The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
mongoose
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

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 13 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,410 times Debate No: 9180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (13)

 

Danielle

Pro

INTRODUCTION:

I'd like to welcome my opponent to the first round of the ToC. Before we begin, I'd like to make a few clarifications regarding the resolution. First, I'd ask that my opponent avoid any semantics arguments (i.e. Gay Marriage is already legal in SOME states, etc.) as the resolution implies legalization of gay marriage at the federal level. Second, the resolution also implies that gay marriage should be recognized in the U.S. so long as heterosexual marriage is legally recognized. In other words, my opponent should not put forth the argument that marriage in general should not exist in the first place, or that it's merely a state of mind (as opposed to a legally recognized binding). That said, I hope we can agree on the simple definition of Gay Marriage to mean the legal binding between people of the same sex. Let's begin.

CONTENTIONS:

1) Sex vs. Gender
2) Minority Discrimination
3) Marriage vs. Religion
4) Civil Unions vs. Marriage
5) Sanctity of Marriage
6) Family Values

1) I'd like to begin by clarifying the differences between sex and gender. Sex refers to the biological differences that make people either male or female, while gender describes cultural aspects of masculinity and femininity. In other words, a person of the male sex can identify with the female gender. As such, he can live his life as society would expect a woman to live their life, by dressing, talking, and even acting like a woman or in a feminine matter. By law, this feminine man can legally marry another woman regardless of how feminine he behaves or identifies (i.e. transvestites). Con must explain why it is the biological chromosomes and not personal characteristics or traits that are paramount in determining the law.

2) Not legalizing gay marriage is a form of minority discrimination. As new information about homosexuality emerges (i.e. the discovery of so-called gay genes and other biological evidence that homosexuality is not a choice), and exposure to forthcoming heterosexuality increases, society is becoming more accepting of the gay lifestyle and aware that homosexuals are people with the same rights as everybody else. The government believes that people have the right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Con must explain why this right applies only to people who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex. Con must also explain why it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on sex when it comes to marriage, but why it remains illegal in other institutions such as employment via the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3) Opponents of gay marriage offer that marriage is a religious ritual and as such the government has no right to legislate what is and is not considered to be marriage. However, the spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business. While most denominations do not condone gay marriage, some churches and religious institutions DO recognize same-sex unions, whereas the federal government still does not. In choosing which unions it does and does not uphold, the government is discriminating based on religion which is unconstitutional.

Additionally, whatever is considered "God's will" is irrelevant in a democracy such as the United States which supports a separation between Church and State. I'm assuming I don't have to structure an argument about which "God" the government is required to obey supposing my opponent would dare to disagree with this obvious separation. In other words, one can morally be opposed to gay marriage based on their specific beliefs via their religion; however, expecting a government to use those religious beliefs in legislation is entirely immoral, anti-democratic and contrary to the founding principles of the United States.

4) To rectify the issue of religious marriages verses federally recognized unions, the government has proposed a mockery of the marriage institution otherwise known as Civil Unions. Many ignorant Americans assume that Civil Unions and Gay Marriage are synonymous; however, they are grossly misinformed. Marriage carries with it over 1,050 state and federal benefits, whereas Civil Unions only receive 300 benefits at the STATE level (and not every state has legalized civil unions, making this point almost obsolete). Thus civil unions are deprived of 750 benefits that heterosexual married couples receive.

So what exactly does this all mean? In our society, when people marry it is typically out of love and commitment. However having a ceremony is not enough; legal rights should be extended to couples who have accepted this commitment. Some examples of civil union verses marriage benefits can be seen when we look at things like TAX RELIEF (marriage couples can file for state *and* federal tax breaks, whereas people with CU's can only apply for state benefits); MEDICAL DECISIONS (couples with CU's can only make emergency medical decisions in the state of which they live and were married); DEATH BENEFITS (a marital spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits, whereas CU partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death); CHILD SUPPORT (CU partners are not required to pay child support payments if they move out of state); etc. Con has the burden of proving why these benefits should only apply to those within heterosexual marriages, despite the equal love and commitment present in partners who happen to be of the same sex.

5) Some people think that gay marriage would eliminate the so-called sanctity of marriage. In a country where a heterosexual can get married at any point in time for whatever reason (including intoxication), I'd like for someone - anyone - to explain how legalizing same-sex marriage would devalue the marriage of any other couple. Marriage is supposed to be about commitment, and yet Britney Spears was able to engage in a 55-hour long union while gay couples who have spent decades together are not able to legally wed. The point is, the divorce rate in this country is at an all-time high and that's while gay marriage is still prohibited. TIME magazine recently published an article on the rate of infidelity among married couples rising drastically, again while gays have nothing to do with this dilemma. By recognizing same-sex unions, no statement is being made about the sanctity (or lack thereof) amongst heterosexual couples. Nobody is being negatively affected.

6) Similarly, some people cite family values as a reason to be against gay marriage; however, I'd suggest the opposite: allowing same-sex marriages shows children that everyone regardless of sex, gender or sexuality is capable of love and commitment. It would also decrease discrimination and hate crimes against homosexuals; children would be taught from an early age that sexual differences are acceptable within society. Moreover, gay individuals are having children whether people like it or not (via in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, etc.). If gay marriage were legalized, same-sex adoption would increase thereby providing good homes to orphans who need the love, care and protection of decent parents. Additionally, it would alleviate some of the funding necessary by the State to house all of these orphans, making it economically beneficial as well (as an added bonus).

CONCLUSION:

A plethora of evidence supports that people don't choose to be gay, meaning to deny them basic marriage rights is blatant and unlawful discrimination. However even if it WAS a personal choice, Con has the burden of proving why this lifestyle choice in particular warrants discrimination, even while gay individuals are required to abide by the same laws and pay the same (more) taxes as every other American. I have proven that there are only benefits to legalizing gay marriage, whereas there are detriments in not doing so. Back to Con.
mongoose

Con

Okay. It seems that my opponent has restricted the arguments that I am allowed to use, so I'll have to settle with what's left.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gender: sex: the feminine gender.

As gender and sex are synonyms, this point is worthless; however, I will explain anyway. The biological chromosomes are more important than personal characteristics and traits because they are what allow for reproduction. This is the reason that there are marriages in the first place.

2. The right to marry a person of the opposite sex is everybody's right (besides the regulations about age and whatnot). The difference is that gays want more rights that nobody has.

3. This is a point that I can't really argue against, since my opponent declared that the resolution implies that I am not allowed to argue that government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place. There is nothing I can do against this contention.

4. A better option than legalizing gay marriage would be to give civil unions the same legal rights as marriages, though I still oppose both.

5. You are correct in that marriage is losing its moral value. Even so, this does not mean that it should be further lowered. These issues are independent from the argument of gay marriage.

6. It is already clear that all people are capable of love and commitment, but there are different types of "love." These differences can't be ignored. Also, these gay individuals shouldn't be having kids in these ways in the first place.

I would like to add some contentions of my own.

1. So-called "discrimination" is not bad
There are some people who want to be able to run about the streets of America naked. More people don't want them too. Does this mean that the people who want to be naked in public are being discriminated against? Only as much as homosexuals are when they aren't allowed to marry each other.

2. Rolling the bar
If the regulations of marriage can change from "one man and one woman" to "two people," what else could it change to? Maybe a man wants to marry his dog. Or his house. Or his neighbor's house. It doesn't end. The bar must be set in one place, and the best place for that bar is where it has been: "one man and one woman."

CONCLUSION:
It would be preferable by most to, instead of legalizing gay marriage, to just increase the rights of civil unions to that of marriages. My opponent must prove why gay marriage would be proffered over this option. I would also like my opponent to explain why these gay individuals would on average be paying more in taxes than most.
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

INTRODUCTION:

My opponent feels as though I have restricted what arguments he can and can not use. As always, a debater can use any argument they wish, so long as they can support it. It is the job of the other debater to refute those arguments, or explain their faulty logic, which is what I tried to do in R1 in discussing some of the various reasons people are generally opposed to gay marriage. Let's get back to the arguments.

1) Sex and gender are not the same thing. My opponent has mis-used the definition. In defining the word 'gender,' one of the definitions includes the use of the word gender as it pertains to sex (sex: the feminine gender). However, this definition should not be accepted for two reasons. First, if you look up the word 'orange' in the dictionary, it will define orange as the color and orange as the fruit. Orange is both a color and a fruit. Similarly, gender and sex may be confused as both definitions are described in the dictionary under the definition; however, they are two different things and shouldn't be confused as synonomous. Second, there are PLENTY of sources that very clearly indicate the differences between sex and gender. This is common knowledge for people who are college-educated, as this discrpency of the two is usually addressed in a Women's and Gender Studies 101 course. However, for those who are still unaware:

http://www.google.com...=

2) Con's argument to minority discrimination was, "The right to marry a person of the opposite sex is everybody's right (besides the regulations about age and whatnot). The difference is that gays want more rights that nobody has."

This is a horrible argument. My opponent is essentially saying that people shouldn't fight for their rights. Additionally, gay people don't want rights that other people don't have; they want rights that other people DO have: the right to marry whomever they want! If my opponent's only argument is that allowing gay people to marry people of the same sex would be unfair, this is clearly refuted by the fact that once some people are allowed to marry the same gender, then EVERYONE is able to marry someone of the same gender. Similarly, everyone is able to marry some of the opposite gender. Therefore extending the right to marry to gay people isn't discriminating against anybody: it's extending the rights of everybody. Moreover, my opponent did not argue why discriminating against gay people should be legal.

3) In regard to marriage and religion, my opponen has said, "This is a point that I can't really argue against, since my opponent declared that the resolution implies that I am not allowed to argue that government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place. There is nothing I can do against this contention." To be honest, I'm not quite sure what my opponent is referencing. Clearly I am arguing in favor of the government having something to do with marriage... hence why the resolution says it should be LEGAL. Plus, to use my exact words from the last round, "The spiritual contract of marriage carries with it a legal binding, meaning that it is most definitely the government's business." Thus my opponent has completely fabricated a non-existent argument on my behalf. Besides, the title of this contention was marriage and religion - not marriage and the government. My opponent hasn't argued on behalf of religion OR government; he simply conceded to my contention.

4) In terms of marriage vs. civil unions, Con wrote, "A better option than legalizing gay marriage would be to give civil unions the same legal rights as marriages, though I still oppose both." Con has yet to explain why this is a "better" option or why he opposes both. On that note, however, if civil unions extended the same rights as "gay marriage," then they would be synonomous and thus the resolution would be affirmed. I'm glad my opponent agrees with my side of this debate.

5) In regard to marriage and morality, Con wrote, "You are correct in that marriage is losing its moral value. Even so, this does not mean that it should be further lowered. These issues are independent from the argument of gay marriage." Aside from the fact that I find this opinion to be ridiculously low-class, close-minded, ignorant and personally offensive, in terms of this debate I will point out that Con didn't explain why allowing gay marriage would further devalue the instituion of marriage. If marriage is supposed to be about love and commitment, then allowing a couple in love to be legally commited doesn't seem like it is devaluing it at all.

6) In his defense of family values, Con notes that there are different types of "love" that can't be ignored to explain why gay people should not be allowed to legally wed. Note that nobody in this debate is arguing for the promotion of sibling marriage or the marriage of minors and the elderly, etc. I'm not saying that because I love my dog, I should be able to marry my dog. Clearly there are different types of love. What I am advocating for in this debate is for the legal union of two consenting adults who are in a ROMANTIC loving and committed relaitonship. Con has not argued against this at all whatsoever. Moreover, he noted that gay people shouldn't be "having kids these ways in the first place." I'd like to know what he means by "these ways." Is he referring to in vitro infertilization? If so, that's a whole other debate -- and note that he didn't argue against it at all anyway. Is he referring to adoption? Good luck defending that one. Is he referring to the "traditional" way? Note that many gay people have kids while in straigh relationships; those kids don't just disappear when beginning a relationship with someone of the same sex.

Re: CON'S CONTENTIONS

1) Con attempts to use an analogy of indecent exposure to gay marriage. This is a riduclous statement. The only way it could pertain to this debate is if straight people were allowed to run around naked, and gay people weren't. In that case, it would be discriminaiton. In this case, it's taking two completely unrelated things and trying to make them synonomous with each other when in fact they're very different cases. Regarding indecent exposure, it's illegal if ANYONE does it (in the streets, as Con noted). However, gay marriage is discriminated against based on sex. And like I said - it's illegal to discriminate in the United States based on sex (See: Civil Rights Act of 1964).

2) I cannot actually believe that people are still using the "What's next? Maybe someone will want to marry their dog" argument. That's pathetic. So pathetic, in fact, that I don't care if I lose a "conduct point" because of it. I think it is one of the grossest, most despicable arguments I've ever heard. Why would someone want to marry a house? Or a dog? It's illegal for ANYONE to marry a house or a dog, and with good reason (which I don't feel like citing now, but I will if my opponent insists). There are simply no good reasons to not allow gay marriage, as my opponent's lack of argumentaiton implies. If anything, the criteria for marriage can be extended to include the union between LIVING beings that are NOT animals, that are NOT minors, etc. There is simply NO REASON to discriminate based on sexual preference.

CONCLUSION:

Con insists that increasing the rights of civil unions to mirror the rights that accompany marriage would be enough. I don't entirely disagree. However, gay people will still call their partners "my husband" or "my wife" implying marriage, so I don't see how much this would accomplish. To answer Con's question regarding taxes, married couples receive tax benefits that gay people in the same relationships (minus the title) don't. Plus, if civil unions are going to be the same as gay marriage, why not just call it marriage? Why is the WORD more important than the union?
mongoose

Con

My opponent stated that the resolution implied legalization only with the legalization of heterosexual marriages. This removes the argument that neither should be recognized by government or given rights.

1. My opponent only made the point that gender can have a meaning besides sex. She did not comment on my response. Such should be considered conceded.

2. It was a great argument. Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the opposite gender. Everybody. You are changing it to what people want. Well, some people may want to run around naked. Does this mean that they should be allowed to? Of course not. As I have pointed out, this is not discrimination as my opponent puts it.

3. As this is about the legalization, government automatically has something to do with it. I can't say that they don't. That would be stupid.

4. This is a better option because it would not be marriage, but civil union. They would not be the same. For one thing, this debate is not about civil unions. For another, civil unions aren't recognized as marriages. They would be recongnized to have the same rights as marriages.

5. Because it goes against even the definition of marriage.

6. Okay, I'm just going to concede this point because it doesn't make sense.

MY CONTENTIONS:

1. It's a great analogy. Nobody is allowed to run around naked, though some people want to. My opponent now claims that gay marriage discriminates on sex, not sexuality. It is legal to discriminate certain things by sex, such as bathrooms and locker rooms.

2. I have no idea why anybody would want to, but there are crazy people out there, like the woman who believes she is married to the Berlin Wall. http://www.telegraph.co.uk.... The point is not why they want to, but that they want to.

CONCLUSION:

There is no discrimination based on sexuality, as my opponent has tried to say.

"Plus, if civil unions are going to be the same as gay marriage, why not just call it marriage?"

If rocks and dirt have the same legal status in America (none), then why don't we call dirt rocks? Because they aren't the same thing.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

For the record, mongoose, I'm a little disappointed that you waited until the very last second to post your R2 argument even though you've been online constantly... you knew I was going on vacation! Silly! But alas I am paying 75 cents per minute to use the internet while on this cruise; if you purposefully waited til you knew I would be away to post, your plan has been foiled. Mwahaha. Here I am, and I'm going to post a final rebuttal as quickly as possible. I thank you for this debate and wish you the very best of luck in the remainder of the Tournament of Champions. Mayhaps we will meet again!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

INTRODUCTION:

Con writes, "My opponent stated that the resolution implied legalization only with the legalization of heterosexual marriages. This removes the argument that neither should be recognized by government or given rights." To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what he means and thus cannot provide a substantial response. To clarify, in my opening argument I claimed that this debate should not be addressing whether or not marriage should hold with it any legal bearing at all; rather, that so long as heterosexual marriages exist, then gay marriage should allow to exist as well.

REBUTTAL:

1. I don't know what point - if any - Con is trying to make here. My point has been that sex and gender are different things, and I asked him to explain why a man who identifies as feminine (part of the feminine gender, even if his sex is male) should be allowed to marry another woman... even if he lives his life as a woman (be it a transgendered or cross dressing lifestyle, etc) while a person of the female sex cannot marry another person of the female sex. For time constraints, I ask that my opponent see my R1 argument and then try to address this issue, instead of arguing that sex and gender are one in the same when in fact they are not. I have provided links to scholarly articles explaining this discrepancy, and also refuted his suggested definition.

2. My opponent keeps repeating the same tired argument. As I've already explained, yes, people have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Excluding religion - as a separation of Church and State supposedly exists in our democratic political realm - Con has yet to explain why this shouldn't be epanded to say that people also have the right to marry someone of the same gender. And, once again, the idea of people being allowed to run around naked just because they want to is a horrible analogy; NOBODY is allowed to run around naked publicly for a plethora of reasons, where the issue of gay marriage is discriminating against certain people based on sexuality. Nobody is saying "Straight people can run around naked but gay people can't" or vice versa.

3. Again, I have absolutely no idea what my opponent is talking about. Obviously the government is involved with legal decisions regarding the U.S. I believe gay marriage should be legal because it's a spiritual union that carries legal bearing.

4. Concerning civil unions, Con says that they are a better option than marriage but does not explain why. He says, "They will not be the same" but then in the very next breath says "They would have the same rights as marriages." For the record, however, civil unions DON'T have the same rights as marriage (one is recognized on a state by state level and the other on a federal level), not to mention I have already argued against why civil unions are inferior in previous rounds.

5. Con says gay marriage devalues marriage because it "goes against the very definition of marriage." For one thing, just because the definition isn't exact doesn't mean that one devalues the other. For another, the definition can be expanded the same way it has been done in the past for MANY things.

6. Regarding family values, my opponent "condedes this point because it doesn't make sense." Okay.

REBUTTAL II:

1. My opponent says that it is legal to discriminate based on sex, and uses the examples of locker rooms and bathrooms. The problem with this analogy is that these sexist laws exist because they include the rights of other people. For instance, if I don't want to share a bathroom with men, laws exist to protect that right of mine to not have to. However, the union of marriage solely affects the individuals engaged in the marriage. Therefore, to dicriminate based on sex OR sexuality is obnoxious.

2. Some people would like to marry things like the Berlin Wall, as my opponent cited. However this debate is not about people who want to marry walls, pets or siblings. It's about gay marriage and gay marriage only, so the discussion should be limited to the issue at hand.

CONCLUSION:

Con says that there is no discrmination based on sexuality. I don't know how he could bring himself to say that; clearly your rights are limited if your sexuality is that of a minority in this country (which is anti-democratic as a democracy tries to preserve the rights of minorities as well). To consider something to be wrong just because it is in the minority is a logical fallacy. And finally, my opponent once again tries to compare marriage and civil unions, when they are NOT the same thing and do NOT carry the same legal bearing. That said, I wish Con luck in the next round and like to remind him and the judges that he is not allowed to offer any new arguments, as I won't have the opportunity to respond. Thank you for the debate.
mongoose

Con

I haven't been focusing as much on this debate as I should have. That was definitely not my plan, because if you didn't post your last round, I wouldn't have been able to either because I'd be on a cruise.

By "exist," I assume that you mean recognized by government? Because that's where my response came from. Otherwise, there's no issue.

1. I made the point that the physical differences are what allow for reproduction, and these are the reasons for marriage in the first place. My opponent never responded to that.

2. "Nobody is saying 'Straight people can run around naked but gay people can't' or vice versa." Exactly. Nobody is allowed to marry people of the same sex. This applies to everybody, not just gays

3. This point is like saying that if you give people money, the people who receive money will have more money. It can't be refuted or argued.

My opponent pointed out that government legislates what is or is not marriage for legal purposes, not the church. This is true.

4. My opponent has misinterpreted my argument. I am saying that instead of legalizing gay marriage, it would be better if they just increased the rights of civil unions to that of marriages, but not make them marriages. This removes the argument that people in civil unions have fewer rights, because in this case they would be the same.

5. Marriage is about love between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

6. Great.

1. For every right, there is an opposite right. The union of marriage also effects the government recognizing said marriage.

2. This clearly means that some people want to marry things besides other people. If gay marriage was legalized through the excuse that people can be born that way, then that woman should be allowed to marry a fence because she was born that way. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean that they should get it.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent is arguing that marriages and civil unions are not the same thing. She ignored my argument that it would be a better alternative to give civil unions the same rights as marriages than to legalize gay marriages. She ignored my point about the rock and the dirt, thus the point is conceded, so my opponent agrees that civil unions with the same rights as marriages are not necessarily marriages.

Thank you for this debate, I wish my opponent luck in her next round. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"The rock/dirt thing wasn't important at all whatsoever. It can't be accepted as an analogy to say that a rock and dirt are different but have the same amount of rights, because rights aren't applied to anything that isn't living in the first place. FAIL."
You could have said that in Round 3...
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"Spelling & Grammar:

I gave the point to PRO because of CON's attempted semantic argument. The difference between sex and gender has long been recognized in the fields of psychology and gender study. Furthermore, CON's argument did not come off as well-structured as PRO's."

That has nothing to do with spelling and grammar.

"Sources:

Would have been nice if PRO cited them, but the main relevant source in this debate was from PRO. It would have been nice to see some language from Loving, Zablocki, Lawrence, or Goodridge..."

But they weren't cited.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
RFD:

Conduct: Tied.
Sp/Gr: PRO.
Args: PRO.
Sources: PRO, but both weak.

Spelling & Grammar:

I gave the point to PRO because of CON's attempted semantic argument. The difference between sex and gender has long been recognized in the fields of psychology and gender study. Furthermore, CON's argument did not come off as well-structured as PRO's.

Argumentation:

PRO clearly carried this debate in my eyes. She was on top of the issues, responded well to CON's (IMO) feeble counterarguments. A possible winnable case on this point can be made by introducing the state as a third party contractor with the moral climate of the populace in mind - which CON didn't touch on.

Sources:

Would have been nice if PRO cited them, but the main relevant source in this debate was from PRO. It would have been nice to see some language from Loving, Zablocki, Lawrence, or Goodridge...
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
This was an insane beasting.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
The rock/dirt thing wasn't important at all whatsoever. It can't be accepted as an analogy to say that a rock and dirt are different but have the same amount of rights, because rights aren't applied to anything that isn't living in the first place. FAIL.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
C: Tie
S & G: Tie
A: Pro - This vote is a fairly obvious one. Pro's thought-provoking and detailed position was met with only scraps of a case by Con. It is rarely a good sign when extensive points are countered with one-two line responses and this was no exception.
S: Tie - Neither side provided sources that significantly bolstered their case.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, you didn't respond to his rock/dirt contention, which was actually surprisingly important. And then there's the entire nudist thing.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Lol mongoose you've got to be kidding me if you think you actually came even close to winning this debate.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
RFD:

B/A: CON
Conduct: Tied. Pro felt offended and insulted Con.
S/G: CON. PRO had many errors.
Arguments: CON. PRO didn't respond to rock =/= dirt, or physical differences.
Sources: CON: Pro's source wasn't even a real source, just a search, with no information. CON had an article and a definition.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
A definition and a news article versus a google search. Yeah, sources to CON. I'll figure out everything else later.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by beamer1 7 years ago
beamer1
DaniellemongooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MasterET 7 years ago
MasterET
DaniellemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
DaniellemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
DaniellemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
DaniellemongooseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
DaniellemongooseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
DaniellemongooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
DaniellemongooseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
DaniellemongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
DaniellemongooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06