Gay Marriage Ought To Be Permitted
Debate Rounds (4)
This debate will concern the merits of allowing gay marriage.
Full Resolution: Gay marriage ought to be permitted in a civilized American society.
This debate will concern, as the resolution suggests, policy limited to the United States.
R1: Acceptance ONLY
R2: Full Arguments
R4: Final Rebuttal/Conclusion
Please note that both sides share the burden of proof; Con may not depend on refuting Pro's arguments.
Gay Marriage: marriage between partners of the same sex (as recognized in some jurisdictions).
Good luck to my opponent, whoever he/she may be.
I am looking forward to debating this topic with you.
Hello and thank you for your acceptance!
My arguments in favor of permitting gay marriage will focus on both the economic benefits of legalization and the injustice of discrimination against the homosexual community. I will try to make them as compacted and as succint as possible.
Now, we all know gay marriage has now been legalized nationwide, as of the Supreme Court's landmark decision on June 26, 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges.  However, the question still remains of whether or not homosexual Americans should retain this right to marry. I hope to answer this question ardently and in the affirmative.
1) Allowing gay marriage reaffirms equality under the law.
It is absolutely essential to understand that homosexuality is not a choice. Scientists have proven countless times that homosexuality is found in nature. It has been reported that over 1,500 animal species exhibit natural homosexuality, especially types of herding animals.  A wide selection of research has also shown that homosexuality is genetic. 
Homosexuality is an inherent trait. I'm sure my opponent would agree that discriminating against a group of people based on an inherent characteristic is wholly unjust. It would be as if one was denied the right to go to school if they were physically or mentally disabled from birth, or one was refused service at a restaurant if they had green eyes. Simply, denying homosexuals the right to marry based on their inherent homosexuality is not only ludicrous, but it is an injustice, and constitutes an unjust society in which a group of people is not "given their due".  It follows that homosexuals should be given the right to marry in a civilized American society.
2) Legalizing gay marriage is beneficial for the economy.
University of Michigan professor Adam Stevenson has suggested that the legalization of gay marriage brings in additional tax revenues of between $20 million and $40 million. Within only a year of legalizing gay marriage, New York City made over $250 million in revenue from licenses and weddings.  The impact on the federal budget deficit may even total a $450 million reduction.  Sourced from wedding-related spending, license fees, profit from job creation and increased revenue from sales tax, this money, however one might scale its impact, helps the economy.
The government has an obligation to its citizens. Benefiting the economy only goes to improve the lives of Americans and American prestige abroad.
It is obvious; legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do, whether one wants to cast it as a social issue or an economic one. Let's support not only equality under the law for the homosexual community, but the health of our economy as well.
I await my opponent's arguments.
As this first round is solely for opening arguments I shall refrain from refuting any of your statements yet, but thank you for the wealth of material to cover.
1) Marriage under the state should be different to Marriage under the lord and the two cannot be equated like is what is colloquially happening
Marriage has gone back a long way in terms of human history but it is generally considered that historically it has been the role of the church and ecclesiasts to marry couples. however, in recent times the state has deemed for its own reasons that this religious principle should become under the power of the state and have started handing out privileges to those whom are married.
The state is ok as we have seen with marrying 2 individuals as you have pointed out and thus will give a gay couple similar rights as a straight couple and call it marriage. Now here is where we run into a problem because the Ecclesiastic Church doesn"t support Gay people and their lifestyle thus in their marriages it is only permitted between a man and a woman. hence the traditional white dress and church bells wedding imagery pops into our head. the people of the church have founded a belief system in which well it speaks for itself Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." so what most people don"t find is the difference between a church marriage and a State one, one for god and what the couple believes in the other for the benefits of the state. here is where I propose a counter model instead of slandering these people"s belief systems we create a new equal right legal contract, oh wait we already have something similar a civil union so this is less a counter model more leave the status quo alone you are complaining about someone"s belief system being unequal and demanding. That, instead of doing what most people would do and leave people to believe what they wish, you would force them to change their culture and their beliefs to suit you.
it is not moral to force your view upon others when they define a traditional historical ritual upon binding two people under the eyes of god a god who they have defined doesn't approve of lying man with man. so if it is not moral it most definatly shouldnt be legal
2) The Child and their Young conditions
Currently in society the Nuclear family is still the norm and anything that deviates from it will struggle a little more than others so is the nature of biology and the world. if we make gay marriage legal then all the family"s formed under this act will be against the norm and more often than not find it harder. now I am not saying that the nuclear family is perfect just that children need both a mother and a father and that without this it leaves them open to peers rejecting them from society at an early age and it also opens up problems by which as a toddler not all of the values that would normally be ensued by a mother figure (father figure) would be present as the child only gets 2 father figures in the home.
3)minor point: this could be a slippery slope
the legalization and acceptance of gay marriage allows for people to start putting into question other sexual orientations like that of incestuous origin. just take a look at some of the polls that have arisen in wake of this issue and see how they have used the generic arguments for gay equality to justify bestiality and paedophilia and incest. food for thought
4)minor point: legalizing something means that it is blanket acceptance
I somewhat touched on this in my first point but by legalizing this you are stating a blanket across all marriage licenses that they are accepting of this yet there was an outcry from mainly the people issuing the marriage licences and ordaining these marriages the people who were actually dealing with the problem at hand. their outcry has been hushed and by law they are being forced against their belief to default their churches and besmirch their marital ideals.
links to some intriguing sites:
Motherliness and Fatherlessness:
I thank my opponent for his arguments.
From my reading, I have concluded that my opponent's arguments tend to focus on the conflict between religion and the state, the state being willing to legalize gay marriage but the religious community rejecting gay marriage as sacrilegious. Although, I admit this could be a bit misrepresentative, given that the arguments my opponent presents are a bit difficult to interpret.
My opponent claims that marriage as recognized by the state is infringing upon those who hold contrary religious values. He also mentions that two forms of marriage, marriage "under the state" and "under the law", are being conflated. Therefore, my opponent claims, gay marriage should not be permitted.
Here is my opponent's first premises:
P1. Marriage has historically been a religious matter.
P2. The state has declared marriage in its own interest, arbitrarily.
P3. The church does not support gay marriage.
P4. Therefore, the state legalizing gay marriage would be an unjust imposition of opinion.
I agree that marriage has been a historically religious matter. I would like to point out, though, that religion has no reason to impose its view on the populace either. My opponent's argument that the state has arbitrarily stepped in and set boundaries for marriage can be flipped as well; if the state was not involved in the manner, gay marriage would not have been illegal in the first place. It is the law, written by the state, that makes gay marriage illegal. An opposition to state interference can be read as an argument in favor of permitting gay marriage as well. So, in essence, state involvement in marriage does not advance Con's position one bit.
To move on from the matter of state interference, let us consider religion. As I have already established, it is the state that controls marital law. The state justifying a ban on gay marriage by using religious principles would be a gross violation of a central tenet of American government: the separation of church and state. Any justification of a ban on gay marriage based in religious principles runs into this problem.
Also, my opponent considers this problem whilst assuming that allowing gay marriage would be violating the "majority rules" principle. As my opponent puts it, "instead of doing what most people would do and leave people to believe what they wish, you would force them to change their culture and their beliefs to suit you. It is not moral to force your view upon others...". This assertion is blatantly false. According to the Pew Research Center, a steadily growing majority of Americans support gay marriage, polling at 55% in 2016.  Therefore, using the very same principle my opponent seems to be ardently advocating, that "majority rules", gay marriage really should be legal.
The second argument my opponent makes regards social norms. Since a nuclear family with same-sex parents deviates from the social norm, my opponent claims, a child grown up rejected and deficient in values instilled by heterosexual parents. Despite being utterly false, this strays far from the resolution. This debate is not about same-sex couples having children. It is about same-sex marriage. The resolution makes this clear.
The third argument deals with a slippery slope, where my opponent claims the legalization of gay marriage could easily justify the legalization of bestiality and incest. This is, as my opponent makes clear, a slippery slope argument. The government makes the decision on a case-by-case basis whether to allow gay marriage and whether to allow bestiality and incest, among other things. It is not as if gay marriage opens the door for these things to be legalized; the door is as open (or as closed) as it ever was before. There is simply no logical basis for this assertion.
The fourth argument deals with what my opponent calls "blanket acceptance". Well yes, I agree (partially). In our society, legalizing something on the federal level means that it is blanket legalization, but not blanket acceptance. People can continue to not accept gay marriage; that is their decision to make. Government employees have to comply with the law when doing their jobs. If gay marriage is legal nationwide, employees who issue marital licenses ought to issue licenses to same-sex couples. As we've seen in the Kim Davis case, the court orders clerks to do so.  However, I'd like to point out that clerks issuing these licenses to same-sex couples does not mean they endorse same-sex marriage or morally agree with it. My opponent fails to distinguish between legalizing gay marriage and imposing its moral weight upon the American public, and as I have pointed out, there is a difference.
Given that all of my opponent's arguments stand refuted, I ask you to vote Pro.
I await my opponent's response.
let"s start by looking at this moral debate through your monetary eyes putting a Dollar on things because that"s how we solve problems with society just throw money at them and they will be quiet.
your evidence for this point is that New York city made $250 million in revenue cited by an article in the Huffington post titled "8 Ways Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Is Good for The Economy" because that sounds like an unbiased headline that will present the facts to me straight so I can formulate my own opinions...no they got this figure from a different news website CNN which admits that gay couples spend less on average in comparison to straight couples. The main reason for this initial increase was because it was only recently allowed so the demand was at a maximum and will die out as people re normalise. but let"s see how much of an impact $250 million is on NYC total revenue, NYC has about 1.4 Trillion dollars in revenue so as a percentage the contribution of gay marriage is around 0.0002% so miniscule by all accounts. One more thing on this article, it also cites the major Mr Bloomberg I wonder if he has any impute to the Bloomberg citation you put in at number 6, food for thought. When following through your 6th link to Bloomberg I was faced with a 404. page not found. So if your "$450-million-dollar reduction to the federal budget deficit" statement is really true I'm sure we can find the academic study this was replicated in. couldn't find anything reliable first off maybe if we go to the American federal budget and compare 2015 to 2016, seeing if there are these great differences we are being told of. So in 2015 GDP was $16.2 trillion with a deficit of $399 billion now if by simply legalising gay marriage we should drop this number to around $398.5 billion give take. before I tell you the estimates for 2016 lets first note how little a change this is for the economy negligible to say the least so basing your arguments on the fact that is economically sound if flawed. But we will give you one more shot what does the estimated federal budget for America in 2016. so the GDP is expected to be around $16.5 Trillion which yea that gone up maybe you might be...oh the Deficit is at $552 Billion dollars that is a lot more. now I"m not going to claim that it is because of gay marriage that the deficit has increase but merely putting the maybe benefit, of less than 0.00003% of the GDP, into perspective. you can"t justify this moral argument monetarily because the monetary value is negligible thus your 2nd main premise can"t stand.
you have said that economically legalising this is a sound ideal but you have skewed the facts and muddied the waters benefiting the economy is a good idea but not when it comes at the moral cost of your citizens and what they believe.
Because that is what this issue is a Moral one. Look at this from a moral stand point, you addressed this in your first premise of Equality where, instead of the topic equality under the law like your title suggests, you went for more of an it is natural and thus should be allowed in a "civilised America". let"s delve into what you said in a little more detail.
You made a very solid case that homosexuality is natural and that it is an inherent trait that we can"t discriminate people for. But you have taken a major leap of knowledge without following a logical process. Where your premise is flawed is that is assumes that a natural innate instinct is a positive or morally correct one which rationally is impossible. If we accept the argument you are putting forward we must also accept many others that are obviously immoral. Easy and slightly extreme example murder an act that most people will consider is immoral but let"s say it was a psychopath who committed such an act that is perfectly natural. The psychopath doesn"t consider the societal effect, almost like you are doing, but instead acts on impulse and follow his/her instinct to the natural conclusion murder. "But the psychopath was acting naturally it was in their genetics to become a psychopath" that doesn"t excuse the action that doesn"t make the action immoral. We are a civilised society which means we don"t always act on our impulses we consider our actions and the consequences thereafter. You also said that because it is genetic they don"t have a choice but you always have a choice no matter that circumstance there is always a choice. But in this case you are asserting that the Genotype of an organism determines the phenotype expressed which any year 12 biology student will tell you is incorrect. The environment takes play in the gene"s expression be it inhibitory or excitatory. The gene alone doesn"t mean that it is predetermined that you will be gay or not.
Now looking at how your arguments measure up to mine:
First you over simplify my premises were, that the church historically determined the rules of marriage based on their beliefs, marriage allows for a stable environment for both parents and children, this initially aligned with the states interest of a stable society so they encouraged. The state shouldn"t have the power to change people"s beliefs/culture thus it should not be able to force the church to marry people that under the laws of the church cannot marry.
In my premises the church and the state once has similar beliefs. When the law was written the church and the state were 2 separate entities, the church never forced the state into writing the laws the state did that in order to develop a more positive relationship with the church. So the point you missed from my argument is that not the state is trying to change laws of others where as in your case it was the state changing (creating) its own laws.
Moving to your argument on the state justifying banning gay marriage, if you looked at my model where I stated that Gay people can use Civil unions to access the same legal rights as straight people and this does it without breaking the rules and beliefs of the church. So your assertion that I am "violating a central tenet of American Government" is void.
Then you say I support majority rules principle, use the quote that "instead of doing what most people would do and leave people to believe what they wish, you would force them to change their culture and their beliefs to suit you. It is not moral to force your view upon others..." which claims the other way that the majority (your side of the argument) is coming in guns a blazing forcing an unjust change to the churches beliefs where as normal or civil people would leave them to practice their own way and by acting as you are you are acting immorally.
You then go on to say that I stray from the argument by talking about children and how this will affect them. You claim that growing up outside of social norms will not affect the probability that the child will grow up with rejection and isolation at a much higher amount than a child who conforms to societal norms, that is the falsehood. You claim it is a different argument but the point of marriage in both the state and church is for marriage to provide a stable environment that children can grow up in.
My opponent then addresses my minor slippery slope argument by asserting that the government won"t change its views based on this decision but here is the fact. They will they see the arguments you are making and when advocates for the other mentioned crimes come forward with similar ones they are faced with a double standard, that is the logic followed so don"t make lacklustre claims otherwise. Just think of the standpoint of the state on Gay marriage 20/30 years ago.
Finally, you finished by agreeing with my blanket acceptance is not ok but then claimed that you would be completely fine with forcing people to go against what they believe because you say that"s equality and it"s in the job description.
I await the final round
I thank my opponent for his rebuttal. For me at least, my opponent's arguments are a bit difficult to decipher due to grammatical and structural deficiencies, but I shall try my best.
My opponent launches a dually-pronged attack on my economic argument, claiming that legalizing gay marriage has a negligent effect on the economy when considering all state revenue sources, and that the organizations I am getting my information do not have an unbiased platform.
I would like to address the argument of negligent economic effect first. I'd like to point out that I previously argued that however small the economic benefit, it is the duty of the government to provide for the economy in any way it can within reason. Yes, the legalization of gay marriage might have only a miniscule effect on the economy, but it is a positive effect. My opponent still has failed to provide a reason why this principle of government devotion to the betterment of the economy cannot apply in this case, so I consider his rebuttal not advantageous to his position.
Also, albeit my opponent's comments about the federal deficit are difficult to comprehend, I believe he is trying to say he sees no impact directly from gay marriage on the deficit. I'd like to point out (and I believe my opponent already knows this) that the deficit has increased because of other reasons we shall not contend in this debate, as to not stray from the resolution.
My opponent's other attack on my economic argument concerns my sources. I would like to contend that my sources reference specific academic studies conducted without an agenda at hand. However the news organizations that I cite present the information, the information itself does not present a bias. If my opponent disagrees, however, and finds a specific example of a study that I have mentioned that was conducted with an agenda in mind, he is free to speak up.
By the way, the Bloomberg article will be linked as source  below. If that doesn't work, look up
"bloomberg fiscal impact of gay marriage" and it should be the first link. I promise, the proof is there.
My opponent's rebuttal rests on the claim that the economic benefit is not worth it considering the "moral cost [to] your citizens". We'll examine this contention soon. Let's break my opponent's arguments up so they are comprehensible.
My opponent first concedes that homosexuality is an innate characteristic. Fantastic. But then my opponent strays a bit off course by saying that I have somehow assumed being homosexual is the morally correct position. This is, aside from being untrue, completely irrelevant. Nowhere did I mention the morality of homosexuality, and I don't intend to. My argument concerns the injustice of discriminating against a group of people based on that innate trait. The morality and righteousness of the trait itself is not considered anywhere in my argument; regardless of whether it is moral or not, and that is (or was) up to my opponent to decide for himself, the inherence of the trait still remains. And as of yet, my opponent has not refuted the injustice of discriminating against a population based on a trait it shares.
Also, I object to the subtle comparison between my logic and a psychopath's (or lack thereof, according to my opponent). That's simply innapropriate within the bounds of this formal debate, and I wish this to be considered by the voter, but I digress. Let's return to my opponent's arguments.
The problem with my opponent's argument that marriage is an ecclesiastical matter is simply that not everyone falls under the jurisdiction of the Christian church. The Church has no power to decide the law, and rightfully so under the Constitution. We cannot decree marriage as the business of religious institutions that not everyone falls under, since marriage is a right that belongs to everyone. Everyone falls under the state however; the government and the law applies to every citizen. It only makes sense to delegate the responsibility of determining policy for everyone to the institution that theoretically represents everyone, and I'm sure my opponent would agree.
Then, my opponent reverts to the position that majority is forcing its opinion upon the minority institutions. Con, however, has not yet refuted the principle of majority rules itself. The principle still applies in this case; in a just American society, the opinion held by most people should be considered above the minority's, unless there is sufficient reason to protect the minority (in the case of the Civil Rights Era, for example). The Church, unfortunately, has no special standing in the American legal system and no reason to be prioritized above the majority opinion held by the American people.
We're now nearing the end of my opponent's contentions. Next, Con responds to my argument about the irrelevance of considering children in this debate about marriage by claiming that the purpose of marriage is to "provide a stable environment that children can grow up in". This is inaccurate even if we are to step into the shoes of my opponent, who prioritizes the authority of the Christian church in his arguments.
"The first reason that the Bible gives for the existence of marriage is simple: Adam was lonely and needed a helper (Genesis 2:18). This is the primary purpose of marriage—fellowship, companionship, and mutual help and comfort." 
"The primary reason marriage is significant to God is because it is part of His ordained plan to provide the world with a picture of His love for men and women. Marriage becomes the means for married couples to demonstrate their love for God." 
As even Christians acknowledge, marriage is an expression of love. Some married couples have children, and some do not. But the recurring theme is that, at least at the moment they are married, couples feel love and affection for one another.
I'd like to clarify that the state legalizing gay marriage would not require change in the church's position, as my opponent infers: "the majority (your side of the argument) is coming in guns a blazing forcing an unjust change to the churches beliefs where as normal or civil people would leave them to practice their own way". Legalization will not affect the ability for the church to continue in peace. It is not an assault on the church in ANY way. The state is making the decision for the benefit of the entire American people, ordained by the Constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law (as I have already contended).
I don't see any sort of refutation against my responses to your minor argument about the slippery slope, and in fact, I don't understand a word of what Con is trying to say, so I will assume no attempt to actually refute was made.
It is clear gay marriage should be legalized. Of course, that doesn't mean, as my opponent likes to think, that gay marriage is a moral argument being forced upon everyone. Of course not. The purpose of legalizing gay marriage, as I have already explained numerous times, is to embrace the economic benefit (as there lies a duty of government) and reinforce equal protection under the law.
Being gay is natural. Con has agreed that this is reasonable to accept. So, I ask the public, why should we discriminate, as a society governed by the state, against a group of people based on a chracteristic they share? Because the church thinks so? That's what Con says; according to him, we should act as if the church has some sort of political capital it can exert to maintain its view on marriage and apply it to our society (as if).
Let us embrace all of the social and economic advantages legalization brings. Let us be the just society America deserves to be. Let us accept, support, and actively represent every member of our community.
Thank you, and vote Pro!
I will quickly run us all through what this debate has featured as its main points of contention.
So there is the two points you brought to the table in your initial argument, Economic benefits and how natural homosexuality is, that I challenged and we continued from there. Then there were the points I brought to the table which you have not addressed in any great detail what so ever. Those points being my slippery slope argument, the argument against the family, the argument of separation of state marriages and church marriages.
Starting on your points however, economically you have stated that with any economic benefit the government has a duty to peruse this benefit within reason. Here you have nearly the right the economic benefit and the cost for that benefit should go up by percentile, so for a negligible increase in economic benefit only a negligible cost or less can be accepted. The cost of passing this law is not negligible as shown by the controversy and unrest it has caused throughout society so justifying that due to economic benefits is deployable.
Also I took another look through your resources to find out where these costs are being cut. And it"s through medical assistance funding. So by giving them their right to marry you also take funded health care in order to justify your economic benefit that is not just.
You then question my use of the American deficit and as I stated when in my essay I am not blaming the increase on this law. I am merely putting into perspective these benefits you are basing your arguments off.
My opponent then goes on to defend his sources stating, in a rather muddled fashion, that his bias news platform has referenced unbiased studies. However, you are still working off the information presented in a bias fashion so the numbers you are quoting are put there to push a narrative. That cannot stand and thus I have won the economic argument
The other argument you brought forward which I refuted and then expanded upon was the idea of an innate characteristic. Now we both agree that being gay is a genetically defined characteristic fine but you say that because it defined like that it makes it 100% likely that they will turn out gay to which I told you that that isn"t biology so there is one flaw in your argument.
Here is another, just because something is defined about your character doesn"t mean that you cannot be discriminated against for it I used the example of a psychopath who through his genetics was destined to become a psychopath. This is similar to the Gay argument because like we both agreed Gay people are "destined" to become such. So by dismissing my point because it is not "appropriate" is deplorable from the person who has been attacking not only my intelligence but using slander to personally attack my grammatical structures, so when voting please take consider this manipulation of the rules. So to finish this point on an imperial standpoint, when considering whether or not something needs to be written in law you must consider the morality and riotousness of what passing, or nullifying, a law will do. In this case more harm than good.
Now the matter of the Church having no right to decide the law. Which yes is correct but vice versa the law has no power to supress the beliefs of the church. That is discriminating against a person"s beliefs which is something that I am assuming my opponent will admit is horrid. Under my model with two separate licenses one for the church a marriage under the lord and the other a union under the state this will get rid of all your discrimination arguments and sole the problems both sides of the table have put forward.
My opponent then challenged my argument of the reason for marriage quoting the bible and a source that lead me to a Family Life page. Which yes was posted in the comments but I will still honour as I did similarly last round. You state using one specific quote that it claims god"s only purpose for marriage is love but that very website talks all about families and how marriage will grow a family that will grow your faith in the lord. I.E. the point of marriage by your own source is for creating a stable family.
Finally, he states the main problem this moot brings forward that changing the law will require a change in position of the church. But it does people generally think of marriage as a thing that is ordained by a priest in a chapel not a slip of paper issues by the state. This is the Equivalence problem we face and why I tried to separate the two terms earlier. But as it stands it will force the church to change its standpoint.
So it is plain to see that Gay Marriage should not be legalised as I have stated many times the cost of forcing people to change their beliefs is not outweighed by the economic benefits or the social benefits. instead we should follow a different course of action like I have stated from the beginning that we separate this gay union from marriage to fix the problem while not causing unnecessary social tensions.
I thank Pro for the final time as this is the best debate I have had on here in my short time.
And out of curtesy here are both his sources and mine for the past 2 rounds
My Opponents first:
 http://www.bloomberg.com......- -(I found this link works better)- https://www.bloomberg.com...-
Why Youth Commits Crimes: http://www.acs.edu.au......
Nature Acting immorally: https://www.youtube.com......
CNN Article on NYC: http://money.cnn.com......
NYC Revenue: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com......
Federal budget 2016 estimate: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com......
Federal budget 2015: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com......
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Conservatism 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MDcMkETJplUOCn5nOS8qNK-vqdpvs3vM28nZkfUHGhM/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 3 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qksZ7PF7RfYiiMaigxdV2BLv1vjlygDCtfSNuNkA3ZU/pub
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.