The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
78 Points
The Contender
Galiban
Con (against)
Losing
52 Points

There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 19 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,632 times Debate No: 6813
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (74)
Votes (19)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that there is no Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism (YEC). This means that there are no verses YEC supporters can use to justify the date of the creation of the earth.

For the purposes of debate, the approximate creation date range will be between 6000-10000 years ago. Multiple accounts give the creation date as circa 4000 BCE: "In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published the Ussher chronology, a chronology dating the creation to the night preceding October 23 4004 BC. Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)."

However, when one looks in the Bible for any sort of verse supporting this notion, one finds nothing.

There are a couple places in the Bible that YEC supporters use to back up this ridiculous claim:

1) Genesis 5
2) Matthew 1 / Luke 3

I'll address each of these passages and show why this does not support a YEC philosophy...

1) Genesis 5

The various verses in Genesis 5 are used to support YEC by adding up the dates between when people have their progeny. This yields a sum of 1626 years - the sum of the length of time before so-and-so begot so-and-so.

However, this set of verses cannot stand on its own without the addition of other genealogies in the Bible. They only cover the time between the birth of Adam and the birth of Noah's Children - in other words - up to the great flood.

As there is no information about the ages of the persons in the other genealogies, Genesis 5 fails on its own.

2) Matthew 1

This, along with Luke 3 provides a genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. However, there is no information regarding how old each person is. Supposing a (VERY generous) generational period of 45 years, there would only be 75 generations between Jesus and Adam, thus accounting for some 3375 years - in other words, more than 600 years short of the 4000 years needed to fall within the 6000-10000 year range.

However, the addition of the lengthened life spans of many of the early Biblical characters would bump this back into the realm of coherence, except that Noah is not in the list in Luke...

If the world was destroyed and all but Noah, his sons, and their wives were aboard, Noah would necessarily have to be in the genealogy.

************************

Just a brief opener. There is no Biblical evidence to support Young Earth Creationism...

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

Tarzan Hello Again!
I am glad to see you are still vigorous in your anti-biblical stance. I am also glad you still do not know the Bible. This one was too easy to pass up.

You have already lost by conceding Gensis 5 and by stating if it stands on its own then there is no biblical basis.

It does not stand on its own.
I linked a website that counts for you. Genesis 11 fills the gap from Noah's children to Abraham. When you keep reading the Bible you get more information. Abraham to Moses is then counted, then The Judges are counted, then the Kings are counted to our now known world history.

Genesis 5 Adam – Noah
Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham
Abraham to Moses is then counted
Moses to Judges then
Judges to Kings then
Historical timelines.
The website details it out.

If you had gone to a "Christian Propoganda" website you might have avoided this error.
http://www.abiblestudy.com...

For this debate you have lost due to the overwhelming biblical evidence in ALL OF ITS GENEOLOGIES. Genesis 5 does not stand on its own, Genesis 11 fills the gap of time you are so concerned with. All other possible "apparent" gaps are also detailed out by this website.

If you are able to count then you can see that man has been around roughly since 4000 B.C. (According to the Bible) Though you can offer a slight discrepancy based on the calendar you use, there is clear Biblical evidence. (This website uses the Jewish Calendar)

So yes YEC is completely supported by the Bible. As long as the resolution rests on the Bible you have lost this one.

I have to ask though, where did you think all of those "Christian looneys" came up with the estimated date?
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "You have already lost by conceding Gensis 5 and by stating if it stands on its own then there is no biblical basis."

Excuse me?? How about you actually READ my debate: "this set of verses CANNOT STAND ON ITS OWN without the addition of other genealogies in the Bible."

>> "For this debate you have lost due to the overwhelming biblical evidence in ALL OF ITS GENEOLOGIES."

This statement makes me laugh. There are many, MANY genealogies in the Bible, most of which are in outright conflict with one another, and most of which give NO AGES FOR THE PEOPLE. Let's examine just a few of the problems with the Biblical Genealogies and my opponent's "source":

1) There are no ages given for people/childbirth in the following Genealogies:

a) Genesis 29
b) Genesis 30
c) Matthew 1
d) Luke 3
e) Exodus 6
f) Genesis 41

2) His Source relies on extra-biblical conjecture and personal beliefs.

"I believe this new pharaoh is Ahmose I. He defeated the Hyskos rulers and took over the throne of Egypt. Merytamun, his daughter was wife of Amenhotep I and is possibly the one who saved Moses from the Nile. "

"I believe the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Tuthmose III (r. c. 1490-1436)."

3) Much of the genealogies conflict other parts of the Bible.

Genesis 6:3 states "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." Thus, nobody born after the flood should live past 120 years. Noah and his sons were born before the flood, so they are probably fine.

Yet we see the following "lifespans" for Biblical Characters all born after the flood:

Arphaxad, 438
Salah, 433
Eber, 464
Peleg, 239
Reu, 239
Serug, 229
Nahor, 148
Terah, 205
Abraham, 175
Ishmael, 137
Isaac, 180
Jacob, 147
Levi, 137
Kohath, 133
Amran, 137

An appeal to the lunar Hebrew year is inneffective - a lunar year is only 11 days shorter than a Terran year.

Furthermore, Genesis states that "And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." No other people are recorded entering the ark. Thus, everyone born after the flood is the product of an incestuous relationship.

Compare Matthew and Luke's genealogies. There are 28 generations between Jesus and David in Matthew's and 43 in Luke's!!! Furthermore, there are no ages given for these people. One is left wondering at the huge discrepancy in generations, regardless of the (unclear) notion that one genealogy is of Mary and one of Joseph.

4) The source ignores 2 Peter 3:8

The verse reads "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Thus, we start at his sources first post-creation day (3999 BC) and add the 7000 years of creation, and get a creation date of 10999 BC - almost 1000 years OUTSIDE the YEC date range. Oops.

********************************************

An appeal to any Biblical genealogy containing characters in the chapters without birth ages, characters after the flood living longer than 120 years, or containing other intra-biblical contradictions is inadmissible, as it is flawed evidence.

Furthermore, my opponent's source is Biblically incomplete, as it relies on the ages and reigns of Pharaohs combined with the writer's conjecture that these MAY be the proper persons matched to the proper times.

My opponent's argument can be summed up as:

"If you ignore Biblical inconsistencies and accept some conjecture on extrabiblical sources, here is a possibility."

Sadly, extrabiblical conjecture and inconsistencies does not fulfill the resolution.

AFFIRMED

*******************************

On a side note:

>> "I have to ask though, where did you think all of those "Christian looneys" came up with the estimated date?

Conjecture and ignoring inconsistencies in the Bible?? As well as ignoring a mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary??? As well as ignoring the notion that a day to God is like 1000 years???
Galiban

Con

Tarzan,
""The proposition on offer is that there is no Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism (YEC). This means that there are no verses YEC supporters can use to justify the date of the creation of the earth.""

The resolution States "There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism". You are redefining again. Tsk Tsk.

Silly Tarzan. "Ape Speak do not make Tarzan wise!" Grunting stick does not describe a tree.

If you had spent more than an hour reading the source you would have seen that Normal cataloged knowledge of History takes over after the Exodus. The author of the source is using it side by side with the count contained within the Bible. The judge's timeline is met with a catalog of history. It is side by side but in a different paragraph.
The Kings timeline is utilized after that and then it is cataloged next to history. You have to read all of the information to understand it. You again are mistquoting the source like you do the Bible. A nasty habit for your. You will never come to know God until you start paying attention.

All of the assumptions the website is making is placing it in a historical framework. It is for study purposes and does not detract the "count" of the timeline. The date and time is 3 paragraphs removed. Please read more carefully.

I can only assume you are attempting to convert Christians away from the Bible. But you use lies, deceit and absurd misinterpretation of the author's intentions. How is this going to convince anyone?

You're attention span on my sources is causing you to suffer.

1)""There are no ages given for people/childbirth in the following Genealogies:""
That is irrelavent to the resolution. All of the genealogies used by the source include timeframes, historical records and historical catalogs within the Bible. The resolution has been met.
2)As stated above all timelines are given. The conjecture is irrelevant to the dates. It is only for Historical placement of the events in the Bible next to Egyptian history. The count still stands and contained within the Bible, the resolution is met.
3)Genesis 6:3 Wow, Shocking. You took it out of context again. You are so "want" to do that. The 120 years was the decree from God's pronouncement to the flooding of the earth, not how old men should live. Did you actually read the account?

Its like me saying "Tarzan, I am only going to let you lie for 10 minutes more then you are dead!"
Does that mean your decendants will only live for ten minutes?
In contextual criticism you must read all of the information and then DISCERN the authors meaning.

""An appeal to the lunar Hebrew year is ineffective""- If you use a different calendar type year you wind up with a small numerical discrepancy that equates to a couple of decades.
Heck, geologists date rocks between 2-4 Billions years old. Who is being too liberal in their dating methods? That is like "friggin" ridiculous.
Did you even study the topic before posting this debate? Either way the Resolution is upheld no matter the calendar discrepancies. It is still biblical Support of YEC.

Compare Matthew and Luke's genealogies – Irrelevant to the Resolution. You are just bickering. You said there was NO Biblical support for YEC, not whether you see another
apparent inconsistency in a geneology. The rough time of 4000 B.C. is accounted for within the Bible. Read the source. Study would solve these inconsistencies for you.

4)The source ignores 2 Peter 3:8 – Ok, that was….just… sad. Peter was describing God's patience not a system of counting. Let me describe your patience in reading my sources.
"With Tarzan, a minute is like a year! Clearly he read and broke down all of those genealogies because he did it for nearly 60 years!" In the same way I described your lack of understanding. Pretty effectively too.
Get the concept?

""Furthermore, my opponent's source is Biblically incomplete, as it relies on the ages and reigns of Pharaohs combined with the writer's conjecture that these MAY be the proper persons matched to the proper times.""
First No it did not. Second, EVEN IF IT DID we have a count up to Abraham and then 430 years to Moses. We know when that is in Egyptian history. We could count with Egyptian history from that point on and not use the Bible for the rest of the count. It would still be roughly 4,000 BC and still adhere to the Criteria of YEC with Biblical support, the resolution has been met. Stop being so silly.

However, we do have a count within the Bible for timeframes that is around 4000 B.C. After the exodus we have Moses' lifetime, then Joshua and then the Judges, then the Kings reigns etc. Even if there were an inaccurate count after the Exodus we are unsure of then you would still be in the criteria of YEC at around 4,000 B.C. because we know the Egyptian history. The source was what is known as "historical parallel cataloging".

Study more carefully and you avoid that "Swinging from a tree sensation."

On the side note:
""Conjecture and ignoring inconsistencies in the Bible??"" -I have already reconciled all of your "apparent" inconsistencies.

"" As well as ignoring a mountain of scientific evidence to the contrary???"" -
You are making a mountain out of a molehill! Get it!? Haha!

""As well as ignoring the notion that a day to God is like 1000 years???"" - Your understanding of scripture leaves a tad bit to be desired.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "The resolution States "There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism". You are redefining again. Tsk Tsk."

Redefining how? Use of conflicting and incomplete evidence does not "justify the date of the creation of the earth" in any way.

>> "If you had spent more than an hour reading the source you would have seen that Normal cataloged knowledge of History takes over after the Exodus."

Does history meet the criteria for "Biblical Support" ? Obviously not. However, I will accept ACTUAL HISTORY to fill gaps. Conjecture does not meet this requirement at all.

>> ""There are no ages given for people/childbirth in the following Genealogies:" That is irrelavent to the resolution All of the genealogies used by the source include timeframes, historical records and historical catalogs within the Bible. The resolution has been met."

This is a laughable reply. Without any information as to how long people lived before they bore children, how can one have any idea how accurate the timeline is?!?!?!

>> As stated above all timelines are given. The conjecture is irrelevant to the dates. It is only for Historical placement of the events in the Bible next to Egyptian history. The count still stands and contained within the Bible, the resolution is met.

Again - laughable - you really assert that a valid timeline is created by the author's unresearched conjecture that certain historical characters are who the Bible is referring to??

>> "Genesis 6:3 Wow, Shocking. You took it out of context again. You are so "want" to do that. The 120 years was the decree from God's pronouncement to the flooding of the earth, not how old men should live. Did you actually read the account?"

Well that's interesting, considering that Noah was 500 years old when he had his sons in Genesis 5:32. Then LATER, God states that man has 120 years to live, yet according to Genesis 7:6, Noah was 600 years old when the floods came. Thus, the flood came in LESS THAN 100 YEARS of when God decreed. So the 120 year span cannot reference the time to the flood.

The use of flesh (or mortal) in the verse suggests that God was referring to the lifespan of man, not the length of time till the flood. Also, the fact that man is clearly still around today AND that God did not intend to kill all of mankind suggests that "man" refers to man in the individual sense, not mankind writ large.

Even if you accept 6:3 as referring to the time until the Flood, it STILL does not agree with Psalms 90:10.

>> """An appeal to the lunar Hebrew year is ineffective""- If you use a different calendar type year you wind up with a small numerical discrepancy that equates to a couple of decades."

I mean this in the sense that there have been people who attempt to reconcile the ages of Biblical characters by stating that the measure of years is really lunar months, making Noah only 76...

>> "You said there was NO Biblical support for YEC, not whether you see another apparent inconsistency in a geneology."

Hello? Inconsistency in a source makes it invalid. It's like if I told you that the book was on the table and as my evidence for this told you that the book was on the table and that the book was on the chair. The two statements are inconsistent, making the validity of either claim suspect. And even if one of them IS right, the genealogy still lacks ages for the people.

>> "The source ignores 2 Peter 3:8 – Ok, that was….just… sad. Peter was describing God's patience not a system of counting.

Actually, it references 3:4 where people are asking when the Second Coming will be. But I assume you read that. If a day to God is really like 1000 years, then how does one not know that the inspired word of God doesn't take this into account for the creation stories?? It makes MUCH more sense to view creation as having happened over 6000 years than 6 days.

>> "First No it did not." [relies on the ages and reigns of Pharaohs combined with the writer's conjecture that these MAY be the proper persons matched to the proper times.]

Let me quote your source to you again:

"I BELIEVE this new pharaoh is Ahmose I."
"Merytamun, his daughter was wife of Amenhotep I and is POSSIBLY the one who saved Moses from the Nile."
"I BELIEVE the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Tuthmose III."
"It is BELIEVED that Eden is buried under the waters of the Persian Gulf."
" Is it POSSIBLE that the Pre-Flood Age represents Atlantis referred to by Plato.."
"...this is POSSIBLY when the seven continents were created."
" It is POSSIBLE that Cush was born to Ham shortly after the Flood. Nimrod was PROBABLY Cush's last son."

Need I go on?

************************************

If we accept my opponent's contention that history is a valid way to fill gaps, I submit that the OVERWHELMING amount of historical evidence that shows that the lifespan of man is more like Psalms' account (70 years) than Genesis' accounts of 500+ year lives.

Furthermore, without evidence concerning the ages of people when their offspring was born, genealogies CANNOT be admissible evidence. If there are people supposedly living 137 years, there could be a 100 year difference PER PERSON in the age of their offspring and the age reported by my opponent's "source."

Appealing to these incomplete genealogies is like stating, "I know that the Titanic sank in 1912 because there were 3 generations between me and when it sank." That's obviously not a justification for the date of 1912.

My opponent has utterly failed to answer these objections:

1) There are no birth ages for many people in the genealogies (dismissed as irrelevant)
2) The genealogies rely on historical conjecture, possibilities, and probabilities (dismissed as irrelevant)
3) If we accept history as a valid gap-filler, history is in conflict with the ridiculous ages of Biblical Characters.

NEGATED.
Galiban

Con

We have Seen that YEC is backed up within the Bible because with the Biblical Genealogies that we CAN count by and do count by, do go back to 4,000 B.C. roughly.

I do not for the life of me understand why Tarzan continues to say it does not. I can only assume he is not reading the material or just lying to win the debate. Every timeframe is accounted for in the Bible.

I cannot believe that Tarzan actually read all of that information in an hour and compared all of the timeframes.

Though yes the author does speculate on several events not one bit of the speculation is in relation to the 4,000 B.C. year date.
The speculation is just on other nations histories during those timeframes or locations of certain places. He is discrediting the YEC generational account support just because He does not like it?

How can I possibly handle blind ignorance?

There was no speculation in any of his quotes for say "I believe 50 years should go here…." Or "Oh! I think 100 years sounds nicely here!"

Let me repeat for Tarzan's sake. Every year is accounted for. All speculation was based upon where it fell in the history books we studied.

We saw that Tarzan did not know about Genesis 11 picking up where Genesis 5 left off. He did not know the Moses account of 430 years picked up after Genesis 11 and then the reign of the Judges picked up from there and was counted, then the reign of the Kings was counted up until the Time of Christ, which we are all certain about.

We also see that He never addressed the timeline. He only pointed to speculation of other nations timelines in the authors work. He is "skunking".

The Resolution has been fulfilled. Just saying "no it has not." Is by no means grounds for denial. You have to have grounds for denial not just your opinion. You have to show all of the sources genealogies sum total was off or the author failed to count accurately and it really should have been 4.5 Billion years.

We see below Tarzan's summary:

<<""My opponent has utterly failed to answer these objections:

1) There are no birth ages for many people in the genealogies (dismissed as irrelevant)
2) The genealogies rely on historical conjecture, possibilities, and probabilities (dismissed as irrelevant)
3) If we accept history as a valid gap-filler, history is in conflict with the ridiculous ages of Biblical Characters."">>

As for 1) The genealogies we count by DO all have the timeframes birth and deaths laid out. Just saying no they don't does make you right. Just because some Genealogies do not contain timeframes does not mean they are the ones we are using to count by. That is being disingenuous to the audience and potentially to you. All genealogies that do not contain timelines only lend support and credit to the previous ones. We use them to validate the ones that count. We have a complete timeframe backed up by the Bible in all of its Genealogies.

2) No they do not. The ones that you count with all include a timeline right back to Adam. Is this a hard concept for you? They all have ages and years. You are dismissing credible data just because "you want to."

3) No history is not in conflict from Exodus on. We do not have a historical recorded timeframe that is far enough back as the Bible is. We have no complete cataloging of events that is pre Bible. The Bible is the only catalog with that kind of detail. You misunderstand historical data. Outside of the Bible a lot of Historical timeframes are speculative at best.

Every year is accounted for in the Bible. Tarzan is misleading because he did not know all of the genealogies that are used to count by.

He is using slight of hand pointing to the author's speculation that is irrelevant to the debate.
He is also using wool cloth by stating that the Bible actually does not count they years all the way back. I have counted it. So has the author. His statements to the contrary is simply untrue.

Is there a vote option for like 50 points when the opponent is just not using truth?

Again all years are accounted for by using all the genealogies.
Debate Round No. 3
74 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
""And if I am right that Christians largely "experience" what they want to believe, he would appear to interact with those who agreed with his character and were obedient o his commands.... and the stupider he Christian, the more likely they will believe their "exeperience." You, Godsands, and Datcmoto all claim to have seen God and know for a fact he exists.... hmm....."'

Is the same arguement "Because I (Tarzan) have not experienced God, then you cannot have experienced God."

How is this different?
Posted by Demosthenes 8 years ago
Demosthenes
Jason Hendirx take your moral superiority, your faith in a system (science) responsible for the deaths of millions, and your complete and utter stupidity and shove it.

Believing in God doesn't make you stupid, no more than NOT believing in God makes you stupid.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Please Galiban, save it. Please.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Mind if I give you a really good crazy quote to put on that website?"

Why thank you... In fact, you've given me several - some of my favorites...

On God's Justice: http://students.millikin.edu...
On Talking With God: http://students.millikin.edu...
On Truth: http://students.millikin.edu...
On Biblical Errancy: http://students.millikin.edu...
On Killing Babies: http://students.millikin.edu...
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "You believe that God is unknowable but if we are right and He is a person then is it possible He would still interact with those who agreed with His Character and were obediant to His commands?"

And if I am right that Christians largely "experience" what they want to believe, he would appear to interact with those who agreed with his character and were obedient o his commands.... and the stupider he Christian, the more likely they will believe their "exeperience." You, Godsands, and Datcmoto all claim to have seen God and know for a fact he exists.... hmm.....
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
Maybe the Bible supports Young Earth Creationism. It also supports talking snakes and long-haired Jewish men wiping out armies with jawbones.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Tarzan,
You believe that God is unknowable but if we are right and He is a person then is it possible He would still interact with those who agreed with His Character and were obediant to His commands?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Jesus supposedly rose 3 days later... so he's 1999 years and 362 days old... how compelling.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
No, Jesus rose again. He has met Jesus in spirit. In that we are also spiritual being. Hate it or love it. It will change nothing, but only your belief.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "I have met Jesus."

So you are... what.... some 2000 years old now?
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by nateriverx 8 years ago
nateriverx
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70