The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Xantog
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

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 4 votes the winner is...
Xantog
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 105215
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (4)

 

backwardseden

Pro

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god.

Rules:
For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.

dsjpk5will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Xantog

Con

I believe what you are trying to do is prove any god doesn't exist, if you are you already started this argument with a bias which means even if I do win, your mind wont be changed. However, for the sake of a fun debate, lets try. The Christian God does not use the bible to communicate ideas to. The bible is a collection of prophets and the stories told by those prophets. The Jews, who wrote the old testament, would only add prophets whose predictions were 100% real to the bible, if one thing was false, he was a false prophet and wasn't added to the old testament.(And killed). The new testament along with the old testament is a record of what happened, not texts from God. The new testament is a collection of first hand...or second hand accounts (written under the supervision of those who had first hand accounts) about the life of Jesus of Nazareth, not any communication by God. Now that we have established the bible is not a means for God to communicate to us...God communicates to anyone, even an atheist through the world around us. If you look at DNA you can see it is a code or language that could have only been intelligently designed. I believe there is a bible quote of God saying to a prophet, you will know I exist by what you see in nature...something like that. Another way is through prayer. Prayer is similar to a meditation, the only difference is it is used to communicate to God and I usually do it to thank him for this world, but in times of need I will fast and pray, by the time my fasting is over, my prayer is answered. I hope this answers your question. In short, God does not use the bible to communicate to us, but rather uses it to record events in time. He communicates to us through the environment around us and prayer.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

I don’t “need” to prove “any” god doesn’t exist because until someone demonstrates and puts any supposed god to the test that any god does in fact exist, then by all standards of thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, using common sense, and using logic, no god does exist because nor anyone can prove that any god does exist. Its is in fact that simple. Nor is it my job to prove that “any” god does exist. That’s yours. No exceptions. None. It is always up to you, the religious, to prove that your god(s) do in fact exist.

Matt Dillahunty “The question is ill formed. The question is ‘what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true’? Atheism is the position of NOT accepting the theological explanation. It is NOT accepting the god hypothesis. It is in fact the null hypothesis. It cannot be proven to be true. It is the default position. And christianity and Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam they have all failed to meet their burden of proof. Its not up to me to prove they are any gods anymore than it is up to me to prove that that there isn’t bigfoot or fairies or UFO’s. The default position, the null hypothesis is that these things aren’t true. And we wait and we reserve belief until they are demonstrated to be true. Does that make sense?
Caller “Does that mean atheism is not a worldview?”
Matt “ That’s correct. Atheism isn’t a worldview. It doesn't have any pennants or dogma, no books, no authorities. It is a SINGLE position on a SINGLE question on the existence of gods. Now there is a world view that many atheists share. Most of us, at least with the ACA, are skeptics, that informs our worldview. Its my atheism as a direct product of skepticism. Many of us are secular humanists which tells us a little bit more about our moral outlook on life and other things. There’s many many many labels that would fit. There are a number of secular worldviews that are consistent with atheism. Just saying you are an atheist alone doesn’t say anything at all about somebody’s worldview. By the way most Buddhists are atheists. They don’t believe in a god. But they believe in any number of, in some cases, supernatural things that I don’t accept, some of them don’t accept that either, so yeah atheism is not a worldview. It can certainly be a part of a worldview. But its not a worldview in that broad sense.” .,

“This is not just a matter of opinion. This is an entire branch of philosophy of epistemology about how we go about determining whether or not a ---claim--- is reasonably and rationally justified. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that there is a god is an extraordinary claim which requires more than just pointing to an old book. That is simply NOT rational to the claim. Sorry. Its not just an opinion. There’s more to life than that.” Matt Dillahunty

“if you are you already started this argument with a bias…” YOUR god, is always based on bias. No exceptions. None. Period. Have you even read YOUR bible to not know that? Apparently not. What do you consider the 10 commandments where 5 of them are scatterbrained towards HIS pathetic trolled superior ego complex?
I am the lord thy god
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not the the name of the lord thy god in vain
Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy

“which means even if I do win…” well see right there that proves that you are in a different jungle. This is NOT about winning or losing. This is about what is right or wrong… what is just.

My mind won’t be changed because your god has freely admitted to having in which I do not believe in any of it, but since you believe in YOUR god YOU are forced into it... anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy. Jealousy? What from a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. Even worse is this supposed god of yours passed down those emotions so man could in turn learn to hate with all the baggage that comes along with it that these emotions clearly are that this god drags around with him. Hey god, dump those emotions and how’s about thinking about peace, kindness, love, caring for each other, harmony etc? Nah. So don’t talk to me or anyone that YOUR god is “good” when he is most certainly not anything like it. Not only that since this god of YOURS has these emotions it clearly means that he is imperfect. Now who in their right stale mind would ---ever--- want to bow down to an inferior supreme deity bile god such as the one you picked from your closet because what else could it be?
Strange isn’t it that in comparison that the Inca, many of the native American Indian tribes until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out, the aborigines, Hindu’s, Gaia Mother Earth, Buddhists etc etc etc they do not practice nor preach nor go to war over their religions, not anywhere close to the evils nor hate that the christians do. Now why is that? And yet according to your god worshiping other gods is considered to be the most evil thing there is, and you should be stoned to death for it. So you follow your lord’s orders and you come on down here and stone me to death. Whatsamatter? You are not going to follow your god’s orders? Why? Why not?

“for the sake of a fun debate, lets try.” Nah. Let’s not. “The Christian God does not use the bible to communicate ideas to.” Really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? What grade of sophomoric jungle jim junkie jamboree jam crawling up your you know whee areas have you made this scrub-tones b-day party up for? “The bible is a collection of prophets and the stories told by those prophets. The Jews, who wrote the old testament, would only add prophets whose predictions were 100% real to the bible, if one thing was false, he was a false prophet and wasn't added to the old testament.(And killed). The new testament along with the old testament is a record of what happened, not texts from God.” OK then according to you, then you do NOT in any way believe in YOUR god. So this debate is now over. Enough of your excuses. I’m not even going to bother with the rest of the crap that you have bothered to have printed. The ONLY way that YOU as a christian, and I do mean the ONLY way, you have any insight into YOUR god is through YOUR bible. Period. There is no other way. And YOUR god would NEVER choose text as a form of communication.

“If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty

“We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty

“If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We’d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor.” Christopher Hitchens

So since the bible is out as evidence, the only thing you have left is faith.

Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn’t a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith. If faith is your pathway you can’t distinguish between christianity, Hinduism, judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use ---reason--- in every of the other endeavor in your life and then when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth your’re saying that faith is required and how is that supposed to reflect on a god? What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence? Matt Dillahunty

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” Richard Dawkins
Xantog

Con

I believe I know why you have not won a single debate of the 36 you've had so far. You are disagreeable, so much so, that even those who agree with your ideology can see you are a tad crazy. Yes, what you just said is not your own opinion, but an ideology that you have picked up. You can predict what someone will be saying when that person is using an ideology to speak rather than themselves. I predicted your goal of this debate is to disprove God exists and then you spend 3/4ths of what looks like an essay to disprove God exists. The argument is whether or not God would use the bible to communicate to us. Stick to it. Now, I agree that God communicates his ideas in the bible, but that was to the people in the bible, not to us. The bible is meant to be a moral rulebook, not God's texts to us. The bible is not meant to be read end to end but like a dictionary to be used in a moral gray area. Christianity can be considered an Ideology as well to an atheist as I stated in the last sentence it can be used to answer questions instead of using your own mind. This produces evil people who use the bible to advocate why they are right which is in violation of the third commandment. (I'm getting off track) So to conclude the bible is a rulebook not a great means of communication from God to us. I maintain Prayer and the environment is the greatest form of communication from God. Reason being: How did God communicate to humans before the bible? Prayer and the environment.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

“I believe I know why you have not won a single debate of the 36 you've had so far.” Oh I’ve had a lot more than that. But who cares about “winning”? Its not a matter of winning or losing. Its a matter of what is right and wrong. What is just. Oh and btw, just in case you think its about winning, you have a look-see at the voting record and see who stalks me dsjpk5 who votes the exact same way no matter what, except for one which doesn’t count, and also look at just who is a christian which is extremely and overtly bias to the nth degree and also look at how old debaters are/ voters are. So do you REALLY think I have a chance at “winning”? Try laughing and smirking just a little bit while the lounge pillow is drowning in your soup to give you some clairvoyance.
Regardless, ALL of those that take the side of god are automatic “losers” because they cannot “win” because they cannot prove that their god even exists. Not only that but they have to get through the evil (in which their god has freely admitted to) and hate barriers. And then to top it off, the believers have to get through the fences and blockades of faith and the bible in which is not evidence of any kind. Its all one big mess for the zealot.
Sure. Call me crazy. After all you are only 16 and I am 56. Gee doesn’t that sound strange to you that our languages doesn’t grasp anything at all anything that YOU would understand coming from me and yet I understand you perfectly?
No what I have picked up in truth. What you have picked up is rubbish and hate. That can easily be proved. But you put this halo around yourself, just as all christians do of brainwashed denial and a thinking process that you think is protective invulnerability and yet you cannot prove one god damned thing. Now why is that?
Ih absolutely I am way ahead of you and its so easy to predict what many will say before they say it. After all I’ve been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 25,000 on this subject.
It really isn’t hard to prove that the god according to the bible doesn’t exist. That’s of course unless you believe in a god of hate and evil. That’s exactly what your bible states. Your bible also states that your god is imperfect. So who would ---ever--- want to worship THAT? Oh I get it, YOU would. See, the thing is, is that atheists believe in a lot more peace, love, care, kindness, harmony, BY FAR than christians do. That is well known. If you don’t know that, how about you do some research on it?
Absolutely not would your god communicate to you or anyone in text form. With all that’s said BY EXPERTS on the subject in which in no way did you obviously read nor understand, and you still go back to your silly ways. YOUR god would communicate by talking to us. Now that’s evidence. There. You were just proven wrong. He would NOT use text so YOU could get it wrong with misinterpretations over thousands of years and playing hide and go seek. Oh I get it, he’s afraid of showing himself. Oh please. You just flat out proved yourself to be the king of morons. I’m not going to bother reading the rest of what you have to say. Ker plunk.
Xantog

Con

I don't believe I've heard of an atheist regime created that has been harmonious. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia both were founded on the principle of atheism, man is their own god. Hitler was God in that realm. Stalin was god in that realm as well...'Stalin's cult of personality' Hitler's youth group grew up worshiping him.
I think as a rulebook the bible does a great job. Yes, many things are up to interpretation but the 10 commandments are not one of them...and most of the new testament is pretty firm... ill agree that the old testament rules are up to interpretation as they were made for religious rules, not moral ones..but if you can list a few examples of rules, morals, or ethics in the new testament that seem up to interpretation I believe I can clear those up.
I think the bible helps us understand that even as Christians we sin, Jesus in the new testament especially exposes a fair few priests for being on their high horse when they should humble themselves. Also if you could find the quote that states God is imperfect, I believe you will be credited with killing God.
God does communicate to us, I pray to him daily. If your looking for a real brain teaser, why does DNA resemble a code or a language? Only an intelligent being could have created that.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

“I don't believe…” Strange, just like ALL christians, no exceptions, none, you cannot give give one good reason for “why you believe”. And as I told you to do some research in which you clearly haven’t done. No. You have to flat out invent excuses as all christians do. Go ahead and google something like “atheism and peace” or “worldwide atheism and peace” or “atheists worldwide peace vs christianity and worldwide peace” since you think you are so smart. We’re done. Bye.
Xantog

Con

Yes. Countries that have evolved into atheism from Christian states are peaceful, that is because their roots were in Christianity. The worst countries to have ever existed were based in atheism. Communist China, Communist Russia, Communist North Korea all had cults that worshiped their leaders because they were atheist. In Nazi Germany they considered the Christian religion uncouth and switched it out for the political brainwashing of children... https://www.youtube.com... ...first hand account of that. The bible is the foundation of human morals and has shaped society dramatically, which can be seen in the founding of America, founded under Christian morals...(I recommend you watch this) https://www.youtube.com...

You should imagine yourself as an ambassador for atheism. By calling all Christians brainwashed and implying they advocate for violence you will change no ones mind and earn you enemies, as you stated someone is constantly voting against you.

Looking back on what I said, I'm sorry for calling you a tad crazy...that was wrong of me morally as a Christian.
Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Xantog 1 month ago
Xantog
Think of it like this: If all debates took your approach to litigating then the debate would go nowhere and if it were serious it would most assuredly end in war between two countries. This is why conduct is worth a few points in voting because conduct is the difference between the savage part of humans and the reasonable part. I am not perfect by no means, and I should be working on myself, but if I could give you any constructive criticism, I would recommend you work on what you attack during the debate. Many of the voters said you attacked me rather than my arguments, and I would agree. I only do this because I love you as a friend and Christian. If you have constructive criticism for me I will humbly learn.
Posted by Xantog 1 month ago
Xantog
Think of it like this: If all debates took your approach to litigating then the debate would go nowhere and if it were serious it would most assuredly end in war between two countries. This is why conduct is worth a few points in voting because conduct is the difference between the savage part of humans and the reasonable part. I am not perfect by no means, and I should be working on myself, but if I could give you any constructive criticism, I would recommend you work on what you attack during the debate. Many of the voters said you attacked me rather than my arguments, and I would agree. I only do this because I love you as a friend and Christian. If you have constructive criticism for me I will humbly learn.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@Xantog - Ouch I don't pay any attention to voting. If I did, I wouldn't be here. Duh. 1. Conduct is why I lose almost ALL of my debates. Its a worthless, completely worthless invalid slobbering little hair from the you know where area while leaving a dump. After all nearly EVERY live debate is A LOT worse, by far, than my supposed "conduct". 2. Only 4 people voted. Wow. That's a lot. That's really enough to say an election. Right? Get real. 3. Agreed with before and after the debate. No-one-cares or can possibly be kept up on that unless that person is a friend of the debaters or they stalk you. So that's gone. POOF. 4. Awe gee have a lookie at all those who are CHRISTIAN by gum = 100% bias. 5. Who has more reliable sources? Mew obviously. You can only use your bible. Nothing else. And your god would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. And I can ---always--- back up what I say whereas you get tongue tied. 6. Grammar is dead waffle stamper gravy tree ring juice. Who cares? I have my own special language in which I am very proud of using. 7. More convincing arguments always goes to me in a religious debate because the other debater cannot prove that his god exists. So he automatically loses at ground 0 for that one reason alone. 8. Throwbarf is a sociopath psychopath with no genuine friends or loved ones, no intelligence or edumacation, who stalks me like a wittle wee wee child searching for his long lost mommy so he gets tossed. All those combined shows I'm -ALWAYS- the winner in every debate about religion. But who cares about winning? Its not about winning? Its about what is right and what is wrong and what is just.
Posted by Xantog 1 month ago
Xantog
ouch...my opponent should probably read the voting results. They have good advice for him.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 month ago
dsjpk5
Word salad.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
Oh and oh yeah with a very big duh and a gosh golly gee whiz piled knee deep on the high top of the hill, you couldn't apologize to anyone ---ever--- even if you knew you were wrong. Its simply not in your blood. So your comment is utterly moot within your sweaty wet wool X-mas sweeter.
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@dsjpk5 - Uh huh. That"s what I thought. So does that mean you will leave me alone? No! Of course not. That"s because as stated you are completely addicted to me like heroin and meth. You get your fix when you make your knowing attempts to row row row your bloat over me.
Um nope. WRONG WRONG WRONG. As always WRONG! Point blank WRONG! Jeez can"t you get anything RIGHT? "So, eventually Michael took offense to me voting against him." I take offence the way you stalk me you childish pathetic grouse.
"I like voting on debates on this website. It troubles me that so many debates end up in a tie here. It seems logical to me that most debates have winner, so I try to find one where I can." Like I said YOU are about "winning" and nothing but. Everything about you is about winning which means you cannot be logical under---any--- circumstance, none.
"His behavior made it easy for me to award his opponents conduct points. It's nothing personal." Oh absolutely its personal. Lie all you want. If not then you would not follow me everywhere I go, nor post me, nor vote. You are so, tee hee, transparent and see through.
I made it a rule that you cannot vote on my debates by the advice from the higher up of debate.org. Either way its a silly rule. I should be able to, and so should everybody else, be able to block whoever they want, and or boot them from their debates.
Oh and oh yeah, duh, you know perfectly well why I have such a win/ loss abysmal record. So don"t play the pigeon toed horen billed reindeer.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 month ago
dsjpk5
Never mind. I've done nothing wrong, so there's no need to apologize. Have a nice day, Michael.
Posted by Throwback 1 month ago
Throwback
The ravings of a lunatic?
Posted by backwardseden 1 month ago
backwardseden
@dsjpk5 - I told you what you are absolutely required to do first. EVERYTHING, the name of the debate, your word IN WRITING, RIGHT NOW that you will not stalk me like a little child, nor vote on ANY OF MY DEBATES from now on, that the debate you are presenting is 5 rounds, 10,000 characters and that you are required to ultimately prove that your god would use text as a form of communication AND YOU APOLOGIZE TO ME you arrogant prick!!!!!!!! "It troubles me that so many debates end up in a tie here" How ridiculously and truly and ultimately childish. Is it any blunder AT ALL why on YOUR gods (yes according to YOUR BIBLE there's more than ONE god) why YOU have absolutely no genuine friends or loved ones? Nope. But YOU like so many here certainly deserve it. If you cannot do EVERYTHING just listed and repeating ... name the debate, your word right now in writing now that you will not stalk me , vote on any of my debates into the future from now on right here right now on your next post to me, that the debate you are presenting is 5 rounds containing 10,000 characters and that this is coming from you in saying that your "god is required to use text as an ultimate form of communication" and the RULES are for me to prove that god would not use text as a form of communication, AND you apologize to me RIGHT NOW IN the same post, and if you cannot do all of that in one post, then don't even think about bothering me.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WalkingTarget 1 month ago
WalkingTarget
backwardsedenXantogTied
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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct and spelling and grammar. Conduct: Pro continually argues the debater instead of making a point. He also appeals to his own authority over Pro by age difference and unverifiable debates. Spelling and grammar are awarded to pro for the horrendous use of caps and actually saying, "Whatsamatter?" in round two. Seriously? I think the only thing pro is good for is boosting a debaters win ratio of they can actually suffer the pointless rants.
Vote Placed by Throwback 1 month ago
Throwback
backwardsedenXantogTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's conduct was crude and offensive while Con was polite. Pro used very poor grammar. Pro did not argue within the topic presented, mostly just used his rounds to berate his opponent.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 1 month ago
theta_pinch
backwardsedenXantogTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con by far. Pro was extremely rude to the point of fanaticism. Spelling and grammar: Pro had very poor grammar. Arguments: Con actually debated the topic, pro mostly ranted about how terrible and stupid religious people and the concept of God are.
Vote Placed by Khons 1 month ago
Khons
backwardsedenXantogTied
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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: The reason that I am going for Con is because Pro kept going off course in the debate and repeatably harassing Con. For this I am going for Con only because they had the better conduct and grammar.