The Instigator
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
tigg13
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

the crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings - were the result of Jesus influence ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/2/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,113 times Debate No: 14226
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (8)

 

vardas0antras

Con

My tigg13 you may begin with your arguments in round 1.

Thank you
tigg13

Pro

I would like to thank vardas0antras for giving me this opportunity.

For the sake of this debate, I will assume that there was a person named Jesus and that his teachings and actions formed the basis for what was recorded in the Bible.

1. The Crusades:

In 1095 Pope Urban II addressed a large gathering at Claremont where he urged all of those present to take up their swords and fight the Muslims in the Holy Land. Although he was responding to a plea from Emperor Alexios, he did not speak of political borders or alliances. He told the crowd that heathens were defiling churches and alters. He quoted Jesus in Matthew 10:37 and 19:29 and told them that Islam was the enemy of Christ. He then called upon them to become soldiers of the church and to follow Christ to the Holy Land to recapture it in his name. And he told them that, if they died they would receive remission as their reward.

Clearly it was understood by all that what they were doing they were doing for their Lord and Savior. And, thus, Jesus Christ was by far what influenced them the most.

2. The Inquisition.

The purpose of the Inquisition had been, from the beginning, to identify heretics (and or Jews) and force them to convert or die. The heretics in question included Albigensians, Patarines and Cathars; in other words, they were all Christians (or Jews who supposedly converted to Christianity).

There can be no question that the only issue that the Inquisition was concerned with was the interpretation and acceptance of Jesus Christ.

3. The Witch Burnings

In 1486 Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger wrote and published the Malleus Maleficarum, a book that argued that witches not only existed, but were a danger to all Christians and needed to be identified and removed from society. This book was approved by Pope Innocent VIII and distributed to church inquisitors for the purpose it was created.

It should be noted that witchcraft had already been declared a heresy and as I pointed out above, the Inquisitions were done by Christians, in the name of Christ as an observance of their faith in Christ. The Malleus Maleficarum simply provided the faithful with a new enemy of Christ to prove their faith upon.

Conclusion:

Since being a Christian implies that a person has been influenced by Christ, it should be obvious that theses events that were enacted by Christians in, what they believed to be, an observance of their faith must be seen as having been influenced by Jesus.
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Con

::Jesus Influence::
None of what tigg13 said should be considered unless the teachings of Jesus or the Bible thought, influenced or even allowed these actions. In any case I'll show everybody how incorrect you are when it comes to history.

1. The Crusades
"The Crusades were the long-term result of the rise of Islam."
Elizabeth Hallam, Chronicles of the Crusades

"The Crusades were fought mainly by Roman Catholic forces (taking place after the East-West Schism and mostly before the Protestant Reformation) against Muslims who had occupied the near east since the time of the Rashidun Caliphate, although campaigns were also waged against pagan Slavs, pagan Balts, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the various popes.[1] Orthodox Christians also took part in fighting against Islamic forces in some Crusades. Crusaders took vows and were granted a plenary indulgence."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"This movement began as an effort to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims"
http://books.google.com...
(Page 125, the second sentence under the title "The Crusades")

Crusades had nothing to do with religion but it had everything to do with power.

2. The Inquisition
"The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal for discovery and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to the accused."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

"In simple terms, the Inquisition was a formal court set up by the Church to try people accused of not following the teachings of the Church"
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com...

3. The Witch Burnings
"The terms "Witch" and "Witchcraft" have over a dozen conflicting meanings. The words are mainly used in this essay to refer to a unique belief system: that evil individuals, mostly women, sold their soul to the Christian Devil, worshiped Satan and devoted their lives to harming others. "
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Conclusion:
I would like to see:
1. My opponents sources
2. Jesus or Bible teachings which allow these horrible things to happen
tigg13

Pro

Let me begin by apologizing to my opponent for not citing my sources in round 1. I really should have known better. I will include the citations from round 1 here in the applicable sections.

I would also like to thank vardas0antras again for giving me this opportunity.

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what "influence" is.
Influence: the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.
http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Notice that, how a person is effected has nothing to do with the desires or expectations of those who influenced them. We wouldn't say that George III and the British Parliament had no influence over the American Colonies because American independence wasn't what they had planned on. So the question of whether or not Jesus, or the Bible, influenced anything has nothing to do with what Jesus believed or what the Bible allows, but on whether or not the people responsible for the actions we are discussing were affected by him and whether that effect led to the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burnings.

1. The Crusades
(http://www.fordham.edu...)

Yes, Islam had been encroaching on the borders of Europe for some time before the Crusades. And yes, Pope Urban III had been contacted by Emperor Alexios and asked to help him defend Byzantium from Islamic invaders. But, as vardas0antras himself pointed out "This movement began as an effort to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims".

Yes, the Crusades had to do with power – divine power. They chose Jerusalem as their goal because of their religious beliefs about Jesus Christ.

2. The Inquisitions.
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
(http://www.1902encyclopedia.com...)

Since the Catholic Church has always described itself as a Christian religion based on the the acceptance of Jesus as their Lord and Savior, I do not see how Con has, in any way, challenged my conclusion that the only issue that the Inquisition was concerned with was the interpretation and acceptance of Jesus Christ.

3. The Witch Burnings
(http://www.themystica.com...)

Again, Con has made no argument to suggest that the burning of people for the crime of witchcraft was motivated by anything except for the Christian beliefs of those who persecuted them.

Conclusion:
1. What Jesus or the Bible would or would not allow is irrelevant to the issue of Jesus' influence.
2. The decisions and behavior of those responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burnings were motivated by their belief in Jesus and, so, he did influence them.
3. I would like to see my opponent show how, if there had never been a Jesus, and thus, no Christianity, any of these specific events could have taken place.
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Con

::Influence::
"but on whether or not the people responsible for the actions we are discussing were affected by him and whether that effect led to the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burnings."
This is actually hilarious. As expected my opponent will not provide bible verses which allow or even let these things happen. However, he argues that "has nothing to do with what Jesus believed or what the Bible allows, but on whether or not the people responsible for the actions we are discussing were affected by him ". The Bible says do not kill and love your enemies. " and whether that effect led to the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burnings." And how would a "thous shall not kill" lead to killing ? My opponent just told us that he has to do something which I asked him to do but he refused due to this argument which agrees with me !

1. The Crusades
"Yes, the Crusades had to do with power" Indeed, the crusades were inevitable. "– divine power" Please provide evidence, as I have shown - the crusades definitely had at least something to do with power hence the sin of mankind. Now show me where does the bible support the crusades "their religious beliefs about Jesus Christ.".

2. Inquisition
"my conclusion that the only issue that the Inquisition was concerned with was the interpretation and acceptance of Jesus Christ."
1." of not following the teachings of the Church" Where does the Bible come in ? If I killed a person and it was unchristian but I declared myself as a Christian, are my actions that of a Christian ? The Bible says that all men are full of sin:http://bible.cc.... So we can understand why would someone who claims to be a Christian would sin but we still have the difficult task of understanding how my opponents mind functions.

3. The Witch Burnings
"Again, Con has made no argument to suggest that the burning of people for the crime of witchcraft was motivated by anything except for the Christian beliefs of those who persecuted them."

These witches were burned because people believed "evil individuals, mostly women, sold their soul to the Christian Devil, worshiped Satan and devoted their lives to harming others". This is a peculiar belief which is not supported by the Bible. Why would anyone believe this or why would any person implement this belief onto other people is beyond me. Perhaps there was a lot of hate and this via many different event and decisions led to witch burning ? Who knows?

"1. What Jesus or the Bible would or would not allow is irrelevant to the issue of Jesus' influence.
2. The decisions and behavior of those responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burnings were motivated by their belief in Jesus and, so, he did influence them."
I honestly can't believe my opponent is serious in fact I think this is a joke debate. What motivation ? They had the motivation of intentionally contradicting what the Bible says ?

"3. I would like to see my opponent show how, if there had never been a Jesus, and thus, no Christianity, any of these specific events could have taken place."
Readers - if you do not chuckle at this then you can be sure that this is indeed "one of those days".

1. The Crusades
The Muslims would have still conquered huge parts of European land. The Christian nations would be still scared and hungry for power. There is no Christianity hence it would be promoted with Pagan Gods or a one chief Pagan God. Now, I don't know much about Pagan Gods but if they had a choice they would probably choose:
http://www.thaliatook.com...
"She is credited with inspiring violence, starting wars, and goading soldiers into battle; Virgil described Her as carrying a bloodstained scourge or whip"
Now we do have an inspiration for crusades !!! Not only that but we have an influence for many, many other wars which in this universe didn't happen.

2. The Inquisition
Instead of the Inquisition we would have some other chief religion or government. Sin would still exist. Lets compare the government of Hitler with the inqusition:

Hitlers Government:
Had total power
Sin
Couldn't handle difference
Wasn't based on common sense

Inquisition:
Had total power
Sin
Couldn't handle difference
Wasn't based on the Bible

Now I know that Hitler was born later in history but the ideas his government held were not. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that some other religion or belief (racial supremacy for Hitler) or government would have it. Would it be worse or better ? That's a coin toss.

3.The Witch Burning
I don't see a connection between this and the Bible. However, for the sake of finishing this properly Ill say that we would still have the source that caused this (whatever it is) and instead of the Biblical devil we would have evil spirits.
tigg13

Pro



I still appreciate my opponent for giving me this opportunity, but I'm beginning to get the impression that this isn't the topic he would like to discuss. Apparently he would rather debate whether or not the Bible condoned the Crusades, the Inquisitions or the witch burnings or, perhaps, was the Catholic Church of 11th - 15th centuries a Christian religion.


I'm sorry that I'm not presenting the argument that he would like me to present, but as I pointed out previously, whether or not there are Biblical verses that support the events in question is irrelevant to the topic of this debate because influence does not equate to control and those who are influenced are not bound by the desires and expectations of those they are influenced by.


Let me provide a couple of examples:



1. A soldier is influenced by his commanding officer in that he must carry out his superior's orders irrespective of what those orders might be. Let us imagine for a moment that the soldier is in the field and his orders were intercepted by enemy forces who replaced them with instructions that would be detrimental to his commander's strategies. My opponent would have believe that the soldier should be summarily executed for treason because his actions were not in line with his superior's intentions. But obviously the fact that the soldier felt obliged to carry out any orders that he believed to have come from his superior demonstrates that he was still influenced by his superior's rank. The orders and the actions are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a soldier is influenced by his commander.



2. A philanderer finds himself being blackmailed to the tune of $5000 or pictures of his indiscretions will be sent to his wife. The philanderer could choose to pay the blackmailer, confess his affairs to his wife, or hit the blackmailer over the head, stuff his body in a truck and mail him to Bogota. The influence that the blackmailer has over the philanderer doesn't determine the philanderer's choice, it simply causes him to take actions that he wouldn't ordinarily take.


So trying to say that the only people who's actions have been influenced by Jesus are those whose actions are supported by scripture is like saying the only people influenced by the Bush administration were the people who voted for him.


Now, let's take a look at who these people were that were responsible for Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burnings:


Pope Urban II, Pope Paschal II, Pope Gregory VIII, Pope Innocent III, Pope Honorius III, Pope Gregory IX, Pope Innocent IV, Pope Sixtus IV, Pope Paul III,Pope John XXII,Pope Innocent VII,Pope Innocent VIII, Tomas de Torquemada (Prior of the Domincan Convent in Santa Cruz and Confessor to Queen Isabella), Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas Eymeric (Dominica Inquisitor General and Chaplain to the Pope), Heinrich Kramer (Dominican Monk and author of the Malleus Maleficarum)


http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://www.newadvent.org...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://www.newadvent.org...


http://en.wikipedia.org...


http://departments.kings.edu...



These were not just some guys who liked to think of themselves as Christian. They were ordained and educated men who devoted their entire lives to the Church and were considered at the time to be some of the most knowledgeable theologians in all of Christianity. Can there really be any question as to whether these men felt that Jesus was the most influential person in their lives?


Apparently my opponent does because he suggests that they were “intentionally contradicting what the Bible says”. I am interested in knowing what evidence he has for this outside of his own biased interpretation of scripture.



1. The Crusades: My opponent wants me to provide evidence that medieval Catholics believed in divine power? Really?


2. The Inquisitions: My opponent asks, “ If I killed a person and it was unchristian but I declared myself as a Christian, are my actions that of a Christian?”


Who gets to decide if your actions are unchristian? If you felt you were doing what Jesus wanted you to do, then to you, you are abiding by your faith and being very much a Christian. Your actions may be condemned by other Christians but that doesn't change the fact that you were inspired by Christ.


3. The Witch Burnings: My opponent does nothing but repeat his request that I supply scripture for this and the previous events.


My opponent then attempts to answer my challenge to show how the events in question could have occurred without there being a Jesus by presuming that a pagan religion based upon a randomly selected god would have filled the void and behaved in the same way that the Catholics did.


I'm going to ignore the fact that there have been non Christian societies that haven't automatically adopted pagan gods and haven't conducted holy wars or purged non-believers by torture and death. Instead I will point out that he didn't explain why these pagans would be interested in capturing Jerusalem or punishing Christian heretics – only someone who was influenced by Jesus would do something like that because there is no other justification that makes sense.


Conclusion: The only challenge that my opponent has made is that, for the events in question to have been influenced by Jesus it must be shown that these actions must be supported by scripture. He hasn't explained why he feels this is necessary and, curiously, has instead goaded, mocked and insulted me in an attempt lead me into what I am sure would become nothing more than an opportunity for him to preach his beliefs.


The topic we are debating is not 'did the Scriptures influence the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burning' but did Jesus. And the issue should not be 'should those responsible have felt justified that their actions were in keeping with the Christian faith' but did they feel justified. And given the positions these people held and the body of their work, I think it is absurd to suggest that they didn't really think they were doing what they thought Jesus wanted them to do.




Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Con

My opponents examples:
1.
" Let us imagine for a moment that the soldier is in the field and his orders were intercepted by enemy forces who replaced them with instructions that would be detrimental to his commander's strategies. My opponent would have believe that the soldier should be summarily executed for treason because his actions were not in line with his superior's intentions."
No I would like my audience to know that this is a terrible example:

1) My opponent says that Christians cannot discern the orders from God and Satan, this is falsehood:
http://biblia.com...
http://bible.logos.com...
According, to the Bible these people knew that they were doing wrong.

2)My opponent implies that Christianity is another side of the coin. The truth is Christianity is a stopping force for evil:
http://www.biblegateway.com...
The enemy on the other hand is evil. Without Christianity there would be evil hence these events in some form or another would take place and even in a more extreme way.

2.
" The influence that the blackmailer has over the philanderer doesn't determine the philanderer's choice, it simply causes him to take actions that he wouldn't ordinarily take."
That is again simple falsehood. Christianity is a force to prevent something and encourage good. Without it you still have the "blackmailer".

The next section:
"Now, let's take a look at who these people were that were responsible for Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burnings:"
This is irrelevant.

The next section:
1. The Crusades: Not addressed and I have a suspicion that not read "My opponent wants me to provide evidence that medieval Catholics believed in divine power".

2.The Inqusition
" Your actions may be condemned by other Christians but that doesn't change the fact that you were inspired by Christ." What if an insane man did the same thing ?

3.The Witch Burnings
"I'm going to ignore the fact that there have been non Christian societies that haven't automatically adopted pagan gods and haven't conducted holy wars or purged non-believers by torture and death."
1. This makes sense because Christianity unlike other religions teach that ? You can't be serious.
2. http://www.roman-empire.net...


The final section:
" Instead I will point out that he didn't explain why these pagans would be interested in capturing Jerusalem" Power. Furthermore the moors even if Christians didn't exist would have been a trouble to European nations. Europeans strike back, would they choose Jerusalem after all its an important city? Who knows ? Would the attacks be any less vicious ? Absolutely not since the ambition doesn't change and with the Pagan God I just provided, perhaps, it would be worse.

The craziest thing I ever heard:
"I think it is absurd to suggest that they didn't really think they were doing what they thought Jesus wanted them to do."
1) I already addressed this in the example section.
2)"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 7:8)


tigg13

Pro


I truly do thank my opponent for this opportunity to get my feet wet in an actual debate. And I hope this will be the first of many.


As I suspected, my opponent's true goal was not to debate the topic at hand but to preach his religious beliefs. That is, after all, all he really did in his last post.


His criticism of my examples of what influence is dealt mainly with his insistence that I wasn't depicting Christianity correctly. I wasn't depicting Christianity at all, I was talking about influence.


1 the Crusades: I did read my what my opponent had to say; he wanted scriptural support for the Crusades even though he never provided a reason why scriptural support was necessary to show influence and I showed why it wasn't.


2 The Inquisitions: A man hears a voice in his head telling him that he must murder his own child by tying him up and stabbing him in the chest. Is this an insane man or Abraham from the book of Genesis?


An insane person can be influenced just like a sane person can. The difference is, most of the time, the things that influence insane people don't really exist.


3. The witch burnings: My opponent was really reaching here. I didn't say 'all Christian societies teach torture, murder and war', nor did I say that 'all non Christian societies don't teach torture murder and war'. I said 'there have been non Christian societies who didn't teach torture, murder and war'. And simply supplying an example of one that did doesn't invalidate that statement.


He then concluded by saying my statement, “I think it is absurd to suggest that they didn't really think they were doing what they thought Jesus wanted them to do.”, was the “craziest thing” he had ever heard and then referred back to a previous remark of his:


According to the Bible these people knew that they were doing wrong.”


Now, I'd like to point out a couple of very important things about this statement. My opponent is not saying that these people just misinterpreted scripture. He is asserting that these men, who professed their faith in God and touted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, deliberately took actions that they understood were directly opposed to what they believed in.


His evidence for this?


Romans 1 21-23 and Romans 2:14 (Personally, I think he should have included Romans 2:15-17 as these lines do complete the sentence.)


So, let's take a look at those verses.


First, I do not think it unreasonable to assume that the “they” referred to in Romans 1 was not specifically the Catholic Clergy of the medieval period, but instead, anyone who “knew” God but does not glorify Him. So, it's not just those popes who were aware that they were doing wrong, but anybody who has heard the Word but has not followed it, deliberately does things that they know they shouldn't.


And Romans 2 tells us that, not only are those who “know” God supposed to glorify Him but those who don't have to as well because His Law is written in their hearts.


In other words, anytime anyone has ever done anything that was contrary to God's Law they were knowingly doing something they knew they weren't supposed to do.


So, if my opponents argument is true, not only were the events in question not influenced by Jesus but nobody in all the history of the world has ever been influenced by Jesus except those people who actually lived their lives according to his teachings – even if they lived 1000 years before he was born.


Now, I will not challenge the validity or the logic of the scriptures or my opponent's assertion that these verses should be interpreted in the way he has interpreted them. (That anyone who does what is wrong does so deliberately and that this means they aren't influenced by Jesus)


I will, though, continue to hold that my opponent does not really understand what the word 'influence' means by pointing out that, if this Law is equivalent to the influence of Jesus, which is what my opponent is saying, and it has been written on everyone's heart, then everyone who has ever lived, included the Catholics of the last millennium, has been influenced by Him. How could the wicked who intended to do evil know what evil was without Jesus pointing it out to them?


Conclusion: I have shown that the people responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the witch burning were people whose lives were dominated by their belief in Jesus Christ and that their actions were directly related to their belief in Christ. I have demonstrated that if someone perceives another as having an effect on their lives and this causes them to take actions based on that effect, then they have been influenced by that other person. I have even shown that, even if those responsible for the events in question knew what they were doing was wrong, the fact that the only way they could have known it was wrong was because of Jesus, proves that they were, in fact, influenced by Him.


Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tigg13 6 years ago
tigg13
And who were the humans who were responsible? Who did those people believe in? Who was the biggest influence in their lives?

Please don't treat the fact that I'm right as an unimportant detail.
Posted by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
Of course it wasn't because of Jesus, this is total BS, it was teh stupidity of Humans that these crusades, inquisitions and witch burnings happened.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Nice vote bomb from cherokee15. Boo this man!!!
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Pro won this debate based on his logical arguments, and his conduct.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
I freely admit, to any interested parties, that my opinions are entirely subjective. You are welcome to disagree with them. In fact, I encourage people to reject my statements, in the hope of preventing the gradual slide of this site towards "CheerfulConformity.org"

I think you could have done much better in this debate than you did; I've seen you do better. For a n00b, Pro didn't do a half-bad job, and I think you were counting on him making more mistakes than he did.

My opinion of you has not changed, though; I still think you are a good, solid debater and a reasonable person. And I agree with you; the Inquisition etc. were contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"his examples were failed badly"
his examples failed, badly (Spelling fail is fail)
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"V0A, you've been taking throw-away debates too long."
XD The only thing I agree with.
"he was a worthy opponent and deserved a better effort from you."
That's an opinion and opinions are contingent. I admit that after the second round I got REALLY bored. C'mon his examples were failed badly... Eh when you pick easy debates then you get this type of thing once in a while, perhaps I should focus on harder things ? Who knows?
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
V0A, you've been taking throw-away debates too long. This may have been tigg13's first debate on here, but he was a worthy opponent and deserved a better effort from you. As it was, he won this easily.

Reasons for decision:
Conduct: Con behaved badly, making fun of Pro and warrantlessly assuming he was incompetent at debating; Con also started the debate but left the opening arguments to Pro. Either of these offences would lose the conduct point from me; conduct clearly goes to Pro.

S/G seemed fine for both sides. The format was decent, although with the new system taking effect half-way through things changed distractingly. No complaints; tied.

Arguments: Pro's arguments were clear, explained, and applied. Con relied mainly on oneliners, leading questions (done badly), and personal opinion. Arguments to Pro.

Sources: Sufficient in quantity; didn't follow them all up to check for reliability. Tied.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Let the votes commence !
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
That guy fails so badly on many grounds so this will also be my last post.
"bystanders overhear A talking about B, bystanders think A knows what he is talking about. "
Then the bystander does what he would do if A didn't exist, B....Wow, I feel trolled.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate concept but I felt that it slid into a semantic on what influence meant rather than the clear "intent" behind the resolution. Con clearly pointed to the concept that another practice outside of Christianity would have been used to perpetuate the same “evil”. Great Hitler analogy.
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ItsNasty 6 years ago
ItsNasty
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 chelsear 6 years ago
chelsear
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
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 gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by tatter_d 6 years ago
tatter_d
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
vardas0antrastigg13Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04