The Instigator
soundman
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Pricetag
Con (against)
Winning
67 Points

The Biblical Account of Creation is 100% true.

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: 1/13/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,002 times Debate No: 1754
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (27)

 

soundman

Pro

Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Pretty simple. If you feel you can present reliable, true, and convincing evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear from you. I do not want to debate with someone who blindly denies everything in the Bible simply because it is in the Bible. I want an intelligent debate with someone who understands the subject, and who can use facts and data, not just bias and dogma.
Pricetag

Con

First and foremost I would like to note that according to the laws of logic and science it is necessary for you to prove your claim that "The Bible Account of Creation is 100% true." It is not necessary for me to provide another theory only to cast doubt upon your own.

Your one and only piece of evidence is the bible. I would like to clarify that I do not hate the bible. There are some good and some bad things in that book. I think Jesus' philosophy, on the whole, is very good. However, the bible is by no means infallible and contains some things that we know to not be true. The following website lays out in plain english how by reading the bible you will see that the world is only 6,000 years old (http://independencebaptist.org...). However "the best estimates of Earth's age are obtained by calculating the time required for development of the observed lead isotopes in Earth's oldest lead ores. These estimates yield 4.54 billion years as the age of Earth.(http://www.nap.edu...). This estimate is almost unanimously accepted by scientists. There are many other contradictions, falsehoods, and flat out insanity in that book along with the good. Therefore, to use that passage as solid evidence is not reasonable.

Also the idea of creation is simply not science. It is not verifiable or demonstrable whereas evolution is. "Evolutionary change continues to this day, and it will proceed so long as life itself exists. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment." (http://www.actionbioscience.org...).

You can also find evidence for evolution in fossils. "Based on myriad similarities and differences between living species, evolutionary biology makes predictions about the features of ancestral forms. For example, numerous features indicate that birds are derived from reptilian ancestors." (http://www.actionbioscience.org...).

Also evidence for evolution can be found in our own DNA. "The genomes of all organisms contain overwhelming evidence for evolution. All living species share the same basic mechanism of heredity using DNA (or RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed from parent to offspring, and which are transcribed and translated into proteins during each organism's life. Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor." (http://www.actionbioscience.org...).

All of this shows that evolution has solid evidence to stand on, whereas the "evidence" for creation is a book that has some good teachings but many contradictions and falsehoods. Keep in mind though that evolution does not have to run contrary to religion. Catholicism has embraced evolution because they see the indisputable scientific fact within it. I encourage people from other religions to do the same.
Debate Round No. 1
soundman

Pro

soundman forfeited this round.
Pricetag

Con

Well since my opponent did not add anything further to the debate I'll add some information as to why the bible is not infallible.

It condones slavery but makes eating shellfish and pork a sin.

Slavery-Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]." Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

Shellfish-Leviticus 11:12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

Also the bible permits polygamy.

"7: And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8: And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things" (2 Sam. 12).

There are also some contradictions in the Bible here concerning how many times the rooster crew:

"MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew."

Here are some other random contradictions in the bible:

When did Baasha die?
"26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1"

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
"22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2"

Who was Josiah's successor?
"Jehoahaz - 2 Chron 36:1

Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11"

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
"scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple John 19:2"

What did they give him to drink?
"vinegar - Matthew 27:34

wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23"

How long was Jesus in the tomb?
Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."

Now these things are insignificant to the whole story; however they do prove that the bible is not infallible because if it were there would be no contradictions. I don't think that a perfect God makes mistakes, so it can easily be said that the bible is not the handwritten work of God, or God working through mortals. Rather, it is the work of man and subject to his faults and whims. So, as you can see the creation of story cannot be though of as 100% true.

I could go on, there are many other contradictions and pure illogical nonsense in the bible. Like I've said before there is a lot of good in the bible but there are some bad things that prove that it is not an infallible book. Therefore, we cannot use it as solid evidence of anything, this is where your argument comes in. Just because you have evidence in the bible doesn't mean it's true. The bible is not infallible, therefore no one can say that creationism is 100% true.
Debate Round No. 2
soundman

Pro

I am sorry for not responding to your most recent post....the semester is starting off really quickly, and it has been hard to find time to breathe, let alone debate. I see I have alot to respond to, so I hope that I can do it all in the allotted time.

Starting with the second paragraph of your first arguement, yes the earth is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old. I understand what scientists say, but the are not infallible. The basis of their "findings" about the earth's age are based on many things, including Carbon 14 dating, rock strata, and sedimentary layers. The problem with these methods of aging is that they assume constants that don't exist. In C14 dating, the theory is that by measuring the amount of carbon in a sample, you can estimate it's age, however, this only works assuming that carbon is leaving and has always left the sample at the same constant rate. The same with strata and sediment, how can you prove that these things happened at the same rate?

Moving on, commonalities among species does not indicate evolution. In both DNA and RNA, and in bone structure and the like, commonalities are not "solid evidence" that evolution occured. Do species adapt? Yes. Is this evolution as described by Darwin and others? No. There is a big difference between adaption to better suit your environment, and completely becoming another species altogether.

Consider this: The neuron. Scientists estimate that the human body contains over 100 billion of these tiny cells. At one end are tiny fibers called dendrites, numbering about 5,000. At the other end are about 10,000 more of these fibers. Every one of them is connected. That is 1.5x10 to the 15th connections. By using bioelectricity, these cells communicate with each other, to do things like move muscles, sense pain, etc. All of these connections are monitored by our brains. Minor defects in these cells result in things like Parkisins, M.S., and other things. You want to believe that that all happened by accident? Consider the earth. It's tilt on it's axis, it's distance from the sun, from the moon, from other planets, if any one things changed by the slighest degree, life could not exists on this planet. I have a real hard time buying that this is all one big "oops."

Now on to the Bible.

You have to understand slavery. The passage you used does not describe the definition of slavery Americans are accustomed to. When we think slavery, we think Civil War, Abe Lincoln, blacks, whites, etc. The slavery described in the passage is an indentured servant role. If a hebrew owed a debt he couldn't pay, he worked it off. There was no "bankruptcy" in ancient Israel. You also included the Sabbath Year reference, which is interesting. You seem not to have noticed that the Biblical Law actually protects slaves. They couldn't serve more than six years. The person to whom the debt was owed couldn't take more than his labor, he couldn't touch his wife or family. And there are other passages that further protect slaves rights. BTW, this does nothing for your arguement that the Bible is fallible.

You really must take verses in context. The Bible is one continous story, and taking verses out of context is very dangerous. Yes, in Leviticus, the eating of shellfish was prohibited. Shellfish are bottomdwellers. They eat waste from other animals. As a result, improper preparation can result in severe sickness and even death. This law is one of many designed by God to keep the Israelites healthy. And later, in Acts chapters 10 and 11, you see where this law is lifted. They were more advanced and had better food preparation and preservation techniques.

The Bible never promotes or condones polygamy. The Bible contains narratives, and sometimes in these narratives, polygamists are included. The Biblical view of marriage is one man, one woman.

I want to post a disclaimer here, use of the NIV is fine with me. I don't know why people feel they have to use the KJV when discussing the Bible.....Jesus didn't use Old English. NIV is much easier to understand.

Your rooster "contradictions".......Mark is the only gospel to quantify the rooster crows, the others simply say "Before the rooster crows." No contradiciton.

UMMMM.......did you even read the verses you used concerning Baasha? Neither one refers to the year he died. The I Kings verse says that is when his son became king, and the II Chronicles verse says that is when he went up against King Asa in battle

UM, again. Both verses say that Ahazia was 22 when he began to reign.

Okay, quick pointer here, when there is a small letter beside a word or name in the BIble, it means there is a footnote or comment, and if you would have read the one in Jeremiah, you would have found out that Shallum is another name for Jehoahaz.

Okay, purple and scarlet are two different shades of the same color. The two accounts were written by two different men, so this is not significant at all. One chose the adjective scarlet, one chose purple.

Matt 27:34, and Mark 15:23 say the same thing. Wine mixed with Myrrh (or gall, as in the Matthew passage). This was a mixture used to deaden pain.

In Jewish thought, days did not mean full 24-hours cycles. Friday (day one) saturday (day two) sunday (day three). This is a cultural difference, not a contradiction.

A word of warning, if you debate me on the validity of the Bible, you had better be right. As it is, it seems that you either a.) deliberatly lied to me, hoping I wouldn't notice, or b.) copy and pasted someone else's writings who did choice A. This is not mere talk to me. This is what my whole life is centered around. You are attacking my heart when you attack the Bible. You couldn't go on. If there were untruths and viable, provable evidence concerning fallacies in the Bible, someone would've found them, and people would know. There are none. Consider the logic. Consider the impact. I await your response.
Pricetag

Con

In my response I will work somewhat out of order. I will respond to your "word of warning" and go from there. First of all there are many things wrong with the bible, that is the common consensus among mankind, it's not an idea that I'm just throwing out there. There is a reason that non-believers constitute the third largest group in the world with estimates between 16-20% of the total population. Coupled with the fact that the Catholic Church, which is still the world's largest single denomination, doesn't take the bible literally, that puts you in the minority of people who takes the bible as an infallible book. But please don't get personally invested in this debate, I'm not, I'm just having fun. My "attacks" on the bible were not an aim at you or your beliefs but simply support for my argument that the bible is not infallible.

I know I'm going a little our of order here but let's look at your response to my claim that the bible condones slavery but says that shellfish is an abomination. You said:

"You have to understand slavery. The passage you used does not describe the definition of slavery Americans are accustomed to. When we think slavery, we think Civil War, Abe Lincoln, blacks, whites, etc. The slavery described in the passage is an indentured servant role. If a hebrew owed a debt he couldn't pay, he worked it off... They couldn't serve more than six years. The person to whom the debt was owed couldn't take more than his labor, he couldn't touch his wife or family. And there are other passages that further protect slaves rights. BTW, this does nothing for your arguement that the Bible is fallible."

Well in actuality the passage regarding slavery says:

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Yes you're right the Hebrew is a slave for six years but their kids are slaves for life. They are the permanent property of the master. You don't think that's just a little bit wrong? And you say that this isn't the slavery I'm thinking of, for the Hebrew slave perhaps not, but for the children I don't see much of a difference. Anyway I define slavery as keeping a human as property for labor and withholding rights from them. In both cases of the original slave and of the child I they fit this description of slavery. Perhaps I did not debate eloquently enough but if the Bible promotes the use of slavery than how can you say that is the infallible authority on anything? That just does not make any sense to me whatsoever.

Also in another passage it says:

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

This passage blatantly says that you can hold a slave for life as long as it's not an Israelite. Again how can you claim that the Bible is infallible when it promotes this kind of cruelty?

You go on to say that the rules against shellfish (and in all likelihood pork and circumcisions) are meant to promote health. I agree with you, but if the book is the "Word of God" or "God working through humans" than God just lied, and I don't think that God lies, I mean he's perfect right? Why wouldn't a perfect being just explain it to the Israelites truthfully?

You say that the Bible doesn't condone polygamy but then why didn't the Word of God make note that it is wrong when one of it's most esteemed characters (David) obviously engages in it as is evident in the passage:

"7: ...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel...8: And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom..." (2 Sam. 12).

You claim that there is no contradiction in the cocks crowing but there is obviously a discrepancy between one that says it was before the cock crowed a second time and the others that say that the cock hadn't yet crowed. If God wrote the Bible through the disciples then you think all the books would be on the same page with no discrepancy but that is obviously not the case. Look over the passages again if you need to.

I really didn't think I would have to type up the full passages to get the point across but, Baasha's death according to the Bible:

2 Chron 16:1 "In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah."

According to this verse, Baasha fought with Judah in the 36th year of Asa's reign, yet 1 Kg.16:6-8 says that Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's reign. So if both stories are true, Baasha was still fighting 10 years after his death! When did Baasha die?

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26) - "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel," (NASB).
Forty-two (2 Chron. 22:1) - "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri," (NASB).

In reference to the days contradiction it is that and it does not matter if they're days were not 24-hour cycles. The passages say "after three days" but the post-resurrection scripture says "on the third day" that is different and is a contradiction.

In reference to the Jeremiah passage I was looking on a website that did not provide a footnote, my apologies you are right on that one. And in regards to the purple/violet I agree that it is insignificant and probably a discrepancy in translation. And also in reference to the vinegar/wine passage I guess that is also not significant enough to constitute a contradiction; however, you cannot deny the other passages that show clear contradictions of fact or order. This thus proves that God could not have written the Bible; therefore it is not infallible and you're argument does not have a leg to stand on. I'll even up it a notch and throw in some more proof that the Bible is not infallible.

Cruelty and Violence in 2 Kings

God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head. 2:23-24
(Is this the work of God?)

I'm running out of room now, so I'll go on to your scientific claims. The work of scientists may not be infallibe but it is based off of countless tests that are proven in everyday life such as matters of biology and others, I see no reason to dismiss this specific finding. It seems much more sensible and relies on much fewer presumptions than the creation story.

Again you can see different breeds of bacteria evolving over time. New breeds will be immune to antibiotics while older breeds will not. You can see evolution happening.

I never claimed that this world in all of it's beauty and glory was an accident, I even said that evolution works with many religions, don't assume or put words in my mouth.

To those voting I implore you to look at all of the data and see that my opponent's arguments depends completely on a book which he may perceive as infallible but which obviously has contradictions and utter insanity sprinkled without, making it not infallible at all. Like I stated earlier you do not have to believe in evolution to agree with me, you only have to see that there is doubt regarding Creation.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
How the f*ck did PRO get ANY votes AT ALL?
Posted by TidusAlmasty 9 years ago
TidusAlmasty
I did read the debate first. However, 4.54 billion is largely figured through C-14.

I am not defending it. I'm just saying that your view and reaction to it was unjust.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
TidusAlmasty if you will recall I never said C-14. I believe it was something about lead cores. It was my opponent that falsely brought up C-14. Read the debate first and then comment.

Are you really defending the act of mauling 42 people!? I don't care how old they were that is still messed up.
Posted by TidusAlmasty 9 years ago
TidusAlmasty
Elisha...
The word describing your "little children", in reality, meant young men. This puts them at, most likely, their early-to-middle teenage years. At this age, they were considered to be responsible for their actions. Keep in mind, also, that it was a large group, possibly a demonstration against them. The Bible says the bear mauled 42 OF them. Not that there were just 42. The baldhead comment most likely referred to Elijah, Elisha's mentor because he had just went up the mountain. And "go up" most likely meant his ascending to heaven.
Posted by TidusAlmasty 9 years ago
TidusAlmasty
Carbon Dating.
"Carbon-14 cannot reliably date materials older than about 50,000 years." (Berkeley) http://www.berkeley.edu...

There's also another one from Michigan State that says "The major limitation of the technique is that after about 40,000 years, too little C-14 remains for accurate measurement." http://taggart.glg.msu.edu...

Now I do, in fact, realize that the numbers are different. However, the majority of the scientific community seems to put the accuracy of C-14 dating between 30k and 60k years.

Now you'll say, "But what about your 6,000 years?" In reality, we do not know what God's time is compared to ours. My main point is that C-14 dating is not an applicable argument for the "4.54 billion years" that some people think it has existed for.

I also found this: http://www.angelfire.com...
Now I realize that people think that angelfire sites are junk. I'll let you decide if it is authentic or not.
Posted by TidusAlmasty 9 years ago
TidusAlmasty
First thing I want to point out..
2 Kings 8:26 "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel."
2 Chronicles 22:2 "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri."

Those both came straight from the NASB.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
*I think and most of the world will agree with me on this that the Bible is not infallible and contains some very bad things.*
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Just because I called into question some parts of the Bible does not mean that I was bashing it. I've said many times the Bible contains some of the best philosophy that the world has ever seen. However, I do not think and most of the world will agree with me on this that the Bible is not infallible and contains some very bad things. Why do you think that that notion is intolerant?
Posted by soundman 9 years ago
soundman
Pricetag, you need to actually do some research, not just pull what people say that supports your theories. Your "contridictions" don't exist, and the other stuff you throw out there doesn't prove anything in regards to reliability. YOU assume things. YOUR thoughts are based on assumptions. Vote for me or not, i dont care. But your thinking is flawed, and it's comical. Watching people band together and bash the Bible, then say, "Be tolerant! Be tolerant!" Look up the word tolerant. It's kinda funny.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Well if it's not literal on that subject than why do we assume it's literal in reference to creation? Either way my side wins.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jr98664 8 years ago
jr98664
soundmanPricetagTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
soundmanPricetagTied
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 Mrjiggums 9 years ago
Mrjiggums
soundmanPricetagTied
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 attrition 9 years ago
attrition
soundmanPricetagTied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
soundmanPricetagTied
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 johnwooding1 9 years ago
johnwooding1
soundmanPricetagTied
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 JamesIsrael 9 years ago
JamesIsrael
soundmanPricetagTied
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 artC 9 years ago
artC
soundmanPricetagTied
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 TidusAlmasty 9 years ago
TidusAlmasty
soundmanPricetagTied
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 Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
soundmanPricetagTied
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