The Instigator
Leonitus_Trujillo
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
kvaughan
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

The 66-book bible translated from original language unedited is the only valid religious text.

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: 12/11/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,309 times Debate No: 244
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (19)

 

Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

I would Like anyone who wishes to come and to prove through deductive reasoning, that the pure bible described above is not the only valid religious text. To properly have this argument, the person who chooses to argue against must take for granted that there is a god; otherwise this debate will descend into an evolution vs. creationism debate which has been done done repeatedly.

Firstly I reject the "Middle Ground" philosophy taught in many colleges and Universities. This Philosophy ascertains that there are many roads to "salvation", and that a person may choose Mary, Allah, Moses or anyone to reach this state the final state that the person strives for. Additional a person may be re-incarnated many times to enter salvation.
The Middle Ground Philosphe is completely illogical and impossible. The philosphe tries to find a compromise between all religions and that just can't happen. One cannot at the same time believe that Jesus is your savior, and at the same time believe that he is just a prophet. Or that the blood of a crucified god is the only way to purify your sins, and also that your sins can be purified through good works and many tries. The basic method of the philophe to take out of all religions a mainstream and reject the rest becuase it does not fit the mainstream is illogical. If part of the bible is wrong the whole thing is wrong , the same with the Koran , and the Torah (I believe that is the Jewish Bible.) Because if part of the text is false, then why can't the other part of the text be wrong, how does it have any credibility? The fact is that the philosophy is trying to give all religions some credibility, but they are actually taking away the credibility of all religions...If you buy into it that is.

So now our choices are refined, We through granted (for this debate) believe there is a god and in my previous proof reject that all religions are true, so now we now that only one can be true.

Buddhism is not the true religion becuase firstly Buddha stated that he has no idea about creation or anything, and the he is just a moral teacher. What happened subsequently of people worshiping him is not even what we wanted. This is something unique to any other religion and is something I must reject. The atheist- Tibetan Buddhist actually came after the religious Buddhist. Buddhism can't decide what they are they have no credibility. Concerning religious Buddhist their text have been shaven many times to comply with scientific evidence. A big example is their teaching that the moon was the center of life and energy. We know that not to be true, and their text have changed because of that. I reject that religion because the creator would not have handed them erroneous text, which they assert. And for the Tibetan Buddhis, they are only concerned with world peace, so shouldn't be treated as a religion, except for the fact that they say there is no god. Because this is not a a debate about if there is a god or not I will just skip them.

Hindus where Buddhist derive a lot of their scriptures ascertain, also contain scientifically proven physical errors, that have been corrected through time. This automatically discredits them. And it is impossible to believe in some of their text, if you cannot believe in the whole text. If their book comes from the creater, their WHOLE book comes from the creater, and if only a piece came from the creator, than why have they gone against their religion and invented other pieces. It is inconsistent.

Islam preaches about a god who cares about his creation . They also preach that Paradise is only inheritable to Muslims. They then further preach that paradise is only inheritable to those Muslims that Mohammad chooses. And finally that being a Martyr is the only true way to know you are going to paradise. The basic foundation of Islam was conversion through conquest, as Mohammad became their Warrior profit leader. The god of The warrior Mohammad is a bi-polar god, he preaches love and hate, and he preaches salvation and then uncertainty. If you read the Koran you are welcome to debate with more evidence than is available to me and I will gladly match that.

The Bible now, that is the only true religious text. The bible proves itself. The common misconcpetion that come from people is that the bible is just one hand craft tool. Many people who criticize the bible have never even read it, so on what grounds are they criticizing it? The easy way to stump to thump those people is the simple fact that the bible is a cannon of sixty six different book written by more than thirty different authors over a period in excess of a thousand years spanning. If you pick 5 different authors who each independently claim they are writing through inspiration of a higher being. You take the text that those people write and you put them together. The odds are incredibly against that even those 5 contemporaries will be even 60% consist with each other. And yet we have more than thirty authors who on the majority have never even heard the mention of the writers that came after them and it is 100% consist with each other.

And yes it is consistent, the Bible is the only text where scientific evidence has not absolutely ruled out an area of scripture. However small even Islam has tripped up somewhere with science. The only think science can use against the bible are scientific theories, which are just that, theories -evolution , etc. Instead of going detail by detail here, I invite the debtor to point out an inconsistency of the bible , which people have reportedly "discovered" many. The fact is there aren't any inconsistencies, people just want really hard for the bible to be inconsistent becuase it is the last remaining book that cannot be absolutely proven to be erroneous, it is the last template of hope and in my belief it will always be. The inconsistencies are all inductive, people wanting to prove the conclusion that the bible is farced, and using all the logic and evidence they can to support that; rather then deductive reasoning, people studying the bible using evidence and clear logic to determine whether it is true or not.

Those people have scored a few reported victories becuase of lack of historical information available leaving whats there to be in question and unprotected against its attacker. But nothing is concrete against. On the contrary throughout history the seeming contradictions becuase of lack of historical evidence have always come up in favor of Christianity, when that evidence is finally gathered.

One great example is the story of Jesus healing the Blind man. Mark recounts that Jesus was healed the blind man as he was about a half mile away from the city of Jerricho. Mathew recorded in his the biblical book that bears his name, that Jesus healed the bland man about a half mile before he coming into the city of Jericho. Obviosly and logically Jesus could not have been leaving and also entering Jericho at the same time. For a long time this minute thing has been hailed an inconsistency. Until German Archaeologist Carl Watzinger and Ernest Sellin conducted series of excavations were conducted from 1907-1909 and again in 1911. They discovered that there were actually two Jericho during Jesus's time. During Jesus's time Rome occupied Israeli land. And the traditional Jewish city of Jericho was standing, when the empire build another Roman Jericho's about a mile from the original Jericho. Thus it is historically proven that during Jesus's time there were two Jericho's parallel to each other, and Jesus healed the man in between the two Jericho's.

I make some bold assertations here but I invite anybody to refute them.
kvaughan

Con

First, let me be absolutely clear here – I do not, in fact, believe in a personal creator God because I think the problem of evil and the argument from silence refutes this pretty soundly. But, in keeping with the demands of your post, I will assume for the sake of argument that I do.

So, let's talk about where we agree. I agree that the claims from various religions are mutually exclusive and this does preclude the middle ground philosophy you mentioned. It clearly cannot be the case that "I [Jesus] am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me" (John 14) and the case that one gains admittance to heaven through Mohammed. This is an excellent point that many liberal religious believers miss.
That being said, I do not think your evidence is at all strong enough (or could, even theoretically be strong enough) to warrant the claim that "The 66-book bible translated from original language unedited is the only valid religious text."

Let me point out quickly that the burden of proof in this debate is very directly on your shoulders. You either prove that the bible is the only valid religious text or I demonstrate that there is enough doubt to warrant a rejection of this claim.

On to my points: first, I'd like to point out that your refutation of other religions is not even close to exhaustive. This web address mentions at least 22 currently existing religions: http://www.adherents.com... and we can assume that in recorded human history there have been countless more. Let's (very) conservatively estimate that 100 religions have existed in human history. If this is the case and if it is the case that I absolutely grant your arguments, you have refuted 2% of them. Sure, refuting them all is an absurd task, but that's why claiming absolute validity to Christianity is absurd.
Next, I'd like to point out a claim you made: you "reject that religion [Buddhism] because the creator would not have handed them erroneous text, which they assert". I take this claim to mean that if a text has error, it must be wrong.

Here are a few easily found biblical contradictions:

1. Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.

2. Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (Matt. 19:16-21)

3. Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.
The list could go on and on, but I have other things to say.

Next, even if these contradictions did not exist, why would we assume credibility for the Bible? It was written in a pre-scientific, mostly illiterate time period by men who knew less about the world than the average schoolchild today. In fact, the book is just what we'd expect from such men – it's loaded with sexism, racism and superstition when it could, just have easily contained scientific data like a cure for aids or the speed of light which would have made it definitely true.

Thus, I reject the premise that a single text must be true (they can all be false) and, failing that, I reject the claim that Christianity is a good candidate for an absolutely true text.
Debate Round No. 1
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

Firstly I would like to stay thank you for picking this debate up, I doubted that anybody would read the whole thing. Now.

As you say the burden of proof is squarely on my shoulders and I knew that I was putting myself in that position, because I realized something , proposition that you just put yourself in.

Scientist must prove that every single other option is wrong to prove that there is one option/conclusion and that it is correct. That is why Thomas Edison was merry when he discovered 99 ways not to build a light bulb.

However I have established and you have agreed that all religions are mutually exclusive. Now I say All because some are more exclusive than others, yet the fact remains two separate religions cannot adhere to each other for the fact that they are separate and exclusive.

Therefore I do not need to refute every single religion and cult in existence today and the passed, as you said, I only need to find the one correct one.
I refuted the Few major ones, and anyone that anybody would like me to refuted because I know that I have found that one correct one, and therefore every other religion would only bolster my argument by providing the contrast, and proof.

||1. Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder. ||
||Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his|| ||side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor. ||

Firstly I was very skeptical about your use of ‘…' so I referenced the scripture myself.

so Ex. 32:37 in full says.
"And he said to them. Thus says the Lord God of Israel, Every man put his sword on his side and go in and out from gate to gat throughout the camp and slay every man his brother and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor."
Now that may seem to put me in a worse position. But it does not. Many translations instead of murder have kill. So Ex. 20:13 reads "though shalt not ‘kill'". However you have been so kind to choose the translation that has murder instead.

Murder by definition is (American Heritage dictionary)
"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

It is important to read with context in the bible and not just to disprove it. If you would have read that whole story you would have understood that , in that area of scripture Moses went up to receive the ten commandments from god, and while he was gone, the Israelites he was with melted all their gold to create false gods and worship them. God told Moses before he released him back to his people (he was still on the mountain) that they were sinning wretchedly and he was going to destroy them. Moses to save the people went down and told every righteous man to stand by him, and the Levite (the more priestly group of the Israelites) stood by him. Then he command that they all kill their family that have sinned their own family so that no one would kill the family of another. They righteously kills and purified the camp of around 3,000 people, and god sparred the Levites for that. And hence after Exodus there is still a Levitcus instead of the bible just stopping for a few thousand years until Jesus.

However to make sure that I don't win the point because murder and kill is interchangeable in the bible, I will state it is not. As I said the original bible is infallible , the translated bible is the most accurate I think it was 99.7% last time they did a content study. kill and murder fall in that .3%, however as I said the bible re-affirms the bible and through a study of the bible (not a flip to search for contradictions) you will deduce that Murder is the proper word.

||2. Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom.|| ||3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16) ||
||James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by ||
||faith ||
||only. (Matt. 19:16-21) ||

Eph. 2:8 For it is by free grace that you are saved through your faith. And this is not of yourselves but it is the fight of god.
Eph. 2:9 Not because of works, let any man should boast.
James 2:24 You see that a man is justified through what he does and not alone through faith.
On this one to show you that the bible confirms the bible, I'll just quote scripture .
James 2:20 Are you willing to be shown [proof], you foolish fellow, that faith apart from [good] works is inactive and ineffective and worthless?
James 2:21 was not our forefather Abraham [shown to be] justified by [his] works when he brought to the altar as an offering his [own] son Isaac?
James 2:22 you see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his] faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he implemented it] by [good] works.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's [own] handiwork recreated in Christ Jesus, that we may do those good works which God predestined for us [taking paths which He prepared ahead of time], that we should walk in them [living the good life which He prearranged and made ready for us to live.]
James 2:18 But someone will say , You have faith, and I have [good] works. Now you show me your [alleged] faith apart from any [good] works [if you can], and I by [good] works will show you my faith.
James 2:25 you see that a man is justified through what he does and not alone through faith [through works of obedience as well as by what he believes]
-Bible did most of the work on this one. Basically it's saying that when you do good works it should be through faith, so even if you do good works without faith they are pointless. And even though you have faith, if you don't go out there and prove it and do good works its pointless. They walk together hand in hand there is no contradiction. Sounds more like a lesson to be, definitely it's an easier lesson than some of the ones I had in Chemistry.

||3. Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of ||
||hellfire. ||
||Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind. ||

Matt. 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice against him shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and however speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin and whoever says, you cursed fool! shall be liable to and unable to escape the hell of fire.
Mathew 23:17 You blind fools! For which is greater: the gold or the sanctuary of the temple that has made the gold sacred?
That is an apparent contradiction but even technically it is not. Mathew 5:22 says the person who says ‘you cursed fool!' will go to hell, not ‘you blind fools!' Now that may seem like a cheap trick but if we look more closely to context it is not. The end Mathew Chapter 5 is dedicated to the relationship we need to have with our brothers. He repeatedly says that we should not hold malice against our brother, we should not insult him. His point is that we shouldn't plot evil be stubborn and irreparably mad at our brother. He builds up to his final sentence "….and whoever says, ‘you cursed fool! shall be unable to escape hell!" If we consider why is that the climax, it is because when we curse someone, that's it..we want nothing to do with them we just want to curse them have them die leave us alone and hope that life goes the other way for them. When we reach this point of blackness in our hearts towards someone else then we are really on the fast track for hell.
kvaughan

Con

It seems to me that your last post addresses two threads of argument: the argument concerning the burden of proof and the argument from biblical contradictions. I want to point out that at the end of my post I introduced a very important, yet unrefuted argument. The argument was that even if it's true that there are no biblical contradictions this does not demonstrate the Bible's veracity. I probably should have made a bigger deal of this point to make it clear that I wanted to pursue it, so you'll have to forgive me if I do this now.

I want to start with some historical background on the era surrounding Jesus from one of my favorite authors: Richard Carrier. Carrier discusses a document from the same time period telling the story of Saint Genevieve (URL can be found here: http://tinyurl.com...)

"In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't."

As David Hume famously pointed out, it is no accident that miracles were reported to occur in a pre-scientific society with little skepticism and no tools to investigate them, but now, when we have such tools, miracles are suddenly lacking. Claims of miracles were common and we correctly dismiss many of them like Saint Genevieve's out of hand. But when it comes to the claims of the Bible we fail to do this.

Further, we simply don't have any reason to think that the Bible is literally true. Take the claims of Jesus' miracles. There are no extra-biblical accounts of his works, all we have are recording of the events decades after they are supposed to have occurred. But, even if we had hundreds of eye-witness accounts, this would still not be enough to cash out the claim of Biblical veracity.

There are currently thousands of western educated intellectuals who appear to think that their favorite Indian mystic or guru has magic powers. Devotees of Satya sai baba, for example claim that he was born of a virgin, can fly without technology, can read minds, walk on water, raise the dead, etc. Let's remember that this guy isn't the David Koresh of Hinduism, Wikipedia estimates 6 million followers. Now, claims of this guy's magic powers don't even warrant an hour on the discovers channel, but if you place similar claims in the pre-scientific, illiterate context of the first-century Roman Empire, they are suddenly especially credible. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

So, with that as my main thrust, I want to discuss some of our other topics.

You are, of course, current in your claim that if you demonstrate the Bible as true, then you do not need to specifically demonstrate that the mutually exclusive claims of other religions are false. I was more attempting to demonstrate that if you're attempting to argue that the Bible is more likely to be true (instead of arguing that we know its veracity for a fact) then you have a serious problem.

Also, you do a slight job of misinterpreting me on this point. I mention that it cannot be the case that two mutually exclusive claims are simultaneously true, but this fact alone does not mean that it's an all-or-nothing scenario. It could be the case that two religious texts are not making mutually exclusive claims and thus are both correct. So, to eliminate all other spiritual competitors you do need to demonstrate that where other books do not disagree with Christianity they are still wrong because this argument alone would be able to demonstrate that the Bible is the ONLY valid religious text. Otherwise, Christianity could be a valid religious text towards getting into heaven whereas Buddhism might be good at attaining peace and happiness in the present life and thus, both texts are valid in different aspects.

Finally, let's discuss Biblical contradiction. This post is already running very long, so I don't want to spent too much time getting bogged down in this discussion (this could be a debate unto its self), but I do want express my puzzlement on your refutation of the first contradiction.

As you explain the story, Moses comes down from getting the Ten Commandments and sees people worshiping graven images. He then assembles the good guys and tells them to "kill their family that have sinned their own family so that no one would kill the family of another." This sounds suspiciously like murder to me. It was unlawful and involved killing people for essentially no good reason.

I have much more to say, but I'll leave it at that and await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

Leonitus_Trujillo forfeited this round.
kvaughan

Con

I'm sad that we never finished this debate. It was just starting to get good! Oh well, perhaps we can discuss it another time.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
are you kidding me? the round one pro speach was ridiculous. first you call out every religion and make rather weak attempts are proving them false, almost all of which also function agaisnt chirstianity. im tired so im just going to point out one flaw out of a ton.
" the Bible is the only text where scientific evidence has not absolutely ruled out an area of scripture" lolomgzrofl! ok so, first you say that anything agaisnt the bible is a theory, everything ever is a theory, i mean gravity is still a theory. so like, the bible says the earths 6 thousand yrs old. um, carbon dating anyone? also your total and absolute closemindedness and intolerance of other religions is annoying. but sleep is good so im not saying anymore, if youd like to, im free to debate you though.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
I actually was trying to use a tactic to have you spill the other part of your argument so I could dismantle them both at once. I was pretty sure that I set this for a 5 rounder, that sucks I would have liked to continue this debate.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Psst. Argue that the Bible untranslated is a more valid religious text, and therefore the argued statement ("only valid religious text") at hand is thusly falsified. Unless the Bible gains something in translation, he's absolutely wrong-- disproof by counterexample.
Posted by impactyourworld89 9 years ago
impactyourworld89
Well done Leonitus. Not many people will tackle apparent contradictions. My favorite website for apologetics is www.alwaysbeready.com It is a Calvary Chapel pastor and he has traveled around the world teaching apologetics. He is simply amazing.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by stevster 9 years ago
stevster
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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 bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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 JSV8709 9 years ago
JSV8709
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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 Wharrel 9 years ago
Wharrel
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by parmleys04 9 years ago
parmleys04
Leonitus_TrujillokvaughanTied
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