The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jacobbruce has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 101684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




The intention of this debate is to engage the doctrine of the trinity. I am not looking to debate someone who is not a Christian (i.e., a Jew, Muslim, etc.). I want to debate a unitarian Christian regardless of affiliation (Arian or Socinian). The debate will be structured as follows:

Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2 - Initial Argument(s)
Round 3 - Rebuttal(s)
Round 4 - Second Round of Rebuttal(s)
Round 5 - Closing Statement(s)

There are only three rules:
1) Do not accept this debate without my permission.
2) Do not violate the debate structure.
3) Contain the rounds within the 10,000 character limit.

trinity - There is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Please express your interest in the debate in the comment section or via PM. Ask any questions you may have in the comment section. I will not provide an invite to the debate until Friday. I plan on the debate being completed through the weekend.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


*all passages are from ESV

I will format my opening argument so that it is broken down into two parts: (1) defining the trinity and (2) proof texts.

Defining the Trinity

While I provided an elementary definition of the trinity in the description of this debate, I would like to flesh it out a little more and provide some clarity. I do not believe my opponent would contest the first part of my initial definition. Namely, there is one eternal God who is indivisible and infinite. He would disagree with the second portion. Namely, there are three persons that make up the one being of God. But it is important to emphasize the two “co” terms used. The three persons of the trinity are “co-equal” and “co-eternal.” That is, they are never identified with one another. They are identified as being fully deity, however.

So, to emphasize, the Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Father. The Father is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father. The Son is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Son. They are all equally God and all equally eternal. They are not identified as the same persons, however. They are merely identified as the same being. The best natural example of this would be an atom. An atom is made up of three components: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Consider the three components as persons. These three components, or persons, make up the one being, or atom. This is what the doctrine of the trinity teaches.

Proof Texts

Now that the groundwork has been laid, we can delve into Scripture. I will break this section down into three sub-sections: (1) the deity of the Son, (2) the deity of the Spirit, and (3) the triune formula.

1) The Deity of the Son

Let’s dive into our first proof text for the deity of the Son:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was notany thing made that was made. […] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. […] No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” (Jon. 1:1-3, 14, 18)

This is perhaps one of the most famous texts for defending the deity of the Son and rightfully so. It is in this text that we are told the Word was in the beginning. The Word was with God. The Word was God. Not only this, but the Word created all things. And there is nothing that was made without Him.

1a) The Beginning

What does the phrase “in the beginning” refer to? Could it be in reference to the same “beginning” mentioned in Genesis 1:1? John was very careful as to which form of “was” (en) he used. The form of the verb “was” that John used indicates a timelessness. [1] That is, as far back as we push our understanding of “the beginning,” the Word was there. Namely, the Word is eternal, having no beginning.

Though this is not the only time that John uses this form of the verb “was” in his prolog. The fact of the matter is that he uses it in reference to the Word every single time. He is careful to not use this form when referencing others (he uses egeneto (“to become”) for others, see verses 6, 10, and 12). It is only in verse 14 that we see John using egeneto in regard to the Word. This is, of course, in reference to when the Word becomes flesh.

1b) With God

What are we to think of “the Word was with God”? Well, it should be noted that the term “was” is in the exact same form as in John 1:1a. Though John also uses the Greek preposition pros. Pros means “equivalent to.” [2] So, the Son is “equivalent to” God. Is John suggesting that there are two eternal and equivalent Gods? This is cleared up in light of John 1:1c.

1c) Was God

John, again, is using the same verb form for “was.” John is not trying to distinguish the Word and Father as two different gods. Nor is he trying to say that they are the same. Rather, he is taking steps to define the triune Godhead. John distinguished the two while telling us that they have eternally co-existed, they are co-eternal.

I believe that should be sufficient enough a discussion of John’s prolog. I do not doubt that it will resurface again later in this debate. The next proof text that I would like to turn to is Thomas’ confession:

“Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” (Jon. 20:28, 29)

This passage holds quite a bit of significance and it is on quite an elementary level. Thomas declares that Jesus is his Lord (Kyrios) and his God (ho Theos). The same terms used of the Father. What is Jesus’ response? He does not rebuke him. Rather, Jesus says “blessed are those” who believe as you do, yet do not need the visual evidence. Jesus blesses those who hold the same conviction as Thomas. This testimony that Jesus is God is quite clearly reinforced by Paul:

“To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” (Rom. 9:5)

Now, I believe it is key to dive into some deeper texts to verify the deity of the Son. We will start in the book of Hebrews. In the first chapter, we are told that the Son is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.” We are told that “all God's angels worship him.” What does the one on the throne say of His Son? “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” The one on the throne also says: “[the Son] laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” I do not believe a whole lot has to be said here. The descriptions that were given to Jehovah God in the Old Testament are now being said of the Son by the One on the throne.

Jesus is said to be the “true God” and “eternal life” in 1 John 5:20. Jesus is said to be the “great God” and “Savior” in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. There are numerous passages that I could cite, but I do not wish to exhaust my space. I will list one more passage to show the deity and eternal nature of Christ:

And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!’ And the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshiped.” (Rev. 5:13, 14)

The Lamb is distinguished from all other creatures. He is, therefore, not a creature. He has to be eternal. He also receives the same blessings, honor, glory, and worship as the One on the throne.

2) The Deity of the Spirit

Perhaps it would be useful to actually identify the Spirit as a person before we can begin discussing the deity of Him. Some passages to consider are:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” (given a masculine pronoun; Jon. 15:26)

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” (one can grieve the Holy Spirit; Eph. 4:30)

But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?” (one can lie to the Holy Spirit; Act. 5:3)

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (the Holy Spirit can teach; Jon. 16:13)

All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (the Spirit has His own will; 1 Cor. 2:10, 11)

I believe that those above passages should be sufficient in proving that the Holy Spirit is indeed a person. Though how do we know that the Spirit is deity? Peter himself identifies the Holy Spirit as God. Going back to Acts 5, Peter states that Ananias lied to God, but we are told that Ananias was lying to the Holy Spirt. In other words, there is no distinguishing between God and the Holy Spirit. Paul also does this same thing in 2 Corinthians 3. He states that “the Lord is the Spirit.”

3) The Triune Formula

Does the Bible ever state the triune formula explicitly? See for yourselves:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... (Mat. 28:19)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Cor. 13:14)

Other passages to consider are: Romans 15:16, 30; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 2:18.


We have, after this round, established a clear definition for the trinity and provided the principle proof texts for the deity of the Son, the deity of the Spirit, and the triune formula. I would like to conclude by saying that t
he Gospel itself is Trinitarian. It flows from the decree of the Father. It is accomplished in the perfect work of the Son: incarnation, perfect life in obedience to the Father, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension
. Now at the right hand of the Father as an intercessor or mediator, he is one work representing those who are united with him. And from the Holy Spirit, who comes and makes these things real in our lives, in our hearts, at the time that God decrees to do so.

[1] Harris, Jesus as God, p. 54



For this debate I'll be using different versions of the Bible. I'll say which version I'm using when I'm using it.

For the definition of the trinity, I'll agree with pro on the first part, but not the second, which I'll get to later.

Here's my reason for my statement(the doctrine of the trinity isn't scriptural):

The New Testament(which is usually what's used as proof text to define the trinity)itself is far from any doctrine of the trinity. This is because a) there's different versions of the Bible, and thus different translations of the trinity, and b) because different Christians come up with different translations of the trinity, even if they're using the same version of the Bible for proof text. The New Testament does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The apostles of the New Testament,of course, teach no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. The Church had to wait for more than three hundred years for a final synthesis, for not until the Council of Constantinople [AD 381] was the formula of one God existing in three coequal Persons formally ratified.

In the ESV of the Bible, acts 11:26, it says "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Here, the passive construction "were called Christians" suggests that the term was first used not by Christians, but by non-Christians.

This is why I believe the doctrine of the trinity isn't scriptural.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent states that the New Testament is usually what is used to provide proof for the doctrine of the trinity. This statement is only partially true. The trinity is revealed in the New Testament, to be sure, but we can look back on the Old Testament and see the consistency of Scripture. This can be seen in Hebrews 1, where the author applies descriptions used of Jehovah God in the Old Testament to Jesus Christ in the New. But my opponent says that the New Testament itself does not support the doctrine of the trinity. Here were the reasons given:

1) There are different versions of the Bible, and thus different “translations of the trinity.”
This does not make any sense. The doctrine of the trinity is taught in the exact same way by all Christians who affirm it. There is no dispute. Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. all affirm the same doctrine of the trinity despite the various translations being used. I use many translations in my day to day studies of the Scriptures. I use the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc. All of them support the doctrine of the trinity. The passages that I provided in the previous round can be looked up in any translation of the Bible and found uncontested. The only exceptions would be the passages that utilize Sharp's Rule.

2) Different Christians come up with different “translations of the trinity.”
Assuming that translation means “doctrine,” then this is a false statement. As previously stated, the doctrine of the trinity is not contested among Christians who accept it. The Catholics use the same definition as the Protestants. The Eastern churches use the same definition as the Western churches. There is no disagreement. The only disagreement that exists is between those who reject the doctrine of the trinity and those who accept it.

My opponent goes on to say that the New Testament “does not contain the developed doctrine of the trinity.” I am not sure what this means. The Bible as a whole most certainly contains the doctrine of the trinity. There is not one passage that dogmatically defines the doctrine of the trinity and we should not expect such a passage to exist. My opponent states that the Apostles did not teach a “trinitarian doctrine.” This is completely false, as I have shown in the previous round.

Regarding the official dogmatic definition of the trinity, my opponent says that it was not developed until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. While I disagree with the statement, I do not see any real significance in mentioning it. There were many beliefs and doctrines that were never dogmatically defined until serious objections were made. Prior to Arianism, there was no real need to define the doctrine of the trinity in a dogmatic way. It was a belief that was universal among the Body of Christ. We know that the early church held these beliefs because they are not only found in Scripture (see previous round), but also found in the writings of the early church. Consider the following examples:

“For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,- even Jesus Christ our Lord.

But some most worthless persons are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, and hold opinions contrary to the doctrine of Christ, to their own destruction, and that of those who give credit to them, whom you must avoid as ye would wild beasts. For ‘the righteous man who avoids them is saved for ever; but the destruction of the ungodly is sudden, and a subject of rejoicing.’ For ‘they are dumb dogs, that cannot bark,’ raving mad, and biting secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, since they labour under an incurable disease. But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Ignatius of Antioch (died 98 AD); letter to the Ephesians; Ch. 7.)

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Tertullian (160-215 AD), Against Praxeas 2)

My opponent ends by saying that the name “Christian” was formulated by non-believers. I do not see the significance as it pertains to this debate. I also want to note that my opponent failed to utilize a single passage from Scripture regarding his refutation to the doctrine of the trinity.



My opponent said that in john 1:1 , "the beginning"is "as far back as we push are understanding", which means that The Word(Jesus) has Always existed. While that's a possible interpretation of the verse,
It's possible that "the beginning" is referring to a time a bit closer to ours,i.e. When god created the heaven and earth in genesis 1:1, which my opponent has already stated. Since "the beginning" is a somewhat vague term, we just can't know when "the beginning" was.

While the translation of john 1:1 that my opponent provides Is found in many versions of the Bible, there's other versions that provide different translations. For example:
The Joseph smith translation of john 1:1 is:1 "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God."

Since there's different translations of the Bible, there's obviously different interpretations of it.

In john 20:37 and romans 9:5 it's possible that Thomas and Paul weren't referring to Jesus as God because the two(Jesus and Heavenly Father) are combined in one substance, but because they're one in every other significant and eternal aspect imaginable.

In Hebrews chapter 1 my opponent used many verses as proof texts for the doctrine of the trinity, while verse 3 of that same chapter can be used to prove the trinity false. It says: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Kjv of john 1:3).

The majesty on high is Heavenly Father and Jesus is the one who sat on his right hand.

What I said earlier in this debate round about Thomas and Paul in john 20:37 and romans 9:5 also applies to 1 john 5:20 and the other verses my opponent used as proof text later in his argument.

In rev. 5:13-14 it says:"To him who sits on the throne AND to the Lamb". I don't understand why my opponent used this passage to prove the doctrine of the trinity, because the one who sits on the throne(Heavenly Father) and the lamb(Jesus) can be shown as two separate individuals here.

My opponent said that in acts 5:3, Paul said that aninias lied "to god", put this in acts 5:3, not even in the passage my opponent provided earlier. My opponent also said that in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul calls The lord the spirit, but he didn't provide a verse. I read through the whole chapter and couldn't find where Paul says this.

The passages my opponent put under 3) the triune formula mention Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but that's it. They can be used to prove/disprove the doctrine of the trinity
Either way.

In my opponents conclusion he stated:" the gospel itself it trinitarian" and stated why he believes this without proof text.
While there's scripture passages that can be used to prove the gospel is trinitarian, there's also passages that can be used to disprove it. A perfect example of this is Mathew 3:16-17 ,where It says Jesus came out of the water, the spirit of God DESCENDED like a dove( it's not in heaven anymore), and the voice from HEAVEN said "this is my beloved son." Jesus came out of the water, so he's on earth. The spirit of God descended, so it's not in heaven, and God IS in heaven, so Jesus, God, and the spirit of God are in 3 different places.
Debate Round No. 3


While my opponent recognizes that John 1:1a allows for “the beginning” to be as far back as possible, he does not seem to understand that the Greek demands it. It is not just a “possible interpretation,” the Greek used in that verse demands the understanding I provided and does not allow for another.

He goes on to try and refute John 1:1 as a whole by saying that it is translated differently in some Bibles. He uses the example of the JST. While I acknowledge that my opponent is a Mormon, he should be aware the Joseph Smith did not know Koine Greek (which is required in order to translate John 1:1) or even Biblical Hebrew. The LDS Church itself readily admits that Smith’s work was a revision using prophecy, not a translation from the original languages. And, as was agreed upon before engaging in this debate, we are only using the Holy Bible and no other scriptures. However, even the LDS Church does not recognize Smith’s “translation” of John 1:1 as canon. The only passages from his “translation” that are canonized are the ones found in the Pearl of Great Price. I would like to reiterate that everyone who accepts the doctrine of the trinity is in agreement, regardless of which Bible translation, denomination, or sect. The only disagreement is among those who reject the doctrine of the trinity.

My opponent moves on from John 1:1 and states that John 20:37 (which is not even a real passage in the Bible, John 20 only has 31 verses) and Romans 9:5 are not referring to Jesus as God. He says this because “the two [Jesus and His Father] are combined in one substance.” I am not terribly sure what this is supposed to mean, as my opponent did not flesh out his thought on this any further. I would need clarification as well as some Scriptural support for this theory. It seems like he is trying to say that the Son and the Father are the same person, which would not make sense given that throughout the rest of the round he consistently tries to separate them in a vain effort to refute the doctrine of the trinity. He tries to dismiss 1 John 5:20 using the same argument.

After this confusing attempt to claim that Romans 9:5, which explicitly refers to Jesus as the “God over all,” is not speaking of Jesus as God, my opponent tries to say that Hebrews 1:3 disproves the doctrine of the trinity. He makes this claim because the passage distinguishes between the Father and the Son. This does not disprove the doctrine of the trinity. The definition of the trinity that was agreed upon for this debate states that the one being of God “is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.” In my initial arguments, I fleshed this out and made it rather clear that none of the three persons are ever identified as the other. He makes this same mistake when he tries to dismiss Revelation 5:13, 14.

He then tries to dismiss Acts 5:3 in a way that I cannot quite understand. I need clarification. Regarding 2 Corinthians 3, the verse I referenced in round two was verse seventeen.

Now, let’s dissect my opponent’s arguments against my conclusion in round two. He states that I provided no passages for describing the Gospel as Trinitarian. This is true, but I primarily did this because none of the things mentioned in my explanation are contested among Christians. All Christians agree that the work of salvation begins with the decree of the Father. All Christians agree that salvation is accomplished in the work of the Son. All Christians agree that Christ is now a mediator at the right hand of the Father and is the head of the Church. And, finally, all Christians agree that the Spirit works within believers. So, while I can provide Scriptural citations, I see no real purpose when none of those things are contested.

In concluding, my opponent tried to disprove the trinity by using Matthew 3:16, 17. Yet he does the exact opposite. He again is mistaken in the definition of the trinity, which I have already addressed. However, Matthew 3:16, 17 displays the triune formula. I just did not include it in my list of passages in the second round, but it could most certainly be added to it.



My opponent stated that "The doctrine of the trinity is taught in the exact same way by all Christians who affirm it". This is simply not true. There is ambiguity and disagreement among those who accept Trinitarianism.

There are several doctrines of the trinity: Eastern, Western, social analogy, modal, so forth. There is one doctrine in the sense of the threefold name of God of the rule of faith as found, for example, in the Apostle's Creed. This, however, is not yet a doctrine. It is ambiguous and can be interpreted in a number of ways. There is one doctrine in the sense of the Western formula of "three persons in one substance." However, this formula is also ambiguous if not misleading and can be interpreted in a number of ways. A doctrine of the trinity would presumably be one interpretation of this formula . . . let us assume that the phrase "doctrine of the trinity" in the question refers to any of a number of widely accepted interpretations of the threefold name of God in the role of faith.

So, there is ambiguity and disagreement still. This is not characteristic of revelation, but rather of man"s imperfect intellectual efforts to define God according to philosophical criteria. Proponents of this view have even added text to the Bible and opposed the correcting of such errors when it was discovered.

The doctrine of the Trinity as taught by Catholics and mainstream Protestants is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy, and vice versa. The Trinity doctrine of the second century A.D. differs from that of the third, and the fourth century developed even newer ideas. Aquinas' doctrine is different from that of Augustine, and Barth again developed a new doctrine of the Trinity.

My opponent said that I did not provide a single source for the claim" the term Christian was first used by non-christians" , however in the second to last paragraph of my argument I clearly said that I was quoting the ESV of the Bible, acts 11:26.
Debate Round No. 4


Since this is the round for closing statements, I will not be providing rebuttals. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to carry out his side to the end and I enjoyed the engagement.

My goal for this debate was to prove that the doctrine of the trinity is Scriptural. My opponent and I agreed upon the following definition for the doctrine of the trinity:

"There is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."

My initial arguments really expanded on this definition and provided a Biblical defense for each piece of it. I believe I successfully provided rebuttals to all of my opponent's arguments throughout the entirety of the debate, but that is ultimately up to you, the voter, to decide. The Bible clearly teaches the deity and eternal nature of the Son (Jon. 1:1-3; 20:28, 29; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1; 1 John 5:20; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Rev. 5:13, 14) and the Spirit (Jon. 15:26; 16:13; Act. 5:3; Eph. 4:30; 1 Cor. 2:10, 11; 3:17). The Bible very clearly shows the triune formula (Mat. 28:19; Rom. 15:16, 30; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14 Eph. 2:18). These passages form the metropolis of the trinity.

Vote Pro!
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Scruggs 1 year ago
English Standard Version
Posted by Jacobbruce 1 year ago
@scruggs what does ESV mean?
Posted by Scruggs 1 year ago
@one2one, I sure hope so!
Posted by one2one 1 year ago
This will be an interesting debate
Posted by Scruggs 1 year ago
Actually, I will go ahead and invite you.
Posted by Scruggs 1 year ago
Okay, I will send you the invite on Friday.
Posted by Jacobbruce 1 year ago
72 hours is perfect! And yes, I will only use the holy bible and not the other scriptures.
Posted by Scruggs 1 year ago
Thank you for your interest. I currently have the time for each round set to 72 hours. However, I am flexible on the issue if you wish to change that. Your profile states that you are a Mormon. I want to note that the only Scriptures that are to be used in this debate are from the Holy Bible, not the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price.
Posted by Jacobbruce 1 year ago
Hello, I'm a Unitarian Christian and I'd love to debate you on this topic. I'll follow all the rules and make sure I don't violate the debate structure. I do however have a question: how long will each of us have per round?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.