The Instigator
kwagga_la
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The KJV1611 Translation is best to use in the English Language

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 101919
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

kwagga_la

Pro

The KJV1611 is the best Translation to use in the English language. This is based on the Manuscripts it was translated from and that it agrees with the beliefs of the early Christian Church.

As Con, it is up to you to present arguments why the KJV1611 is not the best English Translation to be used and why it would be inferior to other Translations. Please start from the first round to present your arguments. Thanks.
Jonbonbon

Con

I left a comment on this debate asking whether or not I should forego my last round (not forfeit, but post "no round") in order to balance out the arguments, so depending on how that goes, I may have an extra round. Just so all the voters are kept up to speed.

Anyway, this is a refreshing topic. I don't think I've seen this around. Sometimes it's nice to get to those topics outside the norm.

My Burden:


As my opponent said, I'm going to be proving that KJG1611 is currently inferior to other versions. I'm not going to argue that it's less correct than other versions, just that it's less practical in the modern era. Being impractical will justify it as inferior since the purpose of the Bible is for people to know God and His will.

My Constructive Argument:

First I believe I need to cover the English language. As with any language, English becomes harder to read the further you go from the point that it was said. Let me give you an example. This is from a text written in English about 600 years before the KJV1611.

HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð [1]

Can you read that? A little before KJV1611 was written, that may have made some sense. It was their sort of ancient English. These days you would never know what that says without the help of someone who studies old English or an online source created by that same person I just mentioned. This is the story of Beowulf written around 1,000 AD [2]. For the curious at heart, I'll post the site that had the ancient English and old English versions together [3], but it's only necessary if you need an illustration beyond what I just did.

KJV1611 was published in the same year as its last four digits: 1611. For those who weren't counting, it's 2017, over 400 years later. We can still understand it if we slow down and really read it, but remember that Beowful was written only about 600 years before KJV, and 500 before the Geneva bible. Do you see where I'm going with this?

The point:

We know that KJV was the text used classically in America, but does that mean we should use it? The Geneva translation was used for generations before King James ordered the creation of a new translation.

You may be wondering out of curiosity how the Geneva Bible reads when compared to the King James Version. Here's a verse from each [4]:

Geneva:
Then the eies of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed figge tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches.

KJV1611:
Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed figge tree leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Throughout both texts, they readly quite similarly, but ther are certain things that make the Geneva Bible less understandable than KJV such as the spelling of "eyes" and the transition from the word "breeches" to "aprons.

So from my side we can say that the KJV is superior to its predecessor, because at least when we read that verse in the KJV we know what it means. But do we always know what it means or does the classical dialect make the KJV more solid a version than modern versions?

To respond to this, I need to answer two questions: do modern translations differ significantly from KJV and why was the writing in KJV chosen to be the way it was?

On Modern Translations:

While the KJV and even the NKJV follow the original manuscripts at an impressive accuracy, the accuracy doesn't mean much if we still don't understand it. Here's Hebrews 2:17-18 in the KJV [5]:

“Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”
And in the NIV [5]:

“For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

To the average English reader, the latter choice is far more understandable, and that's what we want right? We don't want people to look at the Bible and shut it after the first sentence. We want them to keep reading. Making our translation more outdated makes our faith seem just as antique, but our God is here right now. He communicates with us in this time, and he's still alive. He didn't just come down 2000 years ago and stop talking to us.

So the fact that we use more modern language in newer translations doesn't hinder us from knowing God. In fact, the examples I provided mean the same thing, but one of them just doesn't cause headaches to the average reader. That one should likely be preferred.

On Old English:

KJV was written in the modern tongue of 1611. They did attempt to keep to the strict wording of the manuscripts, but they did also translate it into their contemporary English. Those are the reasons they chose for their translation of the Bible.

Accuracy:

For accuracy in translation in the New Testament I go to the Mounce Reverse-Interllinear New Testament. The Greek was translated the only way Greek can properly be translated into English, and he keeps the original Greek words under the text so you can see what the original word meant and what it could've meant and even how it was used other places in the Bible. It tends to be the most accurate translation of the New Testament (but alas, the Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew, so the Greek translation doesn't work for that).

I'm going to compare a passage from Mounce and a passage from KJV, which we know is an incredibly accurate translation.

Mounce - Luke 4:3 [6]:

The devil saidtohim, “Ifyouare theSonofGod,tellthisstone to become bread.”

KJV - Luke 4:3 [7]:

And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

I'll note the differences. The first glaring difference is that the KJV didn't use quotation marks, which in modern English would be a grammatical error. The second difference you may notice is the phrase"thou be" replacing the phrase"you are." The third difference is that we intertchange the words "tell" and "command," which is, again, a choice of the times. The fourth difference is that we have the word "become" in place of the phrase "that it be made."

This may look silly to you. Why does it look silly that I'm pointing out these differences? They say the exact same thing using different words, and now you have arrived at the point. They don't mean anything different. They don't even really say anything different. But one of them is slightly easier to read. You may look at the single sentence and say "it's not that hard," but imagine reading the longest book you can find in every motel south of Missouri all in that speak. Most modern readers would become annoyed or bored with it just because of the language.

However, modern generations reading it may prefer Mounce. Afterall, this is as accurate as you get. If you click on the link, you'll see the Greek underlining the English. The bonus is that it's incredibly easier to read for extended periods of time. Plus it's fun. The original Greek translation of the New Testament is beautiful.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic there.

The point again is that we don't forfeit accuracy for the sake of modern language. But we would sacrifice avid Bible readers for the sake of a classical translation if we were to prefer the KJV. It would be a shame, because people should read the whole Bible. The Bible just makes so much more sense when you read the whole thing.

Study:

For the purpose of study, it's best to read several translations and scholarly sources anyway. So while studying the Bible the KJV should be a part of that study, but not the most signficant part. Just something used to help broaden ones understanding.

Conclusion:

Just as we cannot read the original text of Beaowulf, the KJV's English is becoming increasingly outdated and harder to read. So why still consider it superior? More modern translations are far superior for getting a good understanding of the Bible as far as readability goes and such. We may even find that in 200 years, the KJV will look as foreign as Beaowful's text does now, and the NIV or another modern translation will be their version of the KJV.

It's not bad that this is happening. It's still the word of God, and it still means the same thing. It's just more practical and thus, superior.


Sources:
Debate Round No. 1
kwagga_la

Pro

Thank you for accepting the Debate!

Con states that the point of her argument is that she wants to show that the KJV1611 is impractical and therefore inferior to modern version of the Bible. She states that her primary focus is not on the correctness of the Bible but rather that it is less practical. There was a lot mentioned but I will answer the following points that I think sums up what was said.

The reasons sited to justify her argument are as follows, followed by my rebuttal:

1. Languages become archaic and therefore use words not known in modern times.

I agree that languages become archaic and that certain words are not understood anymore because it is not commonly used. However that does not mean it is impractical. The KJV1611 still contain English words recognizable to anyone who can read English even today:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Even though the word "believeth" is used, everyone knows what it means and can understand the passage. Out of the whole passage you have one word that is pronounced slightly differently but can still be understood. The argument for simplicity and comprehension is also a little one sided if you ask me. The modern versions are quick to point out where they improved on the KJV1611 English but remain silent where
they actually are worse than the KJV. Consider the following
comparison between the NIV and KJV:

NIV - acclamation 2 Chr 15:14 KJV " voice

NIV - annotations 2 Chr 13:22 KJV " story

NIV - blustering Job 8:2 KJV - strong

NIV " brooches Ex 35:22 KJV " bracelets

These examples should be enough to prove my point. More examples can be found at http://www.av1611.org.... A problem I have
with Modern translations in English who claim to update only the
language is that they often lie. For example: The NKJV uses as it"s
base the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament and only refer to the Masoretic text used by the KJV1611 translators
(https://en.wikipedia.org...). Do you think it is honest of them to name their version the NEW King James Version when they do not use the same manuscripts as the base for translating? I don't. Considering the examples given above it becomes evident that even though the new versions use modern words it also do not guarantee practicality and comprehension and therefore should also be regarded
then as inferior to be consistent with your argument. This leaves you basically with an option to use one of the best inferior Bibles
available. The language used in the KJV1611 might be difficult to
comprehend in America but British people do not have a problem to understand what is considered archaic in America (but let me deal with this under no. 3). By condemning the KJV1611 based on practically as inferior you also condemned the new versions along with it because where they improve in one place they fail in another place.

2. Impressive accuracy does not necessarily guarantee understanding.

In the same way, using modern words for better understanding does not guarantee accuracy. In fact, for the sake of understanding, new doctrines are introduced that conflict with others.

KJV1611 " Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

ESV - And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.

KJV1611 " Luke 2:43 - And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

ESV - And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,

The NT records people referring to Joseph as the father of Jesus
because they did not understand who he was. The NT writers never did so and took care to make the distinction. Here the ESV (and other new versions) might be easier to read but was Joseph really father the father of Jesus? Or was it God? Or is Joseph God? Or was God not the father of Jesus, which basically makes Jesus a liar. Was Jesus adopted? The verse does not say that. It introduces a new doctrine. This is not a single passage but echoed in other passages where Joseph and Mary become the parents of Jesus.

3. Using modern language does not hinder us from knowing God.

I agree, but using "archaic" English also do not hinder knowing God. What do you do when you get to a difficult word in a modern translation? You use a dictionary of course! If that is the case then you can also use a dictionary when it comes to KJV1611 "archaic" words. I have yet to meet someone who has read the KJV1611 version and studied it who does not know what the Thee"s and Thou"s mean. The Bible says: "study to show yourself approved". If people study a bit more rather than relying on others to make things easier for them then I would say that we will see more serious Christians around than the happy feel good mentality that goes around today. Can you name the 10 commandments in sequence right here right now while reading this without using google or some other means to assist you? If you cannot then I think you will see my point.

4. Accuracy " Mounce is the most accurate translation of the New Testament.

Mounce"s accuracy might be relative to the Greek base he used but do not necessarily means it is the most accurate in terms of the text used by the ancient church. He uses the Nestle/Aland text which is different from the Textus Receptus and therefore not very accurate in representing what the early church believed
(https://www.christianbook.com...). Translation accuracy in this case does not ensure staying true to the Orthodox Christian religion.

5. Different words can be used to express the same idea.

I also agree with you regarding this but new versions go a little too far in some respects.

1 Samuel 20:30

KJV1611 - "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman"

New Living Translation - "You stupid son of a whore!"

The Living Bible - "You son of a bitch!"

Thanks to popular media like TV, Movies, Comics and music (not to mention domestic violence) the last version is known by young and old all over America. Definitely much easier to understand than the rebellious woman but we need to ask ourselves: Is this type of language fitting to be used in what we call a "Holy" Bible? Is this where we are heading for the sake of practicality and comprehension? I think using such expressions to covey and idea for the sake practicality will truly change the way we conduct our church services.

The KJV1611 also use the word "dung". The translators of the KJV1611 obviously where pious men who sought the most decent rendering available. Do you think we should replace this word with the popular modern 4 letter word commonly known today and usually used in conjunction with "bull"?

6. For the purpose of study, it is best to read several translations
and scholary sources.

They still teach Shakespeare and poetry up to University level today. People who love and study these subjects are familiar with the expressions used and terminology although outdated. In the same way someone who loves the KJV1611 will do the same. The more you read, the more familiar you will get with it. Studying to understand nullifies any argument about the comprehension level of a certain translation. The Gospel is easy to understand but moving from milk to the meat, like Paul says, require studying. Practicality and "easier" words will never replace studying. Studying will lead to practicality and the comprehension of modern and arhaic words.
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you for that round. Now comes my response

An Affirmative Case?

My opponent has responded with a thorough rebuttal to my part, but he has not presented an affirmative argument. The most we have is that the KJV1611 agrees more with the early church, and that it's accurate according to its manuscripts.


We're not, however, given a reason why this makes it the best. We just know that my opponent believes this is significant. I know that my opponent asked me to present a constructive argument for my side, but even if he were to completely destroy my side, we still wouldn't know why we should agree with him. In order for pro to win, we must see the reasons that the resolution statement should be believed.

As a reminder for those who don't necessarily know the technical aspects of the debate, in order for me to win, I need to prove that my opponent is wrong. In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that he is right. If he simply proves me wrong, that does not guarantee that he is right, which means we can't vote for him because he may still be wrong. Let's be honest, I do not know every nuance or particular detail of every modern translation of the Bible (there's a lot). I could be missing arguments that someone else may know just out of a lack of knowledge.

Anyway, enough on that. Let's get into my response to my opponent's response.

Archaic Language:

I find it funny that my opponent starts out with a verse that includes the word "begotten" then chooses the word "believeth" to address. It's easy to figure out what "believeth" means, but what does "begotten" mean? Well, we say "begat" in the KJV for denoting that someone fathered someone, but is that what it means? We actually run into problems with this, because if Jesus was technically "begotten" then Jesus is entirely a created being, but only his body was created.

In the Greek the word begotten actually means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind," [1] which is something you wouldn't know without the help of other sources like Mounce. So while it translates directly from the manuscript as a word for word, it doesn't translate well for the meaning. This is why as a kid we often learn it as "one and only" because that doesn't imply that Jesus was created, only that he is completely unique as the Son of God.

Another example is 2 Timothy 2:15 to show that KJV1611 isn't necessarily the best version. In KJV1611 it reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Personally, my eyes glaze right over that in a causal read, and I take no meaning from it. In another translation, the Modern English Version (MEV), "Study to show yourself approved by God, a workman who need not be ashamed, dividing the word of truth."

It's not much different, but the modern English makes it so much more pleasing to the eye. It translates into the modern dialect so that we as modern readers can understand better. The other verse is just a particularly weird verse to translate in your mind as you're reading, and that is another problem.

Translating as You Read:

It's exhausting to translate as you read. I definitely don't read the KJV as long as I read other modern versions, because I expend too much energy understanding it in modern English. Your mind still speaks modern English, so when you're reading a sort of foreign looking English, your mind does extra work to put it into the modern English that it doesn't have to do with a Bible that is translated into modern English.

So far my opponent has only shown a few flaws with a couple versions, but overall, the KJV1611 is much more exhausting to read. Even still, my opponent specifically attacked the NIV, a translation that was written in 1978 [2]. In that time, they may have used those long words a lot more than we did. I don't know, that was my parent's time. And it's too late for me to call them to see if they recognize those words.

Modern Inaccuracy:

The meaning of the verses isn't actually changed in the translation, but the challenge is brought up about whether or not we should refer to Joseph as Jesus' father. We refer to Mary as Jesus' mother because she gave birth to him, but was her DNA a part of it too? Was she technically the mother from a biological standpoint?

It doesn't really matter honestly. How many of us call God "Father"? It's quite common, especially since Jesus referred to him as "our father" despite Jesus being his begotten son. But we have fathers aside from God. Or someone who fathered us at least. So is one of them not a father? No that's ridiculous. So we have two fathers then. The father who is charged as the head of our household and the father who created and guides the universe. The father of all things.

So why couldn't Jesus refer to Joseph as his father? He did treat Joseph as if he was his father whether he referred to him as his "dad" or not. But Jesus was part of the household of Joseph who was a descendant of David, and part of the prophecy concerning Jesus is that he was a descendant of David. So honestly, it seems more correct to refer to Joseph as Jesus' father, because that means that Jesus is the descendant of David, which fulfills one of the prophecies concerning him.

Early Church:

What early church are we talking about? Are we talking about the church in the book of Acts or the church at Corinth or the church in Rome under secular rule or the early Roman Catholic church or the Anglican church (the church that wrote the KJV1611)? And what are the specific differences in belief that makes Mounce less accurate than KJV1611.

Wording:

We don't consider The Living Translation a translation of the Bible. It's a paraphrase, like the Message version. I wouldn't argue either of them are better than the KJV1611 under any circumstances, because no matter how easy to read they are, they don't even usually capture the full meaning of the Bible [3].

Aside from that, I could honestly say that we can get closer to the New Living Translation in the modern culture without being unpious. It does get across the meaning of what the person was saying. Even then the MEV says "You son of a perverse rebellious woman." Almost word-for-word with KJV1611 except that it updates the English a smidge, making it less exhausting to read in the long-run.

Loving the KJV1611:

These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone who says they love the KJV1611. Especially someone who's a new Christian or nonbeliever. And why would we favor a Bible that doesn't immediately reach out to people who don't know God? It seems that at least the MEV, which seems to just be an almost word-for-word modern update of the KJV1611, is superior to KJV1611 for the purpose of someone reading it without having to study the language.

Sources:
[1] https://www.str.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://www.gotquestions.org...

Debate Round No. 2
kwagga_la

Pro

I stated in the opening round that I think the KJV is best because of the manuscripts they use. This debate took a slightly different approach and is now regarding comprehension and practicality. My approach to the debate so far is to show that the reasons you give to prove that the KJV is inferior to the modern versions is to highlight that these new versions are guilty of the same accusations you make against the KJV and is thus not better in respect of comprehension and practicality and therefore the KJV is not inferior. By doing this it will be shown that practicality and comprehension issues are actually private opinion and therefore cannot be used as a general principle to cast judgement between different versions. What is good for you might not be good for me and visa versa. To illustrate my point: Some students have difficulty comprehending math and many students do not bother to continue studying math in later years because it is not practical to study math when the career they chose do not require it. Does this make math incomprehensible and impractical? No it does not and the reason is because it is not a universal principle that applies to everyone. It is illogical to use personal opinion as the guiding factor to establish some rule.

I am of the opinion that comprehension and practicality is not a good reason to make a universal judgement to classify Bible Versions of any kind and therefore a modern version might be better for YOU but not for ALL. At this point I will encourage the readers to vote for you in the debate. I debate to test what I believe and to expose myself to different opinions to verify what I test. The purpose for debating topics, for me, is not to win. It is easy to create a debate where I will win every time like using a topic about whether you beat your wife or not. The main question will be: Have you beaten your wife lately?

To rebut your arguments:

"As a reminder for those who don't necessarily know the technical aspects of the debate, in order for me to win, I need to prove that my opponent is wrong. In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that he is right."

The KJV1611 was proven to require a lower education level to be able to read it based on the Flesch-Kincaid method. This method takes into account the number of syllables in a word and how many times low syllable words are used (http://www.av1611.org...). On a technical level that should settle the topic between us with the KJV161 winning. Unfortunately it is not that simple because the use of a one or two syllable word does not mean much if the meaning is not known.

Archaic Language:

Pointing out the word "begotten" as not familiar and then explaining the meaning reinforce my point that with a little studying comprehension can be gained and therefore studying nullifies and argument against a text based on comprehension and practicality. You actually contradict your own opinion by referring to the "original" Greek. Koine Greek used in the Bible manuscripts is different from Modern Greek . Yet you have no problem studying words in an archaic language but have a problem with archaic words in the KJV1611. Again, to be consistent with your argument you should also avoid the Greek because it is archaic. The apparent contradiction in your preference of using an archaic Greek text but arguing that archaic English is inferior can only be viewed as your opinion. It is not the same situation with everyone who is presented with the same material.

Translating as You Read:

"It's exhausting to translate as you read."

I understand your argument, but once again this is your opinion and preference. All people reading the KJV do not necessarily have to translate while they read. They understand what they read based on familiarity etc.

"Even still, my opponent specifically attacked the NIV, a translation that was written in 1978 [2]. "

I have not specifically attacked the NIV. I chose scriptures from the NIV, ESV, Living Bible and Living Translation. In your response you actually regard the MEV as superior to other modern versions by denouncing what other translations have to say about the rebellious woman. By doing that you yourself denounce modern versions and their lack of agreement although they all claim to use the same Greek base text that can be traced to the Wescott & Hort Greek text (which is replicated in the Nestle Aland NT).

Modern Inaccuracy:

"It doesn't really matter honestly. How many of us call God "Father"?"

It does matter. The Bible says all believers are "adopted" children of God. God did not begat any believer in the same way Jesus was begotten. The Bible clearly makes distinctions because it matters. The sinful nature is passed down by Adam to all humanity. If Joseph was the father of Jesus then He was not sinless and could not be the sacrifice "without spot or blemish" and therefore could not have died which in turn means no one can be saved. That is the significance a small change like that makes. In fact, when Jesus was a small child he was lost and when Joseph and Mary found Him, He told them that He was busy with the things of His Father, which was not Joseph.

So, you have a version claiming God is the Father of Jesus and also that says Joseph was the father of Jesus. That is a contradiction that cannot be excused or explained away as insignificant. If it is true you might as well stop being a Christian. In this respect the KJV1611 uses the Textus Receptus that do not make these kinds of silly mistakes and are careful to make proper distinctions. Hence, my reason for stating the KJV is the best based on manuscripts used.

Early Church:

"What early church are we talking about? "

Forgive me for not being more specific. I refer to the Church found in the first few centuries after Jesus died. The problem with the different manuscripts usually start in the forth century.

"And what are the specific differences in belief that makes Mounce less accurate than KJV1611."

Mounce uses the Nestle Aland text that is an eclectic text based on about 5 manuscripts as opposed to the more than 5000 NT Greek manuscripts available today. The two main manuscripts used are called Vaticanus and Sinaiticanus and disagree over 3000 times with each other in the four Gospels alone. The two texts also show words crossed out, new ones inserted which means it was edited. In short, they make a Bible from texts that have obvious signs of corruption (Codex B and Its Allies " Hoskier". If you are an engineer and want to build a bridge, will you use a handbook that are lacking or missing information because it was changed?

Wording:

"We don't consider The Living Translation a translation of the Bible. It's a paraphrase, like the Message version. "

Who exactly are the we? Again this highlights your opinion. It was sold as a Bible and still being sold as such to use for studying and understanding God"s word.

Loving the KJV1611:

"These days you'd be hard pressed to find someone who says they love the KJV1611."

Again, you echo an opinion that does not reflect universal facts. I love the KJV and English is not even my mother tongue! I am familiar with it"s terminology to the point that I do not have to translate while reading. Familiarity was achieved by reading it daily.
Jonbonbon

Con

Poor time management got me, but I won't make all of Kwagga's work go to a debate that will never finish. I'm giving a no round here since I only have a couple minutes to post. Thank you Kwagga for a respectful and informative debate. I don't disagree with you as much as this debate suggested I do :P
Debate Round No. 3
kwagga_la

Pro

No problem! Thank you for the debate. I wish you all the best and my prayer is that God will bless you and strengthen your faith to finish the race and so be with our Saviour for all eternity. Maranatha, even so Lord Jesus come quickly!
Jonbonbon

Con

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Jonbonbon 12 months ago
Jonbonbon
Oh I didn't know there was another round XD
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
No Problem. God first, Family second, and the rest can be on hold :-)
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Sorry it took so long. Did a lot of family time this weekend.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
No problem
Posted by kwagga_la 1 year ago
kwagga_la
No need to do that. Thanks for being considerate.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Alright so do you want me to do a blank round at the end? Like post "no round" or sometihing? Most debaters do that to make it fair when one of them gets an extra round for actual arguments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.