The Instigator
kohai
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

The Bible Is Inerrent

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 4 votes the winner is...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,392 times Debate No: 18130
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (53)
Votes (4)

 

kohai

Con

Burden of proof is on me to show just one errancy in the bible. My opponent's burden is to show how the errors I found are not errors.

Good luck.

Round 1: Acceptance
2. Arguments.
3. clash
4. Clash/closing
wierdman

Pro

I accept the challenge and i wish my opponent the best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Con

Thank you, wierdman for accepting this debate. I am super thrilled to finally be debating with you from seeing your previous debates.

===========
DEFINITIONS
===========

Inerrant/Inerrancy: A state of being free from any errors.

Errors: Contradictons; mistakes regarding science, history, prophecies, etc.

===========
ARGUMENTS
===========

C1) Scientific Errors in the Bible

C1.1) Firmament

Genesis 1:6

"And God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.'"


"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse." [1]


In addition, the word firmament in Hebrew is the word raqiya and it means the following:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

a) expanse (flat as base, support)

b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)

1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above [2].

Okay, so what does this all mean? How is there an error? We know today that this solid sky-dome is simply not true and never existed [3].

C1.2) Flat Earth Cosmology

We have just seen from the Jewish Encyclopedia that they viewed the Earth to be a plain, so here are a few more verses that seem to back up.

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he who sites above the circle of the earth, and its inhabatants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;...

Note that a circle is flat. In addition, the world is not a "circle" but rather a sphere. The shapes of the earth are not interchangable. The word tent is something you put on a flat surface. There has NEVER been a tent that is spherical object enveloping another spherical object. [4]

The word for "circle" is the word khug. This means circle. According to Strong's Concordance, it gives the verbal form of the words as "to draw a circle." The noun is translated as eitehr circle of a vault.

Contention 2: Failed Prophecies Prove the Bible is errant

C2.1) Tyre and Egypt

Ezekiel 26:7-14

For thus says the Lord: "Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a hosts of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a seige wall against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers...With the hoofs os his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your mighty pillar will fall to the ground...they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses... I will make you a bare rock...you shall never be rebuilt, for I have spoken," says the Lord God.

This, of course, never happened. These verses are referencing a complete destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. After 13 years, Nebuchadnezzar lifted his sieg on Tyre and arrived and a compramised agreement [5]. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar never done that and it was eventually destroyed by Alexander the great. The other problem is that it was rebuilt [6] while the prophecy states it is forever desolate.

Contention 3: The Bible contains contradictions

C3.1) Did Michal have children?

A. No

II samuel 6:23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

B. Yes

II Samuel 21:18
But the king took the two sons of Rizpha the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoi and Mephiboseth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel...

C3.2) Who was Joseph's Father?

A. Jacob

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

B. Heli

Luke 3:23
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli

| CONCLUSION |

We cannot say that the Bible is inerrant and thus I urge a vote for CON until my opponent is able to prove that these verses are not errant.

I await your response. Good luck to you.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

[1]. The Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...
[2] Strrong's Concordance Dictionary http://www.blueletterbible.org...

[3] Is Heaven The Sky? http://www.infidelguy.com...;
[4] Rejection of Pascal's Wager http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...
[5] Asmiov, Guide to the Bible: p587-588
[6] Howell-Smith, In Search of the Real Bible: p40-41


wierdman

Pro

Thank you for the complement and the definition.

Since i am to prove that the error you presented isn't really an error, i will start by contrasting your points.

Contention one: Firmament
According to dictionary.com, a Firmament is described as the vault to heaven otherwise known as the sky. in my opponent's version of the bible the word Firmament was used and not the Hebrew word "raqiya".
What does this mean? The word firmament in and out of itself is not described as a solid figure, it is simply described as a dome above the earth. The fact that we all know that the sky as well as the atmosphere is like and acts like a dome.

"A common approach is to model a dome, and either apply a texture map or use vertex colors to provide the impression of a sky." (http://vterrain.org...)

Contention 1.2: Flat Earth Cosmology
"It is he who sites above the circle of the earth, and its inhabatants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;..." ( MY OPPONENTS VERSE)

i applaud my opponent for the use of this verse; however, i do believe that this verse has no errors associated with its wording or meaning. To properly understand this verse, we must look at it in an idealistic manner. This verse is not describing the earth's geometric shape but rather describing the role of God .This verse describes humans as grasshoppers and as we all know, we are noting like grasshoppers. In this same way, we can view the tent as the earth providing shelter for us and God who sits above us guiding and watching us. (camping trip) Tent: shelter, Grasshoppers: human, God: guidance/ plays the role of the guardian.

Contention Two: Failed prophecies.
Sub point: Tyre and Egypt

The ancient world or rather city of Tyre was never rebuilt. Yes there is a modern city of tyre; however, around the city are rubbles of ancient Tyre proving that no city has been rebuilt over this ruin proving the prophecy to be correct. ""The modern city of Tyre is of modest size and is near the ancient site, though not identical to it. Archaeological photographs of the ancient site show ruins from ancient Tyre scattered over many acres of land. No city has been rebuilt over these ruins, however, in fulfillment of this prophecy." (Dennis and Grudem, "Tyre," The ESV Study Bible)" (http://www.padfield.com...)

Contention three: The bible contains contradictions
C3.1 Did Michal have children?

i would like my opponent to read the WHOLE verse as it show's the origin of the "five sons of Michal "whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite"" if my opponent read this passage then he would have noticed the word "brought up" which implies that Michal acted as a midwife to these sons after their birth. With no other word or text to prove this statement wrong in the bible, we can only assume that it is the fact.
"Michal's sister, Merab, married Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19), and it was Adriel's children that, according to 2 Samuel 21:8, belonged to Michal and were "brought up" by Michal. The Hebrew word translated "brought up" could mean that Michal actually gave birth to the children, but it also could mean that Michal acted as a midwife when the children were born, or that she reared the children. It is altogether possible that Merab died, and Michal, having the resources to provide for a family, and being childless herself, "adopted" Merab's children "Michal's sister, Merab, married Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19), and it was Adriel's children that, according to 2 Samuel 21:8, belonged to Michal and were "brought up" by Michal. The Hebrew word translated "brought up" could mean that Michal actually gave birth to the children, but it also could mean that Michal acted as a midwife when the children were born, or that she reared the children. It is altogether possible that Merab died, and Michal, having the resources to provide for a family, and being childless herself, "adopted" Merab's children " (http://www.apologeticspress.org...)

C3.2 who is joseph's Father
to better explain this, i would like to refer you to a source: "If you look closely, you will find that in Luke 3:23 you either have an explanatory foot note at the words "son of", or those words appear in italics. This is because "son of" is only assumed, but not actually in the Greek text. I believe it is better to assume that Joseph is "of Eli" as his son-in-law, not his son. Thus, Luke's genealogy is of Mary, not of Joseph. To support this are Luke's words that Jesus was "being, as was supposed the son of Joseph" [emphasis mine]. The word "son" does occur in this context. But Luke goes on to give the genealogy of Mary, who was indeed the natural line of heritage (Jesus being born of a virgin). In other words, Luke says "many think that Jesus is the natural son of Joseph, but in reality He is through the line of Mary, who is of Eli, of Matthat, etc." (http://askdrwhite.blogspot.com...)

This although not the best source, makes sense as it does have biblical evidence.

In conclusion, i have attacked all of my opponents contention's as well as provide a valid source to prove my words right.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Con

Been busy on vacation so I'm sorry for the huge delay. I hope I can get all of this in.

Contention one: Firmament

My opponent uses the dictionary.org definition. However, firmament in Hebrew does not mean the same thing on dictionary.org and thus your argument fails.

I shown you how the Hebrews understood the Earth to be and you have not yet refuted that.

Contention 1.2: Flat Earth Cosmology

i applaud my opponent for the use of this verse; however, i do believe that this verse has no errors associated with its wording or meaning. To properly understand this verse, we must look at it in an idealistic manner. This verse is not describing the earth's geometric shape but rather describing the role of God .This verse describes humans as grasshoppers and as we all know, we are noting like grasshoppers. In this same way, we can view the tent as the earth providing shelter for us and God who sits above us guiding and watching us. (camping trip) Tent: shelter, Grasshoppers: human, God: guidance/ plays the role of the guardian.

Here are the verses above it

Do you not know, have you not heard has it not been told to you from the beginning? Do you not understand the foundations of the earth?
22. It is He Who sits above the circle of the earth, and whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heaven like a curtain, and He spread them out like a tent to dwell.


obviously the earth does not have foundations and it is talking about the geometrics of the earth. I use this because CARM.org uses this as "scientific accuracies" but concedes it may be talking about a flat earth.

"This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat." [1]

Contention Two: Failed prophecies.
Sub point: Tyre and Egypt

My opponent does not seem to understand that it was not Nebuchadnezzar that destroyed Tyre, but Egypt.

In the words of Rejection of Pascal's wager [2].

My opponent's argument is that the modern city of Tyre is not the old city of Tyre since the former was not on the exact location of the latter. Suffice to say that no one agrees with such a twisted method to fulfil prophecy. Furthermore the prophecy says that Tyre shall never be rebuilt after the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar-which never happened-since he never destroyed the city. Even after the destruction by Alexander the Great, the city was still rebuilt. In fact the city of Tyre was even referred to, by that name, in the New Testament (Mark 7:24, Acts 12:20). Tyre exists to this day and has a population of about 12,000.

Having failed in one prophecy did not make Ezekiel shy about making more:

Ezekiel 29:8-12
...thus says the Lord God..and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste...no foot of man shall pass through it and no foot of beast shall past through it; it shall be uninhabited for forty years. And I will make the city of Egypt a desolation in the midst of desolated countries; and her cities shall be desolated forty years... I will scatter Egyptian among the nations, and disperse them through the countries.

This passage must take the cake for the most prophecies proven wrong!

  • Egypt has never been desolate and waste.
  • Men and people have always walked through it.
  • There has never been a single moment (let alone forty years) when Egypt was uninhabited.
  • Egypt has never been a desolated countries surrounded by more desolated countries.
  • Its cities has never been desolated for any period of time
  • and finally there was no Egyptian diaspora
Due to the amount of time I had, I am sorry for the copy+paste, otherwise this would not have been so. I do wish to apologise.

Did Michal have Children?

The AV hides the contradiction by wrong wording. The translation my opponent uses or keeps the actual translation vague. The correctly as "borne." [3]



___________________________________________________________________________________

[1] http://carm.org...
[2] http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...


[3] http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...
wierdman

Pro

I thank my opponent for replying.

Rebuttal:
Contention one: firmament
My opponent continues to argue that his definition is far superior than that of mine; however since he wasn't there during this time period, then he cannot prove that his definition is surpasses mine. My opponent failed to provide valid evidence as to why his definition is correct making his definition no than mine.

Contention 1.2

"obviously the earth does not have foundations and it is talking about the geometrics of the earth. I use this because CARM.org uses this as "scientific accuracies" but concedes it may be talking about a flat earth."

My opponents source describes this verse in the most literal term possible; however a closer look at the verse suggest that this verse could be used in an indirect way. The simple use of the word "like" as well as the comparison of humans to grasshoppers, is more than enough evidence to support my claim.

Contention Two: Failed prophecies
Sub point: Tyre and Egypt

"My opponent's argument is that the modern city of Tyre is not the old city of Tyre since the former was not on the exact location of the latter. Suffice to say that no one agrees with such a twisted method to fulfil prophecy."

My opponent completely misunderstood my point. I stated that the prophecy came true as the old city of Tyre was never re built. i stated that the city of Tyre was never rebuilt from its rubble's which when looking back at the prophecy is what it states. The fact still remains that the city was never rebuilt as traces of rubble's still remain in the location of the ancient city of Tyre.

I would ask my opponent to refrain from plagiarism: "Suffice to say that no one agrees with such a twisted method to fulfil prophecy. Furthermore the prophecy says that Tyre shall never be rebuilt after the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar-which never happened-since he never destroyed the city. Even after the destruction by Alexander the Great, the city was still rebuilt. In fact the city of Tyre was even referred to, by that name, in the New Testament (Mark 7:24, Acts 12:20). Tyre exists to this day and has a population of about 12,000." (http://www.topix.com...)

aving failed in one prophecy did not make Ezekiel shy about making more:

Ezekiel 29:8-12
...thus says the Lord God..and the land of Egypt shall be a desolation and a waste...no foot of man shall pass through it and no foot of beast shall past through it; it shall be uninhabited for forty years. And I will make the city of Egypt a desolation in the midst of desolated countries; and her cities shall be desolated forty years... I will scatter Egyptian among the nations, and disperse them through the countries.

This passage must take the cake for the most prophecies proven wrong!

* Egypt has never been desolate and waste.
* Men and people have always walked through it.
* There has never been a single moment (let alone forty years) when Egypt was uninhabited.
* Egypt has never been a desolated countries surrounded by more desolated countries.
* Its cities has never been desolated for any period of time
* and finally there was no Egyptian diaspora[6].

(plagiarized website: "http://www.topix.com...;)

My opponent has plagiarized his entire case which in turn makes his case irrelevant. (I urge voters to take this in consideration when voting)

In conclusion, i have countered my opponents whole case which in turn helped my original argument. My opponent plagiarized which i take on as forfeiting. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Con

I never plagiarized ANYTHING! Please see my sources for the last round. Plagiarism is defined by dictionary.com as "putting someone else's work as your own" which I gave credit for and blatantly said it wasn't my original work.

This is a closing round and am not adding new arguments.

Firmament

My opponent still doesn't understand the fact that Hebrew was the language written in Genesis, not English. Therefore we need a Hebrew dictionary for the best possible definition. I shown my opponent how the people understood the word and my opponent ha yet to explain that. Thus I won the debate.

Extend my arguments and you can see I am not a plagiarist for the following reasons:
1) Sourced
I recieved the info from rejectionofpascalswager, which is credited;
2) I have given the fact it isn't my original work.

VOTE CON!!!
wierdman

Pro

Since this round is the closing round, i am unable to post new arguments.

Firmament: My opponent neglects the fact that the Hebrew word firmament refers to the dome which we know to be the sky. I have provided this definition as well as a current definition of the word firmament which proved that i have won this debate.

I addressed my opponent's point on Michal as well as his theory on modern city of Tyre. For this reason, io urge that you vote con due to a superior case.

I apologize for accusing my opponent of plagiarism. (thank you for a great debate.)
Debate Round No. 4
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wierdman 6 years ago
wierdman
Did anyone take notice of his Micah arguments?
Posted by Winged 6 years ago
Winged
We might dissagree on a few things daley, but that last statement was right on.
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
oh get off it, the trinity was taught long before any of those councils as documented in the writings of the earliest church fathers. Also, I can prove its taught in the Bible. kjw47 is so stuck up on John 17:3 that he ignores the fact that Jesus is also called the true God in 1 John 5:20...he also ignores the fact that since the Father is the ONLY true God, all other gods are false. So either Jesus is a false god, or he is one god with the Father.

were there two true gods at John 1:1? John 1:3 says the Father didn't create even a single thing without the Word first being there, hence, the Word cannot be a created being. He predates creation. let kjw47 answer this; if Jesus isn't God, why is that according to 1 John 5:12-15 it is Jesus who hears and answers our prayers?
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
You are wrong about John 8:58--Jesus was telling them that he existed before Abraham, not that he was i am. I was speaking to Mr. Daley anyways not to you. Jesus said the Father is the only true God= John 17:1-6--Paul taught the same= 1 cor 8:6-- The israelites while serving the true God served a single being mono God=fact--Its trinitarians who say otherwise-they are mislead. Whether one likes truths or not catholocism twisted it all by allowing a pagan false god worshipping king to head the councils( the reason for the councils was because they didnt know truth )--Gods word teaches this to apply to that reality--- One cannot partake of the table of God and the table of demons--- so then God was not with those councils- satan was. It was the great apostasy formed that Gods word spoke about-- they being the tree trunk- then many branches popped off through the centuries--Gods word teaches-- A good tree produces good fruit- a rotten tree produces rotten fruit-- God does not have a God--Jesus has a God= rev 3:12.
Posted by Winged 6 years ago
Winged
By the way, I AM NOT A FRIGGIN' CATHOLIC!!! so stop spouting anti-catholic proofs at me, you fool. They mean nothing here.

Oh and just to make sure that you believe what you are telling this personally, what makes you think that Matthew 7:21-23 doesn't apply to you, iow. How do you think that you will avoid this judgement
Posted by Winged 6 years ago
Winged
if that's not enough, then there's more
In Exodus 3:14 God identifies himself to Moses with the name "I AM" reffering to himself in the present tense even when speaking of events in the past, present, and future, alluding to God's eternal being. This is a trademark phrase for the ancient Jews, as they stoned countless accused heretics over the centuries for reffering to themselves with this phrase.
In John 8:58 Jesus says these words, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM." He was directly refferencing the text from Exodus mentioned above. Jesus was actively claiming the same identity that the Jehovah God in Exodus identified himself with.
If you don't believe it at this point, then stop riding the fence on whether the Bible is true or not. It either is all true, or all false. Pick sides and stick to it.
Posted by kjw47 6 years ago
kjw47
I have debated many times over this matter- i have no fear-- one cannot debate someone who listen to errant men over Jesus. The facts of history prove their is no trinity God. Satan has 1/3 of mankind mislead by false truths that came in the councils of catholocism( the great apostasy ) . Daily they break the #1 commandment. Which makes them practicers of sin or workers of iniquities ( lawlessness ) and have these words coming as final judgement-- Matt 7:21-23)-- Paul said that Jesus sacrafice doesnt count for practicers of sin- Heb 10: 26)-- God warned all-- get out of her.
Posted by Winged 6 years ago
Winged
daley, i admire the spunk (don't take that outta context), but you don't get it
a debate is a structured arguement to settle a disagreement through logical means, and is only practical if the disagreement is purely logical.
You obviously do not believe that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same. So here is an attempted explanation
God goes by many names. 'Why?' you might ask. Because unlike humans, who recieve our names from those who preceed us, God is not a created being. He is eternally existent, and self-sufficient in the past, the present, and the future, thus he has no given name. The only other way to logically name something is by it's traits. There are a few dozen names given to God in the Bible, and all of them originate from different aspects of God. In this instance, Jehovah, which ,according to Strong's Concordance, means self-existent one. Jesus on the other hand is the name given to his physical form by his parents, as commanded by God himself through the angel Gabriel. The trinity is a litteral group of three divine beings (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost). This leads humans, who possess a mind capable of grasping only non-eternal concepts, to believe that either the Bible is wrong, lying, or that there are three Gods. What we don't understand is that God stands in all three positions of the trinity.
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
kjw47 doesn't know what he's talking about. n he keeps arguing in the comments section about the trinity but doesn't have the guts to debate it with me in the debate section. how sad. what are u afraid of?
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
for all this talk you still don't have the guts to debate me...and you don't even understand what you are reading, for the text goes on to say there is only ONE Lord Jesus Christ, now, if you are saying that the Father being called the "ONE God" excludes Jesus from being God, then Jesus being called the "ONE Lord" in that same verse excludes the Father from being Lord. This just shows your interpretation is bogus...you couldn't even respond to the facts I gave you on Psalm 8:5...maybe you know them to be true.

But get this, in 1 Cor 8:6 the Father is the one, that is, ultimate, God; therefore, Jesus is the one, that is, ultimate Lord; the word "one" is used in parallel for "on God" and "one Lord." So Jesus is our one Lord in the same way the Father is our one God, hence, they are both Almighty...Now let me ask you this one thing which I bet you won't have the guts and honesty to answer;

Jude 4 says in your NWT that Jesus is "our ONLY owner and Lord." So is Jesus your ONLY owner? Is not Jehovah your owner too? If so, then you have 2 owners, which contradicts Jude, for Jesus is your one and only owner according to him. If Jehovah your Lord? How can he be if Jesus is your ONLY Lord? Is Jehovah therefore a secondary Lord to Jesus? See, I don't have that problem, for as a member of the trinity Godhead, Jesus as God can speak for the entire Godhead, being of the same being. He can claim to be the ONLY Lord and Owner because he is God, and is not a serparate being from the Father, but is one with the Father, so that what is true of the Father is true of the Son. Thus, even the Son is called "my God" and "the true God" (John 20:28; 1 John 5:20) What do you think "my God" means? Why did they pray to Jesus? Give me a break, please.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
kohaiwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I give Kohai a point for conduct due to Pro's accusation of plagiarism, and for argumentation: Pro missed the point about the prophecy of the destruction of the city Tyre, and also stumbles a bit in regards to the 'firmanent' issue....While both sides didn't do as good as I hoped, Con wins because of the obvious contradiction that he gave, which wierdman, despite his efforts, could not refute adequately.
Vote Placed by YYW 6 years ago
YYW
kohaiwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good arguments on both sides, although CON meets the stipulated burden of proof -a feat wierdman (despite his laudable efforts) could not overcome.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 6 years ago
darkhearth
kohaiwierdmanTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought that both sides debated adequately. I gave con points for conduct because pro accused him of false plagiarism. I gave pro the point for a superior argument and because unlike con, his did not use secondary source as his argument but used it as a support mechanism. I gave pro points for sources because he used his resources far better than con did.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
kohaiwierdmanTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a strong debate by either side but Pro completely misunderstood the "Tyre" subpoint and didn't respond to the other points adequately. On the other hand, Con didn't really argue the points himself and mostly just used secondary sources to argue for him. I deem it a tie.