The Instigator
socialpinko
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

the Christian god exists

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 7 votes the winner is...
vardas0antras
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,674 times Debate No: 15341
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (7)

 

socialpinko

Con

As I am only arguing from a weak atheist perspective(lack of belief) and pro will be the one making a positive assertion(god exists) I will leave the BOP to him/her.

Definitions:

The definition of the Christian god will be the one described in the Christian bible and Jewish torah. This god will have the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence.

Exists: To have actual being; be real
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

The first round will be reserved for definitions and acceptance
Rounds 2,3, and 4 will be for arguments and rebuttals.

Good luck!
vardas0antras

Pro

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Con

As I gave pro the BOP it was up to you to provide the opening arguments and you have thus wasted the first round.
vardas0antras

Pro

First, let me address the claim that my opponent makes in round 2 "it was up to you to provide the opening arguments and you have thus wasted the first round". I have not wasted the second round for the rules which you set up said "The first round will be reserved for definitions and acceptance". So, if I were to make an argument in the first round then I would be breaking the rules, but if I follow the rules then I waste a round, hence, I lose the conduct vote? I don't think so.

Or, another way of saying this is "Dude, did you read your own rules?" J. Kenyon

Now, onto the argument.

================
+++ The Resurrection +++
================

1. We have eyewitnesses of the resurrection.

The most important eyewitnesses would be the 12 disciples who suffered greatly for their testimony:
http://biblebasics.wordpress.com...

Ordinary people have also seen Jesus resurrect:
http://bible.cc...
Which makes sense in the light of this:
http://www9.georgetown.edu...

We also have James who used to be a skeptic (John 7:5), but then something changed.

"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com... (Chapter 9:1, found in the middle of the paragraph)

He was willing to die for Jesus because he saw him resurrect (1 Corinthians 15:7).

We also have Paul.

"In his own words, Paul says "I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it" (Galatians 1:13). On his way to Damascus he was confronted by the risen Jesus in a heavenly vision. According to the three separate accounts in Acts, Saul found himself on the ground, blinded by the intensity of a heavenly light. The risen Jesus gave Saul a commission to "be a light to the Gentiles." After his conversion this Saul was to propel the infant church to fulfill the Great Commission by taking the gospel to the Gentiles."
http://www.churchhistory101.com...

Who due to conversion suffered persecution.
http://www.biblegateway.com...

2. The tomb was found empty

For starters, Jesus body was never produced. If the body was in the tomb then why didn't the religious leaders refrain from exposing the Christians?

Secondly, why would the disciples steal the body then lie about seeing Jesus resurrect and then suffer for their lie? Isn't that worse than complete madness? I say yes.

I'll leave it at that, for now.

3. The Bible lacks the elements of propaganda

Women were the first witnesses in the time when women were considered unreliable.

"Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law" Dr. William Lane Craig

Now, lets do some very simple additions:
1. People saw Jesus resurrect
2. Jesus disappeared
3. The Gospels seem genuine
The conclusion?

JESUS RESURRECTED! AMEN!
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Con

first, I apologize for the mess up in the rounds. I usually post all of my debates in the same way but this was different in that I assigned my opponent the BOP. Again, I sincerely apologize.

"The most important eyewitnesses would be the 12 disciples who suffered greatly for their testimony:
http://biblebasics.wordpress.com...;

I do not see how posting a link to how the disciples died makes the Christian god exist.

"Ordinary people have also seen Jesus resurrect:
http://bible.cc...;

This does not specify any people specifically who saw Jesus ressurect. And appeals to eye witness testimony are usually faulty in that people have horrible judgement. Just look at supposed alien abductions or people who believe their house is haunted. There must be external evidence brought forth that proves that the Christian god exists.

"and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com...... (Chapter 9:1, found in the middle of the paragraph)

He was willing to die for Jesus because he saw him resurrect (1 Corinthians 15:7)."

I don't think the fact that he was willing to die necessarily makes what he believed true. The Nazis believed the Jews were inferior and were willing to die for that cause but that is again no external evidence for the Jew's alleged inferiority.

"We also have Paul.
"In his own words, Paul says "I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it" (Galatians 1:13). On his way to Damascus he was confronted by the risen Jesus in a heavenly vision. According to the three separate accounts in Acts, Saul found himself on the ground, blinded by the intensity of a heavenly light. The risen Jesus gave Saul a commission to "be a light to the Gentiles." After his conversion this Saul was to propel the infant church to fulfill the Great Commission by taking the gospel to the Gentiles."
http://www.churchhistory101.com......
Who due to conversion suffered persecution.
http://www.biblegateway.com...;

This is again eye witness testimony and no external evidence for the existence of any deity. Also I still do not see how the fact that he was willing to suffer persecution makes him right. People were willing to suffer persecution for the cause of Islam so how can they both be right?

"For starters, Jesus body was never produced. If the body was in the tomb then why didn't the religious leaders refrain from exposing the Christians?"

One reason why Jesus' body was never found could be A)He never existed B)The disciples stole his body in an effort to attract followers or C)Jesus existed but the crucifixtion never took place. The bible is the only place where it is said that the body was in the tomb or that Jesus ever existed.

"Secondly, why would the disciples steal the body then lie about seeing Jesus resurrect and then suffer for their lie? Isn't that worse than complete madness? I say yes."

You may say yes but Christianity has historically been an incredible source of power. I don't know if they did as I seriously doubt Jesus ever existed but it is not beyond reason that they could have.

"Now, lets do some very simple additions:
1. People saw Jesus resurrect
2. Jesus disappeared
3. The Gospels seem genuine
The conclusion?
JESUS RESURRECTED! AMEN!"

Let's review:
1.Eye wintness accounts cannot be used as reliable testimony as people can be mistaken about things as trivial as what color car they saw flee the scene of a crime.
2.You have not proven that Jesus ever existed or that the disciples couldn't have stolen his body.
3.The Gospels SEEM genuine. That does not mean they are and your point about how women are the first eyewintesses and this proves god exists does not take into account the verses that are, just as most living in that day, misogynistic.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
-1 Corinthians 14:34

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
-1 Timothy 2:11
vardas0antras

Pro

Without ado lets begin!

1. We have eyewitnesses of the resurrection.

1.1 The 12 disciples
The link showed what fate they chose because of their testimony of Christs resurrection. You didn't even challenge me on this one...

1.2 Ordinary people
"This does not specify any people specifically who saw Jesus ressurect."
This makes no difference to my point.

"And appeals to eye witness testimony are usually faulty in that people have horrible judgement"
The "horrible judgement" part needs explanation.

"Just look at supposed alien abductions or people who believe their house is haunted."
These two scenarios lack:
1. A huge number of witnesses of the same event.
2. A huge number of witnesses willing to go through tribulation for their testimony.
3. External evidence, for example, an empty tomb.

1.3 Paul
"This is again eye witness testimony and no external evidence for the existence of any deity."
So you gonna just ignore this? Cool.

"People were willing to suffer persecution for the cause of Islam so how can they both be right?"
These people said that they saw him resurrect so this is not a matter of faith. Yes, people get persecuted for many things, but their persecution involves belief and faith while the early Christians were not persecuted for what they believed but rather for what they knew.

2. The tomb was found empty

2.1 First part
"A)He never existed"
Can you back up this point? We have the gospels, the historians such as Tacitus and Josephus, insufficient time for a myth to develop and things that don't make sense, for example, how could someone claim to see something that doesn't exist? It's a dark road that you're taking.

"B)The disciples stole his body in an effort to attract followers"
Hence, they died and suffered for what they knew was a lie...

"C)Jesus existed but the crucifixtion never took place"
I've no idea how this is supposed to work. May you explain this theory?

Also, all of your three explanations ignore the fact that Jesus was seen by others.

2.2 Second part
"You may say yes but Christianity has historically been an incredible source of power. "
Yes, they wanted the power of being tortured!!! Is this a joke?

3. My opponents review

3.1 Part One
"Eye wintness accounts cannot be used as reliable testimony"
I am providing a cumulative case and please check 1.2 which shows how of a big deal this premise is.

" people can be mistaken about things as trivial as what color car they saw flee the scene of a crime."
Actually, it's easier to be mistaken about small things. What are you more likely to remember, how your new friend looks or how the giant dragon that just appeared in your living room looks? Therefore, the large crowd made no mistake.

3.2 Part Two
"Jesus ever existed " I still can't believe that you're going through this road, also, I have discussed this in 2.1 and I feel no need to repeat myself.
"the disciples couldn't have stolen his body" Yes, the disciples stole his body and then suffered for what they knew was a lie! Furthermore, you must explain this theory, for example, how did they trick the guards?

3.3 Part Three
"The Gospels SEEM genuine. That does not mean they are"
I have no problem with you taking the unlikely choice.

The second part with the quotations from the Bible are irrelevant to my point and so I feel no need to defend the false accusations made by my opponent. The fact remains that the gospels show extreme honesty and have a lack of propaganda when it comes to the resurrection even if there are "misogynistic" verses.
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Con

"1.1 The 12 disciples
The link showed what fate they chose because of their testimony of Christs resurrection. You didn't even challenge me on this one..

All you posted was a source that showed how the disciples died. You did not show why their testimony was in any way validated by this.

"1.2 Ordinary people
"This does not specify any people specifically who saw Jesus ressurect."
This makes no difference to my point."

Of course it does. You only showed that a story says that a lot of people saw Jesus rise from the dead. This could all be made up as you provided no external evidence for your claim.

"And appeals to eye witness testimony are usually faulty in that people have horrible judgement"
The "horrible judgement" part needs explanation."

The following is from "Problems and Materials on Trial Advocacy"
"Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened. The familiar problems of perception, of gauging time, speed, height, weight, of accurate identification of persons accused of crime all contribute to making honest testimony something less than completely credible."
Eye witness testimony can not always be taken at face value.

"Just look at supposed alien abductions or people who believe their house is haunted."
These two scenarios lack:
1. A huge number of witnesses of the same event.
2. A huge number of witnesses willing to go through tribulation for their testimony.
3. External evidence, for example, an empty tomb."

1. You provided no external evidence that the event even took place or that there were eyewitnesses. It could have been easily made up as their is no evidence that the accounts taken are true.
2.I already showed why this has no matter in truth. Nazis were willing to go through "tribulation" for their "testimony".
3.An empty tomb as I have already shown is not evidence of god. I already said that either A-Jesus never existed, B-The disciples stole Jesus' body in an effort to promote Christianity, or C-Jesus existed but was never crucified.
Your only source of the crucifixtion is in a book written decades after the alleged crucifixtion and by men who had every reason to fabricute the story.

Take an analogy of your empty tomb "proof".

Say that I went up to my friend and exclaimed that I had found a unicorn and had it trapped in my garage at home. Now say my friend was skeptical(as he should be) and demanded that I show him the unicorn in person before he believes me. When we get to my house and I open my garage there is nothing in there but tools and trash bins. Does this count as external evidence that there WAS a unicorn trapped just because someone, without credible evidence, said there SHOULD have been a unicorn?

"1.3 Paul
"This is again eye witness testimony and no external evidence for the existence of any deity."
So you gonna just ignore this? Cool."

Another analoy. If Bob told Jimbo that he saw Superman yesterday and that he believed he had seen Superman with such intensity that he would be willing to lay down his life for his testimony, would that count as external evidence that Bob was telling the truth. No. It provides evidence that Bob THINKS he is telling the truth.

"People were willing to suffer persecution for the cause of Islam so how can they both be right?"
These people said that they saw him resurrect so this is not a matter of faith. Yes, people get persecuted for many things, but their persecution involves belief and faith while the early Christians were not persecuted for what they believed but rather for what they knew."

You have not shown any credible evidence that these people KNEW they had seen Christ ressurect, although you have shown that they BELIEVED they had seen Christ ressurect.

".1 First part
"A)He never existed"
Can you back up this point? "

I do not have to. You are positively asserting that Christ existed, therefore it is up to you to provide reason and evidence.

"We have the gospels, the historians such as Tacitus and Josephus"

As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims requuire extraordinary evidence." you have not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospels were not fabricated or that Tacitus and Josephus were not mistaken or lying.

"...insufficient time for a myth to develop"

http://www.egyptianmyths.net...
Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:

1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin.

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. <> Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

3. Horus was of royal descent. <> Jesus was of royal descent.

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. <> Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star "in the east" bearing gifts.

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. <> The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. <> Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. <> Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. <> Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

9. Horus had 12 followers. <> Jesus had 12 disciples.

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. <> Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] <> Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the "us" on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from "El-Asar" which was the name given to Osiris.

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. <> The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words "Bet" and "Anu" which translates "the house of Anu". The ‘y' on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u'.

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified.

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. <> Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. <> Jesus was "said" to resurrected after over a period of three days.

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. <> The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means "anointed one" <> Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning "anointed one"
http://www.abovetopsecret.com...

"how could someone claim to see something that doesn't exist?"

They could be lying or easily mistaken.

"B)The disciples stole his body in an effort to attract followers"
Hence, they died and suffered for what they knew was a lie..."

This again is no argument but mere speculation on what their intentions might have been. Still no evidence that they were telling the truth.

"C)Jesus existed but the crucifixtion never took place"
I've no idea how this is supposed to work. May you explain this theory?"

It's pretty self-explanatory. And it's not a theory I'm just pointing out scenarios in which Jesus may never have been buried to begin with.

It seems as though I have run out of room to continue refuting Pro's incredibly weak arguments. As this is the last round I will tell the voters that Pro brought absolutely no credible evidence for the existence of the Christian god. It was all based on eyewitness testimony which he did not prove was not lies or honest mistakes.

VOTE CON! And good luck to pro in the voting period.
vardas0antras

Pro

I don't think it's necessary to provide a speech so I'll simply say what is obvious. However, since started to write then I may as-well point something out: my opponent ignored many of my points and while he justified his disregard for the empty tomb, he failed when he made weak arguments for his position.

1. We have eyewitness

1.1 The 12 disciples
"You did not show why their testimony was in any way validated by this."
I said " suffered greatly for their testimony"

1.2 Ordinary people
"This could all be made up as you provided no external evidence for your claim."
I did provide this link so it's likely not made up:
http://www9.georgetown.edu...

"The following is from 'Problems and Materials on Trial Advocacy' "
Misses my point completely. THIS IS NOT A CRIME SCENE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!! The differences are
1. A huge number of witnesses of the same event. NOT FEW
2. A huge number of witnesses willing to go through tribulation for their testimony. Has this ever happened in a courtroom even with few people?
3. External evidence, for example, an empty tomb

"Just look at supposed alien abductions or people who believe their house is haunted."
1. Ugghh I just dealt with this.
2. No, you showed why tribulation for what you believe is not convincing, but you didn't show why tribulation for what you know, for what you saw, for what you heard and for what you experienced is not convincing.
3. First you have to prove your theories. " by men who had every reason to fabricute the story." Yes, they wanted to die horribly.

1.3 Paul
"Another analoy"
I've already told you what they're missing
"1. A huge number of witnesses of the same event.
2. A huge number of witnesses willing to go through tribulation for their testimony.
3. External evidence, for example, an empty tomb."

"You have not shown any credible evidence that these people KNEW they had seen Christ ressurect, although you have shown that they BELIEVED they had seen Christ ressurect."
That's just bad grammar on your part. I know that I am typing this, but I can only believe that you're typing your rounds and not a computer; by your definition there's no such thing as knowing something.

3.1 First part
"As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims requuire extraordinary evidence." you have not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospels were not fabricated or that Tacitus and Josephus were not mistaken or lying."
Are you serious? Believing that a man exits is an "extraordinary claim"? No, it's not, the belief of who he was is extraordinary but the belief that someone exists is not. Also, well done in simply ignoring what I have provided.

"Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:"
1. Horus was not born of a virgin.
"The goddess managed to share a time of passion with her husband who impregnating her with their child, Horus"
http://www.touregypt.net...
2. They sound similar in English, so... Shouldn't we be looking at the original languages? Yes we should.
4. First, where in the Bible does it say "three wise men"? Nowhere, we're only told what gifts Jesus received. Second, I can't find a reliable source which supports your claim about Horus birth.
5. Again, I can't find a reliable source.
6. You do realize that I need a reliable source?
7. No reliable source. You need a SOURCE.
This is a trusted source:
http://www.pantheon.org...
This is NOT a trusted website for it could have been created by anyone:
http://www.egyptianmyths.net...
8. So, do you like color blue?

Ah, I think, I have showed enough. People, please choose, a professional website or a copy and paste from an unreliable website plus a forum thread, seriously.

"This again is no argument but mere speculation on what their intentions might have been. Still no evidence that they were telling the truth."
Yes, this is just a very unlikely scenario since no sane man would go through suffering for what they know to be a lie hence they were, indeed, telling the truth...

"It's pretty self-explanatory. And it's not a theory I'm just pointing out scenarios in which Jesus may never have been buried to begin with." No, it's not, how is this supposed to makes sense in light of all the factors? You might just blame the Chinese, why? I don't know, but it will be just as credible for this theory like your theory is not supported by anything.
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Meatros,

Luke 4:16ff
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
"god is real jesus is real however he is not the son of God" Very insightful
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
I don't recall this - can you give me the verse?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Meatros, He reads from the book of Isaiah when he launches his public ministry.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"He reads things in the Gospel accounts..."

Yes, but what does he read. Arcane scrolls are typically written by novice/apprentice mages for relatively low level or simple spells. In general practice to separate them from the commoners the script is high magic and unfamiliar to the unitiated. I would find it unlikely that Jesus would even recognize it had it been given to him. Now the argument could be made that he was in secret an apprentice mage - but that just seems unlikely, if anything his character seems more obviously like a Priest and Spirit o Redemption seems to match the circumstances, but that is a tier 5 level holy spell.
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
Like what?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
He reads things in the Gospel accounts...
Posted by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
Hm....I did forget that Jesus was most likely illiterate....
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
"Proof requires more than witness testimony of interested parties"
Empty tomb? Honesty? The fact that people are uninterested in getting tortured for life, but they chose torture? The huge amount of witnesses? Wow, I can go on, but what debate were you reading? Definitely not this one.
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
"Are you guys really trying to determine if Jesus resurrected himself using a World of Warcraft spell?"
I wish to unsee this LOL
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Sitruk39 5 years ago
Sitruk39
socialpinkovardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that pro's arguments simply defeated con's.Pro used more reliable sources and pro's arguments were more logical.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 5 years ago
brokenboy
socialpinkovardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: god is real jesus is real however he is not the son of God
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
socialpinkovardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: 1. B/A: Con. Belief in the Xtian God = Disbelief in every other god, all of whom had their supporters = paradox not disproved by Pro. 2. Conduct: Tied. Both crossed the line a few times. 3. S&G: Tied Both made numerous largely irrelevant mistakes. 4 CA: Con. Proof requires more than witness testimony of interested parties. This was very close, but I feel that Con did refute the evidence produced by Pro. 5. RS: Pro. Pro used more sources and showed some flaws in Con, but Con used reason to wi
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkovardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear argument to Pro who would have to make the distinction for Christ when almost every other religion could make the exact same claims of support as note by Con. Con however really needs to source claims, and C
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
socialpinkovardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a better argument. Con loses conduct for continually ignoring the force of Pro's argument and simply saying "no it doesn't." Con loses source points for buying that Horus garbage and for cutting and pasting it in without sourcing it (that hurt conduct too).
Vote Placed by WrathofGod 5 years ago
WrathofGod
socialpinkovardas0antrasTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: First you have to prove your theories. " by men who had every reason to fabricute the story." Yes, they wanted to die horribly. Game. Set. Match. Winner, Vardas
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
socialpinkovardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both made great arguments. I have no opinion on this topic, both provided great arguments. Verd gets s/g and that's about it.