The Instigator
Tristboi22
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
IQok
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible never claims to be the "Infallible Word of God"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Tristboi22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,003 times Debate No: 49582
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (55)
Votes (4)

 

Tristboi22

Pro

The Bible is a book that was written by men. The Bible never makes the claim that it is the "infallible Word of God". The New Testament is never even referred to as "Scripture" or "God's Word". I challenge anyone to show evidence that ALL 66 books of the Bible are God's infallible Word.
IQok

Con

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

There are both internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly God"s Word. The internal evidences are those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin. One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God"s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words which God moved men to record.

Another of the internal evidences that indicates the Bible is truly God"s Word is the prophecies contained within its pages. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of individual nations including Israel, certain cities, and mankind. Other prophecies concern the coming of One who would be the Messiah, the Savior of all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was it foretold where He would be born and His lineage, but also how He would die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than by divine origin. There is no other religious book with the extent or type of predictive prophecy that the Bible contains.

A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is its unique authority and power. While this evidence is more subjective than the first two, it is no less a powerful testimony of the divine origin of the Bible. The Bible"s authority is unlike any other book ever written. This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by the supernatural power of God"s Word. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners rebuked by it, and hate turned to love by it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God"s Word.

There are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible details historical events, its truthfulness and accuracy are subject to verification like any other historical document. Through both archaeological evidences and other writings, the historical accounts of the Bible have been proven time and time again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best-documented book from the ancient world. The fact that the Bible accurately and truthfully records historically verifiable events is a great indication of its truthfulness when dealing with religious subjects and doctrines and helps substantiate its claim to be the very Word of God.

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God"s Word is the integrity of its human authors. As mentioned earlier, God used men from many walks of life to record His words. In studying the lives of these men, we find them to be honest and sincere. The fact that they were willing to die often excruciating deaths for what they believed testifies that these ordinary yet honest men truly believed God had spoken to them. The men who wrote the New Testament and many hundreds of other believers (1 Corinthians 15:6) knew the truth of their message because they had seen and spent time with Jesus Christ after He had risen from the dead. Seeing the risen Christ had a tremendous impact on them. They went from hiding in fear to being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is God"s Word.

A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God"s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.
Debate Round No. 1
Tristboi22

Pro

Thank you for agreeing to debate this topic. I would like to stress that I am not only debating the infallibility of the Bible, but also, that ALL it is the "Word of God". As for 2 Timothy 3:16, it simply says that "SCRIPTURE is God-breathed..." Just because God breathes into something, does not make it infallible. In fact God breathed into Adam's nostrils in Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." We still know that Adam still sinned even though God breathed into him. The King James says, "All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God..." Even if we were to look at that translation, "inspiration" does not mean "verbatim". If a tree inspires me to write a poem, I would not say that the tree wrote it. Many people claim that they were "inspired" to preach a sermon on Sunday morning, but again, that does not mean that what they are saying is not infallible.
Furthermore, when this particular verse was written, it had to be talking about Old Testament Cannon since the New Testament had not been fully written and put together yet.

My opponent makes the argument that since there is unity, it was written on 3 continents, 3 different languages, over a period of 1500 years, was written by more than 40 authors, and claims no contradictions, that it proves that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. What's troubling about this "evidence" is that (and my opponent actually agrees with me) the Bible was not a solid book that came down from heaven as we now know it today. It was also not all written at once. Actually, it was voted on by bishops in 367 AD. (http://www.churchhistory101.com......) They decided by VOTE which books made it in and which one did not. The Protestant Church didn't agree until 1647 at the Assembly of Westminster. I would like to know what my opponent believes qualified these men to vote on this matter in the first place. This would have obviously been THE MOST important vote in the history of the world. After all, we are talking about (according to your view) what was God's Word and what was not.
Now for the individual arguments my opponent made:
1) 3 continents
This is hardly evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. Motion pictures are made all over the world; sometimes in space.
2) 3 different languages.
Again, in my opening statement, I challenged my opponent to show evidence that ALL 66 books are God's infallible Word. I'm not seeing evidence of such.
3) Over a period of 1500 years.
Impressive, but does not prove anything.
4) By more than 40 authors.
The problem is that no one is for certain who all of those authors are. The church continues to debate the author of Revelation. Was it the John the Apostle or someone else with the same name? Regardless, no one knows for sure (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
5) Without contradictions.
This can CERTAINLY be debated. However, that is for another debate and I would welcome that at another time as well.

My opponent goes on at length to list all of the prophecies that were fulfilled. Since these stories were handed down orally over time and finally put into print, what evidence do you have that none of these words ever changed or were changed so they did not contradict the other parts? As for the lineage, death, and resurrection, there is simply no evidence that we can examine to determine whether or not that ever happened. Furthermore, even if it did, it does not prove that the Bible is the Word of God. Again, none of this can be verified.
At that this time I will remind my opponent what I would like to have evidence of:
1) Where does the Bible make the claim that it is the "infallible Word of God"?
2) Where is the New Testament ever referred to as "Scripture" or "God's Word"?
3) Where does the Bible make the claim that ALL 66 books are "God's infallible Word"?

My opponent made the following argument:
"This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by the supernatural power of God"s Word. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners rebuked by it, and hate turned to love by it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God"s Word."
Again, I could give countless examples of people that make the same claims from reading the Book of Mormon, Quran, self-help books, going to therapy, and doing yoga. While these may be "tools" to overcome what some people refer to as "obstacles", it is not evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. In fact I can also give countless examples of people that have not been set free from drugs, homosexuality, and have seen people that DID love and turn to hate because of the Bible (Westboro Baptist Church)!

The fact that the Bible is accurate in archaeological accounts, does not mean that there was a giant ark, a talking snake, or a talking burning bush.

My opponents last argument centered around the premise that the Bible has withstood the test of time. Has it? Do we actually know what the original Greek and Hebrew says? If it has, why do we have so many interpretations? Why do we thousands of different versions that do not agree on what the text says? Jehovah's Witnesses have the New World Translations of the Bible and they reject the deity of Christ. They quote John 1: 1 , "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was a god." If one reads the NIV version, it says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God. And the Word was God." In one version "the word" is "a little god" and in the NIV, "the word" is "THE GOD".
While it is impressive that the Bible is an old religious text, there are older ones:
According to Wikipaedia
link [en.wikipedia.org]
A533;The oldest known religious texts are Pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE. The earliest form of the Phoenician alphabet found to date is the inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos. ( The Sumerian Temple Hymns [1]). The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria is also one of the earliest literary works dating to 2150-2000 BCE, that includes various mythological figures. The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700A533;1100 BCE[2] making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for GathicAvestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE.[citation needed]

My opponent has failed to do the following:
1) Show evidence that ALL 66 books are God's infallible Word.
2) The New Testament is referred to as "Scripture"
3) The apostles make the claim that they were writing "Scripture" or God's Word

I will now show that Paul actually goes out of his way to show that everything he is writing is NOT from God! In fact, he makes it clear that what he is writing is HIS judgment and it is NOT from God. How does my opponent reconcile 1 Cor 7:12, "But to the rest I speak, I, NOT THE LORD, if any man hath a virgin..." 1 Cor 7:25, "Now concering virgins I HAVE NO COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD, yet I give MY judgment..." 2 Cor 11:17, "That which I speak, I SPEAK NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as in foolishness, in the confidence of his glory."?
If just ONE verse says that it is not from God, ALL of it is in question. I have given 3. Furthermore, I asked my opponent to show where ALL the books of the Bible claim to be God's infallible Word.

I have one last question; John 1:1 and verse 14 tells us what the "WORD" is. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God." verse 14 "And the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us.." Here, the "Word" is defined and I see no mention of the Bible or even Scripture. If the Bible or Scripture is the Word, then why don't you worship the Bible? After all, the "Word" is called "God" in John 1. That is one of the strongest arguments from Christians that believe in the deity of Christ; it's because the "Word" is called "God" and Jesus is called the "Word". Again, if worship Jesus because He is called the "Word" in John 1, then why don't you worship the Bible, because you believe IT is the "Word" as well?

Thank you and with that, I yield.
IQok

Con

As to your remarks and questions in round two it is apparent that now your reaching for straws. As you stated - If the Bible or Scripture is the Word, then why don't you worship the Bible?????????

You dont worship books and I cant believe you went there..

Your premise for this debate is that " The Bible never claims to be the "Infallible Word of God"....

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

This one sentence fulfills the entirety of this debate.... Game, set and match!!! God-breathed is divine and without error...

Show one area of the bible that can be disproved,,, just one.... You can't,,,, because there are none... Scholars have been trying to disprove the accuracy and validity of the bible for centuries and have not found any fallacy as of yet...
Debate Round No. 2
Tristboi22

Pro

My opponent is trying to avoid my questions. I will agree to answer ANY or my opponent's questions, but my opponent MUST agree to do the same. Asking me questions is not answer to my question. If we don't attempt to answer each other's questions, there is really no point to this debate.

I quoted John 1:1 where "the Word" is called "God". I asked my opponent the following question, " If you believe the Bible is "the Word" as defined in John 1:1 and you worship Jesus because He is called "the Word", why don't you worship the Bible, if it is "the Word" as you believe it is? My opponent's answer was, "You don't worship books and I can't believe you went there.."
The problem with that answer is that my opponent never explained WHY he does not worship a book. My opponent offered no evidence to support his contradictory belief. Is the Bible the Word of God or isn't it? Is "the Word" considered "God" or isn't it? Is Jesus "the Word" or isn't he? Is Jesus "God", according to those verses, or isn't He?

Quoting 2 Timothy 3:15-17 again is not a rebuttal for the rebuttal that I gave you. That verse in NO WAY calls the New Testament "the Word of God" or "Scripture". As I have already shown, "God breathed" or "inspired" does not mean, "verbatim" or "infallible". Do you have a rebuttal to my previous reply? My opponent has done nothing to discredit my rebuttal to this verse in my previous post. All he did was quote it a second time

My comment made the following closing argument:
"Show one area of the bible that can be disproved,,, just one.... You can't,,,, because there are none... Scholars have been trying to disprove the accuracy and validity of the bible for centuries and have not found any fallacy as of yet..."

As I previously stated, his challenge for me to try to prove that the Bible can be disproved is not the topic for debate. My opponent was supposed to show that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. He has yet to offer such evidence. He was supposed to offer Scriptural evidence to support his position that the Bible makes the claim that ALL 66 books are the infallible Word of God and he has yet to show such evidence.
I asked my opponent the following questions:
1) Where is the New Testament ever referred to as "Scripture" or the "Word"?
2) Where did the Apostles ever make the claim that what they were writing was "Scripture" or the "Word of God"?
3) How does my opponent reconcile 1 Cor 7:12, "But to the rest I speak, I, NOT THE LORD, if any man hath a virgin..." 1 Cor 7:25, "Now concering virgins I HAVE NO COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD, yet I give MY judgment..." 2 Cor 11:17, "That which I speak, I SPEAK NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as in foolishness, in the confidence of his glory."?
4) John 1:1 and verse 14 tells us what the "WORD" is. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God." verse 14 "And the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us.." Here, the "Word" is defined and I see no mention of the Bible or even Scripture. If the Bible or Scripture is the Word, then why don't you worship the Bible? After all, the "Word" is called "God" in John 1. That is one of the strongest arguments from Christians that believe in the deity of Christ; it's because the "Word" is called "God" and Jesus is called the "Word". Again, if worship Jesus because He is called the "Word" in John 1, then why don't you worship the Bible, because you believe IT is the "Word" as well?

Thank you. I yield to my opponent.
IQok

Con

The opponent again takes one liners of the bible and cries falsehoods without looking at the entire context of the passage. You have to have the whole passage to understand what is trying to be told. Some are stories and some are analogies and parables. I myself do not care if they wish to twist things around a bit as it is a game for some as it clearly shows a lack of taking the entire passage of what was said into context ...

The premise of this debate was won in round 1.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
Debate Round No. 3
Tristboi22

Pro

My opponent accused me of taking "one liners and crying 'falsehoods'". I am giving my opponent that opportunity to show me where I am wrong. He also accused me of trying to twist things around, but again, this is the opportunity to bring clarity to the passages that I am supposedly trying to twist and have no understanding of.

I'm not really sure where to go from here. My opponent has already claimed himself as "the winner", yet my opponent fails to address any of my questions and clings to 1 Timothy 3:16. He has never offered evidence of why he believes that particular verse is referring to the New Testament when the New Testament had not been written yet. The topic of this debate is, "The Bible never claims to be the 'infallible Word of God'". The verse in Timothy does not mention God's Word at all. My opponent is supposed to offer proof that ALL 66 books are God's infallible Word. He has failed to do so.

In closing, my opponent never offered a rebuttal to my challenges:

1) I will now show that Paul actually goes out of his way to show that everything he is writing is NOT from God! In fact, he makes it clear that what he is writing is HIS judgment and it is NOT from God. How does my opponent reconcile 1 Cor 7:12, "But to the rest I speak, I, NOT THE LORD, if any man hath a virgin..." 1 Cor 7:25, "Now concering virgins I HAVE NO COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD, yet I give MY judgment..." 2 Cor 11:17, "That which I speak, I SPEAK NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as in foolishness, in the confidence of his glory."?
If just ONE verse says that it is not from God, ALL of it is in question. I have given 3. Furthermore, I asked my opponent to show where ALL the books of the Bible claim to be God's infallible Word.
2) John 1:1 and verse 14 tells us what the "WORD" is. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God." verse 14 "And the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us.." Here, the "Word" is defined and I see no mention of the Bible or even Scripture. If the Bible or Scripture is the Word, then why don't you worship the Bible? After all, the "Word" is called "God" in John 1. That is one of the strongest arguments from Christians that believe in the deity of Christ; it's because the "Word" is called "God" and Jesus is called the "Word". Again, if worship Jesus because He is called the "Word" in John 1, then why don't you worship the Bible, because you believe IT is the "Word" as well?
3) Where did the Apostles ever make the claim that what they were writing was "Scripture" or the "Word of God"?

Thank you, and with that, I yield.
IQok

Con

IQok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Tristboi22

Pro

My opponent has offered absolutely no argument or rebuttal to my claims. I will wait for a rebuttal in the next round and my previous points still stand. I will only add one comment; even if the Bible was the infallible Word of God, you would still need an infallible person to infallibly translate the infallible translation of the infallible Hebrew and Greek text.

Thank you.
With that, I yield to my opponent.
IQok

Con

IQok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 41 through 50 records.
Posted by DocG84 7 years ago
DocG84
IQok, this debate could do without ad hominem attacks. I have asked many Christians this question and they always talk about the context or how it is a parable. I have studied the bible and even have ministers in my family. I assure you I am not trying to troll despite anyone elses intentions here. May I ask in what context does matthew 10:34 and luke 19:27 seem to be a useful parable, or how it could be in keeping with an all loving god or savior?
Posted by qdog2008 7 years ago
qdog2008
"a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson."

So are you saying the moral lesson of Luke 19:27 is to yet again, slay those who do not want you to be their king?

Again, I'm not trolling in anyway. I have nothing against you. Just trying to have a friendly debate
Posted by IQok 7 years ago
IQok
qdog - look up parables and speaking in the third person.... nuff said on this issue....
Posted by qdog2008 7 years ago
qdog2008
In what way am I trolling? I've stated my argument clearly, I'm asking a simple question. My intent Isn't to troll at all.
Posted by IQok 7 years ago
IQok
qdog- it looks as if you desire to troll your way through a debate... Correct me if I am wrong!!!
Posted by qdog2008 7 years ago
qdog2008
So, hes talking in third person, about killing people who do not want him to be their king? I mean correct me if I'm wrong. That's why I'm here
Posted by IQok 7 years ago
IQok
It is a parable qdog,,,, and he is speaking in the third person... I recommend you take a few bible study classes so that you me be better equipped to interpret the language more clearly.
Posted by qdog2008 7 years ago
qdog2008
It still ends the exact same way. " But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me and slay them" Regardless of what was before that. He is still saying that he will kill anyone who gets in his way, much the way a dictator would. Yes you can argue different context and other things, but in the end, he is still talking about having people slaughtered in front on him.

I'd also like your opinion on Matthew 10:34
Posted by IQok 7 years ago
IQok
You have taken blurbs out of context qdog - nice try but the actual whole scripture reads entirely different...
Posted by qdog2008 1 minute ago
qdog2008 Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW"
How about Luke 19:27? Surely he has to say something nice. "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." This is at least In my opinion, the act of a dictator who uses fear to obtain power.

16 Then came the first, saying, "Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds."
17 And he said unto him, "Well done, thou good servant; because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities."
18 And the second came, saying, "Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds."
19 And he said likewise to him, "Be thou also over five cities."
20 And another came, saying, "Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid away in a napkin.
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up what thou layest not down, and reapest what thou did not sow."
22 And he said unto him, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up what I laid not down and reaping what I did not sow.
23 Why then gavest not thou my money unto the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with interest?"
24 And he said unto them that stood by, "Take from him the pound and give it to him that hath ten pounds."
25 (And they said unto him, "Lord, he hath ten pounds!")
26 "For I say unto you, that unto every one that hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.""
28 And when Jesus had thus spoken, He went ahead, ascending up to Jerusalem.
29
Posted by qdog2008 7 years ago
qdog2008
Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW" This is Jesus, the peace bringer.

How about Luke 19:27? Surely he has to say something nice. "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." This is at least In my opinion, the act of a dictator who uses fear to obtain power.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 7 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Tristboi22IQokTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: It is a clear win for Pro even if Con had not forfeited. Pro presented evidence against the case Con raised in round three, yet still mentioned it as if it had not been addressed this seems dishonest. Additionally, Pro showed parts of the Bible were no the word of God which proves that the bible is not totally gods word. Arguments to Pro. Conduct to Pro, as Con forfeits. Source to Pro.
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
Sagey
Tristboi22IQokTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's entire argument relied on the interpretation or semantics of one line in Timothy, Pro had better sources. The other evidences Con cited were irrelevant to the debate.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 7 years ago
zmikecuber
Tristboi22IQokTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Dan4reason 7 years ago
Dan4reason
Tristboi22IQokTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Also Con failed to properly refute any of Pro's arguments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.