The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Tied
11 Points
The Contender
Ren
Pro (for)
Tied
11 Points

Gay Marriage Should be Legalized

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 7 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,061 times Debate No: 20233
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I propose that we debate same-sex marriage. First round is only for acceptance.
Ren

Pro

Accepted, as promised.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

C1: The State has no compelling reason to legalize it.

I will begin my case by stating that homosexual marriage is not as valuable as heterosexual marriages. The main point of marriage is to sanction procreative type acts. Since homosexual acts are not procreative in type then they do not even qualify as marriages. Let it be made clear that marriage is center around procreative acts in TYPE, so any rebuttals concerning infertile people will be irrelevant.

On that note I will now state the following syllogism:

P1: Heterosexual marriages are a dispensable means in which human life can come into this world, therefore it has the greatest special social value (because it supplies the first condition for society).

P2: The dispensable means by which human life can come into this world is in itself of special value.

P3: Everything that has special social value deserves to be sanctioned.

P4: Civil ordinances which recognize homosexual marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual marriages.

P5: To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust

C: Therefore, homosexual marriage is unjust.

Heterosexual marriage provides a base under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm and egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for these reason why the government supplies economic and legal benefits to married couples, because it is recognized that these notions are crucial in order for society to be maintained. Therefore, it is just to give heterosexual marriages special recognition because it provides the most valuable contribution to society. Homosexual marriages do not deserve special recognition because it does not provide the foundation for society itself.

If my first contention true then it paves the way for my second contention.

C2: If legalized homosexual marriage would decrease the value of marriage.

P1: Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce.
P2: Gay marriage will further weaken heterosexual marriage.
C: Gay marriage is unjust.

As I stated in my last contention, heterosexual marriage is centered on the fact that it is procreative. However, if gay marriage is legalized then it will weaken this very important institution. Now already fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. If gay marriage is legalized people will start to marry only for economic reasons, which will have disastrous consequences for the preservation of our society since gay marriage is not pro creative.

C3: Slippery Slope

If homosexual marriage is legalized then we will be basically separating marriage from procreation. This will cause a slippery slope that will lead to other sexually abnormal things. There would be no limits to what marriage actually can be. For example, why not let a guy marry his dog, or let a father marry is kid, or let a person who loves himself marry himself? Marriage has more to do with love, it has the greatest impact on society because it provides society's building blocks.

~~Conclusion~~

In conclusion, I will state that since government supported marriage is based souly on the fact that in provides institutionalized procreation, and that if marriage is redefined it would fall apart all together. And that would be detrimental to society. The state has no real reason to legalize or support it, therefore same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

I will now await my opponent's response.

http://www.christianitytoday.com...

http://www.giantgayrepellentumbrella.com...

http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...

http://askville.amazon.com...
Ren

Pro

Statements and Rebuttals:

S1: I will begin my case by stating...people will be irrelevant.

R1: Let me begin by stating that my opponent presented absolutely no qualifiers for his claims. For example, he placed arbitrary value on heterosexual marriage, and compared to it an arbitrary value he placed on same-sex marriage. In fact, what my opponent is doing here is drawing a conclusion based on the logical fallacy known as Composition. This fallacy follows a reasoning as follows:

1. An individual example of X has the characteristics A, B, and C.
2. Therefore, all examples of X has the characteristics A, B, and C.

Clearly, there is no reason to believe that same-sex marriage is any less important or viable than heterosexual marriage, unless one were to make the mistake of assuming that because they're used to heterosexual marriages, all marriages must include a heterosexual couple.

This same logical fallacy is applied to arrive at the second point of your statement, where you indicate that some marriages are for the purpose of procreating, therefore all marriages must be for the purpose of procreating.

Indeed, this completely ignores the fact that there are heterosexual marriages between people that are capable of having children, but choose not to. Clearly, that belies the arbitrary definition that marriages must be for the purpose of procreation. In fact, the definition of marriage, as defined by the dictionary, is:

mar´┐Żriage   [mar-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

The accepted English definition for marriage accommodates marriages between same-sex couples, thereby validating their existence as acknowledgeable marriages.

S2: P1: Heterosexual marriages are a dispensable means in which human life can come into this world, therefore it has the greatest special social value (because it supplies the first condition for society).

P2: The dispensable means by which human life can come into this world is in itself of special value.

P3: Everything that has special social value deserves to be sanctioned.

P4: Civil ordinances which recognize homosexual marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual marriages.

P5: To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust

C: Therefore, homosexual marriage is unjust.


R2: According to the definition my opponent presented, marriage is a dispensable means by which new life can be brought into this world, which means that it is inessential. I agree with this statement, as one can have children out of wedlock. However, that definition also belies the syllogism that depends on it.

S3: Heterosexual marriage provides...the foundation for society itself.

R3: My opponent is simply restating his previous point, with further anecdotal elaboration. Due to its similarity to his previous arguments, I extend my same previous arguments in rebuttal.

S4: If my first contention true then it paves the way for my second contention.

Unfortunately, using my opponent's own definition, I have proven that his first contention is, in fact, false. Therefore, by admittance though this statement, his next contention is also false. Therefore, I will skip that statement and those relating to it.

S5: If homosexual marriage is legalized then...it has the greatest impact on society because it provides society's building blocks.

R5:This is tantamount to stating that gun rights will result in civil unrest, with mobs of civilians killing one another relentlessly in the streets. It's a logical fallacy known as -- you guessed it, as you called it -- Slippery Slope.

Therefore, clearly, this a fallacious claim.

S6: In conclusion...The state has no real reason to legalize or support it, therefore same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

My opponent provided no reason to believe that the institution of marriage is for the purpose of procreation; in fact, the fallacies in his argument evidenced otherwise.

Arguments

I will now present two arguments that show how same-sex marriage is a neutral institution that will not have any detrimental effects on society, but will have positive effects for the homosexual community.

A1: Same-sex marriage has a historical foundation.

Historians indicate the up to 600 years ago, same-sex civil unions existed for the same reasons that the homosexual community outcries for such an institution today, such as federal acknowledgement. These contracts, which conclusively existed in France and Mediterranean Europe, and potentially elsewhere. This institution did not result in the dissolution of these civilizations; conversely, they flourished, with no detriment to their society's capacity to procreate or remain stable.

A2: Same sex unions exist in nature.

As animals, humans are often confused by proclivities that seem to contradict our reasoning. However, we must accept that our reasoning is imperfect and things that may seem anomalous is actually perfectly natural.

For example, homosexuality and such unions are rather common throughout nature. Wikipedia lists over 100 animals that display such behaviors, with compendious evidence.

Conclusion

My opponent has presented no reasoning for his stance save for logical fallacies and false assumptions. Same-sex unions are actually a natural occurrence, both historically and throughout nature, and accordingly, should be allowed in a democratic free society like ours that remains disestablishmentarian.

References

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://www.nizkor.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Defense~~

I am arguing that the state has no compelling reason for the state to legalize it. The state offers benefits to marriage because it has the purpose of procreating. Marriage is a way for the state to get more citizens. The acts in themselves most likely will create life. However, gay marriage undermines this and has no chance of creating life therefore, the state should not legalize it.

My opponent then lists a series of deninitions of the term marriage. He says that since gay marriage is a listed definition then it is acknowledgeable, but he fails to realize that we are debating on whether it should be legalized or not. I have given points that have proven that the state has no compelling reason to legalize it, therefore, it should not be legalized.

My oppoent then states:'According to the definition my opponent presented, marriage is a dispensable means by which new life can be brought into this world, which means that it is inessential. I agree with this statement, as one can have children out of wedlock. However, that definition also belies the syllogism that depends on it.' My opponent is wrong. The acts i themselves are sanctioned by the government. When people are not married they tend to use more controception as a means to decrease the chance of pregnancy. Most married couple however, are going to have a few if not a lot of offspring. The problem with homosexual marriage is that it doesn't have any chance at all of producing offspring, and in fact underminds heterosexual marriage which generally makes more organized families with children in stable enviroments. Therefore, heterosexual marriage should be legal by the state, and homosexual 'marriages' shouldn't.

My last argument was not fallacious, it is fact. For example: When we gave women the right to vote (which I have no problem with) they kept on pushing for other freedoms which pushed the line of morality intill they legalized abortion which is basically the extermination of the next generation. The same thing can easily be applied to gay rights. Once we legalize gay marriage, then we will have poligamists pushing for legalization of poligamy, and pedaphiles pushing for the legalization of pediphilia. This is the second resason why homosexual marriages shouldnn't be legalized.

~~Rebuttels~~

R1: My opponent has stated that homosexual unions existed in medievel times. According to his evidence he is correct, but my opponent has left one thing unnoticed: Marriage back in midievel times was not sanction by the state, and finantial benefits were not given to married couples. However, here in the United States gives support to marriages because of the fact that these unions creat more people for the continued cycle of society. Homosexuals do not create life nor does it do anything to benefit society, therefore it should not be legalized.

R2: My opponent doesn't really do anything here but state that homosexuality is natural. Even though I disagree with my opponent on that, it is a subject for another debate at another time.

~~Conclusion~~
Do to the fact that my opponent was unsuccessful in refutting my arguments, and that his own arguments are not sound ones. And do to the fact that gay marriage does not do anything for the betterment of society. The government should not legalize it.

Vote Con.
Ren

Pro

Defenses and Rebuttals

D1: "I am arguing that the state...should not legalize it."

R1: You offer a series of conclusions with absolutely no basis. The inclusion and equality of the homosexual community is actually a rather compelling reason, indeed. Why leave these people in civil unrest? People's sexuality are no individual person's business, for all intents and purposes, with the exception of scientific study. People do not necessarily get married to procreate; as there are exceptions to that rule that already exist, I have already shown in my previous arguments that it is fallacious to accept present exceptions, but not allow further exceptions in the interest of harmlessly benefiting a substantially large group of people. Moreover, homosexual couples can raise children, and rather functional children in fact, as has been shown repeatedly in related study:

"Rosenfeld's study shows that children of gay and married couples had lower grade-repetition rates than their peers raised by opposite-sex unmarried couples and single parents. And all children living in some type of family environment did much better than those living in group housing. Those who were awaiting adoption or placement in a foster home were held back about 34 percent of the time."

Therefore, if your main concern is preserving the lives of children, particularly unwanted children, in a practical fashion while at the same time, increasing the stability of future generations, then legalizing gay marriage can actually benefit that.

D2: My opponent then lists...it should not be legalized.

R2: That rebuttal was in response to your fallacious definition of marriage meant to specifically exclude homosexual marriage (when in fact, as I've shown, it actually adds support to why the government should federally approve homosexual marriage). I corrected your definitions with the actual definition of marriage, so that it is clear that marriage as a concept does not intrinsically exclude homosexuals.

D3: My oppoent then...'marriages' shouldn't.

R3: Here, my opponent applies a faulty assumption as proof to his premise, which is that marriage raises the likelihood for procreation. In fact, procreation is more likely between unwed couples that live together, according to the New York Times.

D4: My last argument...homosexual marriages shouldnn't be legalized.

R4: Indeed, you indicated yourself that your last argument was contingent on interpreting the legalization of gay marriage as a slippery slope, which is a fallacious interpretation. Moreover, women's suffrage did not directly result in the legalization of abortion; in fact, it was greatly influenced by the horrifying accounts of illegal abortions performed before the legislation's ratification that make it the lesser of two evils.

Rebuttals and Defenses

R1: My opponent...therefore it should not be legalized.

D1: Marriage in medieval times was indeed sanctioned by the state, and financial benefits were in fact given to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples, as implied in my reference as follows:

"And Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures."

"In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained."

Moreover, I have shown in earlier arguments that homosexual marriage can in fact benefit society in at least two major ways.

R2: My opponent doesn't really do anything here but state that homosexuality is natural. Even though I disagree with my opponent on that, it is a subject for another debate at another time.

D2: Given we are discussing the viability of same-sex marriages, the nature of homosexuality is indeed relevant. If homosexuality were indeed socially counterproductive or harmful in other manifestations, then there would be evidence to support stripping a group of people of rights they should have.

Conclusion

My opponent's case is clearly fallacious, as it is based on logical fallacies and faulty assumptions. Even his rebuttal to my first argument was based on a faulty assumption. He neglected to approach my second argument at all.

The rational vote is clearly Pro.

References

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.now.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

~~Defense~~

My opponent states that homosexual 'equality' is a compelling reason to legalize homosexual marriage. He is wrong because this is not an issue of equality. Homosexuals are already equal to heterosexuals. Just like me they can fing a nice person of the opposite sex and marry them. This is a issue of special priviledges.

My opponent states: 'People do not necessarily get married to procreate.' It is the ACTS that the state supports. The state supports marriage because it is a organized form to create and raise children so that society can continue. This is why the state provides benefits to married couples, because a family is a way of organizing a way to continue society. Homosexual marriage does not profit society, it doesn't create children, and according to Plato who, in The Laws, pointed out that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, must learn the way of sacrifice, that it is not present desires that should govern them, but the long-term interests of the community. Studies have shown that the failure to raise kids in the traditional one mom and one dad structure of a fality has resulted in many todays teen problems.

D2: Yes gay marriage is marriage however, we are debating over whether this form of marriage should be maid legal or not. I have stated many times that homosexual marriages do not provide any profit to the state or to society. It does not make children neither is it good for children who would be raised by homosexual couples. Therefore, the state has no compelling reason to legalize it.

D3: Yes and then of course we then have kids who are not born into stable enviroments. The thing is is that marriage after procreation has created a kid then that produces a family. Families are how the government makes society organized. And since I have proven before that homosexual families have bad effects on children and teens, this does not do anything to prove your case.

R4: My opponent is wrong because my argument is logically sound. Amd if my opponent was really correct about abortion being the direct the result of back alley abortions, then the very motto of the abortion supporter wouldn't have been 'women's right to choose'. It was a direct result from the very first feminest objective (women's right to vote). Thus proving that slippery slopes can occur and that my contention is sound and unrefuted.

~~Rebuttels~~

R1: My opponent is correct, but brotherments were the midievel equivelant to civil unions. Civil Unions are not what this debate is about. It is about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Civil Unions are different from marriage. Therefore, my opponent's contention is a srgument for civil unions not marriage.

R2: Homosexuality is not natural. It is a learned skill/habbit. If it were really natural then the gay liberation movement would not need to recruit youth into its ranks because it would automatically recieve a substancial number of 'naturally' gay people, and gay couples would not have to try to act like members of the other sex. And lets not forget the simple truth that nothing comes out of homosexual relationships (children). The fact that there are some animals that have homosexual tententcies in not sufficient enough to make it natural. It is a product of a persons or animals enviroment.

~~Final Conclusion~~

In conclusion, Homosexuality is not natural, nor is it of any use to society or the state. It even paves the way for even more devious acts to take hold on america. gay marriage and gay house holds have a negative effect on children and teens. And my opponnet only argues for a type of civil union, which is not marriage. The state has no compelling reason to legalize gay marriage therefore, gay marriage should not be legalized.

Vote Con.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://www.wnd.com...

http://www.livescience.com...

http://kjohnah.instablogs.com...
Ren

Pro

(Closing) Statements and Rebuttals

S1: My opponent states that homosexual 'equality'...This is a issue of special priviledges.

R1: My opponent asserts my argument is "gay marriage should be legalized on the basis of equality." Instead, I posited the following assertions:

- Same-sex marriage is a neutral institution;

- Same-sex marriage does not have any detrimental effects on society;

- Same-sex marriage has positive effects for the homosexual community

As evidence to my claims (within the constraints of the 8k character limit), I revealed to my opponent that gay marriage and homosexual unions as well as child-rearing exists both in nature and throughout human history. This shows that gay marriage/homosexual unions do not have any detrimental effects on organisms that practice it, including man when he has in the past; therefore proving that it's at least neutral as a potential institution in our society, as it would not have any detrimental effects as evidenced naturally and historically. However, it is clear that married couples are afforded special privileges, although these privileges are not special within the scope of what categorization of people should have access to them. They're special in terms of how homosexual relationships can apply to society. In other words, it grants homosexuals the viability to establish stable households that better contribute to society without belying their natural interests.


S2: My opponent states: 'People do not necessarily get married to procreate.'...traditional one mom and one dad structure of a fality has resulted in many todays teen problems.

R2: My opponent asserts that the reasoning behind marriage is irrelevant; instead, it is the interests of the "State" that determine whether it should be sanctioned as a federally acknowledged institution. This is a fallacious claim; marriage predates our government, and even government in general. Therefore, it is in place due to the interests of the people rather than the "State." It is the special acknowledgements the government affords married couples that increases their stability in society, not the presence of married couples that increases society's stability. Indeed, there are several unstable societies in the world that still contain marriage as an institution. In fact, stating that the familial unit is reason enough to strip homosexual couples of their rights is tantamount to saying that divorce should be illegal in the interest of preserving the familial unit. Rather than homosexuality, divorce is one of the biggest threats to American families and societal stability today. In fact, some say that marriage itself is in decline. If a two parent household is best for children, then it would be best to legalize gay marriage to raise the likelihood that children introduced into this society once they enter the workforce were raised in stable homes.


Referencing Plato is--and I sincerely mean no disrespect--laughable. It appears that you're drawing your ideas from his famous The Republic; if I remember correctly, another facet of that ideal society is abstinence in general. What he was actually saying is that homosexuals and heterosexuals alike should sacrifice for the good of the community. Why? Because, once a year, during his proposed "mating season," the entire society should get together very much like what I imagined to be Mardi Gras or Carnival and have an enormous orgy. This would result in children would belong to society at large, as their parents would be ambiguous, if not completely anonymous. Therefore, everyone would be equally responsible for rearing them.

Yeah. That's literally what Plato said. See? I'll bet you're laughing, too. :)

S3: Yes gay marriage is marriage...has no compelling reason to legalize it.

R3: It is fallacious to assume that gay marriage must somehow "profit" society in order to grant homosexuals that right. It should suffice that homosexuals desire that right and there is no detrimental effects of the institution. Otherwise, the "State" would be rendering decisions based on "It's" opinions, making it a fascist "State."

S4: Yes and then of course...this does not do anything to prove your case.

R4: My opponent rendered no such proof that homosexual families have a "bad effect" on children and teens (in general?); however, I did provide proof that children raised in homosexual households tend to perform (only slightly) better in school than those raised in heterosexual households.

S5: My opponent is wrong...my contention is sound and unrefuted.

R5: Here, my opponent's argument is based entirely on the presumption that the motto "women's right to choose" refers to the right to vote, when in fact, the motto refers to the right to choose whether or not to have a child. A blanketed term for it is reproductive freedom. Therefore, my opponent's assertion here is fallacious, the fact that I have already disproved it in earlier arguments notwithstanding.


S6: My opponent is correct...a srgument for civil unions not marriage.

R6: As defined by the dictionary, a civil union would be legalized gay marriage.


S7: Homosexuality is not natural. It is a learned skill/habbit...It is a product of a persons or animals enviroment.

R7: Homosexuality in nature is not always a learned skill or habit; in fact, one example is a lizard known as the Cnemidophorus neomexicanus, or the New Mexico Whiptail, which can produce by parthogenesis--two females that exhibit sexual behavior with one another will increase in fertility.


Closing Statement

Throughout this debate, I have revealed the weaknesses in my opponent's assertions, while highlighting the fact that they were blind assertions with absolutely no substantiation. Accordingly, they are his opinions, which is not a viable foundation upon which to prove a clause within a debate.


On the merit of that fact alone, the audience should vote Pro. However, I have also shown that civil unions are benficial on the merit that they provide more stability to the homosexual community; grant them rights that they should already be entitled to; and have evidence to have existed both historically and in nature, proving its viability as an institution. My opponent was unable to sufficiently refute these claims and support his refutations with substantive evidence.

In conclusion, it is only reasonable to vote Pro.

References

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://www.cdc.gov...

http://www.usatoday.com...

http://www.aclufl.org...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://classics.mit.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
"This was pretty much a tie" then gives Con one net point...yikes!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
DeathbeforedishonourRenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb Royalpaladin on sources. She obviously does not have a good grasp on the validity of sources when she believes that ACLU is a valid source. Yes, both sides used biased sources, but neither side had better sources. I believe that Con had a better argument, especially with the reproduction argument and gay marriage being unjust. Pro was not able to refute Spiegel's argument.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
DeathbeforedishonourRenTied
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: Sources go to pro (ACLU and other proper sources versus gayrepellantumbrella.com). Pro also beats the tradition argument as well as the reproduction argument. I see no reason to negate at all.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
DeathbeforedishonourRenTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was pretty much a tie.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
DeathbeforedishonourRenTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: A very professional debate with great format and behavior on both sides. However, I feel that Con made good points about the slippery slope and how marriage is about more than just love. It's tough... Arguments to Con, Conduct to Pro for a close second.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
DeathbeforedishonourRenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I really wanna vote con but am still undecided on who won...
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
DeathbeforedishonourRenTied
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: The majority of the arguments presented (i.e. slippery slope, gay marriage in the past, homosexuality in nature) were irrelevant at best and fallacious at worst. Con eventually destroys his remaining argument by conceding that gay couples would constitute child-raising units and thus fulfill his requirement. Pro shifts gears to proper families rather than procreation. This was a late, vague push that did nothing to refute Pro's points on societal unrest. Pro takes arguments.
Vote Placed by shift4101 2 years ago
shift4101
DeathbeforedishonourRenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't really want to read all of this, I just want to point out how humorous it was when Con screwed up his argument by forgetting to put the "in" infront of "dispensible"