The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
BennyW
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

The new testament is without contradiction.

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,739 times Debate No: 16803
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (121)
Votes (5)

 

izbo10

Con

The way this debate will go is I will show that there are contradictions, the person I am debating will attempt to show that there are no contradictions in the bible. Round 1 will merely be accepting the challenge. In round 2 I will begin my arguments for a contradiction. I define contradictions in the bible a the bible taking both sides of a mutually exclusive dichotomy. Mutually exclusive meaning that if one is true the other is by default false. Good luck to my opponent.
BennyW

Pro

I accept the argument and will argue that the Bible does not in fact contain contradictions. I would however like my opponent to clarify something, in the Title he specifically mention the New Testament, but in the body implies the entire Bible. I could argue either one, the latter would just make it a bit more complicated. I will await the examples that my opponent gives for contradictions in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

I am going to merely stick with the new testament as J,E,P, and D just make the whole bible too easy. OK so I am going to start with a dichotomy, Either Jesus was born on or before 4 bce or not. If I can demonstrate that the new testament says that he was born both on or before 4 bce and also that he was not this will show a contradiction. Ok so we take Matthews account of the time frame in which Jesus was born, Matthew has Jesus born during the reign of Herod, who according to historians such as Josephus died in 4 bce. Now, when we move onto Luke the only other gospel to discuss the birth narrative, we get that Quirinius was governor of Syria, history shows this happened in 6 ce, which is after 4 bce. So we have on or before 4 bce in Matthew. Where as we have not on or before 4 bce in Luke. If one is right the other is wrong. We can continue right along with the birth narrative though. This story is full of them.

Lets take a look at both Luke and Matthew and how they both internally contradict themselves. Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born of Mary who is a virgin. Which would make him not the blood of Joseph. Once you admit this, you can't then turn around and have him be the blood of Joseph, but when we look at both of their genealogies, we find that both take Jesus back to David through Joseph. Which makes him the blood of Joseph in order to get the Davidic Prophecy fulfilled, but if Mary was a virgin he was not the blood of Joseph. Yet another contradiction.
Further contradictions occur here as the genealogies are not the same. Either Luke's order is right or it is not, and ditto for Matthew, so if Matthew and David have 2 different genealogies then it becomes a problem since both can't be right. That is a contradiction.
Further more Matthew and Paul would not agree if the law was to be followed, Matthew clearly says yes(Matthew 5:17-20) Paul says no. To quote a new testament historian: "I have often wondered what would have happened if Paul and Matthew
had been locked up in a room together and told they could not
come out until they had hammered out a consensus statement on
how followers of Jesus were to deal with the Jewish law. Would they
ever have emerged, or would they still be there, two skeletons locked
in a death grip?
If Matthew, who wrote some twenty-five or thirty years after
Paul, ever read any of Paul's letters, he certainly did not fi nd them
inspiring, let alone inspired." Bart Ehrman Jesus Interrupted pg 89.

So in conclusion for the first actual round we have several mutually exclusive dichotomies.

Born on or before 4 bce or not.

Matthew takes on or before, luke says not. Both Can't be right, they contradict.

Jesus either was a relative of Joseph or not. Both Matthew and Luke clearly try to have their cake and eat it too, to get 2 prophecies filled.

Either Luke's order of the genealogies is true or it is not.

Luke obviously says it is, Matthew's genealogy is not the same so he disagrees.

Either we are to follow the law or we are not to follow the law. Matthew says we are, Paul says we are not to follow the law.

Thank you I rest my initial case here.
BennyW

Pro


I thank my opponent for initiating this debate and would like to address his points.


My opponent brings up contradictions of when Jesus was born. A widely accepted date of when Herod the Great died is 4 BC this is based on a lunar eclipse recorded around the same time according to Josephus. There was however a full lunar eclipse several years later, so 1 BC is an alternate possible date for his death. [1] As for the contradiction with Quirinius, there is evidence to suggest that he was Governor of Syria twice and that the 6 AD date was the beginning of his second reign. [2]


“Lets take a look at both Luke and Matthew and how they both internally contradict themselves. Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born of Mary who is a virgin. Which would make him not the blood of Joseph. Once you admit this, you can't then turn around and have him be the blood of Joseph, but when we look at both of their genealogies, we find that both take Jesus back to David through Joseph. Which makes him the blood of Joseph in order to get the Davidic Prophecy fulfilled, but if Mary was a virgin he was not the blood of Joseph. Yet another contradiction.”


That is not necessary a contradiction as Mary was herself a descendant of David. Since Joseph was the legal guardian of Jesus, and recognized as his father to the people around him, it established Joseph’s legitimacy. That is also why in Luke it says” [Jesus] was the son, it was, thought of Joseph.” Meaning that legally he was his son. As for them conflicting, Matthew arranges them into groups of 14 while Luke gives a direct lineage. 3


My opponent claims that Matthew and Paul “disagreed” on the law. Matthew is quoting what Jesus said when Jesus said he would “fulfill the law” not “abolish the law”. That is the distinction. At the crucifixion and resurrection the law was fulfilled through Christ. Therefore, the Old Testament sacrificial laws had been fulfilled and that is what Paul meant when he talked about the law no longer being necessary.




1 http://www.revneal.org...


2 http://christianbookshelf.org...


3. http://www.christianitytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

Historically speaking Quirinius would have been running military campaigns during the reign of Herod. This excuse my opponent gives is complete nonsense.

Luke's References.

In the book of the Acts Luke mentions an enrolment of the people which was made in Judea and provoked bitter opposition (Acts v. 37). This was the census which, according to Josephus, was taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria and Coponius was procurator, i.e., between 6-9 A.D. (Ant., XVIII., i. 1, ii. 1; War., II., viii. 1). In the Gospel also Luke mentions an enrolment in Palestine (see CENSUS). It was part of a general enumerartion decreed by Augustus for the entire Roman empire. It led to the visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and was thus in a way the occasion of the birth of Christ in that town. Luke calls this "the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Luke ii. 2). Now the birth of Christ took place before the death of Herod the Great (Matt. ii. 1; Luke iii. 1, 2, 23). Herod died in the year 4 B.C. How then can Luke say that Quirinius was governor of Syria? C. Sentius Saturninus held that office from 9 or 8 to the first half of the year 6 B.C.; and was succeeded by P. Quinctilius Varus, who continued until 4 B.C.

Source http://www.ccel.org...

Matthew 1 15 Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.

He clearly is going through Joseph t get to David, which is it. Contention stands.

Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven"

How does one get around this:

The common excuse is that Jesus fulfilled the law, but firstly that seems odd being you fulfill prophecy from prophets, but how exactly does one fulfill a law? Even if that were the case, the thing is it also gives very clear prerequisites that must happen first. The prerequisites are heaven and earth will disappear and everything will be accomplished. Now 2 of the 3 are hard to tell, we may not know when heaven has disappeared or when all has been accomplished, but as of today we do know that the earth has not disappeared. Now a prerequisite means in order for something to happen, something else must happen first. Like for instance in college you must take logic 1 before you can take logic 2. In the same sense Jesus is saying that Earth must disappear before the law is fulfilled. Here lies the rub, that means the old law still exists and should be kept. Now what is the old law. We know that the Jews of the time referred to the Torah or the 5 books of Moses as the law. So anything in those books even the smallest letter should be taught. That is what Jesus is instructing here. The 5 books of Moses are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. So we should observe the smallest letter of these books according to Jesus.

We can also add another contradiction to this debate

Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Se either matthew is right or he is not like Luke and John say:

Luke 23:46
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

This is clear Matthew is in the set of thing that say his last words
, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

While Luke and John are in the set of things that say it is false that his last words were
, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Contradiction

I rest my case again.
BennyW

Pro

I thank my opponent for his responses and will show why his claims fall short.

Historically speaking Quirinius would have been running military campaigns during the reign of Herod. This excuse my opponent gives is complete nonsense.

There are a few options to explain this. The most telling explanation is the fact that the word for Governor (hegemon) is a rather ambiguous term when referring to Rome and can include Prefect, Procurator, as well as Caesar himself. It essentially just means leader. [1] For instance, Pontius Pilate was referred to as the Governor of Judea during Jesus’ crucifixion, and we understand this to mean he was the Prefect of Judea. Since Governor is such a broad term Quirinius was “Governor” on many occasions with various levels of office. Also, he was likely a ruler charged with overseeing the census. Also, we could look at the Lapis Tiburtinus, it said that a certain Roman military official, whose name is missing, was in office twice. One view is that this was Quirinius and that at one point he was co-ruler along with Quinctilius Varus. Since it is ambiguous it is hard to tell for sure. [2] I prefer the former explanation as it applies whether or not the latter one is true.

“He clearly is going through Joseph t get to David, which is it. Contention stands.
Yes, as I explained that is because Joseph was Jesus’ LEGAL father. It was already know that Mary was also descended from David. If it was saying that he was Jesus’ biological father it would not have used the phrase “it was understood” which suggests that people knew Joseph as Jesus’ father when he wasn’t biologically.

“That seems odd being you fulfill prophecy from prophets, but how exactly does one fulfill a law? The in this case was essentially a prophecy. The sacrificial laws of the old Testament were foreshadowing to Christ. When they sacrificed an animal it represented Christ. When Jesus, the Lamb of God, was crucified he was the ultimate sacrifice, therefore there was no more need for the old laws.

The prerequisites are heaven and earth will disappear and everything will be accomplished."

There a different phases to the fulfillment of the law. The crucifixion fulfilled the sacrificial laws of the old Testament. However, the ten Commandments still stand, these will be fulfilled “ when heaven and earth will disappear”.

“While Luke and John are in the set of things that say it is false that his last words were
, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Just because each account has him saying a different thing does not mean that they contradict. Jesus could have said all of that but each Gospel only recorded one of them. The mere fact that something is omitted does not prove it didn’t happen. Adding them all together would give you the full picture but the lack of a complete picture in one does not negate their validity.

My opponent has failed to prove how these are actual contradictions. I will await his response in the next round.

1 http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

2 http://www.christianthinktank.com...

Debate Round No. 3
izbo10

Con

Historically speaking Quirinius would have been running military campaigns during the reign of Herod. This excuse my opponent gives is complete nonsense.

There are a few options to explain this. The most telling explanation is the fact that the word for Governor (hegemon) is a rather ambiguous term when referring to Rome and can include Prefect, Procurator, as well as Caesar himself. It essentially just means leader. [1] For instance, Pontius Pilate was referred to as the Governor of Judea during Jesus’ crucifixion, and we understand this to mean he was the Prefect of Judea. Since Governor is such a broad term Quirinius was “Governor” on many occasions with various levels of office. Also, he was likely a ruler charged with overseeing the census. Also, we could look at the Lapis Tiburtinus, it said that a certain Roman military official, whose name is missing, was in office twice. One view is that this was Quirinius and that at one point he was co-ruler along with Quinctilius Varus. Since it is ambiguous it is hard to tell for sure. [2] I prefer the former explanation as it applies whether or not the latter one is true.



It is not just Governor, but Governor of Syria, a position I have already shown that historians like Josephus clearly give us a distinct order in this time frame. Quirinius does not fit in until 6 CE. This is not in dispute among many historians.

He clearly is going through Joseph t get to David, which is it. Contention stands.
Yes, as I explained that is because Joseph was Jesus’ LEGAL father. It was already know that Mary was also descended from David. If it was saying that he was Jesus’ biological father it would not have used the phrase “it was understood” which suggests that people knew Joseph as Jesus’ father when he wasn’t biologically.


As for the Joseph vs Virgin birth contradiction, once you understand that these genealogies were put in to fulfill the Davadic prophecy of bloodline, it becomes a very big issue. They are claiming Jesus to be the blood of David through Joseph. This creates a huge problem as a Legal father is not blood.


“That seems odd being you fulfill prophecy from prophets, but how exactly does one fulfill a law? The in this case was essentially a prophecy. The sacrificial laws of the old Testament were foreshadowing to Christ. When they sacrificed an animal it represented Christ. When Jesus, the Lamb of God, was crucified he was the ultimate sacrifice, therefore there was no more need for the old laws.

Again Mathew 5:17-20 says not until Heaven and Earth have come to pass shall one jot or tittle be removed from the law. The law referring to the Torah as Jesus was a Jew and this is what Jews referred to as the law. To make this clear he refers to the Pharisees, who were strict law abiding Jews. The Pharisees would never agree with his statement about Jesus fulfilling it with his sacrifice and not needing anymore, so why would Jesus reference them in this situation? Oh that is right because he thought the entire law needed to be kept, which is in contradiction to Paul who didn't think it was useful.

Here we go with a syllogism right out of the biblical text;

If both heaven and earth have not passed the least of the letters of the law stands

Earth has not passed

The law stands.

This clearly contradicts pauls writings that the law is no good. You can't make Matthew on its own say what Paul said, and it is a textual crime to try to use Paul to contextualize what the author of Matthew was saying, as there is no evidence to support Matthew would have wanted his Gospel in a book with Paul.

“While Luke and John are in the set of things that say it is false that his last words were
, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Just because each account has him saying a different thing does not mean that they contradict. Jesus could have said all of that but each Gospel only recorded one of them. The mere fact that something is omitted does not prove it didn’t happen. Adding them all together would give you the full picture but the lack of a complete picture in one does not negate their validity.

So just because the books have him saying 2 contradictory things as his last words doesn't mean they contradict, lol. If Luke is right, John is wrong, and so is Matthew. If my opponent is right that is a combination of all 3 then all three are wrong and we have a fourth contradictory story.


BennyW

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding and will answer his final questions to wrap up

“It is not just Governor, but Governor of Syria, a position I have already shown that historians like Josephus clearly give us a distinct order in this time frame. Quirinius does not fit in until 6 CE. This is not in dispute among many historians.

We know that Augustus took a census every 12 years. Yes he was running military campaigns at this time but that doesn’t preclude a leadership post. As I mentioned before his leadership post may very well have been known as governor, as he presided over Cilicia and by extension likely Syria.[1] Skeptics always throw out the Historic evidence in the Bible simply because it is in the Bible when there are other historic sources are even more inaccurate. For many years the accuracy of Acts 13:7 was in question because historians contested that Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus was not in fact the proper title, but it was later found that the writer of Acts (usually thought to be Luke) was correct and the historians had been wrong. [2] In fact the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to many of the events and are therefore more reliable sources than most of the Historians that came after them.


“As for the Joseph vs Virgin birth contradiction, once you understand that these genealogies were put in to fulfill the Davadic prophecy of bloodline, it becomes a very big issue. They are claiming Jesus to be the blood of David through Joseph. This creates a huge problem as a Legal father is not blood. Matthew wrote for Jews so he uses Joseph’s line to establish Jesus’ legal status as a Jew. Due to the often awkwardness of Greek grammar and lack of punctuation, Luke’s record is very likely referring to Mary’s line and that the reference to Joseph is parenthetical. Although it doesn’t mention her directly, Eli (or Heli) is likely Joseph’s father in law, therefore Mary’s father and Jesus’ closest male ancestor. [3] [4]

“Again Mathew 5:17-20 says not until Heaven and Earth have come to pass shall one jot or tittle be removed from the law. The law referring to the Torah as Jesus was a Jew and this is what Jews referred to as the law. To make this clear he refers to the Pharisees, who were strict law abiding Jews. The Pharisees would never agree with his statement about Jesus fulfilling it with his sacrifice and not needing anymore, so why would Jesus reference them in this situation? Oh that is right because he thought the entire law needed to be kept, which is in contradiction to Paul who didn't think it was useful.
I already explained this, the final fulfillment hasn’t happened yet. What do you mean Jesus clearly thought the whole law should be kept, how then do you explain? Of course the Pharisees wouldn’t agree, Jesus proved to them why the law didn’t apply by healing on the Sabbath, something they were opposed to. Jesus revealed the full meaning of the law rather than merely its outward practice. If we read Matthew 5:17-20 we see, More importantly though Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and they hated him for that.

Here we go with a syllogism right out of the biblical text;

If both heaven and earth have not passed the least of the letters of the law stands

Earth has not passed

The law stands.
As I have explained already, he fulfilled the sacrificial laws, not the moral laws. Those will only be fulfilled when heaven and Earth pass away as at that point there will be no need for the Earthly law as there will be a New Heaven and New Earth, and for the reasons I have stated above.

“So just because the books have him saying 2 contradictory things as his last words doesn't mean they contradict, lol. If Luke is right, John is wrong, and so is Matthew. If my opponent is right that is a combination of all 3 then all three are wrong and we have a fourth contradictory story.

Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37 both said that Jesus said “My God My God Why have you forsaken me” quoting Psalm 22 and then cried out in a loud voice but doesn’t say what it was he said. Luke 23:46 specifically mentions what it is that he cries out before he dies, John 19:30 says “It is finished”. There is nothing preventing him from having said all three statements in before he dies and one of them is recorded in different Gospels, this is not a contradiction and does not bring up a fourth version of the story. There is no reason that Jesus could not have said “My God My God why have you forsaken me” first (which seems to be the consensus in the Gospels) and then said “father into your hands I commend my spirit” before finally saying “It is finished” and giving up his spirit.
I thank my opponent for the challenging yet enlightening debate.

1 http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...

2 http://lavistachurchofchrist.org...

3 http://www.ccel.org...

4 http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com...

Debate Round No. 4
121 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Benny you do realize you need more than lack of belief in god to get to a bad act, communism is not a form of atheism communism is a social system that includes being an atheist. Was it really the don't believe in god part that caused the problem, if you think so you need to evaluate things a little better.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Then I guess jesus was lying benny, he doesn't say he may say no. He says he will do it. No qualifiers.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
He answers prayer, sometimes the answer is no.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Benny please show how only lack in belief of god did any of that and stop adding to atheism.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
It is about asking anything in his name and it will work, that does not exclude prayer, it actually includes it. All you have to do is ask and jesus will do it. Is he not willing or able? Seriously it is one or the other.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
Yes some of the bad acts I mentioned were a direct result of atheism. Communism is a form of atheism (so in a sense the Communist manifesto could be like a holy book), and as Reformed mentioned Hitler did use natural selection and survival of the fittest to justify the killing of the Jews whom he saw as less fit". Also, why is it so many doctors think someone is going to die in 2 months then they go on living for years?
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Please tell me you understand the authors of the gospels did not write intending there stories to be combined into the bible and that they were writing there own message.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
The context of Matthew 28 is NOT about prayer. The thing that they ask gathered in 2 or 3 is related to what they are talking about 2 verses earlier... the membership of wayward brother in the people of God. If two or three truthful witnesses excommunicate a brother for rightful cause, Jesus is in their midst as a witness against them too and God the Father will honor the excommunication.

This is the end of our discussion. You again have proven that you are incapable of an actual conversation... incapable of understanding context of a passage... incapable of typing a website in and looking up a passage yourself... incapable of viewing any teaching systematically... pretty much just incapable of anything other than insulting people, being pissed off at a God that you don't believe exists, and proof texting the Bible (you're not all that good at that either).
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Sorry contradictions are not helping you. Contradictions jus prove the bible is not inspired by any god but just man made works. It is truly sad that you think posting a contradiction is actually going to help you. AS I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES, JOHN, MATTHEW, LUKE, AND MARK ARE NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN TOGETHER, SO TO USE ANOTHER GOSPEL TO PUT THE CONTEXT OF ANOTHER GOSPEL IS SHOWING SURE IGNORANCE ON HOW THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN. PLEASE STOP THE IGNORANCE.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I have showed you again and again... you refuse to listen.

You pretend to know the Bible well, but apparently I have to hold your hand through every passage that I mention. Why is it that you get to assert all sorts of venom and lies about Christians and Christianity without proof or logical evidence, but when I don't hold your hand through every passage that I mention you cry "NO PROOF NO EVIDENCE!!!"

1 John 5:14-15 "Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him." - We must pray according to God's will in order for God to answer our prayers.

James 4:3 "You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures." - We must ask with the proper intentions and motives, or God will not answer our prayers.

You cannot simply take one passage that has the word "prayer" in it and build your whole system. When you look at the whole Christian teaching, you must consider all teachings on prayer.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
izbo10BennyWTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going with reformed arsenal's vote on this one. Con was slighty rude(Conduct) and did not give a proper amount of sources. The reason I did not vote for arguements is becuase the Pro had BoP is this debate but the con acted like he had it.(I might have this mixed up but that is what i saw).
Vote Placed by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
izbo10BennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: What grape said
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
izbo10BennyWTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, and I hate to say it... I don't think the contradictions were answered as well as they could have been. However, Pro has the burden of proof and didn't press it as hard as he could have. I'm giving the arguments a tie. Con used no sources other than bible passages, so this becomes simply his reading rather than a supported reading. Sources to Pro. Also, comments like "lol" at the opponent's argument dings Con for conduct.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
izbo10BennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought most of the arguments in this debate were very muddled and did not go either way. I had to find a point to vote on, and the prophecy of the bloodline seemed to be where Pro had by far the weakest explanation. Con adequately stressed the point that this is not a genetic relation. However, Pro had much better use of sources throughout the debate and handled most of the other objections quite well.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
izbo10BennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con needs to pick a contradiction(s) and stick with it. Pro weakened enough of Con's contentions to deny the BoP, however if Con had not spammed arguments he may have been able to take it. Poor formatting in later rounds also made it difficult to tell what was quote/argument from Con's side and the very long quotes did not help. Numbered arguments/contentions and outlines would have helped Con a lot. 4:2 Pro