is MURDER...in the name of "GOD" valid ?

Con's argument does seems to be a madman's thought. In the Bible's teaching, there had never been any word of God commanded killing. The only time he brought sword and fire upon Jerusalem was because of the sins they have committed. Of course, like everyone else before me, I will say that con's argument have no real meaning and isn't logical. It is a simple decision as con based nearly all of his argument upon personal interpretation, instead of a solid evidence.

Pro didn't actually provide an opinion of his own, only arguing the pro have no real case to be supported. Despite without any opinion, this debate is a easy pick for the pro side.

Con's argument meandered mostly incomprehensibly to a point that doesn't appear to directly answer the resolution he posed. It seems like he had about half a dozen half-formed arguments placed in his posts, each of which is made all the more difficult to understand by strange phrasing and regular use of caps lock.

Pro doesn't really argue his side of the resolution, only arguing that Con hasn't really done his job supporting his side. As Con did not do much to address the resolution in the first place, Pro has an easy time convincing me.

I cannot in any way, shape or form justify to myself that this was a genuine attempt at an argument, or a debate on the part of con. His opening round was nonsensical and rambling, being less of an argument and more of a incomprehensible rant.

Given this, pros argument - short though his one - must win, due to lack of genuine and good faith competition.

To be clear, this was not a debate. This was the mentally deranged rambling of a person who clearly needs to be medicated if not lobotomized, and a set of sentences posted after that which approximated coherency. The set of sentences which approximated coherency wins.

WisdomofAges, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Seriously though...what the heck was this debate even supposed to be about? Some definitions would be nice. It would have been nice to be able to understand what the resolution is about and what valid/invalid means in the context of the debate. It would also have been nice to have an idea of what "killing in the name of God" actually entails. Please actually define your terms clearly in the debate.

To make matters worse - this is a 1 round debate with no chance for rebuttals/defense. Further con's language style and formatting was so incomprehensible that I had to read it 10 times just to get a basic idea of what the heck he's saying. I also had to read pro's argument a few times to comprehend what he is saying, but at least it's somewhat comprehensible.

In the end I see absolutely no real argumentation between the two. I see no clear resolution, no clear burden, and no clear arguments. For this I have to leave the vote a tie.

I had to read CON's argument multiple times to get it and I think he's saying that God (or G.O.D.) and the main big 3 religions are just big conspiracies concocted to oppress, control, and murder people. PRO's argument is that CON's argument is a non sequitur since the vile deeds that CON harps on and on and on about could just as easily be conditions to appease "God" and thus get into heaven. I find CON's argument persuasive to the extent that it questions the flaw in PRO's reasoning. Religion = Evil doesn't get us to the conclusion that it's all a scam. No equal B.O.P. was specified in the description. If there had been, I probably would have made this a tie. As one was never established and PRO presented persuasive grounds to deny CON's case, I vote PRO! To CON, I would recommend to not make one-round debates in the future. Make them at least two so you can actually defend your positions!