The Instigator
rogue
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Cliff.Stamp
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points

Being gay is harmful to society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 9 votes the winner is...
Cliff.Stamp
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,851 times Debate No: 14656
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (9)

 

rogue

Con

The trait and lifestyle of being romantically attracted to the same sex does not hurt anyone or anything. If something is not harmful to anyone, I do not understand how is can be wrong.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

"The trait and lifestyle of being romantically attracted to the same sex does not hurt anyone or anything.If something is not harmful to anyone, I do not understand how is can be wrong."

The first sentance is simply an assertion of the negation of the resolution, which is quite an expansive statement as it proposes than an act, uniformly, and absolutely causes no hurt to anyone or anything. That is a very hefty burden of proof to sustain and I await the argument which attempts to provide a locus for such a contention.

Second, as ID proponents are commonly made aware to their amazement, simply because it is not known how something can be achieved does not mean it is impossible for it to happen. Beyond this, the statement simply restates the assertion and affirms the desired conclusion.

Before an actual refutation is offered then an actual argument needs to be made.

As a point of clarity, some definitions :

1) Harmful : causing, or capable of causing harm (injury) [1]

2) Society : a collection of organisms of the same species (restricted to people in the present context) [2]

3) Gay : having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex (as noted previously in the OP).

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
rogue

Con

My opponent wants me to disprove the resolution before the resolution has been supported. If the resolution is not proved true, the winner of the debate defaults to Con. The burden of proof was given to Pro because Pro has to give evidence that the resolution is true. I was merely stating some of my views on the subject to get the ball rolling. Sorry for the waste of time.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

"If the resolution is not proved true, the winner of the debate defaults to Con."

Rebuttal :

a) There are many discussions on the forums where this issue of burden of proof is presented and arguments are made for both sides, and thus there is no consensus in the community. Ex. :

http://www.debate.org...

Here Freeman argues and wins that the side who made the positive claim has the burden of proof. THis position he again takes up in the comments, where he unfortunately, and showing extremely poor form provides an argument on a meta-position in an active debate, and further still notes that he would use and abuse his right to vote simply to advance his person position on this matter, and further still use the comments section of an active debate to advance such a position - for shame, more should be expected of such a long time member of the community.

As a counter example showing the existing contention to this position advance by rogue which is clearly present (and known to be present) in the DDO community :

http://www.debate.org...

Here gahbage presents the argument that the instigator bears the burden of proof and wins the debate.

The same back and forth is also noted in the forums on several threads (references can obviously be provided if requested) and thus it is clear that the community has no resolved position on the matter and is split even among members of the leader board with Roy and theLwerd taking opposite positions in the threads for example, where theLwerd goes as far to argue that it is poor conduct to instigate as Con and shift the burden of proof.

b) There is no official position in the ToS/ToU and thus without a community consensus this contention is obviously part of any debate as a meta-position :

http://www.debate.org...

c) Ironically, if one were to accept the position of rogue, that pro automatically has the burden of proof, then being pro on that very position she has the onus to provide a locus for it, otherwise it is automatically negated. Thus as she has not done that and beyond that moves further to note she in fact refuses to do so, she is not even being consistent with her own argument and she forfeits, she is simply stating opinions without a locus which is hardly a debate and is pointless at best trolling at worst.

I would therefore put forth the notion that this debate clearly belongs to Pro with no further argument needed, however as it is completely trivial to support the assertion as Pro it therefore would be asked that no vote be given to Pro simply on the basis of the obvious forfeit but to consider the following argument and vote accordingly.

"Being gay is harmful to society."

Now Con has not denied the above definitions and they will be applied in the following argument, which in its simplest form is :

1) Gays are part of society
2) Being gay causes those people to come to harm through the negative view of others towards being gay
3) If something harms members of society then it harms society

Conclusion - Being gay is harmful to society.

That there is harm inflicted on people who are gay simply because they are gay can not in any way be contested, there are countless examples such as direct violence :

http://news.pinkpaper.com...

indirect violence :

http://perezhilton.com...

Now the obvious rebuttals of it is not their fault", "there is no need", etc. are all true and could not be contested (without extreme ignorance or Religious assertions - i.e. gay is a sin). But the resolution is not about justified harm, it is simply if harm exists.

Now I suspect Con actually wanted to refute something similar to "Resolved : individuals should come to harm for being gay" but again this is not the resolution made.

There are of course countless other examples of harm which comes to gay people simply for being gay. The most obvious being they are denied legal rights of relationship. Again, Con could argue this is not justified - and again this is not the contention if the harm is justifed, the resolution is simply does harm exist.

Finally, the fact that there are gays causes considerable tension, loss of relationships, suffering to the families. Parents turn their back on children, children walk away from parents all because of a lack of acceptance of homesexuality. Again it is obvious that this fact can not be contested, nor would anyone sanely argue that splitting up a family does not cause loss.

In summary, Con instigated a debate then forfeited the responsibility to provide an argument the debate at that point is clearly over and goes to Pro both on arguments and conduct an sources. However as that is a trivial victory, I would urge such a vote, though justified not be taken and instead evaluate the argument in support of the obvious and trivial contention that Con made.
Debate Round No. 2
rogue

Con

I am going to ignore the beginning of Pro's argument because all he is "others support my view". This isn't a debate on who has the burden of proof. Pro has also made many assumption about what I wanted this debate to be and how I shall argue. I hope that those assumptions will be shown as false in my following argument.

"1) Gays are part of society
2) Being gay causes those people to come to harm through the negative view of others towards being gay
3) If something harms members of society then it harms society"

"1)" I agree with obviously.

Before I go into anything else, I will explain a common misconception. People think that things that other do directly cause an emotional reaction from others. This is not true. It is the beliefs surrounding the actions of the other person that causes an emotional reaction. This is true in all cases except ones where the action of the other person is life-threatening or severely life-changing. For instance, if a kid is picked last in gym class, the kid will often feel bad about him-herself. Was this caused y being picked last for a team in gym class? No, it was caused by the child's belief that being picked last meant that some negative thought about him/herself is true. Thoughts like that they are weak, not well liked, etc. Does this action actually mean these things are true? Maybe, but since the child will never know, it is irrational to let this action affect them negatively. This is why some people are able to listen to others say and do nasty things about and too them, and not be affected negatively by these actions. This is a key part of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy, which was brought to the public by Albert Ellis PhD.

http://www.minddisorders.com...

"2)" is where Pro is wrong. For one, Pro has not said who "those" people are. If it is people who are anti-gay, then it is their beliefs about gays that causes themselves harm, not that others are gay. People who are anti-gay believe that gayness cannot be tolerated and so they cause harm to themselves with that belief because they cannot stop everyone from being gay, and become frustrated and hateful from it. If "those" people are gay people, then it is their belief that the view of others should make them feel negatively about themselves that causes them harm. Either way, it is not the act of being gay that is causing harm to people, but their beliefs about gayness and about what others think. Since neither of the actions described are life-threatening or severely life changing, "those" people being mentally harmed by the actions of others is irrational and caused by irrational beliefs. Therefore, it is not the action of being gay that is causing the harm to "those" people.

"The most obvious being they are denied legal rights of relationship."- Again, this does not "harm" a person in any way, if a gay person feels hurt by this, it is because of their irrational beliefs seeing as this is not life-threatening or life changing.

"Finally, the fact that there are gays causes considerable tension, loss of relationships, suffering to the families. Parents turn their back on children, children walk away from parents all because of a lack of acceptance of homosexuality."- Again, this is not caused by someone being gay, but a the people who aren't gays beliefs around others being gay.

One last thing:"http://perezhilton.com...; Perez Hilton as a source? lolz.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

"No, it was caused by the child's belief that being picked last meant that some negative thought about him/herself is true."

Yes, that is a cause, and that cause was due to a combination of some event or events in their life and the influence this had on their behavior as controlled by their trait makeup. This causal chain can continue back all the way back to the planck epoch if desired. There are primary causes, direct causes, root causes, etc. The definition of harm does not constrain itself and thus all causes have to be accepted.

"If it is people who are anti-gay, then it is their beliefs about gays that causes themselves harm, not that others are gay."

The argument fails even to be self-consistent, there are those who are gay and who lash out at gays because of self-loathing, denying that they are gay. Now again, of course you can take the causal chain one step further back and determine why they hate being gay, this can continue forever.

The argument that you can take one thing, one action or one physical characteristic and say "Ah ha! That is the cause!" that is extremely naive. On a very basic level, it is known that all interactions are determinate only in approximation as we (and everything else) is influenced holistically by all that we experience, and thus using the naive definition of cause here - all thing are causal.

Causality is a chain of consequences, and what is a consequence, an action which happens as a result of a set of conditions[1]. If someone is not gay then by definition they can not suffer a consequence of harm from being gay (they do not have that condition and thus can not have a consequence of it). However if they are gay then that is a condition, they do have it, and it has the probability of making the person come to injury and thus it fits the above definition.

And yes, the chain can continue back, the direct cause can be examined for the underlying causes, this can continue indefinitely - but simply because an underlying cause is found does not mean that the direct cause is ignored.

If you are supervising a work site, and you find that someone has twisted their ankle, the direct cause could be that were not wearing proper foot ware, the underlying cause could be they never received an orientation, the cause of that could be that the supervisor did not give it because they were upset that day and simply were trying to punch in the time to get to the bar at the end of the day.

Or consider :

I lash out in a fight in a bar, over react to a drunk who spilled a drink on my arm, he is gay and I am enraged and in my anti-gay hate I lash out. But no need to worry as Con is the judge.

I argue that wait, the cause of his death was not that he fell and hit his head after I struck him, it was in fact my boss who fired me earlier today and it was unjust - that is the cause, blame him! Con immediately accepts and points the finger at the Boss, but wait he exclaims, my wife cheated on me, it is her fault I was upset, she is the cause, I am innocent my anger was caused by her, if she had not cheated on me then I would not have reacted that way and fired anyone!

Con again accepts and charges at the wife, the wife cries out but it is not my fault, I had to turn away from my husband for I am addicted to sex and he can not satisfy me, and my therapist has said it was because I never received unconditional love as a child, it is my parents - they are the cause, not me, I am just reacting as I am because of what I have endured!

Con again immediately accepts and attacks the parents, they are the true cause. But, the parents exclaim, we did not love her because she was ugly, but before you blame us, both of us are artists and surrounded by beauty, we were trained and encouraged by our parents to create and appreciate beauty, how could we stand to touch that ugly thing!

And Con agrees immediately and charges off to find the parents of the parents, ...

This is plainly nonsense, it is nonsense in the law, it is nonsense in business and it is nonsense in any aspect of life. A causal chain is created by events, that is why it is called a chain and each aspect of the chain is by definition causal [2]

"People who are anti-gay believe that gayness cannot be tolerated and so they cause harm to themselves with that belief because they cannot stop everyone from being gay ..."

Why stop there, why not find out what makes them anti-gay and call that the cause? What about if they were raped by a homosexual and that made them anti-gay, would you then also not call gay or would you argue that there was something that made the gay rapist a rapist and then find out the cause of that cause, etc. .

"Again, this does not "harm" a person in any way, if a gay person feels hurt by this, it is because of their irrational beliefs seeing as this is not life-threatening or life changing."

Harm is defined in the above as not only causing injury but also the potential, being legally classified has certain benefits, you really are not aware of any of them and wish to actually contend that?

I can cite them as I am personally very familiar with it. I do not have these benefits as my marriage is not recognized legally because of that I can not even bring my partner into this country (VISA demands an accepted legal marriage), this obviously causes loss (financial, emotional, physical, etc.) and it is hardly irrational to consider these consequences as losses.

As Con has not contested that if something causes harm to an individual then it causes harm to society, then it is trivial to continue with direct causes (if that is all Con really will accept) for being Gay. For one, the number of Gay's is much less than the number of straight people and thus the probability of finding optimal partners is much lower purely by numbers - this is obvious a loss by definition.

Or continuing with loss, a gay couple now who would wish to have a natural child combining who they are with each other can not do so and thus they do not have the opportunity to bring a child into the world who is uniquely them. This opportunity is denied to them, it is something they do not have, it causes loss and is harm - if it was there, would it really be contended that it would not be undertaken, if we had such genetic engineering ability which was so freely available - that is an absurd argument to even try to make.

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
rogue

Con

"Yes, that is a cause, and that cause was due to a combination of some event or events in their life and the influence this had on their behavior as controlled by their trait makeup. This causal chain can continue back all the way back to the planck epoch if desired. There are primary causes, direct causes, root causes, etc. The definition of harm does not constrain itself and thus all causes have to be accepted."

This contradicts itself. First you say that we don't know what the cause is because there could be many, then you say we have to accept all of causes? This makes no sense. There can be more than one contributing cause, but you've just stated that we have no idea what they are, so we assume every possible cause is a cause? So, if a patient is dying from an unknown illness, we assume he has all possible illnesses and treat him for all of them? No, because some of the treatments could hurt the patient further.

"The argument fails even to be self-consistent, there are those who are gay and who lash out at gays because of self-loathing, denying that they are gay. Now again, of course you can take the causal chain one step further back and determine why they hate being gay, this can continue forever."

You are misunderstanding the principal I am trying to explain to you. It doesn't matter where, when, or how they started to hate being gay. What matters is that they somehow developed a belief that being gay is bad, and this causes their emotional harm. It is not that they are gay, it is not what causes them to hate being gay, it is just the belief that being gay is bad which causes self-hate and self-harm.

"Causality is a chain of consequences, and what is a consequence, an action which happens as a result of a set of conditions[1]. If someone is not gay then by definition they can not suffer a consequence of harm from being gay (they do not have that condition and thus can not have a consequence of it). However if they are gay then that is a condition, they do have it, and it has the probability of making the person come to injury and thus it fits the above definition."

I don't dispute this. You missed the point. If someone punches me in the face, what caused me physical harm? Was it that I stole the puncher's boyfriend yesterday? Maybe that caused the punch, but it was the punch itself that did me physical harm. The belief that gayness is bad is the punch.

As for your whole thing about us in the bar: cool story bro, that has nothing to do with the debate because you misunderstand my logic.

"Why stop there, why not find out what makes them anti-gay and call that the cause? What about if they were raped by a homosexual and that made them anti-gay, would you then also not call gay or would you argue that there was something that made the gay rapist a rapist and then find out the cause of that cause, etc. ."

By your logic here, you say there is no way to find the cause. If we cannot absolutely say that someone being gay is causing the harm, then the resolution is negated. Thanks for refuting your own side bro.

"Harm is defined in the above as not only causing injury but also the potential, being legally classified has certain benefits, you really are not aware of any of them and wish to actually contend that?"

I was referring only to your scenario where you said a gay person was hurt by a negative comment about them being gay. You took that out of context.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

"First you say that we don't know what the cause is because there could be many, then you say we have to accept all of causes?"

Accept them as causes yes, but not as of equal importance no, the question comes in to significance. One of the primary justifications for calling something a primary cause or an actionable cause would be if you removed that would the thing itself disappear. This is often very trivial, but not always. As an straightforward example, you go to work and you slip on an icy step. The immediate causes :

a) the ice
b) the lack of salt/sand
c) not having proper foot wear

Now there are also secondary or indirect causes and these can and do need to be dealt with because they are also very important :

a) focus (were you watching were you were going)
b) why was the area not properly cleared (lack of training, lack of QA on the work, etc.)
c) commitment to safety (why did you not take action to report/remove the problem, legally you are responsible to do this in Canada for example)

Then there are also adjacent causes or projected causes

a) could that be intentional in any way - was someone trying to cause you harm

As an safety officer you would go through all of the list, starting at the immediate and then moving down to the point that it becomes unreasonable to continue further, unreasonable meaning simply not practical. For example if you are not focusing because you found out your brother just lost his job and he is under significant stress that is a cause, but it is beyond the scope of work of the officer to correct - but, may be for your friends/family.

"It doesn't matter where, when, or how they started to hate being gay. What matters is that they somehow developed a belief that being gay is bad, and this causes their emotional harm."

I would agree that if you are sensitive you can over react to insults, however not all discrimination can be so trivially ignored. Regardless of how content the gay person is with being gay, they are still going to come to harm if they are beaten for being gay.

"If someone punches me in the face, what caused me physical harm? Was it that I stole the puncher's boyfriend yesterday? Maybe that caused the punch, but it was the punch itself that did me physical harm. The belief that gayness is bad is the punch."

What about if right before you were punched in the face you said to the other person, "The world would be better off if you and your dyke lover should be incinerated!". Unknown to you, that person just tragically lost their partner to suicide because of relentless hate bashing. Now in that case, what caused your physical harm? By the above logic you have argued, is it not your own ignorant hate speech?

"By your logic here, you say there is no way to find the cause."

I am not saying we can not find the cause, I am saying the cause does not exist, we can only find the causes - plural.

In addition to the action which is taken upon gays because of anti-gay hate which Con has made an argument to contend, there have been multiple cases of harm coming to gays simply because they are gay, none of these were refuted and they were simply conceded. To add to the ones already presented I will present the following, same sex couples are prohibited from adopting in many countries - this obvious has the potential to cause harm unless it was actually argued that no gay people would ever wish to adopt.
Debate Round No. 4
rogue

Con

I don't disagree to your first response so I will not respond to it. It does not refute what I am saying though.

"I would agree that if you are sensitive you can over react to insults, however not all discrimination can be so trivially ignored. Regardless of how content the gay person is with being gay, they are still going to come to harm if they are beaten for being gay."

Sure, but the immediate cause of the harm was not that they were gay, it was the beating. I could take the cause one step further back if I knew exactly what part of the gay person being gay made them beat them. No doubt, the person thinking they needed to beat the gay person came from an irrational belief.

"What about if right before you were punched in the face you said to the other person, "The world would be better off if you and your dyke lover should be incinerated!". Unknown to you, that person just tragically lost their partner to suicide because of relentless hate bashing. Now in that case, what caused your physical harm? By the above logic you have argued, is it not your own ignorant hate speech?"

No, by my logic the girl killed herself because of an irrational belief that people hate-bashing made her life somehow not worth living.

"there have been multiple cases of harm coming to gays simply because they are gay, none of these were refuted and they were simply conceded."

I'm sorry if this is so, I must have missed them. My argument is that, based on Dr. Ellis's teachings, that the harm came to them not because they were gay, but because they, and/or the people that harmed them had irrational beliefs which caused them to do irrational things. A gay person is not bashed physically or mentally because they are gay, they are bashed because the basher has an irrational belief that they cannot tolerate gayness and they need to do something about it that harms gays. Unless a physical action by a gay-basher, it is up to the gay person to decide if they will let those person's actions harm them emotionally.

To add to the ones already presented I will present the following, same sex couples are prohibited from adopting in many countries - this obvious has the potential to cause harm unless it was actually argued that no gay people would ever wish to adopt."

In this instance, the gay couples can choose not to be harmed emotionally by this injustice.
Cliff.Stamp

Pro

In this instance, the gay couples can choose not to be harmed emotionally by this injustice."

Really, defend denying gay couples the right to adopt does not cause them harm because they can "get over it"?

I agree fully that one can, if their emotional intelligence is high enough, control how they feel and maintain serenity even in extreme cases, does this mean that there is no actual loss suffered? Does a mother that loses her child and is able with support and love able to find peace really deemed to not have suffered a loss? It is any less to deny her the right in the first place to have a child simply because her partner is also a woman?

We are not talking about here simply how they feel, we are talking about denying someone the right to raise a child and how denying them this right removes something from their life. Yes, is possible that a mind so disciplined could still be at peace but the same argument could be made about any loss. Would the argument extend to slavery does not cause harm because a slave could by the same logic choose not to be harmed emotionally by the loss of freedom?

Harm is injury, injury is loss [2], while emotional stability can be maintained, the loss is still very much there.

To summarize :

1) gay people suffer direct and indirect emotional/physical harm, from the definitions noted and accepted, a cause (to be clear not the only cause) is the fact they are gay

2) due to limited recognition of gay couples it can cause direct harm such as forced separation (refusal of VISA applications)

3) gay couples are prohibited from adopting in many places, this is an obvious cause of harm as it is the loss of the ability to raise a child

4) gay couples do not have the ability to bring their own unique child into the world, this is a loss compared to non-gay couples

5) gays have a much lower probability of finding optimal unions (there are simply less gays)

Now the rebuttal to these were :

1) The "real" cause is the anti-gay hatred.

As noted while it is conceded that is indeed a cause (and primarily the most actionable cause obviously, i.e., what should be "fixed") it is not the only cause. This is a semantic argument clearly however and hinges on definitions and how they apply to the resolution.

2) No rebuttal offered.

3) They can choose not to have that bother them.

Refuted in the above, they still suffer a loss, unless it is argued that it is of no benefit to have children which was never argued.

4) No rebuttal.

5) No rebuttal.

Now while the first rebuttal was a valid response, the rest of the rebuttals concede there is a loss but simply that gays can choose to not have it bother them. Note at best, even if the logic held and was accepted, at best it only deals with part of the definition of harm it does not eliminate the "potential part" because not all people are guaranteed to be able to have this level of serenity and thus the potential for harm is still there.

[1] http://jokebest.tblog.com...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
It sucks yes, but it is a reality that people will often judge based on if their position not the merits of the debate. Hopefully the RFD box will tend to reduce that. If you have a real problem with it, simply start challenging those who do it to debates with the resolution that their vote was on such merits.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
It sucks to lose in such a demeaning way, I should, look at my wins.
Posted by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
wbid: Wanna debate about it?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Just to clarify in regards to voting, I would request that if someone is going to vote regarding BoP to note use the vote simply to advocate a position that agrees with mine, if you wish to vote to express a disagreement with my position then make yourself happy. But he only way I would wish a vote to me in regards to BoP is in regards to the argument made in the debate, not the actual issue itself.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
The instigator of a debate has the burden of proof if they make a non-agnostic (positive or negative) assertion.
Posted by wbid 6 years ago
wbid
I hate gays
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Just slightly annoyed."

It happens, such is the internets.
Posted by rogue 6 years ago
rogue
Cliff: Obviously I'm not that upset lol. Just slightly annoyed.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"I personally think the tigg13 makes a lot of good points.

BoP and semantics are meta-positions in debates, some people do not wish to argue them at all, others do. Consider for example :

http://www.debate.org...

Roy's entire argument here comes down to the way Grape phrased the resolution as Roy attacked the conditional of necessity "should establish" which is obvious Grape did not mean to imply at all and his argument was basically instead intending to focus on increasing participation, but that was not the exact statement in the resolution.

In the same way my BoP argument was intended to attack the resolution along one way, similar with semantics you can argue it or concede it and then move on to the intended focus. If you do the latter there are those that will vote against you, you can see this in semantic debates where one side gets aggravated and refuses to consider it.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"People did penalize me for it and that makes me upset because it is something people are very divided upon on this site."

It is a debate, I would not get upset about it, there are real problems in life, losing a debate on an internet site is not one of them.

I was hoping you would counter a few points I made and attack arguing clearly that the primary actionable cause (what should be fixed) is not being gay and further that I had asserted but not proven harm to a segment of the population was harmful to society as I had counter arguments prepared for them. However one was purely semantics the other was not.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
rogueCliff.StampTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by Dyllon 6 years ago
Dyllon
rogueCliff.StampTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: There's probably a picture in the dictionary of pro next to sophistry.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
rogueCliff.StampTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good argument, Con did not. Simple as that.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
rogueCliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that PRO did a much better job with presenting his evidence, though I don't like that it was done through semantics. I also didn't find that the opening rounds were good for either contestant and I almost stopped reading at round 2.
Vote Placed by nhq 6 years ago
nhq
rogueCliff.StampTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
rogueCliff.StampTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: BoP issues give pro the conduct. If you create a resolution, please debate it. Don't put the burden on the contender. Sources go to pro, as well as arguments. Pro came from a logical standpoint, which won him the round.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
rogueCliff.StampTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con's [lack of a] coherent case was a wash. Aside from imposing the burden of proof upon an unknowing Pro (not making this assertion until round 2, costing her the conduct point), most of her arguments were made from emotion rather than logic and reasoning. Cliff.Stamp made a valiant effort and wins by a long shot at the end of the day, blowing rogue out of the water.
Vote Placed by tigg13 6 years ago
tigg13
rogueCliff.StampTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, I didn't find either argument to be truly compelling. I gave Co the point for conduct because of the burden of proof issue.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
rogueCliff.StampTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Rogue actually made a awesome case. But the instigator usally has the burden of proof. But that was not the primary reason for my vote in today's debate. Pro Said Gays are apart of society. Con Agreed. Pro proved how 1 person being gay was harmful to society. Thus Being Gay is harmful to society. If the con had said all of Society then I wouldv'e voted her side(Well maybe, She didn't really refute all agruements in her last speech, It looked rushed)