The Instigator
Macroscope
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Argument magician: Gayness

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,360 times Debate No: 18512
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

Macroscope

Pro

WhooOOOooo

I am the argument magician, by the end of this argument i will have proven, for your delectation, by logic and evidence that:
[drum roll]
- Gays appeal to apathy
- Gays are confused about weather gayness is mental or biological
- Gays hinder the economy, not help it
- Gays hinder governmental change
- Gayness cannot be explained by genetics
- Gayness is likly a mental illness

And for my last trick;
- Everyone who supports gays is incredibly biased.

Things you thought impossible right? Well, watch and be amazed!

First round is for acceptance.
socialpinko

Con

First round is acceptance so I will simply await my opponent's argument, He seems to have laid a heavy burden of proof on himself with some very sweeping genralizations. We shall see if he is truly an argument magician. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Macroscope

Pro

*Produces magic wand from nose*
For my first performance here today, I shall start with the statements:
- Gays hinder the economy, not help it
- Gays hinder governmental change
- Gayness cannot be explained by genetics
- Gayness is likely a mental illness

Argument 1: Gays hinder the economy

It is well known and logical that a couple without children will have less outgoing expenses. They don't need school uniforms, lunch money or buses, university savings etc. They are free to invest their money in different things. This probably somewhat changes economic stratification wouldn't you say?

Observation:
Our first problem arises when considering the subject of tax and social security on this new economic stratification or hierarchy. Our present currency and banking practices are known to cause inflation and devalue any savings we might have. This problem is particularly noticeable with social security, and in effect, causes the next generation to pay for the previous one, rather than paying for themselves.

Hypothesis A:
If gays never have any children then this will cause the next generation to have to pay for their retirement.

Hypothesis B:
The second problem is that gays still use non-renewable resources such as gasoline or food GDP when they have no intentions of contributing to the gene pool or social security. They are distinct from people who just fail to breed.
This will take money out of the pockets of straight or breeding couples and effectively use it to back-pay the gays for just consuming resources with no net positive effect. After all, their not going to pay more than everyone else for the same goods, are they?

Theory:
Genetics and evolution tells us that animals will often exploit any resource they can get in order to reproduce their own genes.[2] If we apply this same rule to the gays we find that they are exploiting a government legislative weakness in order to steal money from straight peoples children, in the future. Provided that they really, don't, have any children of their own. This problem is compounded by the declining birth rate in most western countries [1].
This is typical parasitic behaviour of an institution as wasteful as government. Indeed you could say that government has a history of financing genetic dodos with welfare. The effect of this loophole is, without fail, to reduce the genetic viability of a competitor in the gene pool, namely the children. In this case, one that has had the responsibility of welfare forced upon it.

From an ecological standpoint, it is not a viable tactic to have non-breeding pairs consuming resources. This ultimately drains resources for the breeding pairs and can result in extinction, population boom and busts etc.

[1] There are many sources for this, but I recommend gapminder world with the child per woman selected in the bottom right corner.

Argument 2: Gays hinder government change

Observation:
It is often said that gays provide more money for ‘the people', with the so called ‘pink pound'.
However, men are paid more money than women, and subsequently pay more in income tax. The same is true for gay men. This means that the only group they benefit first and foremost is the government, weather or not this money ever reaches society is another matter and probably depends on if you believe in trickle down economics.

Hypothesis:
Furthermore, it should be understood that gay men that are appealed to under the pink pound still benefit, WHATEVER government is in power, as long as it supports gay rights. Even if that government is bad with another groups rights. For instance, there were many gays in Nazi Germany, this was discouraged but not repressed as brutally as other groups. Unfortunately the status quo remained on the side of the Nazis precisely because of gay cooperation. If you're a moron and believe in godwins law then we shall move to the US, Nato or Israel, all of which support gay rights in one way or another but are presently destroying the rights of Arabs. This is still down to taxes payed by the status quo.

Theory:
Meaning, that in practice the government is lending out credibility to a highly incredible group, in exchange for money and that the pink pound is actually an attempt to legitimise government and income taxation as a prerequisite to gay rights. It could even be characterised as a stealth tax.

In short, gay rights now represent part of the status quo, not because it is deserved, but because political parties need them to win votes and pay taxes. This makes it illegal to make points like argument 1 and 2, which challenge the deservedness of their status as a social group.

Argument 3: Gayness cannot be explained by genetics and is likely a mental illness

The medical definition of disease is a departure from health characterised by symptoms. The purpose of genes is to reproduce, when they fail to reproduce this is called natural selection. There is a massive body of evidence showing that genes will do anything to ensure they can reproduce.
Therefore creating a body which doesn't reproduce is a colossal waste of resources, it is argued that they help their relatives reproduce, but mathematically speaking, there is still a greater advantage in ALL relatives reproducing. Indeed statistically the birth rate is higher in countries where less children survive. Therefore gayness is a disease. Given the suspicious lack of DNA evidence, it is likely to be a mental disease and this option has not been properly explored because it is a taboo for science due to political pressure as explained in argument 2. I have more evidence on this, but that's all for now.

For my opponent to rebut my argument, it is likely they will have to:
Argument 1
-disprove inflation
-prove the legitimacy of gays right not to reproduce
-disprove that it is a waste of resources
Argument 2
-prove the pink pound works differently
-prove that the government does not alienate peoples rights based on payment
Argument 3
-disprove natural selection
-disprove genetics

PS: I'm sorry guys, i tried to make it humorous. In some ways i needed it more than you. But pragmatism still took over...
socialpinko

Con

Argument 1: Gays hinder the economy

The point of this argment, in my opponent's eyes, is that because of differences in sexual orientation, homosexuals hinder and do not help the economy. Qualifiers by my opponent for this opinion are their general lack of a need for things related to child rearing, general lack of children, and what my opponent described as "parasitic behavior" on their part. All of these points rest solely on the general lack of children reared by homosexual couples.

The first claim in this argument is that homosexual couples will have less outgoing expenses without the need to but things used for child rearing. This claim in itself is fallacious. Homosexuals in several countries are alowed the ability to raise children. Coutries including Denmark, Iceland, Spain, Sweden, the UK, Scotland, Norway, several states in the US, parts of Canada and Australia allow adoption by same-sex couples[1]. Many more countries including Israel, Germany, Finland, etc. allow "step-child" adoption. So the all encompassing claim that homosexuals never raise children is completely false. Not only does this fact mean that homosexuals do contribute to items used in child rearing, can have children who will in effect likely pay for their retirement(this is more a symptom of the broken SS system in the U.S. than anything specific to homosexuals), and do not necessarily engage in "parasitic behavior" such as using non-renewable resources.

Argument 2: Gays hinder government change

This argument necessarily stems from the fact that as men generally earn more money than woman, they pay more in taxes, thus helping the government regardless of whether it stifles the rights of it's citizenry. He also claims that as homosexuals generally support homosexual rights, they are more willing to support a government(examples being Nazi Germany or he U.S.) who somewhat support a limited form of gay rights while oppressing another minority group(Jews, Arabs).

The first point of this argument rests on the premise that men generally make more money than women. While this is true, it does not help my opponent's case as a homosexual is merely one who is attracted to a member of the same sex. A homosexual need not be a man but can also be a woman. If sources are requested, here they are[2][3]. Second, the claim that gay men "benefit, WHATEVER government is in power, as long as it supports gay rights" is of course false. For all this does is stereotype homosexuals based on one factor. What about a Jewish homosexual[4] or an Arab homosexual? What evidence is there that they will necessarily support any government that marginally helps their fellow homosexuals, but oppresses their fellow Jews or Arabs?

The other points my opponent makes in this argument are either irrelevant or unfounded. For instance, he claims that homosexuals are trading taxes for credibility, a claim that is both unsupported and false. Most governments have been extremely slow to implement gay rights with a mass of resistance every inch of the way. Also the concept of a stealth tax was both unwarranted and never fully explained by my opponent. His other points about the undeserved "status quo" of gay rights and the alleged illegality of voicing opposing opinions are also false. Gay rights are not the status quo as the public has been consistently deadlocked or favoring the Con side of same-sex marriage[5] and other LGBT issues.

Argument 3: Gayness cannot be explained by genetics and is likely a mental illness.

Argument number 3 by my opponent could best be summed up as follows, homosexuals cannot biologically produce progeny, the fundamental purpose of genes is to eventually reproduce, therefore an organism unable to reproduce exhiits some form of illness. While my opponent agrees there is little DNA evidence to prove this, he claims it is thus more likely to be a mental disorder.

This point of my opponent's stems from a complete lack of knowledge as to either what a mental illness is or what a disease is in general. Even if we are to grant his un-sourced definition of a disease, my opponent has provided no evidence as to why homosexuality is a departure from health. It's not that homosexual men do not have the ability to produce progeny with a woman, or homosexual women with a man, but that they have no interest in doing so and a lack of attraction to the opposite sex. My opponent even admits that there is little evidence supporting his charge of mental illness but only because "this option has not been properly explored because it is a taboo for science due to political pressure". However this is simply untrue. Homosexuality was characterized as a mental illness but was dropped from the list in light of new evidence to the contrary. As it stands today, the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization no longer hold homosexuality to be a mental illness. It's not that they were never allowed to research the subject, but that the research did not yield results in that direction.

==Conclusion==

Before I end my arguments and rebuttals, I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to fulfill his burden of proof. In R1, he claimed he would argue for seven positions, only four of which he has tried to defend.

- Gays appeal to apathy- (never touched upon by my opponent)
- Gays are confused about weather gayness is mental or biological- (also never mentioned though my opponent himself expressed apparent confusion on which is the correct view)
- Everyone who supports gays is incredibly biased.- (never mentioned)

As it stands then, voters ought to vote Con as my opponent has not upheld his BoP.

[1] http://adoption.laws.com...
[2] Female homosexual(lesbian)
http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[5] http://www.pollingreport.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Macroscope

Pro

Argument 1: Gays hinder the economy

"The point of this argument, in my opponent's eyes, is that because of differences in sexual orientation, homosexuals hinder and do not help the economy."

That's a bit of a straw man. I said that they change the economic stratification and subsequently social security can't work. You might say it's a perfect storm, but that implies the gays arnt really responsible for their own behaviour. Which they are.

"So the all encompassing claim that homosexuals never raise children is completely false."

You have not demonstrated this, you have only demonstrated that it is legal for them to rear children. Arguing that the majority of gays actually choose to do this is, well, impossible because they don't. The statistics for stable gay families that stay together is a very low minority, and those that adopt or inherit are a minority within a minority. Furthermore, considering the declining birth rate, no amount of adoption or inheritance will suffice in order to pay the social security. To say nothing of the fact that, if it is a mental illness as I am arguing, they should not have legal access to adoption.

"this is more a symptom of the broken SS system in the U.S. than anything specific to homosexuals),"

I agree with this point. Although it is not exclusive to the US.

"and do not necessarily engage in "parasitic behavior" such as using non-renewable resources."

I agree with this point, but for the vast majority who do not engage in child rearing, my original point remains clear.

Argument 2: Gays hinder government change

Allow me to clarify that my point was that gay MEN pay more in taxes, but this could easily be extended to wealthy women, or if women somehow outnumbered men. The problem is the motivation for conforming to taxes, if it is to help gain legitimacy, then we have a conflict of interests with the other groups. Wouldn't you agree?

"claim that gay men "benefit, WHATEVER government is in power, as long as it supports gay rights" is of course false"

Just because you call it false, doesn't make it actually false. I'd suggest you provide more evidence, you do say the following;

"What about a Jewish homosexual [4]"
This is a good point. What indeed? For this is a question for the governments that do this. I would hypothesise that they would still ostracise them, possibly even removing the protection for gays they provide, further weakening their position. This explains why gays still have such a precarious place in legitimacy. Because it might be convenient for another group to hold them hostage. Perhaps?
Or do you think that the rest of the gay community would suddenly rally around this person? What about a gay arab terrorist if such a thing could exist? I personally would question why gays rally around each other as a political statement when considering heterosexuals don't. But this is aside the point.

"either irrelevant or unfounded. For instance, he claims that homosexuals are trading taxes for credibility, a claim that is both unsupported and false."

Most people are conformists. You have more reason than most to conform if you have something to lose, like gay rights.
Their feelings and actions are two completely different things. If they feel for the plight of various minorities, but wouldn't dare support them for fear of loosing their special unassailable status, then it doesn't matter.
Also, gays in the military. They seek to be recognised AND deployed to Iraq.

"Most governments have been extremely slow to implement gay rights…"

So? This happens in any government.

"Also the concept of a stealth tax was both unwarranted and never fully explained by my opponent."

Gay marriage is an example of a stealth tax. Why do you need a marriage licence? Legitimacy? Well your going to have to pay for it.

"His other points about the undeserved "status quo" of gay rights and the alleged illegality of voicing opposing opinions are also false."

You just keep saying things are false without providing evidence. The very concept of calling people homophobic is to discredit them and ignore their opinion without ever having to deal with it. Has any evidence ever surfaced proving that they have a phobia? I personally face the most intense discrimination, more than any gay.

"Gay rights are not the status quo as the public has been consistently deadlocked or favoring the Con..."

I'm not blocking political issues, nor am i voting. I'm saying that in all likelihood this is a mental illness that has managed to garner a political following and influence, and that IS the status quo.

Argument 3: Gayness cannot be explained by genetics and is likely a mental illness.

"While my opponent agrees there is little DNA evidence to prove this, he claims it is thus more likely to be a mental disorder."

Mental disorders aren't always related to DNA. If someone comes down with a cold or insists on putting the word penguin at the end of every sentence penguin. Then we cant put this fault straight down to DNA inheritance.

"This point of my opponent's stems from a complete lack of knowledge as to either what a mental illness is or what a disease is in general."

Now this is a full straw man fallacy. Thus I will interpret this sentence as asking me to explain them.

Definition of disease:
"… a description of certain symptoms, either physical or mental, or both, Disease suggests a malfunction of the body which leads away from good health." – AS biology, Glenn & Toole, P155, paragraph 11.1.2

If my opponent wishes to prove it is not a mental illness they need to provide some evidence.

"…have the ability to produce progeny with a woman, or homosexual women with a man, but that they have no interest in doing so and a lack of attraction to the opposite sex."

And that is why it's a mental disease and not a genetic one.

"Even if we are to grant his un-sourced definition of a disease, my opponent has provided no evidence as to why homosexuality is a departure from health."

Did you not earlier say: "the fundamental purpose of genes is to eventually reproduce, therefore an organism unable to reproduce exhiits some form of illness."
I propose this might be a small cognitive dissonance contradiction.

"…American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization no longer hold homosexuality to be a mental illness."

Those organisations don't hold much credibility. Arnt they the same ones that prescribe Ritalin, a psychostimulant drug, to over exuberant kids? Do you have a source for this? In any case your making an appeal to authority fallacy.

"An appeal to an authority is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true." -http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk...

"It's not that they were never allowed to research the subject, but that the research did not yield results in that direction."

Incorrect. They are conducting experiments right now, and science is in a constant stat of adding new evidence and can hardly said to be finished yielding results. Simply; they researched the popular science, now all that's left is the good science. Its left in a similar position to the climate change debate.

Arguments 4 & 5: Gays appeal to apathy & are confused about weather gayness is mental or biological & Everyone who supports gays is incredibly biased.

I'll get to that argument as soon as you offer some actual counter evidence or at least an argument stating that gayness is not a mental illness. Or, at least an argument which doesn't make an appeal to authority or just claiming that something is false without evidence or irrelevant without explanation. Also, my first argument was too long to include the further sections given the arbitrary limitations on length. However I recognise that it was probably long enough as it was.

In conclusion, vote pro due to the fallacies in cons argument.
socialpinko

Con

Argument 1: Gays hinder the economy

Pro accuses me of strawmanning this point. However, since his pointed largely rested on homosexual's not having children and I showed that they are able to have children in several countries and states in the U.S., his point is moot. Since homo and heterosexuals are no longer completely separated by the ability to have children my opponent cannot argue based on much more than the difference in sexual orientation.

My opponent then argues that the majority of homosexuals do not engage in child rearing is a moot point as well since, just like heterosexuals, they have the ability to do so, my opponent cannot use this point without ignoring that heterosexuals contribute to the inevitable doom of Social Security as well whether they are infertile or simply have never expressed an interest in having children.

Argument 2: Gays hinder government change

My opponent attempts to bypass my refutation of his tax point by pointing out that wealthy woman also pay quite a lot in taxes. However, Pro never shows why gay women make more money than the average man or that they pay more in taxes on average. My point was to refer to the fact that not all homosexuals are men, not that all men pay more in taxes necessarily.

However, the problem with my opponent's point here is much deeper, it is at the very root of his premise. It is the fact that he assumes anyone will support a governement so long as it supports further benefits to a group they belong to. However, Pro never showed why someone belonging to two or more minority groups would automatically support the furthering of gay rights over whatever other group they belong to. Certainly a gay Jew is not going to enjoy Nazi Germany just because the Nazi's were harder on the Jews then the gays.

My opponent's next point within this point is the stealth tax, a concept of a secret tax imposed on the tax paying people because the government needs more money to provide benefits to a minority group(in this case homosexuals). This of course can apply to any other group who has at one time of another started receiving benefits from the government(ADA in 1990 to the handicapped, minimum wage laws to the poor, etc). Pro uses a double standard here to call gay marriage(which not all homosexuals agree with, some oppose all federally recognized marriages) a stealth tax but not mentioning any other minority that receives some sort of benefit from the federal government.

Argument 3: Gayness cannot be explained by genetics and is likely a mental illness

My opponent's main reason for regarding homosexuality as an illness(mental of physical) stems from the fact that they do not wish to re-produce with members of the opposite sex. However, his own definition defines a disease as "a malfunction of the body which leads away from good health". But is anyone going to die simply because they do not reproduce? Homosexuals can be perfectly healthy and just not be attracted to the same sex. Furthermore, this point can again be flipped on any homosexual who does not feel the need to have children. It is not a disease, but a preference. Homosexuals prefer not to have sex with members of the opposite sex and those uninterested in child rearing prefer not to have children.

I would also like to point out that my opponent is trying to trick readers by taking a quote of mine out of context. He quoted me as saying, "the fundamental purpose of genes is to eventually reproduce, therefore an organism unable to reproduce exhiits some form of illness." However, in the full quote I was merely summarizing my opponent's point for the reader. The full quote reads as follows, "Argument number 3 by my opponent could best be summed up as follows, homosexuals cannot biologically produce progeny, the fundamental purpose of genes is to eventually reproduce, therefore an organism unable to reproduce exhiits some form of illness." Trying purposefully to misdirect readers and voters is a clear violation of conduct.

The AMA, the WHO, and homosexuality

My opponent attempts to refute my point of how the AMA and WHO no longer recognize homosexuality as a mental disorder by claiming (1) that they are not credible and (2) that this is merely an appeal to authority. Both of these claims are false.

Credibility

My opponent never provides any reason for these organizations being uncredible besides the fact that Ritalin is prescribed to children with ADHD. If my opponent wants to generalize an entire medical organization based on that, he can, however it he really cares here is an article somewhat providing evidence to it's effectiveness. http://psycnet.apa.org...

Appeal to Authority

My argument regarding why homosexuality is not a mental illness was not entirely based off of the opinion of the APA or the WTO(also, my opponent wanted sources. APA- http://www.apa.org... the WHO- http://apps.who.int...) I also used the fact that homosexuality is merely a preference and that if it is truly a mental disorder, any heterosexual who doesn't want to have kids for any particular reason must have a mental disorder. This point merely served to show general scientific consensus on homosexuality and whether it is a mental disorder.

==Conclusion==

Again, I would like to point out to readers and voters that my opponent never tried to defend these arguments that he had claimed he would when he framed the debate.- Gays appeal to apathy, Gays are confused about weather gayness is mental or biological, and Everyone who supports gays is incredibly biased. Even without his lack of trying to defend all of his points, I have successfully refuted each of his arguments. As such I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lotus_flower 3 years ago
lotus_flower
"Gays hinder the economy, not help it "

hahahahaha... You are a fÜcking nutcase. (:
If you would like to debate this, I will gladly own your shít. (:
Posted by WriterSelbe 3 years ago
WriterSelbe
Your evidence was crap. In fact, there really wasn't any. Using big words doesn't make you right. It makes you look pompous. Yes, I am biased, but I'm not unreasonable. If you had presented valid points I would have agreed with you. Honestly, your argument was offensive and just plain terrible. Part of debating is presenting valid information in a way that doesn't offend your audience. And you did. And that's why you lost.
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
Eltigrey, did you vote for me because you personally agree or because I argued better?
Posted by Macroscope 3 years ago
Macroscope
I dont know what to say...
You've mis-represented every point i made in the last round, and ignored every point of credibility. You did not do that in the second round.

I have to say that you bordered on delusional or using deliberately bad debating method to try and force a win.
Posted by Macroscope 3 years ago
Macroscope
Oh look at all the biased people.

This woman is the largest most rotund liar.
\/

I did not commit 1 fallacy. You cannot find one. I am honour bound to point out fallacies as and when i see them and futhermore, the fact that you do not know this does not bode well for you.
Posted by WriterSelbe 3 years ago
WriterSelbe
This is very radical catholic, regardless of what religion you really are. I read the whole thing. I lol'd so much. I mean, the way you defended was kinda...horrible. The way you used fallacy over and over reminded me of a teacher I once had... Whenever she spoke a word over and over again, I couldn't help but say sarcastically, 'Looks like teacher learned a new word.' It impresses no one if you use it over and over again, especially when it's not true. Also, you're cocky. And you provided most of the fallacy here. I hate, hate, hate it when people misquote. It's annoying, misleading, and most of all it's cheating. Good thing Con was quick to pick up on that.
Posted by Macroscope 3 years ago
Macroscope
Maybe not... maybe i should have added more rounds...

I'm sure the people will inevitably vote on what has been said here, rather than what has not been said.
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
It's not really my fault though. You said you would defend a number of assertions and in two rounds never touched on three out of seven. Do you really think you should win if you say you're going to defend a and b but only end up defending b?
Posted by Macroscope 3 years ago
Macroscope
It would be a very great shame if for any reason the public ignored the fallacies i have pointed out here today.

It would be less bad if they voted aginst pro because he couldnt fit his argument into 8000 words. But it would still be pretty bad...
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
I guess voters should ote for me automatically since pro did not try to defend arguments 4 or 5.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by t-man 3 years ago
t-man
MacroscopesocialpinkoTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't fulfill BoP
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MacroscopesocialpinkoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Hinder the economy? Mental illness? Extremely weak arguments from Pro. Con effectively rebutted them all. Unless it is a joke debate, this was not a close debate at all. If it is a joke debate, I would say it was close, but Con still logically refuted Pro's arguments so he still gets the points for arguments.
Vote Placed by seraine 3 years ago
seraine
MacroscopesocialpinkoTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Gays can adopt children, so it doesn't matter if they can produce children or not. Argument 2 barely made any sense, and Pro never showed that being gay was bad for your mental health.
Vote Placed by eltigrey 3 years ago
eltigrey
MacroscopesocialpinkoTied
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: Disgusted by pro's behavior, and personaly diasagree, being gay is not a mental illness.