The Instigator
scots
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
XLAV
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Gay Marriage is Morally Permissible

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
XLAV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,051 times Debate No: 59571
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

scots

Con

Hello first round is acceptance. good luck :D
XLAV

Pro

I accept. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
scots

Con

First I say It is not Marriage.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

-this does not create a family but a sterile union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

-It defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

-9.It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex "marriage," the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new "morality," businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
XLAV

Pro

Thank you, Con.
Since my opponent didn't lay down any definitions, I will.

Definitions
[1] Gay: Homosexual

[2] Marriage: The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship

[3] Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

[4] Permissible: That can be permitted; allowable



This is all I can do for the 2nd round. I've been very busy this week so I didn't have time to post my arguments and rebuttals. I forfeit this round but I will still continue this debate. On to Con.



Sources
[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

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

[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
scots

Con

I thank my opponent for the definitions, which I did unfortunately forget to define.

"There is no more lovely, friendly and charming relationship, communion or company than a good marriage." Martin Luther

"Happy is the man who finds a true friend, and far happier is he who finds that true friend in his wife." Franz Schubert

"Morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality." Mahatma Gandhi

"What is permissible is not always honorable" Marcus Tulluis Cicero

"The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom " as "extraordinary, in as much as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature." Martin Luther

that is all for this round will let my opponent continue for the first round. good luck pro

http://www.christianpost.com...
http://www.thenation.com...#
http://www.str.org...
http://atheism.about.com...
XLAV

Pro

Rebuttals

1. It is not Marriage

“First I say It is not Marriage.”

According to the definitions given, it is.

“Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.”

Marriages were not always a covenant between a man and a woman. In ancient times, gay marriages were already being practiced and in some places, accepted. Thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman emperors were homosexuals or bisexuals. The Roman Emperor Nero was the first Roman emperor to have married a man. He married his freedman, Pythagoras and a young boy named Sporus. [1] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. [2]

What is this self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological difference between men and women that makes their marriage complementary? Just like a man and a woman, if two homosexuals dislike each other or they don’t love each other, then clearly they won’t marry each other. A homosexual won’t marry another homosexual if it’s not going to be a happy marriage like a man won’t marry a woman if they don’t love each other. Sure they can’t procreate, but they are fit to care for children as a man and woman couple care for their children.

If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children?

Marriages are not always about raising a family. Marriage is about love and the union of the couples.

2. This does not create a family but a sterile union

“Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.

Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.”

Like what I said above, marriages are not always about raising a family and procreating. It’s about love. There unmarried couples who have children and there are married couples who don’t have children. If the reason for marriage is strictly for reproduction, infertile couples and childfree couples would not be allowed to marry.

Marriage=/=Procreation



If you are so concerned about gay couples not being able to procreate, they can adopt children from the orphanage and give them a home.

Also, Con committed an appeal to nature fallacy. [3]

3. It defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage

“One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.”

First statement committed another appeal to nature fallacy. [3]

Again, homosexual marriage is not about procreating and lust, it is love. If they want children, then they can adopt. Homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents, generally speaking.

4. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

“By legalizing same-sex "marriage," the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new "morality," businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.”

All these statements are slippery slope fallacies. [4]


Plagiarism

I would like to point out that my opponent plagiarized all of his arguments in round 1 from this site: http://prezi.com... [5]


Rebuttal Summary

Pro’s plagiarized arguments were full of slippery slope fallacies and appeal to nature fallacies. Most of his arguments were about marriage=procreation and I am confident that my rebuttals are sound.


Arguments

1. Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care.

Like what I’ve stated in my rebuttals, if gay couples want children, they can adopt children from the orphanage. Same sex couples are as good in taking care of children as heterosexual couples do. I am not implying there are no bad homosexual parents rather the type of the parents doesn’t matter. There are good homosexual parents and bad homosexual parents like there are good heterosexual parents and bad hetero sexual parents.

There is also a study about this to prove my point.

“A new study has revealed that there are no differences between high-risk children adopted by heterosexual or gay parents. This means that high-risk children who have been adopted from foster home by gay parents have a similar cognitive and emotional development to the one of those adopted by heterosexual parents.

The results of this study show that gay parents have no negative influence on the emotional development of their children….” [6]

2. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully.

This is like saying, “There is nothing wrong with gay marriage so shut up”

3. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage.

Religion does not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage.




Sources

[1] http://penelope.uchicago.edu...*.html

[2] Williams, Roman Homosexuality, pp. 278–279, citing Dio Cassius and Aelius Lampridius.

[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[4] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[5] http://prezi.com...

[6] http://www.emotionaldevelopment.org...


Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
scots

Con

Marriages were not always a covenant between a man and a woman. In ancient times, gay marriages were already being practiced and in some places, accepted. Thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman emperors were homosexuals or bisexuals. The Roman Emperor Nero was the first Roman emperor to have married a man. He married his freedman, Pythagoras and a young boy named Sporus. [1] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner.

"What is permissible is not always honorable" Marcus Tulluis Cicero
Sure it was accepted but did that mean it was right, we have accepted many things which many people have a problem with.
Like Monarchies they were accepted, and many people had problems with them, because of limited freedoms and their right to participate in choosing the leaders of their nation. Today many people even have issues with some laws made by democracies. Also the Caste system in India (still used today) is neither right nor liked by the people. Look at what caused the French revolution the system of Estates,which was extremely unfair, for the first two estates pushed everything on the third estate.

http://mlynde.wikispaces.com...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

What is this self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological difference between men and women that makes their marriage complementary? Just like a man and a woman, if two homosexuals dislike each other or they don"t love each other, then clearly they won"t marry each other. A homosexual won"t marry another homosexual if it"s not going to be a happy marriage like a man won"t marry a woman if they don"t love each other. Sure they can"t procreate, but they are fit to care for children as a man and woman couple care for their children.

Why would a child be happy if he/she is not with it's biological parents, also if it is unnatural do you not think it should not be done?

In our world today homosexuality is excepted almost everywhere, and homosexuality is growing, yet what will happen if everyone is homosexual, then they would not be able to reproduce and humanity would end. Would you still support homosexuality if you were in this situation? they would be forced to become a heterosexual to basically save the human species.

If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children?

Marriages are not always about raising a family. Marriage is about love and the union of the couples.

Aye but many marriages come with families, and with those families come a population growth to make a future generation, this is what homosexuals lack.

Like what I said above, marriages are not always about raising a family and procreating. It"s about love. There unmarried couples who have children and there are married couples who don"t have children. If the reason for marriage is strictly for reproduction, infertile couples and child free couples would not be allowed to marry.

Do you not think there is a reason why the can not reproduce? Because it was not meant for a man and man and a woman and a woman to get married.

Again, homosexual marriage is not about procreating and lust, it is love. If they want children, then they can adopt. Homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents, generally speaking.

yet a man and a woman have so many different qualities, how can two of the same offer that? and if they adopt they will be taking someone else's child, the child will grow up lacking something, in fact some children brought up by homosexual parents have spoken against them.

"The study, from Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, surveyed more than 15,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39, asking them questions about their upbringings. Its findings are published in the July issue of Social Science Research.

One survey question asked whether a parent had been in a same-sex relationship during a child's upbringing; Regnerus wanted to see whether there were differences between kids raised in a household by a parent in a same-sex relationship compared with those who were raised by biological parents who were married and heterosexual.

The survey results were measured by a set of 40 outcomes on social, emotional and relationship factors. Outcomes included whether a child had grown up to need public assistance like welfare, were more likely to have anxiety or depression, were more likely to be abused, or were more apt engage in unhealthier habits such as having more sexual partners, smoking or using drugs."

Plagiarism

I would like to point out that my opponent plagiarized all of his arguments in round 1 from this site: http://prezi.com...... [5]

I admit that some of my first argument was plagiarized but it was not from the site listed by my opponent. I only did it for times sake.

"When a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it."
R13; Anatole France

1. Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care.

Like what I"ve stated in my rebuttals, if gay couples want children, they can adopt children from the orphanage. Same sex couples are as good in taking care of children as heterosexual couples do. I am not implying there are no bad homosexual parents rather the type of the parents doesn"t matter. There are good homosexual parents and bad homosexual parents like there are good heterosexual parents and bad heterosexual parents.

"A new study has revealed that there are no differences between high-risk children adopted by heterosexual or gay parents. This means that high-risk children who have been adopted from foster home by gay parents have a similar cognitive and emotional development to the one of those adopted by heterosexual parents.

The results of this study show that gay parents have no negative influence on the emotional development of their children"." [6]

ok just the study made by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, were different from the study that con's source made.

2. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully.

This is like saying, "There is nothing wrong with gay marriage so shut up"

I say the whole concept is wrong, how can nothing be wrong with it if it is unnatural and against morality?

3. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage.

Religion does not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage.

Yet if they are a secular institution then why are the so mixed now? today so many homosexuals claim they follow Christianity, even Catholicism has accepted them, yet in the bible that they say they follow it speaks against them.

I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
-Martin Luther

http://www.cbsnews.com...

http://www.usccb.org...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org...
XLAV

Pro

Since this is the last round I won’t add anymore arguments. I will use this round to rebut Con’s arguments.

Rebuttals

1. All of Con’s quotes from famous figures

All of Con’s quotes from Marcus Tulluis Cicero, Franz Schubert, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. are appeals to authority. [1]

Just because someone famous said it, doesn’t mean they are right. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments.

2.

“Sure it was accepted but did that mean it was right, we have accepted many things which many people have a problem with.

Like Monarchies they were accepted, and many people had problems with them, because of limited freedoms and their right to participate in choosing the leaders of their nation. Today many people even have issues with some laws made by democracies. Also the Caste system in India (still used today) is neither right nor liked by the people. Look at what caused the French revolution the system of Estates,which was extremely unfair, for the first two estates pushed everything on the third estate.”

Con did not provide any sources to back up this claim (people having problems with monarchies). Nevertheless, I will still rebut it.

Not all monarchies were “bad”. King Louis XIV, also known as the Sun King, made France the most powerful country in Europe. He strengthened the military and arts and literature flourished during his reign. [2]

Monarchies and gay marriage are two different concepts. Monarchy is a political system and gay marriage is the covenant of two people, so monarchy is a bad analogy for gay marriage.

3.

“Why would a child be happy if he/she is not with it's biological parents, also if it is unnatural do you not think it should not be done?

In our world today homosexuality is excepted almost everywhere, and homosexuality is growing, yet what will happen if everyone is homosexual, then they would not be able to reproduce and humanity would end. Would you still support homosexuality if you were in this situation? they would be forced to become a heterosexual to basically save the human species.

If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children?”

Again, Con committed another appeal to nature fallacy. [3]

Natural things do not make it good or bad. This is bias thinking.

Also, two more slippery slope fallacy. [4]

There is no proof that everyone will become homosexuals and take over the world.

4.

“Aye but many marriages come with families, and with those families come a population growth to make a future generation, this is what homosexuals lack.”

Not all marriages come with families.

According to this graph, there are couples that don’t have children. And again, marriage is not all about procreating.

“Do you not think there is a reason why the can not reproduce? Because it was not meant for a man and man and a woman and a woman to get married.”

You failed to show how procreating is needed in marriage.

5.

“yet a man and a woman have so many different qualities, how can two of the same offer that? and if they adopt they will be taking someone else's child, the child will grow up lacking something, in fact some children brought up by homosexual parents have spoken against them.”

Adopting a child is a choice, not a requirement. Before adopting a child, the orphanages usually do a background check on the parents to see if they are fit.

6. Plagiarism

“I admit that some of my first argument was plagiarized but it was not from the site listed by my opponent. I only did it for times sake.

"When a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it."

R13; Anatole France”

Not only did Con admitted he plagiarized, he also encouraged plagiarism.

7.

“ok just the study made by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, were different from the study that con's source made.”

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here.

8.

“I say the whole concept is wrong, how can nothing be wrong with it if it is unnatural and against morality?”

Again with more appeal to nature fallacy [3] and unsupported claims.

9.

“Yet if they are a secular institution then why are the so mixed now? today so many homosexuals claim they follow Christianity, even Catholicism has accepted them, yet in the bible that they say they follow it speaks against them.”

You just supported my claim that religion shouldn’t interfere with marriage.



Conclusion

Con plagiarized his first round and committed a lot of fallacies on his second and thrid round. All of his arguments were flawed, unsupported, fallacious and sometimes strays away from the topic. I was able to prove that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and marrying someone you love is right.

Gay marriage is morally permissible.






Sources

[1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[2] http://listverse.com...

[3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[4] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...


Vote PRO!

Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@dsjpk5: If you were not voting out of love... Please quote the definition/source con offered for marriage. Plus explain how conduct was equal, when con was caught badly plagiarizing (someone can win arguments, and lose conduct in the same vote). If the vote is based on your love for him, I have nothing against that love, however you should not vote on such debates where you are blinded by bias.
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
After all the judges have voted.
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
lol, 30 days of voting? When do you decide who is the winner?
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Nvm, I can see them now.
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Pictures*
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Is it just me or are the picture on Round 4 not showing up?
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Lol, Cons arguments were so bad I hardly put effort in mine.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Great job!!! I think XLAV definitely won this debate but good attempt Scots. @scots, don't *ever* plagiarize.
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Damn it. The missing picture is: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
Make the voting period last for 2 weeks.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
scotsXLAVTied
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: the Plague of Rism diseased con so much most his arguments could not hold up on their own
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
scotsXLAVTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro, Con plagiarized which is never acceptable behavior in any debate setting. Sources - Pro, Con based his sources on heavily biased sites, this lacks the quality that was found in Pro's sources. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to defeat the contentions raised by Pro. This is evident in several areas including the basis for what is a marriage and the conjecture at potential damages gay marriages might have on children. None of this is substantial enough for me to give the win to Con. Clear win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
scotsXLAVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: "I admit that some of my first argument was plagiarized but it was not from the site listed by my opponent. I only did it for times sake." Great, the website he plagiarized from might have plagiarized it from another (or been plagiarized). This merely suggests lack of base intellects on the side, that they can't even reward each others thoughts. He was then special enough in his thinking to include a source highly in favor of gay marriage (http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/GaysUnnatural.htm)... Granted con might be a troll trying to make anti-gay marriage people look like idiots, but his case was not funny or ironic enough to give any credit for such.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
scotsXLAVTied
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: PRO showed that gay marriage was morally permissible, while CON's arguments did not show that it was impermissible. Really, there wasn't a lot that CON did at all. I don't feel like writing a more detailed RFD. Sorry. XLAV very clearly won.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
scotsXLAVTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Plagiarism. Sources also to pro because most of Con's sources carried a heavy christian bias, and his most reliable source (usccb) wasn't even related to the resolution. Some of his sources were blogs. Argument points are half a counter to the dumb votebomb below, half merits to pro because con's argument was entirely fallacious in some parts. Con's arguments focused around topics like adoption, naturalism, and immorality, yet he failed to explain how these directly invoked gay marriage as impermissible. Con did not fulfill his part of the BoP in this regard.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
scotsXLAVTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con DID define "marriage"( despite what Pro claimed. Pros arguments were nonsensical and inaccurate concerning the purpose of a marriage.