The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

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: 2/25/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,257 times Debate No: 2920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (11)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

the only passages that might indicate the necessity of believing in Jesus are the preceeding. they all say that only if you "reject" what you've been told would you be condemned. so, the hypothetical man on the island is not necessarily condemned. i'd argue that simply hearing a man shout out damnations at people isn't hearing the gosple, or a crude understanding isn't hearing.. such that you'd have rejected, or even a misunderstood/appreciated doesn't count. but, all i have to do to p[rove my point for this thread is show that hypothetical man, who never had a chance to reject.

i'd also point out that the passage from mark is disputed by scholars are to whether it's legit, given that it wasn't in hte earliest texts.
http://www.bible-researcher.com...
but this argument is just icing on the cake, and i don't really need this argument to make my point.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Ah, dairygirl - we meet again... Let us examine the verses you actually provide for me...

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16).

You argue that taken in context, all this means is that those people who hear the word and do not believe are condemned. Very well, so the people who are around and hear the good news and believe it are saved.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

Obviously one must know Jesus to be saved. This is further elucidated by Acts 4:12 - "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved." It is most certainly clear that knowledge and acceptance of Jesus is a prerequisite for being saved.

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

Now, the theoretical island man. He has no knowledge of Jesus, and can't be held accountable for his lack of belief because it was impossible for him to get the good news, right?

WRONG.

Romans 1:18-20 - " The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;"

This clearly states that God is evident in creation and the hypothetical island man, unless he be on some island that was not created by God, would have had "what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to" him. God can "understood and perceived in what he has made." And the man on the island HAS NO EXCUSE. He will be condemned.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

--"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
Obviously one must know Jesus to be saved.

it says that Jesus saves. if a non-christian is saved, they are saved by Jesus. it doesn't say anything about who does or does not believe in this verse, so i'm not sure why you're quoting it.

---4:12 - "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved." It is most certainly clear that knowledge and acceptance of Jesus is a prerequisite for being saved.

it says that Jesus saves. if a non-christian is saved, they are saved by Jesus. it doesn't say anything about who does or does not believe in this verse, so i'm not sure why you're quoting it. Jesus saves. the name is undr heaven is Jesus, and he saves. again, you're imputing knowledge etc of Jesus in the verse, where it doesn't exist.

---Romans 1:18-20 - " The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;"
-This clearly states that God is evident in creation and the hypothetical island man, unless he be on some island that was not created by God, would have had "what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to" him. God can "understood and perceived in what he has made." And the man on the island HAS NO EXCUSE. He will be condemned.

i'd quote that verse for the opposite of what you're quoting it for. everyone has a conscious. they'll be held accountable if they act evil. not because they didn't believe in Jesus. the verse doesn't say what you're claiming about not believing in Jesus. Jesus isn't even mentioned. and, condemneation of anyone who's ever sinned isn't mentioned. you're imputing it where it doesn't exist. we do know though that Jesus saves. the questio is who that applies to.

while there's a minute way you could construe by force your interpretation if you're willing to stretch the verse beyound where it goes literally.... you haven't shown that non-christians will necessarily be condemned by anything in the bible.

in fact... if the bible says anything, it says that they can be saved. i'm not arguing this position, but it's more clearly that than it is what you say:

"For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all." (Titus 2:11)

i concede the second one isn't as clear... but it's a whole lot more clear than the verses your claiming accomplish what you claim.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Well now we have contradictory statements...

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;"

I don't possibly see how that can be interpreted any other way than as that God has provided the requisite evidence for knowledge of his existence in the creation of he world. The passage is crystal clear - persons who interact with creation have no excuse for not attributing it to God and believing in him. Thus, the hypothetical man on the island has "no excuse" AS PER GOD'S WORD!!!

The bible has several instances where it lists the necessary behavior for salvation. These verses indicate what one must do to be saved, but they also indicate the converse - what will cause one NOT to be saved. It's very simple logic. Either P or Q. P. Therefore not Q.

Acts 16:30-31 - "Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved."

I don't know how you can make it more clear than that. People who do not believe in Jesus are not saved. Non-Christians be DEFINITION do not believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, the life, the son of god, the resurrection, etc... they believe he was a historical figure or prophet. How can one argue against the word of God?

What's more, there is a clear distinction as to how God will separate those to be saved from the others:

Matt 25:32b-33 - "And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

We now have a separation - clearly the sheep are the ones to be saved, as Jesus is the proverbial shepherd. Those who are not sheep or recorded in the Book of Life (Rev. 20:15) will be "cast into the lake of fire." I don't see how that can be separated from condemnation.

Matt 25:34 - "Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."

The ones on his right are saved. Lets see what happens to those on his left.

Matt 25:41 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Oops - looks like they got condemned.

1. Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.
2. If you believe in the Lord Jesus, you are one of the "sheep."
3. Non-Christians do not believe in the Lord Jesus.
4. Therefore, they are "goats."
5. Therefore Non-Christians are not saved and are cast "into the eternal fire."

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

Furthermore, my opponent argues that lack of possibility of knowledge of God will keep one from being condemned. There's a slight problem with this.

1. Belief is required for salvation (Acts 16:30-31).
2. To believe in God (Lord Jesus), one must necessarily know him.
3. Romans 1:18-20 clearly states that everyone can know God through nature.
4. Therefore, everyone can know, and can believe.
5. The man on the island, who can know and doesn't believe, is condemned.

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

I'll respond to the smoke-and-mirrors claim that the letters of Timothy and Titus are more valid than Jesus's speech in the gospels.

>>""For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)"

This verse claims God is the savior of all people. This is blatantly not the case if we are to believe the Gospel of Matthew - "Matt 25:41 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."" This verse actually more clearly illustrates God's inherent bigotry in treating individuals differently - "... especially of those who believe." Interesting... I guess that God loves some of us more than others.

>>""For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all." (Titus 2:11) "

Again, I quote Matthew - "Matt 25:41 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.""
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

you want to talk about smoke and mirrors.
i notice you're leaving the debate about the first verses i posted.
i'll take that as a tacit acknowledgement the verses didn't say what you claimed they did.
you next post has some more merit to it than the last one, but it's smoke and mirrors to avoid that your first post has been refuted.
plus a lot of the verses you're now posting are pretty weak, and your reasoning weak. but i won't call it smoke and mirrors so much cause i think you persist in poor conclusions because of your bias.

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;"

this could be understood in a few ways. but the main thing as per our discussion is that this verse has nothing to do with christianity necessarily. it merely talks about God. so, a non-christian could believe in God and to do otherwise would be no excuse. indians could be saved etc
(the other things are that most of humanity have believed in a divine being from time immemorials, it's in fact evidence that there's something to this thing called theism-not deductive proof just some evidence. and to deny these feelings might be not so good, or at least deny thegreater good suff. but anyways, my main point is the paragraph before this parenthetical)

here is another verse that runs along those lines and supports my theory of general belief in God, or a gneral idea of man's conscience. notice the last part about "gentiles" and the plausible reference to how they'd get rewards etc for good work:

5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God.

and this is all also supported by all the analogies that Jesus did about the lambs and the goats. he never said believe in me as the central tenant.
in fact, all the verses you're about to show invloved asking christians what to do to be saved... so if they said believe in Jesus, that was the fullness of the gospel and must be believed.
plus.. when you look at the verses "believe the lord your God with all yoru heart mind soul etc and neighbor" the word "lord" doesn't mean Jesus in the old language. so, there's a general verse. it doesn't mean it's contradictory to the next post, only depends on how you reconciel them. if there's a general and a specific, you have to go general if specific makes contradictory

Acts 16:30-31 - "Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved."

it's not "by definition" depending on how you read that. "believe in Jesus" is the requirement for people who should know better. for those who don't, the other verses i've posted say not so much. that ver "believe in jesus" taken alone would lend itself to what you said, even though not necessarily even then. but, taken with everything else, not so much.

Matt 25:32b-33 - "And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

he's the proverbial shepard yes... so instead of assuming non-christians can't be saved since that's not supported by this passage.... the best assumption is that non-christians would also be sheep.
again, you're imputing what's not there and then twisting it to suit your agenda.
i'm not going to quote your syllogism whre you repeat this, cause by the time you break down the metaphor into a syllagism, you should have realized that non-christians could be sheep and your passage proves nothing other than your bias.

---Matt 25:34 - "Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."
The ones on his right are saved. Lets see what happens to those on his left.
Matt 25:41 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Oops - looks like they got condemned.

so what's your point? yes condemnation is possible for non-christians, i enver said it wasn't. a good nonchristian though could be saved given what we've posted so far.

--Furthermore, my opponent argues that lack of possibility of knowledge of God will keep one from being condemned. There's a slight problem with this.
5. The man on the island, who can know and doesn't believe, is condemned.

more specifially, i argue the lack of knowledge doesn't condemn in itself. you're twisting my words.
the best argument you got is that you gotta believe in God. agan, indians could be saved etc etc, as historically people have believed in God.
i'd contend that that verse should be considered in the context of judism and such, such that if the message is that God exists, and nature indicates it might be true, and human nature does, then maybe you better believe.
honestly though, this verse hurts both of us. me cause i'd assume nontheists could be saved. you more than me though for the purposes of theis debate, cause this doesn'tsay anything about non-christians.

--""For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)"
This verse claims God is the savior of all people. This is blatantly not the case if we are to believe the Gospel of Matthew - "Matt 25:41 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."" This verse actually more clearly illustrates God's inherent bigotry in treating individuals differently - "... especially of those who believe." Interesting... I guess that God loves some of us more than others.

there's two ways you could reconcile the sheep and goats metaphor and the verse timothy. you choose to do it in a way that makes God a bigot. it's not the only way to read the verse though, as i showed above. and, given the plausible way of reading it, would't you rather read this verse for what it appears to say on its face?
remember, on its face, this verse says "especially of those" which indicteas non's could be saved.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

In each of these cases, you twist the meaning of the verse to suit your own agenda, while accusing me of doing the same. It's pretty clear that an omnipotent and omniscient god would deliver his word in a way understandable to the average person. Therefore, it is most logical to read the portions of the bible that are quotes from Jesus or God as literal first, and metaphorical second, except in a case where Jesus is teaching by parable.

John 14:6 - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

How can this possibly be disputed? This is literally the word of God FROM God's own lips! There is no other interpretation than that Jesus is the one that does the saving. So now we look to who it is that Jesus will save.

John 12:48 "Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day."

Again - indisputable. Jesus will save those who accept him and his message and condemn those who do not. We now have two requisite pieces of data - remember, these are quotes from Jesus' mouth - the direct word of God, and in context that cannot possibly be waved off as parable-like.

1. Jesus saves.
2. Jesus will save those who accept him and his words, and condemn those who do not.

Therefore, it logically follows that one who rejects Jesus and his words will be condemned. This is, again, indisputable logic as it flows directly from what Jesus himself has said. All this language about faith and works is moot when the problem is boiled down to this. Actually, this is a matter of faith, and works would be behavior as applied to that faith.

Let us examine non-Christians. A Non-Christian does not believe that Jesus is the savior, the way, the truth, the life, the son of God, etc... but that he was merely a prophet. In order to make the determination that Jesus is not all these things, a Non-Christian must necessarily have actually HEARD of Jesus. Therefore, the Non-Christian has heard and rejected Jesus and his word.

This of course, logically indicates that this Non-Christian will be condemned.

Now, let us examine the case of the Non-Christian that has not heard of Jesus. We'll assume this to be the hypothetical island man. First, the bridge between Jesus and God is necessary - for it is a two-way bridge.

John 12:44 - "Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me,"

Clearly, belief in Jesus is belief in God, and vice versa. For it would be ridiculous for this claim to only work one-way, and there are a multitude of other verses indicating the relationship that Jesus and God (and the Spirit) are one and the same.

I now call your attention to the fact that people have no excuse for a lack of knowledge of God.

Romans 1:18-20 - " The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;"

Therefore, it logically follows that God (and Jesus), who DOES THE JUDGING, holds that there is no excuse for a lack of knowledge of God from creation. In other words, those who interact with creation have no excuse for not knowing God. I certainly hope this island man is on an island created by God, because then he has no excuse for not knowing God. Therefore, his non-belief is a rejection of this knowledge of God.

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

This reasoning has logically shown that both the Exposed and "Unexposed" Non-Christian must necessarily reject God (and Jesus) in order to be classified as Non-Christians. So in this case, we ask God (= Jesus) what is to be done with those people who reject him...

His answer?

"Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day."
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by TheGreatDebate 8 years ago
TheGreatDebate
Solarman, thats not proof.......
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
what goes around comes around

same old thing

Bob Marley
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
lol - there's no proof. Natural theology can provide no ontological proof even for god's existence. the bible is obviously inadmissable as proof because it derives its authority from the deity it hopes to prove.
Posted by TheGreatDebate 8 years ago
TheGreatDebate
actually if you care to look, there is lots of proof for Christianity.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
since when is there any proof for any religion? The very definition of religion would necessarily include that there is no real evidence/proof for it, otherwise it wouldn't be a religion(faith)- it would be scientific fact. I'm sure solarman is about to give you a lashing for that comment as well...
Posted by TheGreatDebate 8 years ago
TheGreatDebate
Solarman: There is no logic to the concept of Karma. There is no proof of it.
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
There is no logic to the concept of heaven and hell, as determinant by a certain faith in certain person.

A lifetime of actions and thoughts creates Karma

You are born with Karma from previous lives

You act out this life and change your beings Karma as you leave this body, travel through the bardo state and are then reborn until you reach enlightenment

I think this view,where

YOU have to be responsible for ALL of your own actions, and JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, your THOUGHTS, throughout life

Virtuous actions and thoughts bring good karma

It is much easier in life to have this view, and try and pay attention to others , rather that dwell on oneself

Jesus, I believe, would have been in agreement with all of this

I dont think for one second he would have devised a scheme whereas ONLY at your deathbed, your TRUE vs NON belief in him, and SOLELY THAT will be determinant of "heaven" or "hell" REGARDLESS of the total summation of all of the karma of your life-

the totality of your actions
the totality of your thoughts
the totality of your work
the totality of your interactions with others
your children, and how you raised them

etc etc

I will be happy to debate any Christian on this topic.

I find my position to be the completely correct one

I LOVE JESUS. HE WAS A TOTALLY GREAT MAN

I think Christians are totally fine people for the most part And Jews for that matter.

But every person is an INDIVIDUAL.
Posted by TheGreatDebate 8 years ago
TheGreatDebate
dairygirl, there is something we must remember: All does not mean all, all the time. Like when God says that he came to save ALL the world, he does not mean that he is going to save every single person on this world. ALL is this instance means ALL the believe will be saved.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Much more interesting and difficult than our last debate. A good topic, and hard to come from the Con side, especially with necessarily in the topic...

A good debate though!
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 7 years ago
mastajake
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 flor 8 years ago
flor
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by dls771737 8 years ago
dls771737
dairygirl4u2cJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:30