Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Fantastic. Let's agree neither can find sources to prove or disprove anything - since after all that is the case. Proof of your religion does not exist, and obviously I cannot "prove" a negative.I'm more than happy to begin from equal footing - it's actually rare that I should have the opportunity.as for indoctrination, its curious to see what denomination you studied under. for there are many denominations who have other agendas tied to their teachings that are also considered inaccurate to the Christan world, for example jw's, Mormons and so on.I was raised Catholic. Went to a Catholic grade school, a hard-core school with church 5 days a week and nuns who ensured all the Saints, Angels, Apostles, and much of the Bible was memorized, from 4th to 7th grade. I transferred to public school in 8th, and in 9th grade began dating the daughter of a Born Again Baptist preacher. I spent every Sunday of High School 1. at church, then 2. at my gf's parent's discussing whichever sermon he gave that day. I shamefully became a "Christian" I mean the type that does not accept Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity (the Protestant vs Catholic thing) in retrospect it really is all Christian.I received a full academic scholarship to one of the top non-Ivy League Universities in the country, and spent my 13th - 15th year of school studying a minimum of 3 college level religious credits each semester.I know your religion better than most, even most of the members of your religion.To answer your question, it was in fact Jesuits who lead me to question this faith. My question was not about feeling, it was about logic and argumentative states.The Jesuit argument for a god is the most convincing and most logical I've ever heard. So I approached it logically, and found it lacking.It's called St. Anselm's Ontological Theory. It is the closest thing to a proof any religion has come to the existence of their own god I'm fairly sure.The problems with it though are pretty glaring once explained.Once the foundation of the religion I'd always simply accepted was corrupted, well, it was not long until I realized the whole thing was bunk, an elaborate charade where one tells another who tells another who says it most be true because all these people believe it.Very well. If you are up to it, let's have an actual discussion where we both start from a position of ignorance. And from there through our own argument and based on the non-biased validity of our arguments come to a conclusion.Alas, if that is the link you provide me, you are not prepared to undergo this. I will win this argument despite up and down votes, despite links. At the end of the day despite population of believers, I have the stronger argument + I'm simply better at this sort of thing.When discussing issues of faith, it is folly to rely on sources. Faith by its nature defies source. If it were possible to source faith, it would not be faith it would be knowledge. Despite recent evolutions in your religion's never-ending hunger for power, knowledge is not a prerequisite to be Christian. In fact your source, the Bible, warns against knowledge, it only embraces faith and makes it clear that claiming more than this is incorrect.The least I can say for Jesuits, though the black sheep of Catholicism much less Christianity as a whole, at least they know this much and do not make fools of themselves on debate sites.