The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
thejudgeisgod
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1E

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/16/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,021 times Debate No: 8312
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

TheSkeptic

Con

Note: the "1E" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes.

[Definition - Existence]
http://dictionary.reference.com...............
1. the state or fact of existing; being.

*NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY.

[Definition - Valid]
http://dictionary.reference.com...............
1. sound; just; well-founded
2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

*NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters).

Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not mean it exists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is how the debate will play out:

Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. My opponent can list the attributes of the metaphysical supreme being in his Round 1 is he/she wishes. THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles).

Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such.

I hope we have a good debate!
thejudgeisgod

Pro

It is my pleasure to debate this topic. Thank you for posting it.

I stand in firm affirmation that the Jew/Christian God exists in three entities referred to as the trinity.

1) The existence of Jesus Christ

Discovery believes they have found the tomb of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The documentary presents an all-accounts unbiased look into a tomb believed to have belonged to Jesus Christ. I will be arguing that these findings have both contradicted what is found in the traditional Bible but proves the existence of one part of the trinity in Jesus Christ.

http://dsc.discovery.com...
The tomb that was found had boxes with Jesus Christ's supposed bones. Some believe that this development contradicts Bible canon, but I say it does not. Who is to say that when Jesus ascended into heaven that he did not leave his earthly body behind? After-all all of the dead are promised a new body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

http://www.biblegateway.com...
2) The Creation of the World according to Genesis world doesn't contradict modern science.

In Genesis 1:2 it says:
" Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

The earth was empty and formless. Now I've already said that what I say might contradict teachings of the Bible, but there is proof outside of the bible that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

According to Christian Tradition God has existed for all of time. God didn't create time but he has always existed within the dimension(s) of time. According to genesis 1:2 it is reasonable to infer that The earth had always existed, but in a void state. God was the one who gave it life. My only burden (according to the resolution is to prove it possible that a god exists. Maybe when God says he is the creator of the universe He means the universe as we no it, not every single dimension. We are not here to debate the origin of God, but whether God exists or not. My contention is indeed that God has been omnipresent within the existence of time.

3) Earthly miracles
Laminine, a protein that holds the body together is cross shaped. A daily reminder that God's presence and sacrifice is always with us.

4) The perfect placement of the earth
We are the only planet in the habitable zone. We fit like a glove inside this zone, and all of the other planets fall outside of this zone. This cannot be just a coincidence, but an evidence for intelligent design.

5) The creation theory is just as probable as the Evolutionary theory

They are both deemed theories, which are defined as : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action by the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary available at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

The word probable using the same dictionary's definition means:
supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof

The key phrase here is "not proof". In this debate I don't have to prove anything. I just have to provide evidence that each THEORY is as likely to have been the causation of life. Using simple statistics I can show that the existence of the Christian God is as equally as probable as any other THEORY.

I rest my case and await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and for his response :). To make it clear, any reference to "God" will refer to my opponent's conception of god. He has made it clear that the god he is seeking to prove is the familiar Judeo-Christian God, one that is described in the Bible. He has 5 arguments, so I will refute them accordingly in a linear fashion.

====================
Argument #1 - The existence of Jesus Christ
====================

The issue of whether or not Jesus Christ (as a human) existed is of no concern or importance to me. Because I DO believe he has existed, though only as a human who's influence has been blown wildly out of proportion. So while Discovery does give evidence for Jesus' existence, this does NOT give evidence for Jesus as a god - which this debate is about.

It would also like to point out an interesting passage in the link he gave: "The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah." A troubling fact when coupled with Christian theology, is it not?

====================
Argument #2 - The Creation of the World according to Genesis world doesn't contradict modern science.
====================

My opponent makes several small claims to justify this claim, so I'll go ahead and quote them and refute them accordingly. However, before I do this I want to point out something important the very argument. It's useless. Even if the Bible were to align with science, this doesn't mean it's necessarily true (and one has to ask whether or not changing staffs to snakes and talking bushes of fire aligns with science). If the Bible wanted to make it clear that it has a divine nature, then perhaps a scienfitic prediction centuries ahead can attest to it's truth. Obviously, there is none. Now onto his claims:

>>>"The earth was empty and formless...The earth had always existed, but in a void state."<<<

If the world was empty and formless in a time before, what the heck was it? What kind of properties did "early Earth" have when it is formless or void?

>>>"Now I've already said that what I say might contradict teachings of the Bible, but there is proof outside of the bible that the Judeo-Christian God exists."<<<

If it contradicts the teachings of the Bible, THEN IT'S WRONG. You can't go changing aspects of Christian theology as you see fit.

>>>"My contention is indeed that God has been omnipresent within the existence of time."<<<

And you have yet to do anything to further this claim. Citing scripture is not evidence. If it was, then by virtue of your reasoning, the teachings of Dianetics, of the Koran, and any fictional work speaks the truth. Not only does this bring us to ridiculous conclusions, but it actually produces logical contradictions. To hit that lowpoint is not really a good goal in attempting to prove the existence of God ;).

====================
Argument #3 - Earthly miracles
====================

What a funny argument :). I've come across this argument before, but it fails not to amuse me, and here are the reasons why:

1. One simple protein that happens to be shaped in a cross (which isn't that much of a complicated design when you consider other shapes in nature) does not mean evidence for an "intellgient designer". How does my opponent jump from a simple coincedence to the existence of a god? There are many things in nature that seemed designed, but aren't - such as snowflakes.
2. Even if this was evidence for an intelligent designer, it wouldn't prove my opponent's burden. He still has to show that this particular creator is the SAME ONE as my opponent's conception - the Judeo-Abrahamic god. Why can't it be a Greek god, or a god we've never known about?
3. It's funny, for once I agree with AiG (Answer in Genesis), one of the most prominent creationist websites/organizations. In response to this supposed laminin evidence, they stated that "the Ebola virus, which causes a horrific form of hemorrhagic fever that usually results in death, happens to have the structure of what is commonly referred to as a shepherd's crook. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14). So, if the shape of laminin supports the biblical truth that Christ holds all things together, then what would we conclude about the Good Shepherd from the shape of the Ebola virus?"[1].

====================
Argument #4 - The perfect placement of the earth
====================

My opponent's argument, which basically falls under the category of "fine-tuning", fails for these two out of many reasons:

1. When you consider how so many planets out there are incredibly inhospitable, it doesn't seem to be so much of a coincedence.
2. Your argument pales in comparison when you realize that you are pitting humans as the end goal for the universe - we are NOT. The universe does not need humans to exist for itself to exist, and in place of humans an entirely different species of organisms could have taken our place; and nothing would've changed. It's called the anthropic principle[2].

====================
Argument #5 - The creation theory is just as probable as the Evolutionary theory
====================

My opponent's understanding of a scientific theory is abhorrently incorrect. Not only is his understanding of the basic fundamental of science is wrong, but his definition of "theory" is even out of context (a scientific theory is not a policy laying the basis of action).

The real definition of a scientific theory is an explantation that is backed with evidence to allow it to create predictions and explain phenomena. It is THE MOST VALUABLE thing in science, taking precedence over hypothesis, facts, and laws. Take a gander at several of my sources to understand what it means[2][3][4].

====================
Conclusion
====================

Well, that's all of it. I await my opponent's response.

---References---
1. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
2. http://www.wilstar.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://chemistry.about.com...
thejudgeisgod

Pro

I again would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. I also appreciate his organization of his arguments. In this round I will rebut his counterarguments.

(1) The existence of Jesus Christ.

"The issue of whether or not Jesus Christ (as a human) existed is of no concern or importance to me."
The existence of Jesus Christ as a human does apply to this debate. Proof of his existence brings an amount of validity to Biblical Scripture.

And as for the issue that Jesus Christ had a son does not have a negative impact on my case. Since The Bible can only be speculated about, it can be reasoned that Jesus was talking to his spn when he said "behold your mother", whilst on the cross. My opponent makes an assumption that I agree that the Biible is 100% correct. I do not have to. I hold know connection to any church, while I make this argument, but the god of Abraham himself. The Christian religion is dynamic. The interpretation of the bible can change when new evidence is uncovered.

2) The creation of the world according to Genesis doesn't contradict modern science.
My opponent once again incorrectly assumes that I believe the Bible to be faultless. I never made such a claim. My opponent asks the question, "What the heck was it? in response to: "The Earth was empty and formless". My response it was in a blank slate and the Abrahamic God gave it life. He made it sustainable for life, he wanted like an artist, to create a masterpiece. The burning Bush and the staff were Godly miracles not everyday occurrences. I said that the creation according to Genesis directly aligns with the Bible.

My opponent then states that " You can't go changing aspects of Christian theology as you see fit." why not? as I had said before Christianity is dynamic, and so therefore, are the opinions of its believers. Opinions vary from Church to Church. My opponents then says (i assume quite emphatically) "THEN ITS WRONG." Oh really? So when a scientist comes up with a new idea that takes certain principles from another and applies them as they seem fit, does it make either of them wrong? NO. It means that they have varying opinions. Again, as in my opponents own guidelines that its probable that the Abrahamic God exists.

The perfect placement of the earth.
My opponent actually strengthens my case with this contention. "When you consider how so many planets out there are incredibly inhospitable, it doesn't seem to be so much of a coincidence." Exactly! The hospitable zone is so minuscule, that it is indeed a miracle of God that we exist. This zone is perfect evidence of an intelligent creator, because of the sheer size of the universe. What science has to offer isn't any more probable then my argument. This theory assumes that an extremely hot and dense "universe" blew up and created space as we know it. With so much probability and mathematical chance involved in such an assumption, I say that it is equally possible that the Judeo-Christian God placed earth in the center of the hospitable zone.

My opponent does not employ any levels of "proof" that are more true than my own. Neither of us can concretely prove that a God did or did not exist, so the only job of the voters is to realize that this debate is not about proof but likelihood.

Think about it. What is more likely? That as, my opponent suggests that we as humans exist, just out of random chance that is based on conceptual mathematics, or a creator, who placed us here on its accord, within, the tiny hospitable zone, so that we could experience life, which it created from a void and empty space? Ponder that, and when you are done, vote aff.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and for his organization as well.

=====================
Argument #1 - The existence of Jesus Christ
=====================

>>>"The existence of Jesus Christ as a human does apply to this debate. Proof of his existence brings an amount of validity to Biblical Scripture<<<

Uh, no it doesn't. Just because Jesus existed as person doesn't mean he existed as a DIVINE BEING (which is obviously the topic of this debate). There's a distinct difference between being a normal man and being a god. At most, the Bible shows evidence for some man named Jesus Christ who lived 2000 years ago.

>>>"And as for the issue that Jesus Christ had a son does not have a negative impact on my case. Since The Bible can only be speculated about...The Christian religion is dynamic. The interpretation of the bible can change when new evidence is uncovered."<<<

The problem with this is that you hold no room in error for Christianity. You simply mold and shape the religion as evidence goes along. You come with a predisposed CONCLUSION and gather the evidence from there. This is an erroneous epistemological attitude. You can't simply change Christian theology to bend to the evidence; it either is backed up by the evidence or it isn't. So far, it hasn't.

====================
Argument #2 - The Creation of the World according to Genesis world doesn't contradict modern science.
====================

>>>"My opponent once again incorrectly assumes that I believe the Bible to be faultless."<<<

If you believe the Bible has faults, then what passages can you trust?! What verses can you say is true, and others say is false?! As stated in my previous argument, my opponent has a barrier against anything that disproves Christianity. If new evidence comes up, he changes the theology. If something is flat out incorrect, he simply states that it is wrong. This kind of thinking will never lead to any valid conclusions, but mere illusions.

>>>"My response it was in a blank slate and the Abrahamic God gave it life."<<<

What exactly does it mean the earth is in a "blank slate"? The formation of the Earth had nothing to do with blank slates, or whatever it metaphorically refers to.

>>>"I said that the creation according to Genesis directly aligns with the Bible.<<<

Well duh, the creation story was writing in the Bible. Of course it aligns with the Bible. A = A. This isn't even an argument.

>>>"Opinions vary from Church to Church. My opponents then says (i assume quite emphatically) "THEN ITS WRONG." Oh really? So when a scientist comes up with a new idea that takes certain principles from another and applies them as they seem fit, does it make either of them wrong? NO. It means that they have varying opinions.<<<

The main difference between you habit of molding theology and a scientist deriving principles from other theories is that the scientist STILL ABIDES BY THE THEORIES. When someone formulates a new theory (called X) based off older theories (called Y), X can't violate Y, because Y is the FOUNDATION of X.

However, you're constant molding creates contradictions and clashes. Many Christian denominations state that Jesus never had a son, or said the Bible is flawless. How can you reconcile these differing opinions? By showing evidence, not by bending it.

====================
Argument #3 - Earthly miracles
====================

My opponent has no replies to this argument - it is a forfeit until a response is made.

====================
Argument #4 - The perfect placement of the earth
====================

Ah, my apologies for the spelling error. I meant to put quotation marks around "coincidence", to show that IT ISN'T one. However, for my opponent to ignore this minor mistake and my other arguments, and to simply dismiss the entire counterargument, is disingenuous.

My opponent's argument concerning fine-tuning fails -- and I've stated this before -- because he puts humans as the final goal of the universe. This is a mistake. The universe DOES NOT NEED humans to exist, it could have very well existed with some other organism in our place. The reason why we exist is explained by the anthropic principle.

Note that these arguments have been stated before, and my opponent has simply ignored them.

>>>"My opponent does not employ any levels of "proof" that are more true than my own. Neither of us can concretely prove that a God did or did not exist, so the only job of the voters is to realize that this debate is not about proof but likelihood."<<<

Of course. BECAUSE I STATED THAT IN MY FIRST ROUND.

====================
Argument #5 - The creation theory is just as probable as the Evolutionary theory
====================

My opponent has no replies to this argument - it is a forfeit until a response is made.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent's awkward thinking has lead to a misguided account of Christian theology. He starts with a conclusion and ends with the evidence - his process of thinking is backwards.
thejudgeisgod

Pro

I would like to apologize for my tardiness in posting on this issue.

For my final speech I would like to say that I affirm the entities that make up the Judeo-Christian faiths. One of my fundamental beliefs is that Christianity is dynamic. There are innumerable divisions within the umbrella term Christian and under my right as a beqliever I can interpret the Bible however I choose. There is no set "Christian Doctrine"

With that said I will again say that yes... the possibility hat the Christ did have a son will bother some traditional Christians, we can find no Biblical scripture than attests to this, so the only point I was trying to make is that Jesus Christ, the man, actually existed. Which gives some degree of validity to New Testament scripture.

As far as the preterrestrial earth, as I said earlier as it says in Genesis 1:2 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The earth was in a void state of being.

My apologies for the Creation aligns with the bible thing, it should have been the Creation story aligns with science. If you remember, my contention in that regard was that God had always existent within time, in that he has no beginning and he has no end.

As for my opponent's contention that in Science if X is a theory after Y is a theory and they are related then X must use Y in its foundation. If scientist A wants to prove scientist B wrong about a theory all scientist A has to do is show that scientist B cannot be concretely right in one situation. He does not have to abide by scientist B's findings.

I did not ignore your claims about humans at the center. I believe God put life at the center and therefore placed earth in the center of the universe. You are right the universe does not need life to exist. Science however, relies on mathematical and scientific formulas based on chance neither one is less likely than the other. that is my point, this is an issue that is best left up to faith. My opponent has faith in the fallible minds of scientists and their equations, whereas I have faith in a supreme being who cares for its creation. My opponent can charge me of being scientifically incorrect all he wants, but if, in the end of the round, and this debate he can take away one thing it is that I will always believe. I thank him for this debate.
I only ask the voters to vote for what they believe to be the case, because it will lways be scientist says A creationist says B. Vote for what you believe. Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Con

Wow wow, so many fundamental errors that's hard to keep up. I'll continue using the format I used before, but the substance of my opponent's argument has significantly dwindled.

=====================
Argument #1 - The existence of Jesus Christ
=====================

>>>"One of my fundamental beliefs is that Christianity is dynamic. There are innumerable divisions within the umbrella term Christian and under my right as a beqliever I can interpret the Bible however I choose.<<<

Are you kidding me? Yes, you don't HAVE to abide by one interpretation of Christianity, as long as you have justifications for believing otherwise. To be a Calvinist, you need to have sufficient theological reasoning to show why your position is correct when compared to Protestants. You, on the other hand, have shown NO grounds - either secular or theological - for your Christian interpretation. Again, as I stated before, you arrived with a conclusion and you're just seeking for the evidence; a backwards way of reasoning.

This kind of mental processing ranks up high with being illogical. It avoids criticism and relies on blind faith, which you actually refer to in this debate. If you can tell your critics that I can "interpret the Bible however I choose", then you can escape any refutation. There is nothing to refute when we have such to deal with such a position.

>>>"...so the only point I was trying to make is that Jesus Christ, the man, actually existed. Which gives some degree of validity to New Testament scripture."<<<

Uh no. Just because some dusty old text talked about a man who lived before doesn't mean it's divinely inspired. Does this mean the Koran is divine? Does this mean the Dianetics of Scientology is divine?! However, even if we are to assume that it lends some credibility, to jump to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the resurrected Savior of the world is a very, very long leap in logic.

====================
Argument #2 - The Creation of the World according to Genesis world doesn't contradict modern science.
====================

Again I ask you to be more specific, but you keep giving me vague and UNscientific terms. The earth was in a void state of being? What does that even scientifically MEAN?

Seriously, this point can be forfeited on my opponent's side. He has given me NOTHING to even back up that the the Creation story of Genesis is aligned with science. In fact, stating the the earth was in a void state of being is not scientific, since the Earth was formed much differently.

Lastly, he has constantly ignored my point that it doesn't matter if the Creation story aligns with science, because ANY book can! The Koran can, Dianetics conceptually can (aliens can exist), so on and so forth. If you really wanted to see evidence for the Bible's divinity, perhaps a prediction that can be accurately shown by calculations and science later is something - like a cure for cancer in the Bible or something. Not fairy tales anyone can make up.

>>>"If scientist A wants to prove scientist B wrong about a theory all scientist A has to do is show that scientist B cannot be concretely right in one situation. He does not have to abide by scientist B's findings."<<<

Yes, but have you done that for any of your wild interpretations of the Bible? No. You see, the key difference between a scientist disproving a theory and you interpreting the Bible however you want is that YOU NEED SUFFICIENT REASON TO. A scientist can't disprove a theory if he can't show where it's wrong, in the same way you can't say your interpretation of the Bible is superior if you have no way of reasoning why.

====================
Argument #3 - Earthly miracles
====================

No argument here, my opponent has stated nothing so this is dropped again. Remember his argument about Laminine, the protein? He has yet to say anything to my refutations.

====================
Argument #4 - The perfect placement of the earth
====================

>>>"I did not ignore your claims about humans at the center. I believe God put life at the center and therefore placed earth in the center of the universe."<<<

Oh wow, that's just pure assertions. Just because you "believe" that God made humans the end goal of the universe DOES NOT MEAN IT IS. Come on, this is a debate - do you really think you can get away with mere assertions?

Secondly, it is scientifically false that the earth is the center of the universe, due to the Copernican principle[1].

>>>"You are right the universe does not need life to exist."<<<

How funny, you just contradicted your sentence before that stated humans ARE the goal of the universe.

>>>"Science however, relies on mathematical and scientific formulas based on chance neither one is less likely than the other."<<<

Science is based on chance? Really? Here, try an experiment. Jump off a building and tell me if gravity is just "chance".

>>>"My opponent has faith in the fallible minds of scientists and their equations, whereas I have faith in a supreme being who cares for its creation. My opponent can charge me of being scientifically incorrect all he wants, but if, in the end of the round, and this debate he can take away one thing it is that I will always believe."<<<

No, I believe in the power of the scientific method, and of empirical evidence. While empirical evidence is fallible, it doesn't mean everything is up for grabs - certain claims are more probable to be true than others. And while there is some degree of fallibility, to put faith in a supreme being for whom you have no reason to believe in is worse. It's a suicide of reason.

And don't you think it's funny how you try to discredit science when initially you attempted to use it to prove God existed? More contradictions again.

====================
Conclusion
====================

I am wholeheartedly unimpressed with my opponent. With his initial arguments, which were bad enough, he has dwindled to the point of saying "science sucks, I have faith, I win". This is a debate, not who can shout louder.

>>>"I only ask the voters to vote for what they believe to be the case, because it will always be scientist says A creationist says B. Vote for what you believe."<<<

No, voters should vote for who argued the best, irrespective of their own positions. And on that note, it should be clear who won this debate. I have several unanswered arguments, and the rest were easily backed up.

VOTE CON.

---References---
1. http://www.physorg.com...
thejudgeisgod

Pro

thejudgeisgod forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
How come Skeptic completely crushed Thejudgeisgod, and yet they are tied? Something must be done about this!
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Haha true that, true that.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Should really re-name them Any Sensational Idea Channel 1 and 2. :P
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Don't trust the Discovery Channel. Really. They air crap hypothesis' reguarly."

Not to mention History Channel :).
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Discovery believes they have found the tomb of Jesus Christ of Nazareth."

Yeahhhhhhhh...no. It's a load of garbage.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Evidence that part of the inscription is a fake too. Don't trust the Discovery Channel. Really. They air crap hypothesis' reguarly.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
TheSkepticthejudgeisgodTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
TheSkepticthejudgeisgodTied
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 Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
TheSkepticthejudgeisgodTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
TheSkepticthejudgeisgodTied
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 MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
TheSkepticthejudgeisgodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 8 years ago
thejudgeisgod
TheSkepticthejudgeisgodTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticthejudgeisgodTied
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