The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

The Bible Presents Contradictory Creation Accounts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,057 times Debate No: 18272
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (46)
Votes (15)

 

kohai

Pro

Greetings,

Throughout this debate, I will be presenting the 2 Contradictory Accoutns of Genesis.

Full Resolution

The Bible contains contradictory creation accounts.

Burden of Proof

As PRO, I will be arguing that the Bible does contradict itself on the matter of creation.

CON must reconcile the first 2 chapters of Genesis to prove that there are no contradictions between Genesis 1 & 2

In order for me to win this debate, I must sucesfully prove that there are contradictions in the Genesis creation story.

In order for my opponent to win, he/she must prove that there are no contradictions and reconcile these verses.

Rules

Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance and no arguments.

Round 2: PRO will present the contradictions in creation and CON will attempt to reconcile these verses.

Round 3: PRO will respond to CON's rebuttals and attempt to show why CON's "rebuttals" fail.

Round 4: Same as above

Round 5: Closing arguments, summaries, and final rebuttals.

Sources – Information taken from a source must be directly mentioned in the debate in order to count. Posting a link to an essay and adding "read this" is a way to gain extra argumentation outside the round and is therefore unfair. An external citation page is permitted. Sources must be listed either at the end of each round or on the citation page and are to be referenced with brackets [] or parenthesis ().

Plagiarism - Plagiarism is unacceptable and will result in an automatic loss.

Voting:

Conduct:

A violation of one of the rules listed under "Technical Rules" results in a loss of the conduct vote. If bother debaters violate a rule, the conduct vote should be tied. Excessive rude behavior, in either the debate or the comments, results in an automatic lose of the conduct vote regardless of rule violations. Violations of conduct cannot count toward argumentation (this is particularly relevant for rule violations).

Spelling and Grammar:

The use of poor spelling and grammar that detracts from the debate results in the automatic loss of this point. Otherwise, disregard minor typographical errors. This point may be awarded for exceptionally good writing and presentation.

Arguments:

For me to win, I need to show contradictions in the creation account. My opponent must reconcile it in order to win.

Sources:

The sources vote goes to whichever debater made better use of external material to defend his or her position. This does not necessarily mean hard data; references to philosophical arguments and the like also count. Voters should consider the number and quality of sources presented. If a debater violates the rules for sources, he or she cannot win the points for sources.

The voting period will last three months.

Votes that do not contain a meaningful evaluation of the debate of at least a few sentences and with direct references to arguments made within the rounds in the RFD may be countervoted.

Acceptance:

I request that my opponent is not a troll, if you troll this debate you will be blocked, reported, and will lose this debate. In addition, I request that my opponent states in round 1 his position on this problem.

Plagiarism

To avoid plagiarism, all I ask is that you cite the source. If it is long, like the copy above, then I do not care if you use quotation marks or not.

Translation

There are lots of translations of the Bible and I want my opponent to tell me what version of the Bible to use. I will use whatever version my opponent wants me to use. However, my favorite translations are the ESV and NASB.

This was from Grape: http://www.debate.org......
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his posing this debate and look foward to seeing what he has put together.

I accept the rules as they are posted with the following addition. Any forfeiture of a round shall result in an automatic loss regardless of the prior argumentation.

I would also ask that my opponent use the ESV translation of the Bible, but also permit usage of the original Hebrew text and other ancient translations (Talmud, Septuagint, etc.)

Finally, my opponent has requested a brief synopsis of my position. My position is that the Genesis 1 account and Genesis 2 account are not contradictory, and rather represent different view points on the same event. I shall demonstrate this further throughout my rebuttal and positive argument.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

Introduction

I thank ReformedArsenal for accepting this debate. I can tell that this is going to be a very tough debate for me. I wish my opponent the best of luck. *handshake*.

As per the rules, I will be using the ESV to be fair to my opponent. He is also allowing me to use external sources (Talmud, Zohar, etc), which I will make use of.

==============
OPENING ARGUMENTS
================

Contradiction 1: Was man created before the woman or simultaneously?

A. Simultaneously

Then God said, "Let us make man in our images, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." --Genesis 1:26-28 [1]

B. Before the woman

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Genesis 2:18 [2]

Contradiction 2: Was man created before or after the animals?

A. Before the animals

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.” [3] (Genesis 2:18-23)

According to these verses, God saw that the man was alone and he created animals from the earth to "mate" with Adam.

Biblical comentary, Rashi, wrote:

"This time--it teaches that Adam mated with every [species of] domesticated animal and wild animal, but his appetite was not assuaged by them." [4]

B. Man was created after the animals.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image..." (Genesis 24-26) [5]


This is a lot for my opponent to handle so I will leave it here to be fair to my opponent.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

[1] http://www.esvbible.org...
[2] http://www.esvbible.org...;
[3] http://www.esvbible.org...
[4] http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com...
[5] http://www.esvbible.org...

ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to start by apologizing to my opponent. Where I said Talmud, I meant Targum. My original provision was for other ancient translations of the Bible, not for ancient commentary on the Bible. What people thought the Bible taught bears little actual impact on what the Bible teaches, as we must decide for ourselves in the context of this debate what it teaches. I ask the readers not to penalize my opponent for appealing to sources outside the Bible, but would ask him not to utilize them in further rounds. My opponent's use of the Rashi actually supports my argument, so I will address it. However, any further appeals outside of the Bible should be considered invalid.

My opponent argues two basic premises.

1) The order of the creation of man is contradictory between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
2) The broader order of creation is contradictory between Genisis 1 and Genesis 2.

I shall demonstrate presently how these two contentions fail. I shall do so by presenting a harmonious account of how the two accounts cohere to paint a fuller picture of the creation narrative.

The Big Picture
Genesis 1 is a grand cosmological poem about the creation of all things, with humanity as the pinacle of creation. We see in broad sweeping brush strokes that systematically creates all things in an ordered fashion. Primarily we see God create a location (Space, Sea, Land) and then fill that location with appropriate inhabitants (Celestial Bodies, Sea Creatures, Land Creatures). This account focuses on the overall process, not the details. We are not told what process is used to cause vegitation to spring forth from the land. We are not told what process is used to create each animal. We are not given any sort of sequence within individual acts of creation to demonstrate the order in which things happened. We therefore do not know if all the animals sprung to life simultaneously, if all the water gathered simultaneously, or if there was a process. The text simply does not tell us. That is because this text is focusing on the finished product. We see that when God has completed a given work, it is declared good. The only exception to this is when God completes mankind, it is declared very good. However, the phrase "good/very good" denotes the completion of a given act of creation. This is crucial to understanding the text.

I shall give a "day-by-day" account of the creation narrative, for reference.

In the beginning - God creates the heavens and the earth. These locations are void and empty. (Genesis 1:1-2
Day 1 - God creates light, separates this light from darkness. This is commonly seen as God creating space and ordering it. (Genesis 1:3-5)
Day 2 - God creates a firmament to separate the waters above and below. This is seen as a further ordering act of the cosmos, and it creates the sea on the surface of th earth. (Genesis 1:6-8)
Day 3 - God causes the water on earth to gather together, and causes dry land to appear. He also causes the land to produce vegitation. (Genesis 1:9-13)
Day 4 - God causes the stars and other celestial bodies to appear. (Genesis 1:14-18)
Day 5 - God causes animals to appear in both the sea and on the land. (Genesis 1:20-23)
Day 6 - God creates a gender differentiated humanity. (Genesis 1:26-31)

The Details
The second account, in contrast to the first account, is the details account of the process of God's unique creation of humanity. In this we narrow in on one particular aspect of God's creation, namely the creation of humanity. This account, although told in a different way, is completely harmonious with the first account. The key to understanding this is in the usage of the phrase "good/very good" to denote a completed act of creation.

The account does not talk about anything prior to day 3. We can assume that there is no significant distinction between the accounts and that the author wished to give us no specific details about hte creation of space or the separation of the upper and lower waters. However, we see that in the details of this account, that the single gendered humanity was created on day 3, after the land had appeared and before vegitation began to sprout. After creating this man the vegitation appeared and he was placed in the garden. We know that this act of creation is not finished however, because it is not declared "good" when the man was created. In fact, it is declared "not good that the man should be alone" (Genesis 2:18). The text is silent about day 4, but we then see God create all the land animals (Day 5). We see that Adam seeks a companion amongs the animals, but does not find one (I disagree with Rashi that he mated with them, but that fact does not have impact on the debate). After naming all the animals, God puts the man into a deep sleep and creates the woman. This deep sleep occured on day 6, and after he created them "male and female" by creating a gender differentiated humanity, he declared it good.

Wrapping It All Up
My opponent asks two questions.

Was man created before the woman, or was he created simultaneously?
Was man created before the animals?

There is a fundamental issue with these questions. The word "adam" which is translated as man in many cases, is more accurately translated as "mankind" or "humanity" and is refering to the overall human race, not simply a male instance of the human race. The key to this is that humanity was not complete until it was differentiated into male and female. We see this clearly by the fact that Genesis 1 calls the differentiated humanity "very good" but Genesis 2 calls the non-differentiated humanity "not good." The appropriate questions therefore would be the following.

Was the male created before the woman, or was he created simultaneously?
Was the male created before the animals?

Genesis 1 is silent on the specifics of the non-differentiated male. All we know is that humanity was not complete (declared good/very good) until after the genders were differentiated. Genesis 2 however is specific in the details that male was created before both the animals and the woman.

As anyone can clearly see, the accounts are simply two views on the same perspective. One provides information about the timing of the completed creation, one provides details surrounding the process of creating human beings.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

Thank you for your attempt at refuting the contradiction. I accept your apology

RECAP

I AM arguing two premises and contradictions:
    1. What came first, the man or the beast?

    1. Was man created before or after the woman?


With those two contradictions, it appears that my opponent is arguing the "fact" that Genesis 2 is a recap of Genesis 1 with lots more detail. I do not necessarily buy this attempt and there are two major issues with this:

The Jewish Rabbis/scribes understood a contradiction

According to the early Jewish rabbis, they understood a contradiction. Thus, in the Zohar, a rabbinic comentary and part of the Jewish mysticism [1], they invented the story of Lillith, Adam's first wife.

"When the letters of the name of Adam, descend below, together in their completness, the male and the female were found together, and the female was attached to his side, until God cast a deep slumber upon him and he fell asleep. And he lay in the place of the Temple below. And the Holy One, blessed be He, sawed her off him, and adorned her as they adorn a bride, and brought her to him...In an ancient book I found this [refers to] the primeval Lilith who was with him and conceived from him, but was not a helpmeet for him..." Zohar 3:34b

"Come and see: There is a female, a spirit of all spirits, and her name is Lilith, and she was at first with Adam. And in the hour when Adam was created and his body became completed, a thousand spirits from the left [evil] side clung to that body until the Holy One, blessed be He, shouted at them and drove them away. And Adam was lying, a body without a spirit, and his appearance was green, and all those spirits surrounded him. In that hour a cloud descended an pushed away all those spirits. And when Adam stood up, his female was attached to his side. And that holy spirit which was in him spread out to this side and that side, and grew here and there, and thus became complete. Thereafter the Holy One, blessed be He, sawed Adam into two, and made the female. And He brought her to Adam in her perfection like a bride to the canopy. When Lilith saw this, she fled. And she is in the cities of the sea, and she is still trying to harm the sons of the world." (Patai81:455)


In addition, Lilith also has Talmudic references, not that it is important to this debate.

The story of Lilith does present serious Theological issues for Christianity.

It does not attempt to explain why man came before the beast.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; nI will make him a helper fit forOr corresponding to; also verse 20" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+2/#f5-1">5 him.” 19 oNow out of the ground the Lord God had formedOr And out of the ground the Lord God formed" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+2/#f6-1">6 every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and pbrought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for AdamOr the man" href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+2/#f7-1">7 there was not found a helper fit for him. Genesis 2:18-20

In these verses, it appears to be that The Lord realized that the man was lonely and he created beasts, then birds (wait, I thought that the birds came before beasts; oh well, that is a different debate),, and that there was not a helper fit for him. Notice the exclamation from Adam when he sees his (first or second) wife, Eve:

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man."

| Conclusion |

We see that my opponent's answer does not work for two reasons:
    1. Jewish comentators in the early centuries recognized the contradiction, so they invented Adam's first wife; and

    1. It does not refute the fact that in one story man came first and in another beast came first.


Thank you.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
ReformedArsenal

Con

Thank you to Kohai for continuing this debate and for his contribution.

My opponent has not answered any of my responses, nor has he done anything to discredit the harmonization I have proposed.

I shall respond to his points presently.

The Jewish Rabbis/Scribes Understood a Contradiction

This point is completely irrelevant to this debate. We are not debating about if later rabbis saw a contradiction, we are debating on if a contradiction is actually present. For this reason, the only text that is significant is that of the Bible itself.

However, I would like to point something about the Zohar. Simply put, the Zohar is not an early rabbinical source. The first know appearace of the Zohar is in the 13th century of the Common Era. This is 1200 years after the time of Christ, 1900 years after the Babylonian Exile, 2400 years after the time of King David, and nearly 3000 years after the time of Moses. It is not only inaccurate to present this as an early source, it is down right irresponsible. Even if we take the supposed date of the 2nd century CE we still have a very late source. [A]

An Exercise in Missing the Point

My opponent has failed to addess my argument in any meaningful way. My argument is that Genesis 1 records completed acts of creation and denotes this by declaring them "good" or "very good." However, in Genesis 2 when the male was created it is declared "not good." We therefore know that at that point of the story, the act of creation was not complete. Genesis 1 does not talk about this stage in the process of human creation as it is not talking about the process, only the finished product.

Simply put, a male was created on Day 3, but a single male does not constitute a completed humanity. Humanity was not complete until day 6, in which it was declared very good.

Unless my opponent can disprove this harmonization, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof to "sucesfully prove that there are contradictions in the Genesis creation story." nor to "show why CON's 'rebuttals' fail."

[A] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

Thank you, ReformedArsenal, for accepting this debate and your "rebuttals."

The Jewish Rabbis Understood a Contradiction

I believe this point is very relevant to this debate. My opponent asked me a similar question in a previous debate so I wish to ask him a question:

Why should we accept your response when the Jews, who understand the texts a lot better than you, understood it to be a contradiction and had to invent Lilith?

Does not explain the contradiction between man and beast.

My opponent has still failed to understand that in one story, man was created before the beasts and in another beasts was created before.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image..."

It becomes quite clear that in these verses the living creatures was created, THEN God created man.

HOWEVER, we come to a similar issue in the other verse:

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man."

He stated this because earlier, the beasts were created for humans:

Then the LORD GOD said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man caleld every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam, there was not a helper fit for him. Genesis 2:18-20


Not only is there a contradiction as to who came first, man or the animal; there is also a contradiction between the role animals play and to why they were created.

ReformedArsenal

Con

The Jewish Rabbis Understood a Contradiction

If the documet my opponent was citing was dated within a reasonable amount of time of the original document, he may have a point. However, the document does not appear for 3000 years fter the time of Moses. So if we assume Mosaic authorship, we have 3000 years of Jews not seeing a contradiction. Even Genesis was written in the Exile, we haev 1900 years of Jews not seeing a contradiction. Furthermore, many Jews believe that the Zohar was composed fraudulently by Moses de Leon in the 13th century and not by the person he proposed.

My opponent is asking you to believe that after 3000 (or 1900) years of understanding Genesis 1 and 2 to be completely harmonious, suddenly a lone individual gasped and said "these stories don't fit!" That is not only an audacious claim, it is flat out ridiculous.

Does not Explain the Contradiction Between Man and Beast

My opponent still does not understand the issue. He says "in one story, man was created before the beasts and in another beasts was created before." However, he is refusing to acknowledge the point that the Hebrew word "adam" means "humanity" rather than just a male human being. Thayer's lexicon notes that mankind is the "much more frequently intended sense in OT" [A]

Simply put, HUMANITY was created on the 6th day. A single Male Human Being was created on day three after the creation of dry land, before the creation of vegitatation.

The dictionary defines humanity as "all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind." [B] Simply put, a single male human being cannot constitue humanity. This is why when there was a single human male the creation was not complete (denoted by the phrase "not good"). Once the human female was created (after the animals), the creation was complete and could properly be considered humanity and declared very good. Yet again, my opponent has failed to address this in any meaningful way.

Thank you.


[A] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
[B] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

This is the final round to the debate so I request that no new information be brought up from my opponent. I shall present a summary of my case and a summary of my opponent's case.

Throughout this debate, I have attempted to prove that the Bible contradicts itself on the matters of when man was created in relationship to beasts and when man was created in relationship with women.


Voters

1. Has my opponent refuted the contradiction? If so, please vote for RA. If not, please vote for me.

2. Did I sucessfully refute my opponent's attempt at harmonization? If so, please vote for me.

I ask that the voters please read the entire debate carefully before making your decision.

I leave this debate in the hands of the voters.

ReformedArsenal

Con

As requested, I will bring up no new information in the debate.

Here is the summary of my argument.

In Genesis 1 where the text says "Male and Female he created them" the text is refering to the completed act of creating humanity as gender differentiated. This act occurs on day 6 after the animals.

However, in Genesis 2, the text first describes the creation of the gender non-differentiated male on day 3, and proceeds to finish describing the creation of the gender differentiated humanity later in the chapter.

As you can see, my harmonization is consistent, coheres, and explains the apparent contradiction. I have shown this both through explaining the usage of "Good" to denote completion in the creative act and "not Good" to denote non-completion in the creative act, and by simply showing the appropriate timeline.

Thank you for reading the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I suggest you debate with Daley...That would be an interesting debate, since Daley is more accomplished than kohai or me in the field of biblical study
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Daley believes that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are separate acts of creation, and that Genesis 1 represents the creation of a non-adamic people, while Genesis 2 happens chronologically after Genesis 1 and is only discussing Adam and Eve.

I find his position to be full of gaps, theologically untenable, exegetically unwarranted, and biblical unnecessary.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Alright, now thanks to the clarification.

As I noted before, Kohai did little to refute that argument of yours, which is based on a difference of partial and complete creation (Adam of Genesis 2 and 1)...therefore, he loses three points for arguments...

I wonder how Daley would have responded. I noticed that he agreed with my general sentiment that your arguments were "weak"...
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Sort of.

The "adam" created in Genesis 2 prior to the differentiation is only a partial and incomplete creation. We know this because when God completes an act of creation, he declares it good/very good and when he created the non-differentiated "adam" he declared that it was "not good for him to be alone."

In Genesis one, the act is only talking about the completed act of creation which only has the final state in view (male and female he created them) and is not speaking of the beginning of the creative act.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
"It is clear that you don't understand the argument."

So, let me summarize what you have written to prevent any type of misunderstanding on your part:

A. The "adam" created solely was only a part of humanity...of Genesis 2
B. However, in Genesis 1, it describes the undifferentiated humanity....

Is that correct?
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I have still given my vote to you...Reformed.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You act as though those are contradictory statements.

The "adam" that was created as a single human male was an incomplete humanity (adam means humanity in Hebrew and is equivalent to the Greek Anthropos where we get our word "Anthropology" which is the study of humanity). This is the "adam" of Genesis 2, until humanity was differentiated and the woman was created. It is important also to note that the word "adam" is not used to refer to the man after the woman was created (it switches to the Hebrew "ish" for man and "isha" for woman).

The "adam" in Genesis 1 refers to the differentiated humanity that existed after the woman was separated from the man. We even see that in Genesis 1, when refering to just the male they do not use the word "adam" but use the Gender specific word "zacar."

It is clear that you don't understand the argument.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
"The Man was not representative of the overall human race. Did you even read my arguments?"

vs.

"The word "adam" which is translated as man in many cases, is more accurately translated as "mankind" or "humanity" and is refering to the overall human race, not simply a male instance of the human race."
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
The Man was not representative of the overall human race. Did you even read my arguments?

The Man COULD NOT be humanity, because by definition humanity requires male and female. This is why non-differentiated humanity (created on day 3 after dry land) was "not good," because it was not complete. When God differentiated the humans into genders by creating the Woman, it became full humanity (Male and Female he created them...) as described as "very good" in Genesis 1.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
If Adam was representative of the overall human race, then what does Eve represent?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by acvavra 5 years ago
acvavra
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove there were contradictions.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Was very good arguement from both sides but I think Con displayed good rebuttals.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: izbo does not deserve to vote
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 5 years ago
Lickdafoot
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The votes on this debate are laughable. Con gave a logical explanation of the two genesis stories. One focuses on the general themes present, the next focuses on the specifics of humanity. He points out how beasts were created when humanity was not yet complete, thus explaining both contentions. Pro's points relied on others interpretations of the bible rather than any sound interpretation of his own. He never refuted pro's points but reinstated his opening arguments in the later rounds.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: counter vote
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never addressed the factual contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2. Saying it is not a contradiction is insufficient.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter bomb exnihlo
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Vote Bomb
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: winning!
Vote Placed by NewCreature 6 years ago
NewCreature
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Context.