Christians are the number one threat to Christianity

Judge: RXR.
Win awarded to: Blackflag

Judge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Silver Crow

Judge: 2001bhu
Win awarded to: Silver Crow

Judge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Silver Crow
Reasoning:
This was a simple debate marred by forfeits on both sides.

Stag advanced 3 arguments for his position. Silver advanced only 1 argument, but provided evidence/analysis. And that will beat 3 assertions basically any day. Stag's arguments could easily have been the stronger had they been properly defended. Ultimately however I felt that the BoP was not clearly enough satisfied to award pro the win.

Feedback:
Pro - the obvious. Substantiate your evidence. Forfeit not.

Con - pro had a significantly better writing style in this debate. He wrote with flair, provided context, told narratives a bit etc. Learn from it.

---

Judge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Silver Crow
Reasoning:
On balance I felt that CON's argument was better supported and therefore I award CON the win.
PRO made three very coherent points in the second round, and had he built on these in the third round, as promised, they may have been strong enough to overcome CON's single argument.

Feedback:
CON: I think you won this debate by a much narrower margin than you should have. I think your decision to counter attack with an alternate threat was an excellent one, and you deserve credit for good strategy here.
I don't think your verses were the best ones to support your case, especially not the first one as it didn't actually say that Satan was a GREATER threat, only that he was a threat. You left yourself open to attack there.
I also think that PRO left you with an opening by not posting the first round. This allows you the opportunity to frame the debate and drive it in the direction you want it to go. You could have seized the chance to define Christians as true believers and mitigated his strongest attack.

PRO: Obviously, yet again this comes down to time management. You really need to start making arguments in round.
Your second round was basically your first round. You were just setting us up, with the real meat to follow. The problem was that this was already the second round of a three round debate. Had you actually posted your third round, it would have looked bad - introducing new arguments into the final round, and more importantly, it would have given you no chance to address any of your opponent's rebuttal to your points.
Your three arguments were well put and clear. I felt that your second point, claiming that many christians are not actually real christians, left your other two points up to a rather obvious attack - but lucky for you, your opponent didn't call you on this.
Ultimately you lost this debate because you used your second round to simply assert and not to argue.

---

1 user rated this judgement as constructive