The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Tied
25 Points
The Contender
LightC
Con (against)
Tied
25 Points

These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1D.

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
Pro Tied Con
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,495 times Debate No: 6853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (9)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

*NOTE* - The "1D" notation is for searching/browsing purposes. I hope to have more of these debates.

The resolution is simple and brief: I am here to argue that the God of the Bible and thus the teaching of Christianity does not exist, i.e. has no solid evidence for it's existence.

Common attributes given to this God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence , omnipresence, and many others. These 4 "omni-attributes", however, is what I will be focusing upon.

=====Arguments=====

For this debate I will be utilizing two popular arguments: the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief.

1. Argument from Evil

If an all-loving God exists, then why does evil and suffering exist in the world? Christians commonly use free will as an excuse for the evil in the world. But then, the burden is placed on my opponent to show why God would prefer us having free will rather than us not having free will, or having free will with moral perfection.

Secondly, the Christian has to somehow account for natural disasters that cause millions of deaths, tons of parasites that feed on humans, and of course bacteria and viruses. While some bacterias and viruses are human-made or proliferated, it's foolish to say every virus and bacteria does. So what of the virus that kills an infant in 4 months?

2. Argument from Non-Belief

I will paste the syllogism that Theodore Drange[1] formulated, based on J.L. Schellenberg's original formation of this argument:

1. If God exists, God:
1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and
4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants.
2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1).
3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die.
4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).

=====Conclusion=====

With both my arguments laid out, I await my opponent's rebuttal.

---References---
1. http://www.infidels.org...
LightC

Con

lol, the Skeptic has been waiting for this moment for awhile. So, w/o further adieu, let us begin.

Ob 1 - The resolution asks the question: Are these arguments valid? Thus the burden is on him to prove their validity. It is not my burden to prove the validity of pro-God arguments, rather it is my burden to prove his invalid.

Ob 2 - Sufficiency in negating. The resolution is unconditional on the side of the affirmative, thus if you have any questions in mind against the aff, you must vote agaisnt him.

I concede his "omni" characteristics he has placed for the round.

1. Argument from Evil

A. Evil Exists in the world

I argue that following:

First, God gave us free will to choose what path we want to take. Thus, we can choose the opposite of good.

Second, evil doesn't exist in "form." Basically this means that evil is just the absence of good. When God created good, he created a default evil.

a. If evil doesn't exist, then good wouldn't exist either. E.g. there is no value to life, if one cannot die.

Third, it is because God is so loving that evil exists. God would not be all loving is he abolished evil. This is true for two reasons:

1. Abolishing evil creates automation people, with absolutely no will.
2.If God abolished evil, he would be acting evil towards evil, thus not acting loving.

B. Natural Disasters/Viruses

I argue the same idea that if evil didn't exist, good cannot exist either.

2. Argument from Non-Belief

This argument is inherently flawed for the following reasons:

First, it assumes that God wants us to know his existence w/o a doubt.

Second, even if you don't buy this, a Christian would argue that Jesus' coming was that sign for hunaity, but some do not believe it.

And third, even if you dont buy that argument, cross apply one of my previous arguments that stated God forcing himself on us is not love, but rape.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

Delicious :). I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I agree with my opponent's observations - I have a certain burden to uphold.

=====Counterarguments=====

1. Argument from Evil

1A. Evil exists in the world

>>>...God gave us free will to choose what path we want to take. Thus, we can choose the opposite of good.<<<
----> If that is so, then it is your burden to explain why God would prefer to let humans have free will RATHER than humans having free will with moral perfection, no free will so evil actions won't happen, etc.

Secondly, you also have to explain the "natural evils". These come in forms of natural disasters, diseases, or anything that causes pain and suffering without human free will involved.

>>>...evil doesn't exist in "form." Basically this means that evil is just the absence of good. When God created good, he created a default evil...If evil doesn't exist, then good wouldn't exist either.<<<
----> This is quite the peculiar claim. Is my opponent stating that HEAVEN can't exist? Isn't heaven a place devoid of evil? Of pain? Of suffering? By your logic, heaven would also be an imperfect place since evil is supposed to be paired with good. This is obviously NOT the case.

>>>Abolishing evil creates automation people, with absolutely no will.<<<
----> As I've stated before, you have to uphold your burden of why God would desire humans to have free will (thus allowing evil in the world) instead of humans having free will with moral perfection, etc. Secondly, just because people don't have free will does NOT mean they will act like simplistic androids from Star Wars. No free will =/= no complex behaviors.

>>>If God abolished evil, he would be acting evil towards evil, thus not acting loving.<<<
----> Again, another peculiar argument. By definition, abolish means to do away with[1]. Actions by themselves are never evil, it's the intent behind it. Would Harriet Tubman be doing evil for helping the slavery abolishment movement? Would a soldier in war be evil for killing a suicide bomber who was about to blow up in a crowd of innocent bystanders? It's obvious that God is NOT doing evil.

1B. Natural Evils

I've mentioned this in my previous rebuttal in 1A. In response to this argument, just read my previous rebuttal in 1A.

2. Argument from Non-Belief

>>>First, it assumes that God wants us to know his existence w/o a doubt.<<<
----> That is one of my premises. This can be broken down into two parts:

First, it's known that God desires for man to be saved[2]. Two, I argue that this is highest desire, i.e. no other desire conflicts with this desire nor does it exceed it in priority. Unless you wish to refute the bible verse I cite, then it's your burden to show which desire he would have otherwise and why.

>>>Second, even if you don't buy this, a Christian would argue that Jesus' coming was that sign for hunaity, but some do not believe it.<<<
----> And it's very well known that Jesus' coming is debatable and controversial. Unless, you attempt to say that there is sufficient enough evidence in the world for anyone to be rationally theistic. Meaning that ALL sincere atheists are actually lying - a mighty burden to carry.

>>>And third, even if you dont buy that argument, cross apply one of my previous arguments that stated God forcing himself on us is not love, but rape.<<<
----> Again, refer to my previous statements. It's your burden to uphold the FWD (Free Will Defense).

=====Conclusion=====

Seeing as my opponent's rebuttals consist mainly of the FWD, I await to see an adequate response.

---References---
1. http://www.answers.com...
2. http://www.biblegateway.com...
LightC

Con

He argued the following:

1. My burden to prove free will w/o moral perfection

--> Free will is not free will if we are morally perfect. For example, I am given a bunch of choclate chip cookies right? I can only eat these cookies, do I have free will then? Obviously not. If God gave us moral perfection he is stripping our moral choice, and thus removing our free will. My opponeent will try and make the argument that free will isn't just moral decisions, however, since the debate is in the context of Christianity, then that is the given framework for the round. Meaning, under christianity, whenever the bible talked about free will, it was talking about the ability to choose good or evil. Taking away the evil side, removes the free will.

2. Natural Evils

--> Are natural evils, evil? They are simply circumstances that can cause negative externalities, however they are not inherently evil. Thus, it has no intrinsic link to inherent good or evil.

3. Heaven negates my "form" claim

--> Example: A boy and girl are opposite correct? A boy does't need to have a girl inside him to make him opposite. Cross-apply this to my opponeents claim that heaven wouldn't exist because I am arguing "form." In the case of Heaven, Hell exists as it's opposite.

4. Automation ppl, no free will

--> Cross-apply by burden explanation from the free will discussion

5. Actions by themselves are not evil

--> Remember the Christian framework for the round. E.g. Killing is inherently wrong because it strips life away. By God abolishing evil, he is doing an evil towards an evil, thus not acting loving. He gives some examples of intent vs. action. I argue that morality is dependant on 3 things: a. Inherency, b. Intent, c. Externalities. The action of killing is wrong inherenty, even if killing provides some good externality or the intent behind it is good. Abolishing evil fails to uphold the inherency burden for ethical/moral actions.

6. Argument of non-belief

a. God desieres us to know

--> He gives u absolutly no warrant to this claim, drop it

b. Highest Desire

--> This falls because premise 1 has no warrant to it

7. Jesus' coming is debateable

--> Yeah, and so is everything else. Saying it is debateable is the reason we are debating it?

8. Rape and free will

--> He misses the point I make. Forcing yourself on someone else is wrong and evil. Thus God, since he is omnibenevolent would not "rape" us persay. And cross-apply my free will defense argument at top.

[Thoery Argument]

Place a theory argument agaisnt my opponents "Non-Belief" Argument. This argument is compltley abusive because if you accept it as a voter for the round, then there was no way I could have won this debate at all. It is clrealy an abusive argument.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for his fast response.

=====Argument from Evil=====

1. Burden to prove free will trumps God's desire to eliminate evil

>>>Free will is not free will if we are morally perfect.<<<

I never said it was. I was offering other options than free will (since you say free will causes people to do evil). Either we can have no free will, or have free will but be morally perfect (thus in both situation no evil is done). Thus, the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

My opponent misses the point. He hasn't reasoned why God would prefer to let us have free will w/evil instead of no free will/free will with moral perfection and thus no evil.

2. Natural Evils

>>>Are natural evils, evil? They are simply circumstances that can cause negative externalities, however they are not inherently evil. Thus, it has no intrinsic link to inherent good or evil.<<<

This is true. There is a difference between an action and an event. An action implies that there is a will/reason behind it. However, a basic philosophy course in ethics teaches that if God were to exist (and create the entire universe and all that is in it), then EVERY event is an action via God. Natural disasters were created by God, either directly or indirectly. My opponent needs to somehow justify natural evils - they are certainly unnecessary.

3. Heaven negates the "form" claim

>>>Example: A boy and girl are opposite correct? A boy does't need to have a girl inside him to make him opposite.<<<

A boy doesn't need to have a girl exist to be called a boy. If all the girls in the world were to somehow die, we wouldn't cease calling young males "boys".

4. Automation ppl, no free will

My opponent fails to even approach justifying his burden. I recommend he focuses on it, since this is my last round and he has yet to fulfill it. He has to show why God would prefer free will (thus evil) for something else like no free will (thus no evil) or free will with moral perfection (thus no evil).

5. Actions by themselves are not evil

>>>Remember the Christian framework for the round. E.g. Killing is inherently wrong because it strips life away.<<<

Haha yes, do remember the Christian framework. God kills entire cities in the Bible, so is he evil?

>>>By God abolishing evil, he is doing an evil towards an evil, thus not acting loving.<<<

Abolishing a concept or the "form" of evil is not equatable to killing. My opponent presupposes a deontological framework, but it's erroneous to say abolishing is evil. Abolishing does not necessarily mean killing or anything immoral by nature. Even if my opponent did not mean to equate killing with abolishment, let's apply his thinking to real world situations:

According to the Christian framework, abolishing slavery is evil?

Unless my opponent is a racist, then I rest my case. It's obvious that if God is doing AWAY with something bad (evil), then it is NOT being un-loving. When God eventually abolishes/banishes Satan to Hell, is he evil? Of course not - it's all in your theology.

=====Argument from Non-Belief=====

6A. God desieres us to know

>>>He gives u absolutly no warrant to this claim, drop it<<<

Apparently my opponent didn't read my source. It was the verse 1 Timothy 2:4, which states "[God] who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully." It's obvious that God wants and desires for us to know. As I've said before, it's my opponent's burden to show what desire would trump his desire. Obviously, my opponent uses the free will defense (FWD), but he has yet to develop that argument.

b. Highest Desire

>>>This falls because premise 1 has no warrant to it<<<

If my opponent were to read the source, then yes, he would realize it has warrant.

7. Jesus' coming is debatable

>>>Yeah, and so is everything else. Saying it is debateable is the reason we are debating it?<<<

The way you said it sounded as if you were presupposing everyone knew Jesus resurrected. Obviously, it was an empty claim. Refer to the previous round.

8. Rape and free will

>>>Forcing yourself on someone else is wrong and evil. Thus God, since he is omnibenevolent would not "rape" us persay. And cross-apply my free will defense argument at top.<<<

First, rape is not the same with God revealing to us who he is. Rape violates someone's privacy, fulfills the rapist' and not the victim's desire, and goes against their will. God allowing himself to be known gives us all comfort and hope, least of all salvation and coincides with everyone's desire to know the truth.

And of course, refer to my concern with my opponent's FWD. He hasn't justified it at the least.

>>>Place a theory argument agaisnt my opponents "Non-Belief" Argument. This argument is compltley abusive because if you accept it as a voter for the round, then there was no way I could have won this debate at all. It is clrealy an abusive argument.<<<

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely NO idea what you mean by a theory argument. The non-belief argument is completely abusive? Sorry, but at least a little clarification would have been nice.

=====Conclusion=====

I'm afraid to say that my opponent's argument is completely rubbish. Racked with spelling errors and small responses, he has done mistakes from forgetting to read my aforementioned source, to completely misreading my arguments.

Since my opponent has done nothing yet to justify the FWD, besides just saying God would want it for us, I will lay out a few arguments against the FWD here since it's my last round (and when hopefully my opponent gets on the right track again).

1. The FWD supposes that God values our free will as one of, if not the most, highest priorities. However, the Christian needs to account for why so many times in the Bible God has violated the free will of people. He has killed cities, spoken explicitly to people, and performed miracles (as Jesus). Apparantely, interfering with one's free will isn't that big.

2. Having knowledge of God's existence doesn't mean we are forced to believe in him. Take the descent of angels, for example. They perfectly knew that God existed, but they still left with Satan (who he himself also knew God and the properties attributed to him).

This is all for now voters, for my opponent has given me barely any arguments and substance to refute.
LightC

Con

I'll list major points, and then respond.

1. Other options to Free Will

--> Christian Framework: Free Will is assumed for this debate. (Not assumption as in the totality of assumption, but we must assume it either exists or it does not.)

--> He never provides a warranted option. His moral perfection option does not stand in this round because he gives no brightline as to what moral perfection is, and even if it does exist it would contradict the loving God burden he placed for the round.

2. Natural Evils

--> My opponent agrees with my externality vs. inherency argument.

--> He then makes the point that God either directly or indirectly created the event that comes from it. I thus pose a new argument (which links to an old one):

~ As I have stated before, for good to exist, evil must exist as well because w/o it good has no value. Therefore, take rain for instance. Rain can be detrimental as in a hurricane, but rain is also necessary to grow food for our survival.

5. "Form" Claim

--> He argues that a boy would still be a boy even if all girls were killed off. This is true, however turn this argument agaisnt him. He concedes that the girl existed first, and then was killed off. However if the girl never existed, then no difference can be made in gender because no other gender would exist. This extends into another argument I make where in the context of a Christan framework evil exists, thus good exists, however God can't abolish evil because that is doing an evil to an evil and thus God would not be omnibenevolent.

--> He then argues that I presupposed a deontological framework. I didn't presuppose this, I rather incorporated it as an ethical argument for the sake of brightlines.

7. Abolishing evil

--> I'm sorry but I guess I point was a little bit muddled. My argument was that to fit the burden of omnibenevolent then God can't abolish evil because that is evil. When I say abolish I don't mean like what you said "abolishing Satan to Hell", I meant abolishing as in making it cease to exist.

[Extension]

- He dropped my theory argument

Ok, moving to voters:

1. My opponent claims that I have not won the FWD. This is not my burden in so far as since its a Christian framework we must presuppose its existence. Furthermore, he gives you no warranted option. This wins me the round immediately on an offensive position.

2. Remember the burden I placed in the NC, he conceded it but have not met it. It was his burden to prove its validity, it was not my burden to prove its invalidity. He explains why my arguments may be wrong, but he gives you no clear reason why his are right, he merely says my arguments don't disprove them. Yes, but he never once proves them. Refuting a rebuttal point, does not = argument validity.

3. Theory Argument made in the 2NR.

4. He never truly refutes my argument that evil exists as default to good. This is important for the round because you need to throw away my opponent's whole argument about evil for the fact that it is non-unique, it can't be resolved by either the aff. or neg.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"Ha, yeah good point. We ALL know why LightC has 112 points. What annoys me most about this whole voting block business is that due to my phone being incompatible, I can't vote at all, and yet there are clearly people out there with multiple accounts, all capable of voting."

Don't let it get to you. This site had voting problems long before joshand showed up. If you pissed even a single person off whether it be by beating them in a debate or saying something which they disagreed with, there was a good chance you'd be vote bombed. The only thing you can do is put voting matters behind you and just have fun debating.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"Is it one of those 'New Testament made right of all that' kinda things?"

Not really. Back when I was actually interested in actually debating on these matters (you'll note that I rarely engage myself anything even remotely religious on this website), the usual response to an opponent insisting that God is lying relied on context ignoring premises (much like how I see for anyone who insists God being literally omnipotent) or an over reliance on literalism (much like you concluding that because I say that I'm so hungry, that I can eat a horse, that must mean I intend to eat something equivalent to a horse the next time I eat).

In terms of killing, yes, he has killed quite a few times in the old testament, but provided that killing isn't the equivalent to murdering, this wouldn't count as a sin. To add, given that the price for sin is suggested as being death in both the old and new testament (hence where the concept of sacrificing) (hence explaining the matter of Jesus putting the burden of death on himself), . . . logically, killing anyone who has sinned is fair game.
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
lol, i obviously knew it was josh, my comment was supposed to be one of knowable shock...i guess...if that makes sense.
Posted by leethal 7 years ago
leethal
"Well given that Godsands debated were voted up around the same time and that this all took place around the time josh was online, it would seem that this was josh' handywork. Of course, given your knowledge of the situation, one has to question just how you didn't arrive at this conclusion. I wonder . . ."

Ha, yeah good point. We ALL know why LightC has 112 points. What annoys me most about this whole voting block business is that due to my phone being incompatible, I can't vote at all, and yet there are clearly people out there with multiple accounts, all capable of voting.
Posted by leethal 7 years ago
leethal
"Yeah, it is generally accepted amongst a majority of Christians I happen to know of. That said, I see nothing which supports it when referring to the Bible given that there are many limitations placed on God (most notably that he cannot sin) and that literary devices serve the purpose of making or strengthening a point."

Point taken. Man it's refreshing to see a Christian actually use no more than the Bible and his logic to understand his god. None of this 'Hovind says' stuff.

That said, it's been a few years since I dusted off the old Good Book, so I have to ask: does it actually say that God is incapable of sin? If so, how does it get around the fact that God lies and kills in the Old Testament? Is it one of those 'New Testament made right of all that' kinda things?
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Well given that Godsands debated were voted up around the same time and that this all took place around the time josh was online, it would seem that this was josh' handywork. Of course, given your knowledge of the situation, one has to question just how you didn't arrive at this conclusion. I wonder . . .
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"Can you please explain your stance here, LM? I thought omnipotence was a generally accepted attribute of the Christian God?"

Yeah, it is generally accepted amongst a majority of Christians I happen to know of. That said, I see nothing which supports it when referring to the Bible given that there are many limitations placed on God (most notably that he cannot sin) and that literary devices serve the purpose of making or strengthening a point.
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
wtf.....how do I have 105 points
Posted by leethal 7 years ago
leethal
"WHY????? Omni = hyperbole, thus strawman in the context being used."

Can you please explain your stance here, LM? I thought omnipotence was a generally accepted attribute of the Christian God?
Posted by TheRaven 7 years ago
TheRaven
Good debate other than that though.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
TheSkepticLightCTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 6 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
TheSkepticLightCTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticLightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TheSkepticLightCTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by greendaybjalover 7 years ago
greendaybjalover
TheSkepticLightCTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
TheSkepticLightCTied
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 resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
TheSkepticLightCTied
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 106627 7 years ago
106627
TheSkepticLightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by chip 7 years ago
chip
TheSkepticLightCTied
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