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

The resurrection of Christ was fabricated, added in later stuff.

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: 7/29/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,166 times Debate No: 78251
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




I believe the resurrection story was fabricated (added in stuff).


I assume that by you saying "added in stuff" you are talking about how some of the bible is true, but all of the so called "miracles" are fake, just like a fantasy story in the library. According to,, you have the burden of proof since you have made the hypothesis, that the resurrection of Christ was fabricated. Therefore you have to provide real evidence for your claim, and saying things like "there is no evidence of this being true, that's why I take this position" will only get you no where in the argument.

None the less, I would still like to make one pointer. The resurrection of Christ happened at the times of Roman rule. The Romans were a fierce empire, that if anyone tried to attack or mess with would be severely put down.

So therefore ANYONE,
that tried to create a fake story about some guy dying and being resurrected, and then claimed it to be true would be executed, because the Romans would of known that this "story" was not true, and the whole Christ movement would of stopped. And if you say that, well there was still people after it was over that thought it was true and that how in began to spread, would also be false. The Romans would put fear into anyone that still believed the story, and also give real reasons why it wasn't true in the first place. They would also have hunted down and killed anyone that was still trying to trick the Roman people into believing it. There would of been no resurrection of Christ story.
Debate Round No. 1


At the first round I was supposed to tell how the debate will go but I made a mistake because it's my first time on here but anyway now is the debate.

The reasons why I say they were fabricated, is not because I deny the crucifixion of Jesus, but because of the earliest writer, Paul, is way different to the gospels, and let me point out why to prove fabrication.

1.Paul never speaks of the empty tomb and the question to you is why would he not say this if he wants to make people believe in a physical resurrection?
2.No physical resurrection and appearances but written in a spiritual way because that was what there religion was then. It's belief was that when you die you get raised in a spiritual body and go to heaven, this indicates where the soul and heaven belief in Christianity originated from, and to back this up here are some things Paul says.....
-It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
-If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ was raised.
-He says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven
-He says you are born perishable, but are raised Imperishable
3.Paul said Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the gospels say it was women
4.Paul says that Judas did not hang himself, but was still alive (contradicts what matt says)
5.Mark, the first gospel writer, has no mention of the resurrection
6.No historians during the time Jesus lived mention him, only later ones such as Josephus written 95AD and there is some forgery in that one.

So this is just some of the proof (There's more), proving my point that the resurrection was just a fabrication of orals that turned the spiritual resurrection to form the physical legend. Put it this way, Paul the earliest writer, wrote some time around 50-57 AD, so 20 years after Jesus died, writes of things that differ greatly to the gospels that were written 65-110AD, which I just mentioned. Also the first Gospel mentions of no resurrection, yet the later ones do. So this is crystal clear proof that as time went on, people added in stuff.

There are also some problems with the stories such as...
-There was no third day prophecy in the Old Testament
-The messiah was ment to be a super soldier to defeat the Romans but instead tries to pacify them.

As for what you said about Romans persecuting Christians, that is an incredible exaggeration and that is because...

-There were periods of time when the Christians were more secure
-The first actual persecution happened by Emperor Nero in 64 AD (That is after the stories were first made), and this persecution was only in the local areas of Rome
-It was not until Decius (249-251), did any ruler order an empire wide persecution against Christians as you described and imagined ( Roman empires a big place so lots of places to hide).
-Out of the 54 emperors, only a dozen actually harassed Christians.
-Out of 300 years the Christians were 10-12 years of scattered times when they were singled out for persecution and even then, the level of how bad it was depends on which region of the massive empire were it ranged from ok to dangerous.
-Most stories of matyr were a complete invention of the church, and even the most historical have some things that were added in.
-Christians did hold office.
So the Christians weren't persecuted for the whole 300 years, empire-wide, but only had scattered periods with the first persecution in 64AD.


For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Acts 17:31

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14

Paul wrote both of these scriptures, showing that he does believe in the resurrection, and wants people to believe it.
I have also found no where in the scriptures that Paul "Clearly" states that Jesus appeared FIRST to Peter. If you would like to give my a source to find out then go ahead.

In this video, William Lane Craig clearly states, that after his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb, and that the location of the tomb was known by both Jews and Christians, this is a fact.
How in the world would people get away with saying that Jesus rose from the dead, if everyone knows that his corps is still there in the tomb? Not to mention that guards were also placed at the tomb to prevent any kind of way for people to get the body out of the tomb, so they could tell a lie ( In which you still would need to tell me why someone would want to pull of such a lie in the first place.)

Also if someone wanted to tell a fake story about Jesus and the resurrection, why would they say that women found the tomb empty? You have to realize that women in that day, were not valued the same as men, ( No offence to women reading this, its just how it was back then, not saying I agree with it.) Its is said that back then anything a women would say is not believed, by almost anyone! Why would someone say a group of women were the ones to see Jesus's tomb empty if they wanted people to believe it?

Also when you research just how many manuscripts were created just of the new testament alone, this is what pops up,

"Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian."

"Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing" Mark 16:6-8

Mark does mention the resurrection in the gospel.

Paul doesn't say that Judas didn't hang himself, you make random assumptions in these scriptures without even giving me sources so I can read them myself. I have found no evidence that says that he clearly states a passage in which you can easily conclude that he said Judas did not hang himself.

As for your reply to my argument about the Romans, you didn't get what I was trying to say. I never mentioned "Romans persecuting Christians," as you stated in your argument. I clearly said that anyone that tried to create a fake story about some guy dying and being resurrected, and then claimed it to be true would be executed, because the Romans would of known that this "story" was not true, and the whole Christ movement would of stopped. I never said prosecuting "Christians," I meant to simply imply how hard it would be to create such a story and get away with it, and for the story to still be believed would be incredibly hard with the Romans on your back, because Rome doesn't want fake lies of the supernatural, going about there people. No one would go to an extent of death for a lie, unless it was true, as it states in the bible, that the disciples died horrific deaths for what they believed.
Debate Round No. 2


The reason why I didn't put any sources down is because I'm typing from my iPad and at that time I didn't know how to copy and paste so I didn't bother because I didn't think you would care. But here are the sources

1) The two quotes you gave me, only the Corinthians one was written by Paul. The Acts verse was written by Luke because the Acts were written by him, and it is widely agreed by most scholars that the Acts was written between 80 and 110AD.
The Corinthians one is just talking about the spiritual body, that if you do not believe in it, then your faith is useless and I have given reasons why it is just a spiritual one in my last speech. Also, about Peter, I made a typing mistake, it was supposed to say Cephus.

2) William Lane Craig is a professional debater, but he is known to distort some of the facts, such as the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimetheus, and the reason why is...
-He's an evangelical, apologist, Christian, whose job is to convert.
-Paul, the earliest writer, never mentions of Joseph, all he says is that Jesus was buried. But Craig seems to think he can retroject or put his mind in Paul's mind by putting the gospel accounts that were written later, in Paul's writing, but this is a historical no no.
-The history that Joseph actually existed is pretty bad because the town of arimetheus never existed outside the bible, the contradictions between between Mark and John because John says he was a disciple while Mark says he's a member of Sanhedrin (People who want Jesus dead.)
-The only two established facts in the Bible is that Jesus got baptised by John, and got crucified by Pilate. So how could getting buried by Joseph be a fact. If it isn't one of those established facts?

So the buried by Arimetheus isn't a established fact by scholars, so therefore can't be called a fact because one man says it is, and, there are historical problems such as the earliest writer Paul never writes about Joseph, only the gospels 40-60 years later after Jesus's death, so now onto whether the Jews or Christians knew where he was buried.

You can't say they knew where Jesus was buried because...

- Paul (50-60AD), never mentions who buried Jesus and where, only the later ones do, so this whole thing could be added in.
-When crucified, those people where mostly buried in a grave, and because Paul never mentions in the same way the gospels says, it's plausable that Jesus could of been put in a grave but the gospel ones are just there to convert you of a physical resurrection.
-There are contradictions in where Jesus was buried in the gospel that could show they're just making it up.

So you can't use simplistic explanations that come from the gospels because who knows, they could just be propaganda to convert people.

Next you can't assume there were guards because

-The gospels were written way after Paul, no one would guard a tomb that long after, so just before they made up the empty tomb, they could of stolen the body if Jesus was actually buried in a tomb rather than a grave.
-The guards and the stolen body claims are not mentioned in the other three gospels, so they are just an apologetic insertion, by attempts to explain the Jewish claims that disciples stole the body that were circulating at the time, so he needed to convert people by this claim.
-The women and other witnesses that go to the tomb, go in a way that shows they weren't expecting a guard to be there.
-When the women go to the tomb there is a man or two men there so they were not the first witnesses.
-It is suspicious to why only Jesus followers saw jesus, and no one else.
So the guard at a tomb is not an established fact by scholars and only one gospel writes of a guard which this is written around 40-50 years after Jesus died.

You then ask me the question as to why they would want to lie, and I say because they want to start their own religion, get converts, gain power, and try to add in stories to try and make him full fill the roll to people believe he was a messiah.

3) You then talk about how much languages the bible is translated, and I ask you what are you trying to prove?

4)Marks resurrection were later added in because the early Greek bible his chapter ends with women don't tell anyone, and this from bbc video called Jesus never died on cross.

5) Yeh judas thing I got from answering Christianity and it might of been made up, also contradictions in his death.

6) Nope the Romans didn't care as long as you accept ceasar, only the Jews did.

7) I will write on disciples belo


I just realized that one of the scriptures was not written by Paul, as you said... my mistake.

You say that the 1 Corinthians 15:14 verse by Paul was talking about the spiritual body thing, in which I personally still don't understand what your trying to say. If your trying to say that he wasn't talking about Jesus being risen, then I also give you these verses.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4

He clearly said that Jesus was raised on the 3rd day, and I'm not sure still what your trying to disprove about this with the spiritual body argument. Paul also writes this, But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 1 Corinthians 12-14. Paul clearly states that he believes that Jesus rose from the dead. I don't know what your trying to disprove.

As for what you said about William Lane Craig, is nothing more that what anyone would say about someone that they disagree with. What you are saying about him I could also say about Richard Dawkins, or even you, because there are lots of assumptions you have made that aren't true either, same with Richard Dawkins. You would have to give me evidence in which I can look at for myself, that he clearly does this. I also haven't found were you say that Craig puts words in Paul's mouth.

Who is to say that "Of Arimathia" means a town? Why don't they say Peter of Bethsaida? They don't, but for some reason the say "Of Arimathia," and who is to say this means a town rather then a family name? Why would people that want to create a fake story and write a gospel that says 'Of Arimathia" if the people reading know that "Arimathia" doesn't exist, they would have to be stupid. Even if the Gospel about was written 40-60 years later, that's still an amazing thing, considering there are other things written about events that are thousands of years later, yet they are considered fact.

You say then that I cant say that Jews and Christians knew were Jesus was buried, but I say that you cant say that they didn't because you would then be making a contradiction yourself! If no one knew were he was buried, then how would anyone then steal the body? You cant say no one knew were he was buried then say that the Christians stole the body if they didn't even know where he was buried! The women that went to honor Jesus with there spices knew were Jesus was buried, and they didn't go like if his body was gone!

You then say that I cant assume that guards were there, I didn't assume I went off of the scriptures. Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone. Matthew 27: 65-66
The guards only guarded the tomb for 3 days because that's what was being said, that Jesus was going to arise in 3 days.
The women went to honor Jesus, which the guards would of let then do, they didn't go in a way that they didn't expect guards to be there. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 1 Corinthians 15: 6, you made another assumption that Jesus only appeared to the followers, if Jesus didn't appear to all of these people, there is no why the Christ movement could of happened.

If people wanted to get power with a plan that says thing like, Jesus loves his enemies, and turns the other cheek, would be the most stupid plan ever. People in that day wanted things like an army of God, not a passive way of winning.

Replying to your number 3, I was implying how much this event of Jesus was written about, its insane, yet its apparently nothing that millions of people have wasted there life believing it, because some Albert Einstein created a genius plan to trick so many people that hated Jesus into loving him, even though they had thousands of Jews saying it wasn't true, and the Romans.

Your number 4 needs to be explained better.

THE ROMANS DID CARE THAT'S WHY THEY KILLED JESUS! If the Romans didn't care what happened with the Jews than Jesus would still be alive! They did care, because no one wants the religion side of there empire to have riots and stuff over a lie!
It makes perfect sense why they wanted to guard the tomb as well!

The thing about the disciples, wasn't written directly in the bible I just realized, but in other side books about the bible I believe.
Debate Round No. 3


1) Women were mentioned as witnesses because of they were the ones who tended the dead, in early Christianity the main converts were women, if you see this as powerful truth, then you can imagine why the author wrote it, there is no court in the story, most people couldnt read, Jewish women had a role in their Jew religion and no one stopped believing, there is no evidence the gospels used females to verify their truth the only one is Corinthians men's eye witnesses so women at tomb but men's witnesses to provide proof that women weren't wrong. I could write more but need writing for others.

2) I am saying that the early religion was just about spiritual body rises into heaven, that they believe that Jesus was a messiah, and will be reborn into a new possibly different messiah. I have think I have written enough on that one so no need to take up typing space. I am trying to prove that the earliest ones were writing of spiritual, but overtime turned into physical.

3)Dawkins really doesn't say anything that distorts facts, and if did, says no where near as much as WLC and that is because WLC has 5 arguments,and basically all do that, he has been shown they're when he debates physicists Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss when he talks about space, which is two of his arguments, and when his morality, you will find them on YouTube and points out why they are fallacies. You will also see the Paul thing on his ten arguments for Arimetheus/resurection.

4)Not if the early Christians, the ones that were a seperate denomination of Jews wanted a peaceful messiah because they know it's suicidal to fight against Rome, so they try to encourage people to not and that's why the Jews didn't accept Jesus as a messiah reborn because they were the ones that were rebelling such as roman-Jew war.

5. Romans got bribed and told lies by the Jews. The Roman leader doesn't care if some random persons alive or dead. Pilate found Jesus innocent, so jesus didn't want to die for our sins lol, and didn't expect to. He was just an exorcist, believed he was son of God because Mary said he was because she cheated, did magic tricks to make people think he was and was a hippie because he knew Romans will massacre, same with his followers.
Also, not really, because I'm saying that the early time they believed in spiritual resurrections, so no claim he would physical resurrect, so therefore no need to.

6) I was saying that they either know where he is, or, they don't know. And this is because Paul never mentions what burial, so it could be a grave, so after 50 years they probably won't know, but if he was buried in a tomb, they would know, but it's 50 years later, so they could steal the bones,and, because Paul never mentions physical 20 years after Jesus death, he only mentions spiritual, so no need to guard for over 3 days, because no claim of physical resurrection in 3 days.
It doesn't make sense that 3 other gospels don't write about guards, and there were men inside the tomb, don't say they're Angels, because they could be the ones who participated in either resuscitating or stealing Jesus's body.

7) the appearances were obviously collective hallucinations which religious people have today and ufo abductions because...
-He says that some appeared in their sleep.
-Have you read Pauls appearance of Jesus, on the road, now that was obviously hallucination, anyone who says otherwise is just wishful thinking.
-Collective hallucinations happen when people want to see something so much, that they will hallucinate. These followers wanted to see Jesus in a spiritual form, so they did, just like today in religion, and people who believe in alien abductions and want to see aliens.
Next is the reason why they say 500 and appearances..
-That is because they want people to believe in spirits and in their spiritual resurrections (people were scared of death so obviously they would be easy converts).
Next about that 500
-That is an outrageous claim that needs good evidence, which it doesn't.
-If you claim to see Jesus, you get more authority in the church.

8) Who knows about Arimetheus, that's why its not an established fact, and it could of been a mistake in their book.

9) The deaths of disciples were written by the early church, in the late 2nd and early 3rd century, showing that they used this death thing as an added in thing to convert people.
In the bible it only mentions 2 deaths, one by hanging, two by sword.

So to conclude, all natural explanations defeat the resurrection, because the bibles unreliable, and there are good ones such as spiritual, swoon theory, and stolen body hypothesis. There are some verses that support the swoon theory, troop says man of God, 9hr on cross, isiah and medicine verse


All you have been doing is attacking the little side details of the scripture in the bible instead of looking at the cold hard core facts and details that really matter in the discussion of Jesus' resurrection. Your grammar and wording doesn't make since a lot of the time and its frustrating when people like you don't take they time to set aside bias to see what really matters in this debate. Your core arguments to me have been buried by unneeded sentences instead of getting to the point. You have overlooked my arguments and just jumped over them as if they were hurdles, and moved on to your arguments while mine still stand.

What you say about women is historically incorrect if you are talking about ancient Jewish society. It is clear that in that time women were treated as property of men in Jewish culture. The women had no rights, and their only role in society was childbearing, with no education. If you were to create a fake story, as I have already stated, you would not use women if you want the best success in your made up story for power that makes no since, to take off. It only makes since that the Gospels mentioned them because it was true.

Stop saying its about the spiritual body, you made assumptions about Paul's writing and didn't even bother to talk about the scriptures I gave you. Any sane person would conclude a physical resurrection if they are coming at it with an open mind about the scriptures I gave in my earlier argument. The evidence you gave me doesn't even make much since and its like that with a lot of your evidence. You still have only been attacking the scriptures which is not a smart thing to due considering that there is much more controversy in it rather than attacking from a different point at the resurrection of Jesus.

Stop attacking William Lane Craig without all of the evidence. I watch him all the time, and no were have I seen what you say about him. I am not coming from a bias stand point, I have read and seen what other people have said about him. He is a professional that is rated one of the best debaters in the world. He has been debating much longer than Richard Dawkins, and even Richard refused to debate with him. Atheist websites even say things like "Craig spanked hitches like a foolish child" when you go to them, here's one for you.
Craig comes at it the same way as always with 5 key arguments that get to the point. He doesn't stutter and get all emotionally crazy like Krauss at their debate.

Were is your evidence for saying that the Jews wanted a peaceful messiah? You contradict yourself, because in your first argument you stated that "God was meant to be a super solder to defeat the Romans but instead tries to pacify them." Are you serious? You just shifted to what I'm saying without realizing that you said that God was meant to be a super solder, which I believe the Jews interpreted wrongly about the prophesies about Jesus. The Jews believed they were Gods people, they didn't want anything other than God to rule over them. They had many revolts, not to mention the possible zealots that were with them.

YOUR JUMPING HURDLES! The Roman leader does care, as I stated in my last argument which you avoided. He does care if one man dies if its the difference between the Jews erupting in anger or them being peaceful! They demanded that Jesus was to be crucified, Jesus must of known that he was going to be crucified going into it with that kind of crowd. As for what you say about Mary is dumb and just flat out annoys me, as you have given no evidence to say what you said abut her, and its just stupid.

If they know were he was buried then stealing the body was nearly impossible, if they don't know were he was buried then stealing the body was also nearly impossible, as I've already stated in my last written speech. From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Matthew 16:21
Jesus tells his disciples many times he will rise in 3 days, read... and who would believe that he rose 50 years after death because his bones were gone... Really? The women didn't recognize the men at the tomb when there were only a hand full of Christians, and they are described as angelic, and you would then have to admit that they tomb location was known, disproving any stealing of the body.

The disciples and all the other appearances changed them dramatically despite all predispositions, research it and be amazed. Your hallucination argument is unreasonable, and you have the burden of proof to explain it with evidence and not just guessing what might of happened. Paul hated the church yet he changes just because of a hallucination?

8 & 9 Just research...
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeWithAName 2 years ago
Fun debate but... The day someone votes will be the day I die... hahaha.
Posted by Josh2900 3 years ago
Yep that's true. I wish I named the title, the resurrection didnt happen because it sounds better, but anyway it was an interesting debate.
Posted by DudeWithAName 3 years ago
You can reply if you want but what is said in the comments should not apply to our debate or change how the voters deside who won.
Posted by Josh2900 3 years ago
Romans absorbed many deities in their empires, they didn't go and get rid of them, just absorbed them.
Posted by Josh2900 3 years ago
I'm writing these just to respond to your last round.

So you believe Mary got impregnated by God, over she cheated and told lies to others and Jesus. There is no evidence for both so I can assert the more likely explanation.

I told you why I think why the gospels wrote women as first witnesses, they were the ones who tended the dead, and even though women wittnesses were not trusted, the bible has the disciples witnesses to prove the women weren't wrong, so this does not show the gospel was true because of this. These two were the main two points, I also added in others such as women were converting easier than males.

WLC owned hitch coz he didn't respond to points.

As for Jesus, I made a mistake about Pilate not caring about if one lives or dies. What I was meant to say was that the Jews made false lies about Jesus, saying that jesus was saying he was the king of Jews and told people to not pay taxes, which he didn't. So Pilate did care, and wanted everyone that said that to be killed.

Yeh that was a mistake I lazily made. I was supposed to say the Jews wanted a super soldier, while the Christians, the ones that separated from being Jews, wanted a messiah to pacify because they would know that the Romans would own them in combat.

You're also distorting what I said on the burial. I said Jesus was either buried in a tomb so they know where he is and doesn't have to be Arimetheus, but I'm fine with him burying Jesus, or he was buried in a grave, so no one knows after 50 years where he is, so either one they could make the same claim that Jesus resurrected physically. You're also quoting Mathew which is a million years later, who is not an eyewitness.

So you're saying I'm contradicting, but im not, im saying that due to the bible being unreliable, there are two ways, either they know where he was buried and people could of stolen or rescucitated Jesus early or stolen him later, or they don't know where he's buried so the spiritual has been turned i
Posted by Josh2900 3 years ago
I also never said the Jews wanted a peaceful messiah, I said that the people who believed Jesus was a messiah, were Christians (christians were originally Jews) but separated from the Jews. There's evidence of this in history and because Jesus was pacifying, I do assume that Christianity formed because they didn't want a war against Rome. The Jews were the ones who wanted to fight against Rome, that's why they wanted a messiah to be a super soldier, not a hippie, so they hated Jesus.
Posted by Josh2900 3 years ago
I was not trying to attack Craig, and if did, I don't care though because it's the truth. I said he's an expert debater because of his rhetoric and organization, but his weakness is his arguments that many opponents just don't bother to point out maybe because they are not an expert on that topic so don't know, but when confronted by an expert, he gets owned because craigs not an expert.
Posted by Josh2900 3 years ago
Should of put more typing words on it, we kept running out of words.

I was pointing out how unreliable the bible is so because of that, I can make assertions and all natural explanations defeat the resurrection. The opponent did make assertions too, ones to defend the impossible resurrection so I can.
Posted by DudeWithAName 3 years ago
Ran out of typing so I couldn't answer 8 and 9 but no need to anyway, I was going crazy.
No votes have been placed for this debate.