The Instigator
Con (against)
2 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
22 Points

Was Jesus Really Crucified?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,326 times Debate No: 36744
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)




One of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity is that Jesus had died and allowed for the shedding of his blood for the sake of granting forgiveness to people. In other words Jesus had died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins.

so My first Argument is Jesus was not willing for any Crucifiation Nor Did he wanted he was was scared and afraid of being crucifed... which is my first argument that jesus was not willing to die for anyone's sin.

Peter and the two sons of Zebedee were with Jesus Christ before the elders of the people and the chief priests came to take him to crucify him. Jesus at this point talked to Peter and the two sons of Zebedee as in Matthew 26:38 "Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me." Then Jesus went a little further way from them and prayed to God as in Matthew 26:39 "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

It is very clear from the above verse in Matthew 26:39 that Jesus had no intention of dying. In this verse it is shown that Jesus was praying strongly (Matthew mentions that Jesus repeated these prayer three time) to have this death removed from him. Had Jesus Christ been sent to be crucified he would not have hesitated to be killed at all. When I relate this to my Christian brothers, they tell me that this hesitation comes from the flesh side of him (in other words he was tempted), and that his soul which is godly does not have this hesitation at all. When we look at Matthew 26:38 we see that Jesus is contradicting this idea by saying, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." (Matthew 26:38). He himself says that it really his soul that is hesitating and not his body. These are Jesus's Own words according to Bible


Now.. we see the response of GOD.. Did God Responded to JESUS'S PRAYERS???

After Jesus made the above mentioned prayer he was answered by God according to Hebrews 5:7 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." These words clearly show that when Jesus was praying strongly to God, God would grant him his request. The word "heard in that he feared" (Hebrews 5:7) mean that God granted him what he requested. So the above verse shows that when Jesus asked of God to "let this cup pass from" (Matthew 26:39) him, God respond to his prayer and saved him from death or crucifiction

Sign of Jonah:

When the people were asking Jesus Christ if he was going to show them a sign, He replied by saying that the only sign that they should expect is the sign of Jonas. Jesus also made sure to specify what exactly this sign was. The details are shown in the following verses:

(Sign of Jonah:

Matthew 12:38 Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.

Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus here emphasized what will happen to him by specifically saying that he will be like Jonas in terms of the number of days and nights he will be in the heart of the earth, " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40)

Now let us see if this prophecy came to pass. .

Jesus was crucified on Friday, this is certainly known among all Christians, and that is the reason for calling that Friday by "Good Friday". Jesus was buried on Friday night. Now let us start counting: :

1.Friday night Jesus was buried. This is night number 1. .

2.Saturday day Jesus was still in the grave. This is day number 1. .

3.Saturday night Jesus was still in the grave. This is night number 2. .

Mary Magdalene, very early in the morning before sun rise and after the Sabbath (Saturday), went to the see Jesus, and he was not there.

The following verses relate this event: :

Mark 16:1 And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Mark 16:3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

Mark 16:4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Mark 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

The number of days and nights that Jesus had spent in the heart of the earth is 1 day and 2 nights.

This clearly challenges what Jesus had prophesied.

When I tell this to my Christian brothers, some of them responded by saying that what Jesus wanted to really say was that he will be gone for a while, and not that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

This is clearly not the case. Had Jesus meant that, he would have said it, but it is clear that he wanted the people to know that this was a sign (miracle) and that it will be like Joans' sign,


that he will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. These were his own words.

According to the Christian doctrine,

Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sins. The idea here is that every human is born with sins, or that all humans will sin, and therefore it was necessary that someone as pure as Jesus would be the crucified to nullify these sins.

The question is; why does anyone have to die for our sins when God, the All-Merciful, could as easily give us forgiveness if we ask for it?

Isn't God the one who makes the rules? Why does He have to make someone suffer for our sins or for someone else's sins? Isn't that unjust of Him? According to the Bible the way to redemption could be obtained without the need for sacrifice.

The Bible says: :

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Clearly the soul that sins shall die. Clearly that no one shall bear the iniquity (sins) of others. So Jesus cannot bear the sins of others either. If one is righteous then it shall be upon him, and if one commits a sin then it shall be upon him, and not on Jesus. Finally, the way to repentance and forgiveness is by turning from all sins, doing what is right, and keeping the commandments

Also we see the same message given by Solomon.

He says in the book of Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." This is the whole message, and this is the conclusion of messages. It is that one should fear God, and keep the commandments, and nothing else. .

Again in 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." This clearly states that to seek forgiveness from God we have to humble ourselves, pray and seek God, and turn away from wickedness. .

Finally the Bible says in Samuel 15:22 "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."

This clearly states that obeying God is better that sacrifice whether this sacrifice is of objects, animals, or humans, or any other type.

Now that we have seen this,

Christians say that Jesus has changed some of these laws. Let's look at what Jesus says.

In Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Jesus clearly states that he was not sent to abolish the law, the law of which had already existed. So what is mentioned above cannot be discounted.

Then Jesus continues to say, in Matthew 5:18 and 19 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus here states that not even as much as a dot (tittle) shall not pass from the law. Every thing is kept the way it was. That is why the previous laws cannot be removed or discarded, and those who willfully change these laws "he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven!!!!!!!!!!



My adversary has taken on the BOP and must show that Christ was not crucified. I will go ahead and start building my own case and then offer rebuttals in the later rounds.

I am going to break this down into 2 categories.

(1)Biblical Evidence that supports the crucifixion

(2)Historical Evidence that Supports the crucifixion.

Let's first look at the biblical evidence for the crucifixion of Christ.

Matthew 26:53 - "Do you not think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more that twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Luke 23:26-46, (vs 33) -"When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals - one on his right, the other on his left."

Acts 2:23 - "This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

John 19 : 1-3 - "Then Pilate had Jesus taken and whipped.2The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and dressed him in a purple robe.3Over and over they went up to him and said, "Greetings, king of the Jews!" And they slapped him in the face"

There is just a few of the verses in the Bible where it directly says that jesus was crucified. There are many more but this is all I feel the need to post, seeing as how it directly gives an account of the crucifixion itself.

I could site more if needed, but all throughout the four gospels of the new testament the crucifixion is explained in vivid detail. I don't think I need to cite entire books of the bible to have this accepted.

The next thing I want to look at is the historical evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. I know him being resurrected is not part of the topic of this debate, but it will build upon some of the points that I will make and show that it is a very logical conclusion to assume that he was crucified.

Now the historical evidence to support the crucifixion of Christ

At the end of the first century B.C., the Romans adopted crucifixion as an official punishment for non-Romans for certain limited transgressions. Initially, it was employed not as a method of execution, but only as a punishment. Moreover, only slaves convicted of certain crimes were punished by crucifixion. During this early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was placed on the slave's neck and bound to his arms.

From Roman literature we learn a few things about their method of crucifixion. If the victim was attached by nails, he was laid on the ground, with his shoulders on the crossbeam. His arms were held out and nailed to the two ends of the crossbeam, which was then raised and fixed on top of the vertical beam. The victim's feet were then nailed down against this vertical stake. Also those condemned to crucifixion never carried the complete cross, despite the common belief to the contrary and despite the many modern re-enactments of Jesus' walk to Golgotha. Instead, only the crossbar was carried, while the upright was set in a permanent place where it was used for subsequent executions. As the first-century Jewish historian Josephus noted, wood was so scarce in Jerusalem during the first century A.D. that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles from Jerusalem to secure timber for their siege machinery.

I will pause here and since I mentioned Josephus, this was an outside historian who also wrote about some of the accounts of the bible. Josephus states this.

He wrote this in orignial Greek and gave and account of Christ and his crucifixion.

"Ginetai de kata touton ton chronon I"sous sophos an"r, eige andra auton legein chr": "n gar paradox"n erg"n poi"t"s, didaskalos anthr"p"n t"n h"don"i tal"th" dechomen"n, kai pollous men Ioudaious, pollous de kai tou Hell"nikou ep"gageto: ho christos houtos "n. kai auton endeixei t"n pr"t"n andr"n par' h"min staur"i epitetim"kotos Pilatou ouk epausanto hoi to pr"ton agap"santes: ephan" gar autois trit"n ech"n h"meran palin z"n t"n thei"n proph"t"n tauta te kai alla muria peri autou thaumasia eir"kot"n. eis eti te nun t"n Christian"n apo toude "nomasmenon ouk epelipe to phulon."

This translates into modern English as this

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."

Now let me go back to where as I was at before Josephus. Basically when we look historically at how people were crucified in roam, it gives credence to the testimonies within the bible. The same way historians validity and state that people were crucified, is the same way the bible describes Christ being crucified. This is especially so with the cat of nine tails. The bible describes Jesus as being whipped or flogged, and this was a Roman custom before they were crucified. People were beaten with leather thongs.

"In 1873 a famous French scholar, Charles Clermant-Ganneau, reported the discovery of a burial chamber or cave on the Mount of Olives. Inside were some 30 ossuaries (rectangular chests made of stone) in which skeletal remains were preserved after their bodies had disintegrated. . . . One (ossuary) had the name "Judah" associated with a cross with arms of equal length. Further, the name "Jesus" occurred three times, twice in association with a cross. . . ."

So in addition to him being crucified we know now that historians have founds tombs where people where buried and a lot of them bore the name Jesus, or gave accounts of this as well.

A recent find shows this

"Then came the discovery in 1990 in Jerusalem of an ossuary, a burial box for bones, bearing the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus. Just recently it appears the most spectacular of all archaeological finds relating to Jesus has surfaced."

More studies show this about the ossuary that i mentioned earlier.

"The four-line Greek inscription on one ossuary refers to God "raising up" someone and a carved image found on an adjacent ossuary shows what appears to be a large fish with a human stick figure in its mouth, interpreted by the excavation team to be an image evoking the biblical story of Jonah."

The more we look at historical evidence and biblical evidence, the more we see that Christ was indeed crucified and put in a tomb.

The hard part of this discussion is whether or not he actually rose from the dead. Most archaeologists will even acknowledge that Jesus did in fact exist, and was buried in a tomb because they actually believe the found that tomb. The evidence is to strong supporting the biblical claims of this. So now we have to find out is it possible he arose from the dead as the bible claimed.

So now that we see historical evidence supporting these claims we can arrive at a few logical conclusions about his Resurrection. Bear in mind that most historians accept that Jesus was real and also his disciples. There is even historical evidence to support that his disciplines where murdered in his name. Most people arrive at this because of the historical facts surrounding the crucifixion so they go on to accept that the disciples where in fact murdered because of the situation at hand.

Let us now break down a few logical conclusions acknowledging that the historical facts support the crucifixion.

(1) He was risen from the dead

(2) The disciples/family stole his body

(3) Someone robbed the grave(grave robbers or Romans who knew the location)

Lets look at 2 first. This literally makes no logical sense. Why would the disciples put on a show and try to play out that Jesus was a fake. To say that they hid the body, is saying that they acknowledged he was a fake. So they would be saying, this man is no whom he says he is. It would be a possibility just not a logical one, because they later died in the name of this man whom they claimed to have risen from the dead. They did not deny him and were killed for this. Why then would they die if they hid the body. Would they actually die in the name of a hoax they had set up. It would literally be illogical.

As far as 3 no one knew the location of the tomb, and the only people that were aware of it where the higher up Romans. They would have no need to remove it because they wanted the disciples to the see the dead body. The higher ups in Rome were actually furious the body was taken because of the stories that followed along with it. Also they had every reason to want to remove the body themselves in order to humiliate the disciples.

So why then would disciples die and the people who knew the location of the tomb be furious and willingly accept death because of the issues that occurred. Most people assume that he did rise form the dead because of this reason, thus supporting the crucifixion.

In Closing

I have cited evidence both biblicaly and historically to support the crucifixion. My advesary has not met his BOP
Debate Round No. 1


I Thanks Pro for his response.. and would like to say the following things..

As it was an argument opposed to the doctrine of Christianity so obviously I was expecting a Christian to Answer as my first because Pro has followed what Title of the debate but the actual Issue I was putting forward was the conflict which the Crucifixion of JESUS(Peace be Upon Him) puts up against the Nature of God & The Gods Description in Holy Bible..( as you can read the context of the argument above)

Moreover my claim of Jess's Crucifixion to be False was also because Islamic Doctrine states that before the Crucifixion Jesus(peace be upon him) was lifted up to Heavens.

I would like to End the debate with words

"Since Pro happens to be Atheist thus a non believer in Existence of God & also have Views opposite to Christianity so there is no point to debate further on the Topic whether it is against the Nature of God not, because My Pro has nothing to do with it & since he has stated the Evidence Supporting Crucifixion I would like to end this debate here"

Moreover I would like to invite Pro on the topic of "Existence of God & Atheism to be Anti-Humanism"

Hope to see you soon.


I was raised in church for many years, and also was planning on going to seminary before I converted.

I understand the fundamentals of most types of Christians beliefs. I will take this as a FF because he chooses not to argue it further.

I was going to stay away from the biblical context of the crucifixion either way and go with the historical and archaeological evidence that supports it.

Biblical scriptures and how someone interprets things, most commonly is directly associated with their religious affiliation. I just think it would be more logical to look at the factual evidence rather than what can be interpreted differently depending on what sect of Christian you are.

Examples of which could include

The trinity
speaking in tongues
Calvinism (modern baptists seem to accept this more commonly than most)
All the points of the tulip itself up to and including limited atonement and perseverance of the saints.

If he wishes to not debate further, I will just type No argument due to FF in the following rounds. I would have enjoyed getting to respond to the sign of Jonah stance he had taken. Either way I would like to thank my adversary for presenting his case, and applaud him for a good first round statement.
Debate Round No. 2


I would Thank Pro for his response and statements I appreciate his approach towards the matters and His Past life do attracts me to hold further debates on certain Topics which would be more concerning to Him.

My beliefs are based on The Facts & as Well as Rational Thinking!



no argument due to FF/ dropout from adversary

I would enjoy taking on any topic that I know about.
Debate Round No. 3



I would like to challenge for a Debate on Atheism which I believe is a very big danger to future of Humanity. I hope my
contender would be familiar with the Topic :)


No argument due to FF by adversary

Try another topic perhaps?

I actually agree with that statement. Atheism and religion in itself with how it is done now days, can cause a great a deal of harm

I merely label myself an atheist because it is a value that is automatically assigned to me.

I am merely saying, there is a high probability that a God does not exist.

It is one of the only things that we assign a title for disbelieving in something to.

I would agree from the context that you would probably argue, that it could be anti-humanism. Where as all forms of religion and branches that develop as this has could be construed as such.
Debate Round No. 4


Would you like to suggest one?

Nothing can be assigned to you Pro unless you accept it .. so here fact is that you accept it thus been assigned to you

as for your saying I would love you try make you believe the existence of a God. I would like you to go ahead and place a debate on the Existence of God. or if you do not mind I would throw my cards first and afterwards you can reply and place Ur arguments.

and yes Atheism what was it a couple of centuries ago? Today Atheism have developed as a cult and are a growing community but I hope you will surly agree that inspire of trying to get aside by saying that There is No God There is Nothing like Religion can never separate you with the world where +80% are following this or that religion .. moreover till the hour you are on the face of earth you are always associated with this junction of religions you can not disconnect yourself from Religionsim as we see "Atheist Protestant" "Conflict between __________ & Atheist" someone converted Atheist other went ahead to some other religion and one reverted back to his previous religion after experiencing it.. So we see that there is no case that you can get over with the religious knots & ties. you will listen to it you will be spoken about it ask about it after being atheist more people would talk about religions to you..

Well hope all have a
Good Day!


Extend all arguments due to adversary FF

If you make the topic as far in proving there is a God, and take on the BOP that is one I would happily accept.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Mikal 5 years ago
Never said I believed it was real, or that I agree with what I said lol. Just saying most people who believe it will argue those points.

I think it can be initially flawed and still serve its purpose, some Christians don't even believe it is infallible. Just depends on whom you are talking to.
Posted by LoopsEye 5 years ago
(1 Timothy 2:12-15) (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) (Genesis 38:15-18) (2 Samuel 11:2-4)
(Exodus 2:11-12) (Genesis 19:33-36) (Ezekiel 23:19-21) (Genesis 38:8-9)
(Proverbs 7:7-22) (Isaiah 13:15-16) (Judges 4: 21-22) (Deuteronomy 22:17)
(Numbers 31:17-18) (Genesis 35:22) (Psalm 137:9)
Posted by LoopsEye 5 years ago
**Most would argue that it is flawed from translation, and you would have to study it using the context in which the author intended for the scriptures to mean.

that means taking it back to Greek and Hebrew and find out what the author was meaning to say**

as far as this statement is concerned i would like to share following of the verse of bible ...

I was stunned when read for the first time... No Noble man can read this infront of His Daughter or Sister or Mother...

if elders are going out they have to put the Book in locker because if children happen to read this without any supervision it can have very big impact on their psychology and a report i read which stated the kind of stories kids hear they Do Cause Behavioral Changes in them in as small as a Class Room's Enviorment
out of these some are awkarding vulgar .. Leaving the Context aside.. should this kind of wording and phrasing be used in a book which is to be read by all elders and youngs in family in seclusion
The thing i am trying to bring Fwd is that these are the most noble ways one could find while he translates them to common languages.. which are so offending to any age group.. and the orignal Hebrew and Greek are 10 folds more then this.. i would again say i am not talking about the context but the words use there are a hundred and one ways to phrase something .. languages are so vast that a person can warn his son infront of whole family with youngs and olds to be cautious of whores .. but why this kind of language is used.. i could not find an answer.. if its Gods word.. then GOD must be knowing that it will be read forever by all aged group people so it should offend anyone..
if it is God He must be knowing that stating this can cause harm to society
He must be aware its a Holy Book.. its disresepctful for a Holy Book to cotain such profanities and offending scenes and something which can not be read in a common gathering much more......
Posted by LoopsEye 5 years ago
*at it is as a way to help oneself with moral values and leave out some of the iffy parts, it is still quite acceptable*

after saying that one has to agree that there is some problem with the book.. and Its my 100% Stance that if a Book is claimed to be by someone called God who is "Omniscient" then the book produce by Him should be 100% Errors Proof and If it is claimed to be for all the generations not for a specific time period then it should be versatile enough to means its Honor and Existence in Every Era It should not sound out dated! it should not be capped it should comply with Every Aspect of Science Age History and everything

This is according to me should be The Standard of a Book Claimed to be from a God who is Omniscient.

and if it is not then it has no right to be claimed a Book of All Knowing God If it contains an error that means God is lacking some ability which can never be an attribute of a deity it can be attributed to Humans but not to God.

Thus if you say *if we leave out some of the iffy parts, it is still quite acceptable*

then it can be an Epic and Best Piece of Literature or History or a ruling book of the Man written Books


I hope no one would have any discrimination with these facts.
Posted by Christ1stMe2nd 5 years ago
Mr Loopseye I'm sorry for offending youu and misunderstanding you. I couldn't think of anyone besides muslims who would use this kinds of arguments or even argue that Jesus wasn't crucified so I thought you were a muslim. What I meant was that u should really read the bible properly and interpret a verse in the light of the entire book before u make an argument because I've read the gospels and the book of hebrews and there are tons of verses that don't agree with your position. God bless :)
Posted by Mikal 5 years ago
"that a Holy Book which is claimed to be word of God should not contain a single error."

That all depends on how you view religion. If you look at is as a way to help oneself with moral values and leave out some of the iffy parts, it is still quite acceptable.

Most would argue that it is flawed from translation, and you would have to study it using the context in which the author intended for the scriptures to mean.

that means taking it back to Greek and Hebrew and find out what the author was meaning to say

Paul's letters to the Church's were just that letters. It has nothing to do with us and how or what we should do ,but was just documented scripts of things he was telling the churches he was writing to.

Anything can be perceived incorrectly when you take it out of context. I think hat is what the other guy was saying, but chose to word it horribly.
Posted by LoopsEye 5 years ago
I'm sorry Mr. Christ1stYou2nd but that is statement of a very narrow minded person I am a student of Comparative religions and what ever I have stated I have answered every thing with evidence moreover I would like you to see the result of the Following Public Opinion

that a Holy Book which is claimed to be word of God should not contain a single error.

Would you like to debate Christian Doctrines?
Posted by Christ1stMe2nd 5 years ago
I'm guessing that Con is a muslim, judging from his arguments. As usual, muslim apologists will rip 1 verse out of context, and insisting that the 10 other verses refuting his position is either corrupted or a contradiction without even a shred of evidence. Con proved my point by using the sign of Jonah and Hebrews 5:7, regardless of the fact that countless verses in the very same book refute him, but of course he'll just say its corrupted, without any proof.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by leonardlewis4 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited after Pro presented a reasonable case.
Vote Placed by snamor 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Greematthew 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and pro provided clear and obvious arguments. Con could have done better to prove his case if he chose to do so.
Vote Placed by Torvald 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't feel this vote is entirely fair, due to what appears to be a misunderstanding between the debaters. I believe Con was caught out of his element because he wanted to debate a Christian on the issue, arguing from a Christian perspective. Arguments is obvious, given that Con sort of laid down and died. Spelling and grammar because it was hard to understand Con. Reliable sources because Pro simply listed so many reliable sources, whilst Con listen few sources, and they weren't reliable. Conduct to Con because Pro was not very polite near the end of the debate, jumping to the conclusion that Con conceded because he was caught out of element, and pushing that conclusion unduly.