first question, the point is, is that I believe that God was created by nothing he always was. You see, if one believes in God then one is not confined to believe with in the boundaries of modern science, thus it makes sense for me to believe that God has always been. God is not constricted to science because God created science in the first place. For the second question, the universe has not always been in existence for the obvious reason of, God created it. But, in your case the universe can not have always existed because from what you have said I am assuming you do not believe in any thing super natural or anything unprovable by science, thus, sense science cannot prove a universe that has always existed, I am assuming you would not believe that it has.

You said: "I would also like to point out that the burden of evidence lies on my opponent, I am saying that god does not exist, he is the one who needs to prove that he does."
I did in fact do my best to prove the existence of God, almost half of my first argument does so. You on the other hand have failed to prove that God does not exist, even though I have specifically asked for you to do so. Why did you not? If the reason is because you cant, then why are you even claiming that religion is a modern day myth.

You said: "I can challenge god to a duel right now, a battle of wits or something like it and nothing will happen because there is no god. I bet my life on it, god cannot smite me dead, he does not exist."
Almost everything you have said foes not prove that religion is a modern day myth, and the above quote is no exception. Why do you persist to write things that do not give scientific evidence on the non-existence of God. Just because your asking God to kill you and God does not, doesn't make him a non-existent, made up creature. The above quote was totally irrelevant to the topic.

You Asked: "I would also like to ask a question of my opponent, how long ago do you consider the earth to have been created?"
Honestly I don't know, but I can tell you that sense Adam and Eve, maybe 10,000 years. But sense God started the very forming of the universe; I honestly do not know. If it was 4.6 billion yeas, fine. That doesn't matter it still does not prove that there is no God.

To wrap things up, you have not even tried to answer questions 1 and 2 in my first argument. Make sure to do so in your next argument, also go into depth. Plus quite frankly you made a petty attempt at answering the 3rd one. again I will ask questions 1 and 2, hopefully you will be able to answer them in your next response.

1. Prove to everyone that will read this debate that God is not real, give scientific evidence to back it up along with sources?
2. If God is not real than how do we know we are not all in some kind of delusional world where there are no morals or real objects?
3. Again try to prove that fossil records are not corrupted in evolution, show me and the voters how a specific animal has evolved over millions of years? You have to use more then just one generation, there should be thousands.

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com...

Thank you,

I look forward to your response.
charles15
Debate Round No. 2
Amphibian

Pro

Thank you for your response.

I would like to point out that it is ridiculous to demand a complete fossil record going back millions of years. Just like the example I gave with the whale. We found bones so it obviously existed but we only found one skeleton, this is because fossils are extremely rare.

As for love and ideas, I pointed out that while do exist they are only in our heads. That is fine because they do not need to be anywhere else. God, on the other hand, has to exist outside of us in order to be god. He does not and therefore cannot exist.

About the whale again, evolution always follows the easiest coarse. That is why a whale learns to hold its breath for a long time instead of developing gills.

In answer to your two questions, I do not need to prove that there is not a god because there is no evidence of one. That is like asking me to prove that there is a universe that we cannot see, hear, feel, smell, or taste that is billions of light years away and will never be found, ridiculous. The point of this debate is that you prove that there is a god, you have shown absolutely no evidence of this.
charles15

Con

Thank you for your last entree.

You said: "...it is ridiculous to demand a complete fossil record going back millions of years...this is because fossils are extremely rare..."

Alright, maybe it is ridiculous to ask for a fossil record dating back millions of years ago to until now. You no why? Because there is no fossil record of that kind exists. 'Thank you for proving my point.' But, lets say that whales did evolve over millions of years, you could not have given me and the voters a fossil record that shows at least 10 generations worth of information; so that we could all see at least ten generations worth of change from millions of years ago until now. Again, giving one generation doesn't prove that evolutionary processes occurred in a whale, all it gives proof of is that scientist think they found an ancient whale. So, in conclusion the evidence you gave was not sufficient enough to prove the evolutionary theory.

You said: "About the whale again, evolution always follows the easiest coarse. That is why a whale learns to hold its breath for a long time instead of developing gills."

You cant just say that whales didn't develop gills because "evolution always takes the easiest coarse." Why? Because this in fact wrong in a numerous amount of cases. You again, just claimed something that does not run parallel to the teachings of public schools. Evolution is not about just developing what is easiest there is no scientific back up for that. You see what I have been taught, is that evolution happens through survival of the fittest, and what makes an animal adapt to its surroundings the best; which in a whales case is breathing under water. Not "the easiest coarse," like you said. 'It seems to me that I understand evolution better than you, and I don't even agree with the theory.'

"In answer to your two questions, I do not need to prove that there is not a god because there is no evidence of one."

Well, if you don't need to prove the non-existence of God than why are we having this debate. It is my goal to prove that God does exist and your goal to prove that he does not. If you can't or, just won't, prove God's non-existence than why would you claim that "God is a story made up to explain things that we cannot yet understand and the ideas has been taken entirely too far." Or you said, "One by one science is catching up to and eradicating these stories" (all quotes are from opening argument). So, since you said these things, you ARE actually obligated to prove the non-existence of God, or at least prove that evolution is a true science and frankly you have not done either one.

I will say again, like I have already said once in my first response. Proving the existence of God is like proving that love is real and any other human emotion, or idea. Emotions and ideas cannot be seen, felt physically, smelt, heard, or tasted, but this does not make them unreal. Also an actual thought or emotion can not be solved mathematically. For example if I think Bob is a jerk, this is an idea but one cannot prove, by means of math, that Bob is in fact a jerk. The same rules apply to human emotions and the same rule also applies to God. God cannot be understood by math. Why? Because God is, in one sense, math itself, for he created it. This of course goes beyond human comprehension. But, to get back on the topic, Proving God's existence is like proving an emotion, or idea exists, no one can, but we know they do because without them our debate, we are having right now does not exist. So in conclusion, merely saying that because I cannot see, feel, hear, smell or taste God means he is not real is actually not true. In fact that is a very unscientific way of looking at God.

See my first argument for more details on the existence of God (half my debate is devoted to it).

Thank you, and vote CON
charles15
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
Religious people make the worst arguments. They use the scientific method to attempt to prove evolutionist theory wrong (crying about an uncompleted fossil record), but, when cornered, say blatantly unscientific things, such as God "can't be proven by math or science". An atheist never falls into this trap of hypocrisy.
Posted by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
Answering DiablosChaosBroker question, "How did God get there if it wasn't for some creator?"

Its actually a very simple answer. God was the creator and there is no creator for God. You see, God never was created, he always was. In fact until he created the universe there was no time, light darkness or matter, it was just God. This is impossible for the human mind to comprehend for unknown reasons; and just because this can't be proven by math or science doesn't mean that God does not exist. Because there are a lot of ideas in evolution that can not be proven by science or math.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"How did we get here if it wasn't for some creator,"

How did God get there if it wasn't for some creator?
Posted by YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
Seriously. I am really ashamed of this world for still even having to debate this topic. How did we get here if it wasn't for some creator, AKA God. You don't have an answer to that if you don't believe in Him. Not a correct one anyways. What a blind faith led by atheists. My heart goes out to them.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Because of the below post,
Conduct-CON
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"I would also like to point out that the burden of evidence lies on my opponent, I am saying that god does not exist, he is the one who needs to prove that he does."

Actually, you have the burden of proof in affirming "Religion is a modern day myth." You instigated and your opponent did not agree to take this burden.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Pro did not have a structured argument and made claims without defending them. Later, he conceded most of the debate.

Arguments- CON

Most others were essentially ties.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Ragner Rahl,
I believe I understand a bit more after reading all of your comments. Reread what you have written. You seem to fail to read for the authors full intent. Though they may be wrong you do not call out the wrongness in a meaningful way.

It may clarify for a lot of people as you iterate a point to point out what you believe they are saying. It is called dialoguing.
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
I agree with everything in your first post
Posted by Amphibian 8 years ago
Amphibian
Ragnar_Rahl I do not believe in religion in any form that I know of.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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 YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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 beccanixx 8 years ago
beccanixx
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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 Colucci 8 years ago
Colucci
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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 Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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 saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
Amphibiancharles15Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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 JP 8 years ago
JP
Amphibiancharles15Tied
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