The Instigator
effy
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
Brownbearlc
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

A Christian/Catholic CAN be homosexual

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,674 times Debate No: 11242
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (11)

 

effy

Pro

I chose Catholics/Christians as the topic header as they both follow the bible, and the two groups I mainly debate with.
Now, many Christians/Catholics see homosexuality as a sin, but the bible has been misinterpreted in many ways, leading young people brought up with religion at a dead end if they are homosexual. Believing what they are doing is wrong and sinful only contributes to to many difficulties they will later face in life. The bible does not clearly state that a loving, committed same sex relationship is wrong, so any proud Catholic/Christian can be proud of their sexuality too.
Brownbearlc

Con

I kind of have to laugh at this just simply because this is so blatantly wrong. I will keep this short and sweet. A Christian/Catholic cannot, under any circumstances, be homosexual. Now it is true that the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways but that is only for certain vague passages. Leviticus 18:22 blatantly states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." So this shows that Christians/Catholics cannot be homosexuals. I now stand for my opposition.
Debate Round No. 1
effy

Pro

Christians today do not follow the rules and rituals described in Leviticus. But some ignore its definitions of their own "uncleanness" while quoting Leviticus to condemn "homosexuals". Such abuse of Scripture distorts the Old Testament meaning and denies a New Testament message. These words occur solely in the Holiness Code of Leviticus, a ritual manual for Israel's priests. Their meaning can only be fully appreciated in the historical and cultural context of the ancient Hebrew people. Israel, in a unique place as the chosen people of one God, was to avoid the practices of other peoples and gods.

The Bible says:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination [towebah]: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13
Don't Get Confused;

"In the twenty first century many Christians confuse modern homosexuality, a committed, faithful, noncultic same sex partnership, with the ancient world's sexual abuse of slaves, pederasty, rape of foreigners and pagan fertility rites. None of those ancient practices are analogues to modern homosexuality."
-Rick Brentlinger, Author of the new book Gay Christian 101.

Original intent is important because scripture cannot mean now what it did not mean then. Constitutional attorneys sometimes discuss the idea of "original intent." In answering this question about homosexuality, understanding original intent in scripture is vitally important. Was God talking about modern, twenty first century, committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships or was he talking about pagan sexual rituals in worship of the Canaanite fertility goddess?
There is no evidence in the Bible that God or OT Jews or Jesus Christ Himself understood Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13 as prohibiting committed, faithful, non-cultic, same sex partnerships.
The - homosexuality wrong - idea comes from taking verses out of context. We know that because, although Sodom is mentioned 48 times in the Bible, not once in 48 verses of scripture in the Old and New Testaments does God ever reference homosexuality when he speaks of Sodom. Although anti-gay Christians wish the Bible talked about homosexuality whenever Sodom is mentioned, God just doesn't make that connection in the Bible in any of the 48 verses which mention Sodom. Think about that for a while before you assume homosexuality wrong. Jesus spoke of Sodom but he never linked Sodom to homosexuality. Jesus mentioned Sodom - in Matthew 10:15 and 11:23, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12 and 17:29 - but Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in connection with Sodom. I know many Christians think he should have mentioned how bad homosexuality is but Jesus never said anything like that.
Homosexuality wrong?
Not according to Jesus.
If Jesus agreed with the anti-gay viewpoint, don't you think he would have said so when he spoke of Sodom? Did you know that in the Bible, the term eunuch sometimes describes a gay man? Do you remember reading what Jesus said about eunuchs in Matthew 19:3-12?
"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs , which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:11-12.
Jesus said there are three kinds of eunuchs and the first class of eunuchs He mentions are those eunuchs who "were so born from their mother's womb." Matthew 19:12.
Do you understand what Jesus said when referring to eunuchs?
Jesus said, in Matthew 19:11 that eunuchs cannot receive his teaching about the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm in Matthew 19:5.
And Jesus pointed out to all who will receive it that some eunuchs never made a choice to be eunuchs - they were born that way.
Jesus specifically excluded "born eunuchs" from the heterosexual, Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, Matthew 19:4-6.
When we define what it means to be a born eunuch, honesty requires that we be historically accurate. What did Jesus mean by the term "born eunuch."
If one is born a eunuch, then being a eunuch was NOT the result of personal choice or nurture by parents or influence by society, right? It perfectly fits the ancient Jewish viewpoint about "saris" - the Hebrew word for eunuchs, that Jesus intended his disciples to understand that a born eunuch was like a "saris," a homosexual man or a man not inclined to marry a woman.
Surely, if god saw homosexuality as such a sin, why would homosexuals be born that way? It may not be certified that it is infact genetic, but evidence leads more towards that option rather than choice, and Jesus did say it himself.
Brownbearlc

Con

I thank you for your argument.

I would first like to address the idea that modern Christians do not follow the old testament. This is true seeing as the sacrifice of Jesus did cause changes to the laws of the old testament. However, certain things were still held in place, that is another flaw of the Bible. it is never specified as to what is still in place and what was considered void. With this the interpretation of the "word of God" is off. Now the scripture blatantly states that a man should not lie with another man the way he lies with a woman. That is not what we are debating, what we are debating is whether or not this scripture applies to modern times and what was originally meant by this.

We may confuse "a committed, faithful, noncultic same sex partnership, with the ancient world's sexual abuse of slaves, pederasty, rape of foreigners and pagan fertility rites" but the truth is if God did not want them to do those things then why would he approve of them in any other fashion? Whether or not it is a "a committed, faithful, noncultic same sex partnership." There is no double-standard in this, if he forbids it in one sense it is forbidden in all senses.

I'm glad you brought up Sodom. Seeing as sodomy is a sin there is no way that homosexuality can be o.k. Maybe in the sense of lesbians it can be considered alright but definitely not for males.

Eunuchs are not homosexuals, they are castrated males with an imbalance of hormones. When Jesus speaks of eunuchs that are born that way he is most likely speaking of those whose genatalia are deformed and prevents them from proper relations with the opposite sex. It was not uncommon for there to be those kinds of birth defects during that time.

I would also like to bring up the fact that in the Christian religion marriage is only between a man and a woman nad it is pretty much just an excuse for Christians to have sex. And seeing as sex is not permitted before marriage that completely rules out homosexuality.

Christians cannot be homosexuals.
Debate Round No. 2
effy

Pro

I thank you in your agreeance to the Old Testament laws, but it is very common for a Christian/Catholic to dismiss these laws when they see fit to, I mean what else does Leviticus disallow;
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Saying only few rules still stand is just hypocritical. Either they all still stand, or none of them do, and, none of them do so we can simply move on from these laws.

"A committed, faithful, noncultic same sex partnership", is in no way comparative to "the ancient world's sexual abuse of slaves, pederasty, rape of foreigners and pagan fertility rites". So logically we can dismiss that point, it's void.

On Sodom and Gomorrah :
This story, in Genesis 19, tells of the attempted gang rape of two 'angels', sent by God to see if any good people remained in the cities of Sodom and Gomorah after their inhabitants had revoked the important law of the welcoming of strangers - and of God's subsequent destruction of the cities. But the point about this story is that it's about punishment for inhospitality, a grave misdemeanour in Jewish society. Nothing about judgement over sexual orientation. Lesbians are homosexuals too, also, might I add. Homo, is Greek for same. So any mention of homosexuality in the bible relates to gay females, not only males.

The term "homosexual" dates from the late 19th century, when human sexuality first began to be studied as a science.

There is no term that means homosexual orientation in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible. The authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation and therefore did not write about it. So, when you see one of these words in an English translation of the Bible, it is important to dig deeper and find what the original Hebrew or Greek text really means.

"I would also like to bring up the fact that in the Christian religion marriage is only between a man and a woman nad it is pretty much just an excuse for Christians to have sex."
Marriage was designed for companionship and intimacy. Hardly just an excuse to have sex. But civil partnerships is not the argument here.

There are a lot of reasons why this needs to be addressed to young people, with a religious background or not, the primary one, teen suicide. The teen years can often at times be very difficult in general, but for homosexual teens their problems can turn out to be more than they can deal with. Being gay for many teens is something that they can not live with because society, most of the time, says that homosexuality is wrong. These teens usually have no one to go to with his or her problems for fear of being taunted or harassed. Also, schools rarely have groups for gay students to go to for help and parents are often unaware of what their children are going through. With no place to go and no one to help them, homosexual teens can feel alienated which may force them think of more harmful ways of dealing with their problems, so at times gay teens may turn to suicide rather than having to deal with their problems. Suicide numbers for young gay teens has not decreases. Is their lifestyle really so terrible that their life should be cut short at a tender age?

As an atheist, I personally don't care what should and should not be done according to the bible, but I have many gay friends/family and many religious friends/family, so have been curious to explore the actual truths. Here are just a few quotes you may be interested to read;

"The half-dozen biblical references to homosexuality do not reflect what we understand today about loving relationships. This is an identity, not a sin."
The Rev. Dan Johnson of Good Samaritan United Methodist Church in Edina, MN.

"I want God's gay and lesbian children to know of God's unconditional love and acceptance of them as well. We cannot find any condemnation in scripture for committed monogamous same-sex relationships."
Rev. Charles Coppinger, Chaplain of the Arizona Legislature

"In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia."
William Sloane Coffin, former chaplain of Yale University and, peace activist, and leading liberal clergy person.

Now, of all people, I am sure these men know what they are talking about.

There is nothing in the bible that can stand an argument against homosexuality, I have provided a few links also. Being gay is NOT a choice, arguable I agree, but if it was there would be no homosexuals. Why would someone choose to lead a life of constant struggles, ridicule and belittlement? The only choice is choosing to accept your sexuality. And after all, god loves everyone, right?

Christian/Catholics CAN be happy homosexuals.

http://www.soulforce.org...
http://www.gaychristians.org...
http://lgcm.org.uk...
http://www.gaychristianonline.org...
Brownbearlc

Con

Having read both mine and your arguments over again i think we are both on the same page on this subject we are basically just arguing semantics here. Also, this debate is extremely biased seeing as we are both atheist/agnostic. I totally agree that Leviticus is an extremely overbearing and unecessary book of laws that no one would want to follow, i actually find it hilarious if you ask me. Now i know that the commited and faithful relationship is not the same as those practices but when you are speaking of homosexuality in the sense of religion it almost always is talking about the sexual practices of homosexuals, that is what i was comparing. I know that it includes females too but the fact is that it was more prevalently abominable and common for it to be males during that time, women did not have any room to choose who they laid with. Yes it does not specifically state anything about judgement over sexual orientation but by sodomy being a sin it most directly relates to homosexuality. The thing that really makes this hard to debate is the fact that the Bible is too old to attempt to relate modern issues to. Yes, some of the issues are parallel but the rest of it is just a shot in the dark. These Reverends and ministers you quoted are stating their opinion on the subject, the only real biblical evidence says that it is an abomination. I myself think that it is time for a new Bible (not that i care) so that these things are no longer an issue. Like you stated, homosexuality is truly an issue that needs to be at the forefront of our society, especially i teens. The amount of intolerance is ridiculous and if we were to have a new bible with modern issues we would not have this problem ( this of course would take an act of "God"). So seeing as i can go either way on this topic, I concede the debate to my opponent. Thank You
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jesusrules 6 years ago
Jesusrules
@ Lovebotlass17

God does love everyone and wants everyone to come to heaven, but God hates sin! God doesn't hate homosexuals, he hates homosexuality.
Posted by Jesusrules 6 years ago
Jesusrules
@ Lovebotlass17

You say Matthew 7:1 says "Judge not, that ye be judged". Why not read the whole paragraph.

Here's what it really says.
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by you standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of you own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

It is not talking about judging people, it's talking about hypocrites! It's saying don't point out someones mistake when you have the same problem. Why wouldn't God want Christians to point out homosexuality is a sin. Good Christians do not let things slide by and sit doing nothing.
Posted by Jesusrules 6 years ago
Jesusrules
This is the most idiot claim I've heard!

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which it is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals (called whoremongers in KJV), nor theives, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. [People like effy are trying to decieve you into thinking homosexualty is okay!] Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. [You can still be forgivened!)

1 Timothy 1:8-11 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realixing the fact that law is not made for righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murders and immoral men and homosexuals (called whoremongers in KJV) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and what ever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

The Bible which is inspired by God talks many times about homosexuality in negative terms, calling it immoral. It is insane to think God is okay with homosexuality.
Posted by Lovebotlass17 6 years ago
Lovebotlass17
The bible is a bit contradictory. A Christian and/or Catholic can absolutely be homosexual. Just because they were raised to believe in God, and they are fully aware that (according to the bible) homosexuality is a sin, does not mean there are no Christians and/or Catholics who are not gay. God loves everybody (according to the bible). A Christian and/or Catholic can fully love and accept Jesus Christ and be a homosexual. The bible (King James Verision) states (Matthew 7:1): "Judge not, that ye be not judged." So who cares? Let homosexuals live the lives they want to live, especially if they are not infringing upon yours.
Posted by Luistpuig 7 years ago
Luistpuig
Homosexuality is just one of the many dysfunctions humans can have, but still not "ok."

It is not genetic as proven by the large "Twin" studies in Sweden and Finland which show that Homosexuality is not due to genetics, since in the cases where one twin is gay only about 10% of the time the other twin is gay too, which shows it NOT genetic since twins SHARE 100% of the genes, and therefore they BOTH would have to be gay 100% of the time, but that is not the case!

Also, another wrong theory is that homosexuality is the result of something that happens in the womb, a chemical incident that perhaps happens in the womb, but if that is the case then what is the explination in the twins cases, as explained before where one is gay and the other one is not?

Something wrong along the way was done to homosexuals by their caretakers, something (various kinds of mistreatment) from about less than a year old to up to early childhood that their mind have chosen to forget and/or bury deep inside of them. And since the abuse is done so early in their lives most do not remember being anything else, hence the homosexuals always saying that they have being homosexuals "as long as I can remember…"

Simple facts, how many people remember in detail what a typical day was for them at one and a half year old, or what life was like for them for example at two or three years old? Not most people! Memories are retained, especially early childhood memories, depending on how a child is being treated. The studies found that children with good upbringing are more likely to have more memories of their childhood than children that were mistreated and/or abused. But overall, most people do not remember early childhood well, a critical time in their lives when the foundations of who they will be as adults are being laid.

The complete analysis can be found in my book "What Nature Intended, Six Factors Demonstrating Homosexuality to be a Dysfunction" website Whatnatureintended.com
Posted by happyblue88 7 years ago
happyblue88
the bible also states that you should love your neighbor, therefore making it no matter who it is, they are still human, just like you, no matter what differences people have. God, being the "all mighty" should know that there are ppl of homosexuality here, and which he created mankind, he has taken part of them too. Also, ppl claim we are God's children, and most kind souls won't abondon their own very children just for one small difference
Posted by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
There is a progression. From being tempted, to provide with amusement or enjoyment to that temptation, and acting upon that temptation physically.
Posted by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
"Hmm? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality"
This is what you said and I quote, "No. Homosexuality is attraction to the opposite sex; there's nothing in Christianity that forbids that. The verses that condemn homosexuality specifically forbids having sexual relations with members of your own sex. If you are a man and are attracted to other men, but don't act on your feelings, then you're acting consistently with your faith." What I said was that "...It is also sin when a person entertains the thought in their mind. In the Sermon of the Mount, Christ clearly stated this principle." It seem that there is an agreement that "The verses that condemn homosexuality specifically forbids having sexual relations with members of your own sex." The disagreement is in "Homosexuality is attraction to the opposite sex; there's nothing in Christianity that forbids that." Entertain: provide with amusement or enjoyment. 2 show hospitality to. 3 give attention or consideration to. — ORIGIN originally in the sense maintain, continue: from French entretenir, from Latin tenere ‘to hold'. [1] Principle: noun 1 a fundamental truth or proposition serving as the foundation for belief or action. 2 a rule or belief governing one's personal behaviour. 3 morally correct behaviour and attitudes. [2] In the Sermon of the Mount Christ said this, "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ." (Matt. 5:27-29) Granted, Jesus mentioned "adultery" in the literary context. However, there is a principle here and that is "if your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away." Of course it is a figure of speech. James, actually elaborates on it in James 1:14-15.
Posted by Frosty5794 7 years ago
Frosty5794
Or we could just forget about religion, and let people be themselves, no matter what ancient superstition they follow.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
RFD:
Conduct: Tied
S/G: A couple minor mistakes by PRO; for CON, errors were obvious frequent enough to detract from the quality of his arguments.
Arguments: PRO, CON didn't seem to understand to notion of different covenants and the idea that ethics can be subdivided into absolutes, principles, precepts, and preferences.
Sources: PRO cited numerous scripture verses, as well as other resources in support of her contentions, CON had only 1.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Lovebotlass17 6 years ago
Lovebotlass17
effyBrownbearlcTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Smallclayton 6 years ago
Smallclayton
effyBrownbearlcTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by benotnobody13 6 years ago
benotnobody13
effyBrownbearlcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by vervatos 7 years ago
vervatos
effyBrownbearlcTied
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 
Vote Placed by Johnny_Canuck 7 years ago
Johnny_Canuck
effyBrownbearlcTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
effyBrownbearlcTied
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 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
effyBrownbearlcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
effyBrownbearlcTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
effyBrownbearlcTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
effyBrownbearlcTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60