The Instigator
untitled_entity
Con (against)
Winning
75 Points
The Contender
Alex
Pro (for)
Losing
44 Points

Gay Marriage should not be allowed in the United States

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 18 votes the winner is...
untitled_entity
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,041 times Debate No: 8905
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (76)
Votes (18)

 

untitled_entity

Con

If you're going to comment on the fact that this topic is a dead horse, please don't. I know you're tired of seeing them, I like getting other people's viewpoints.

Challenge:
I'm issuing a challenge to Pro to not base his or her arguments on a religious basis.
Alex

Pro

Greetings untitled_entity I don't believe we have debated before, so good luck and i hope that it is a good debate.

Because you have not posted a definition for marriage or for spouse I will do so.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu...

There you go, the federal government's definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, like it should be.

You cannot allow gay marriage, because there is nothing to allow, you cannot change it because that's just not what it is, that is like saying that an apple should be an orange, it's just not an orange.

Just like the federal definition of an apple is not an orange, that is because it cannot be one. And no matter how many friends, relatives, random people that you get to say they want apples to be oranges it cannot be that way because it just isn't an orange. Just like two men or two woman just aren't marriage.

No worries this is as religious as i will get.

Marriage was created for a man and a woman, civil unions were created for whoever wishes to be in one.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

I await the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
untitled_entity

Con

Thanks to Alex for accepting.

Alright, well basically you decided to just turn this debate into a semantics, definition war. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I didn't clarify, you took a definition that so blindly alienates morals which is what this debate is about.
If it "should" be kept between a man and a woman can you tell me how that is even remotely just, provide me with some moral rationale as to why that works?

I would also go on to contend the validity of that definition seeing as I find it hard to believe that there would be a moral rationale, or another rationale as to why it would be just to withhold equality, the same equality that all humans are able to attain.

I would like to point out that if there was nothing to allow, the entire world would not be discussing and legislating on the issue.

Furthermore, I would like to contend my opponent's definition by using his own source. The Cornell law website states that this definition is from January 8, 2008 [1], though my opponent claims that this is the most recent definition, I must contend that he is wrong. The most recent updated definition was found on March 3, 2009. This definition could now include other parameters seeing as the older definition was in effect prior to the passages of legalization in Iowa, Vermont, and Connecticut.

I will provide two definitions for marriage – one from Webster's New World Dictionary circa 2002 and Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary circa 2006. The reasons for two separate sources is because any dictionary printed prior to 2005 will define marriage between a man and a woman, but since then things changed and dictionaries scrambled to reprint their dictionaries to be equal.

Marriage: to join as man and wife [2]

Marriage: to unite in wedlock [3]

Should : used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [4]

Allowed : to make possible [see permit]

If we really want to go definition for definition, I could simply say that gay/lesbian partners should be united in wedlock due to the fact that the government has an obligation to be equal. It has a moral duty to promote egalitarianism/equality to all of its citizens. If you would venture to claim that homosexuals are not citizens, I would be eager to hear that argument as well.

The first reason as to why Gay marriage should be allowed is that the rights of a minority should never be entrusted in the hands of the majority. We watched attentively in the 1960s when this happened and ultimately failed, and it is happening the same way now. We are speaking of completely separate interests here. Most Americans are pro gay rights, just anti – gay marriage. These rights include the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and equal access to government benefits, equal protection under the law, so on and so forth. However, that percentage seems to reallocate itself when the issue of gay marriage comes to the table, and this is sad. Ward 8 D.C. county council member Marion Barry said, that he voted against having gay marriage in D.C. because he is a moral politician. Marion Barry, moral politician, since when? Doesn't he still evade his taxes and deal crack? We cannot allow people who have no interest in promoting the status of gay Americans vote on their rights that is unfair. Who says what marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriageable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. Denying people rights without compelling reasons go against the idea of democracy.

Second, what does allowing gay marriage cost you? As a matter of fact, New York City noted that if they allowed gay marriages they would make up to 210 million dollars over three years [6]. In a time of swift economic downturn, it would be fiscally irresponsible for a state to deny a way to make money. In addition, with worrying about Korea's nuclear missile problem, the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor and the like you would think gay marriage would be a no – brainer issue. What is so wrong about allowing two people who love each other the ability to marry? This graph accurately shows what impact legalizing gay marriage would have on a state [7]. Due to the minimal impact it would have on a state's economy and basically the well – being of the world, it should be legalized.

Finally, denying gays the rights to marry is simply a denial of equality. Gays are humans too, they live their lives, they want to build a family and they just want to be treated the same way as everyone else. Gay Americans should be permitted the same rights as straight Americans, anything less is simply undemocratic.

If you don't want Gays to marry in your, personal church, fine. However, that should not bar them from marrying in your state.

Sources:
[1]- http://www4.law.cornell.edu...
[2] – Webster's New World Dictionary
[3] – Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
[4] – www.merriam-webster.com/should
[5] – www.merriam-webster.com/allow
[6] - http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...
[7] - http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
Alex

Pro

Clarification- I did not say that was the most recent definition.

You are mistaking the federal definition for the state definition. The federal definition, still currently, remains between a man and a woman.

Alright, a couple states say marriage is between two individuals, the federal is a man and a woman. However, this is not getting us far, lets move on.

Gay Rights-

I am straight, however if i became gay tomorrow, what rights would change? None whatsoever, we are not receiving any special treatment.

The right to marry- Everyone has it, its not different for anybody. We all have the same rights.

"We cannot allow people who have no interest in promoting the status of gay Americans vote on their rights that is unfair."
So only Pro gay marriage folk can vote? Sounds reasonable, not.

"Who says what marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriageable?"

Because our country is ran democratically, (Let the people decide) It is just that, the people decide on it just like any other topic. And that is one of the big reasons why gay marriage should not be "allowed" You should not make a law that is not in favor of the majority of the people, otherwise the foundation of our country crumbles. Because you cannot allow a minority to decide that topic but no other topic.

"Denying people rights without compelling reasons go against the idea of democracy."

That is incorrect, the idea of democracy is to create laws based on the favor of the people.
Just because you do not respect christian values (That our country was founded on) Does not mean others must abandon them as well. Also, just because you think they are obsolete, does not make them so.

You cannot tell someone that their religion is not a compelling reason for them to vote, taking that away from them like your are suggesting violates the first amendment. Wherever you get your values from, it is not to say where others should get theirs.

"Second, what does allowing gay marriage cost you?"

What does not having it cost the gay community? Do they need gay marriage to love each other? that seems awfully shallow, and in that case it is not love in the first place.

"New York City noted that if they allowed gay marriages they would make up to 210 million dollars over three years"

Some sources, proof on that would be very nice (They may be at the bottom but i'm not gonna search through them)

"Gay Americans should be permitted the same rights as straight Americans, anything less is simply undemocratic."

And which rights do we posses that the "gays" do not?

The "Equal rights" argument has no basis, and is simply balderdash do to the fact that we have the same rights.

Saying gays have fewer rights than non-gays is like saying marijuana being illegal is an ‘equal rights' issue because people who like smoking tobacco can do so legally, but people who like smoking marijuana can't. Smoking tobacco is legal for everyone, and smoking marijuana is illegal for everyone across the board—it doesn't make a difference if you happen to only prefer one or the other.

"The first reason as to why Gay marriage should be allowed is that the rights of a minority should never be entrusted in the hands of the majority. We watched attentively in the 1960s when this happened and ultimately failed, and it is happening the same way now."

Could my opponent please furnish some literature that properly informs us that segregation was practiced in accordance with the majority opinion, AND was abolished in accordance with the minority opinion?

Her marital benefits argument- My opponent is mistaking impossible, for difficult. Those rights can still be acquired, via same sex marriage or civil unions.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
My arguments:

1.) Democracy, like i stated above, laws are based on the majority of the people, you cannot create laws that are in specific violation of the people, our country is not ran like that.

2.) If you pass the line that my opponent is passing, there is nothing to stop laws allowing polygamy, incest, and other sexual abnormalities.

3.) Diminishing the value of marriage.

For thousands of years the definition of marriage has laid on tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. And still does today. Gay marriage would diminish the value of marriage.

4). Morals, my opponent suggests that defining morals is apart from human will, which is incorrect.

5.) Family, an article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock. It is now predicted based on trends, that at least half the babies in that country will live in single parent homes.

5.5) If my opponents marital rights argument were correct, than surely she would not have a problem with single parent marital rights? Which is surely wrong. These rights were given to married couples for special reasons.

6.) The need of marriage- My opponent suggests that marriage is based off of love and that we should respect that and allow gays to marry. If this is the case, than why in the heck would they need marriage? If you take a way marriage from a man and a woman, the meaning would still remain the same.

7. It would necessitate a revamping of our sex-education systems, and it would give new impetus to the rally for polygamy, pedophilia, and incest.

8. opposite marriage benefits, civil unions or opposite sex marriage can still provide those benefits making that argument void.

That is all for now.

http://www.nogaymarriage.com...
http://www.watersofmormon.org...
Debate Round No. 2
untitled_entity

Con

1) Democracy,....our country is not ran [sic] like that.
--> Dear Alex Hanson,
"All men are created equal."
Sincerely,
The Signers of the D.o.I

2) If you pass... polygamy, incest, and other sexual abnormalities.
--> First and foremost, I find it slightly offensive to consider being homosexual a sexual abnormality, that's a half - step away from it being a "disease. This is a tired, tired argument, it is so tired that it is basically useless.
* Pedophilia : A child does not have the mental capacity to marry an adult, therefore it does not happen.
* Bestiality : Animals are not covered in our Constitution, therefore that one would be obsolete.
* What my opponent is escaping here is that we want what everyone else wants, the ability to marry a partner. Not a dog, not a child, and not multiple partners; a single partner.

3) Diminishing the value of marriage.
--> When the national divorce rate is somewhere between 43 and 51 percent[8], I believe that homosexual marriage could only help at this point. I would like to point out that most divorce/separation statistics my opponent could pull out of the hat would be slightly incorrect, seeing as if there is no marriage rate, a divorce rate seems a little far - fetched.

4)Morals....
--> My opponent has yet to show me any.

5) Family...Institution of marriage
--> I'm a product of a single - parent family, you paint it out to be this horrible experience, are you Ann Coulter [9]? Babies are going to be born out of wedlock anyways, a guy is going to shtup his girlfriend, the girlfriend is going to get pregnant, and the boyfriend is not going to want the baby, so the boyfriend will leave, BOOM, single parenthood. You make it sound like all of the things that **may or may not** effect these gay couples doesn't already effect the straight ones. By the way, Scandinavian countries and United States are worlds apart.

5.5) Single parent marital rights...
--> What are you talking about? If a single person is unmarried they should have the right to remarry, which they do.

6) Need of marriage.
--> Then, why do you need marriage. Marriage is a human right first and foremost, and the benefits that come with it are ultimately beneficial. If you have a gay partner and you and that partner are unmarried and you fall ill, they are not allowed in the hospital. You cannot file joint tax returns, I mean really, the list goes on.

7)Sex - ed systems...
--> Homosexuality and Tolerance are covered in high school sex - ed curricula, this point is unnecessary.

8) Civil Unions...
--> Civil unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage. Same - sex marriage would be normal marriage with two people of the same - sex which would guarantee the rights.

If you became gay tomorrow and then grew up, you would not be allowed to marry your partner, if you were as fortunate to find one.

It is different, you do not allow homosexual people to marry each other.

I didn't say only pro - gay marriage folk can vote, doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to you that the main demographic that this issue affects often has no say?

I love the quotes, so ignorantly patronizing. You can't put the rights of these people in the hands of people who have no care to advocate for them, that is unfair.

Christian values.... You mean those people who murdered Matthew Shepard, pass out crazy literature and so on and so forth? I respect Christian values, I do not respect ignorance. There's a separation of church and state for a reason.

Religion, blah, blah, religion....
a) You said you wouldn't go into religion.
b) When elected officials take the oath of office they place their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.

"What does not having it..."
It deprives them of having the same legal and social benefits of the straight community. Do you really want to go into shallow arguments?

I gave you a source for that statistic.

You have the right to marry. I do not. You will have the right to file taxes jointly. I most likely, will not.

"Equal rights..." Tell me how denying a group of people a simple, fundamental right does not impede equal rights.

Smoking marijuana is not illegal for everyone across the board
--> California etc., see decriminalization. However, that is a baseless conjecture and doesn't even remotely tie into the argument at hand. The reason you want to deny gay marriage is because your parents have preached against it your entire life, nothing more. It is not like you personally have something to lose or gain.

Could my opponent please read my source table?
Common sense would dictate that if the majority was against segregation schools would have been desegregated way before the the later 1900s. After all, it is the rule of the people.

Civil unions do not hold the same benefits as marriage.

My opponent has failed to provide a moral reason and has just kept going on and on about how it is the same. It simply is not. My opponent dictated that he would not go into religion however, he did and went as far as to cite Mormons in his source table. Thanks to Alex Hanson for this debate, I'm sorry if he felt I was being hostile... If you think equality should be enjoyed by all, vote CON, or whoever you think did a better job.

Just pointing out that according to the table, Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of divorce. Massachusetts is home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and gay marriage... I think it goes something to the effect of, who is the kettle to call the pot black?
Sources:
[8] - http://www.divorcereform.org...
Alex

Pro

Thank you Untitled_Entity.

I ask for fair voting, I prefer an honest vote against me rather than a dishonest vote for me. I am not sure, but i am betting that my opponent feels the same way.

"1) Democracy,....our country is not ran [sic] like that.
--> Dear Alex Hanson,
"All men are created equal."
Sincerely,
The Signers of the D.o.I"

Our country is in fact ran like that. I ask that any readers view the Gettysburg address. I will post the end of it here.

"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

A government ran by the people. Again i will reiterate, you cannot undermine and make a law that is based strictly in violation of the majority of the people. This alone should be reason for a pro ballot, you cannot undermine the people in this situation, if you do what stops you from undermining the people in other situations, which is strictly in contradiction to the basis on which this country was founded.

You have also left out the act of marriage protection in the constitution.

2. That is a mere harbinger of what would come if we used your logic of why gay marriage should be allowed.
"* Pedophilia : A child does not have the mental capacity to marry an adult, therefore it does not happen."

So anyone under 18 years of age cannot love? I disagree.

3. Diminishing the value of marriage, divorce is not diminishing the value of marriage, at least not to the extent that allowing gay marriage is. When you get married, you are not bound by chains to that person, if it is best not to be together than you cannot trap them. However, allowing gay marriage is in strict contradiction to the original creator of marriage, since you like documents, in almost every one of ours, it states under God. Going against that is what diminishes the value of marriage.

4. You have not shown me why it is a moral obligation of the government to allow gay marriage when it is in contradiction to well...Everything.

5. Family, institution of marriage.

I didn't say that a single parent family is a horrible experience, I am saying we should never aim towards increasing the number of kids that will have to experience it. I am sorry to hear that you are, and i am sure it has not always been the most pleasant experience.

"By the way, Scandinavian countries and United States are worlds apart."

Yes but we are still a group of people just like they are, whether we are neighbors or worlds apart, that does not make it irrelevant. They are showing us the errors of allowing gay marriage.

"5.5) Single parent marital rights...
--> What are you talking about? If a single person is unmarried they should have the right to remarry, which they do."

Yes, that is not what i meant. I am saying that by your logic, single parents should get marital benefits as well, but that defeats the purpose of marital benefits in the first place.

"Then, why do you need marriage. Marriage is a human right first and foremost, and the benefits that come with it are ultimately beneficial. If you have a gay partner and you and that partner are unmarried and you fall ill, they are not allowed in the hospital. You cannot file joint tax returns, I mean really, the list goes on."

We don't need it, but it was originally created to bond a man and a woman for life, and then later there were added benefits. I realize that gays cannot get those benefits without marrying a partner of the opposite sex, that is why civil unions should be given the same benefits, and we call it a day.

"7)Sex - ed systems...
--> Homosexuality and Tolerance are covered in high school sex - ed curricula, this point is unnecessary."

Maybe touched lightly on, they don't actually teach you about it, but nothing like a man and a woman. Would you like to be in school and learn about how Males must have sex?

9. "8) Civil Unions...
--> Civil unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage. Same - sex marriage would be normal marriage with two people of the same - sex which would guarantee the rights."

That's why i stated above, that if gays must have something to officiate their love and give them benefits, than give them those benefits through civil unions.

"You can't put the rights of these people in the hands of people who have no care to advocate for them, that is unfair."

That is like saying only murderers can vote on whether murder should be legalized.

I'm pretty certain that we all unanimously conclude that we should not put the lives of others into only the hands of murderers.

"Christian values.... You mean those people who murdered Matthew Shepard, pass out crazy literature and so on and so forth? I respect Christian values, I do not respect ignorance. There's a separation of church and state for a reason."

The original created of Christian values did not murder Mathew Shepard, I'm sorry that thousands of years later someone who thinks they are advocating christian values murdered that person. If you respect Christian values, than do not contradict something that was meant to be a beautiful thing between a man and a woman. Sure, give the benefits to civil unions.

I have a hard time not going religious when you try and miss-use American documents that strictly uphold Christian values, against them.

"When elected officials take the oath of office they place their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around."

Again, the constitution rests on Christian values.

"You have the right to marry. I do not. You will have the right to file taxes jointly. I most likely, will not."

"Equal rights..." Tell me how denying a group of people a simple, fundamental right does not impede equal rights."

You have the right to marry, exact same right as i have. If civil unions pass, than you will have the same benefits.

"Smoking marijuana is not illegal for everyone across the board
--> California etc., see decriminalization. However, that is a baseless conjecture and doesn't even remotely tie into the argument at hand. The reason you want to deny gay marriage is because your parents have preached against it your entire life, nothing more. It is not like you personally have something to lose or gain."

It is with one exception, medical marijuana, which should be illegal as well.

My parents are hardly religious, they are also not once told me that gay marriage should be denied, but thanks for trying to figure me out.

_______________________________________________________

My opponent has tried to miss-use official America founding documents.

Has utterly mistaken equal rights.
Has misused democracy, and shown poignant misunderstanding of it.
Shown no real reason that was not easily refuted of why Gay marriage should be allowed, especially over civil unions.
Has not shown why there is a moral obligation to allow gay marriage.
Said she respects Christian values, although shows clear contradiction of this.

I have:

Shown why legally it should not be (Democracy, will of the people.) (Defense of marriage act)
Shown how America was founded on Christian values, and how contradicting that is immoral and wrong.
Shown that it will lead to unfortunate actions and events.
Shown that there are alternative actions to anything my opponent has suggested gays cannot get without marriage.
There is nothing in the constitution that supports it, and there is the federal defense of marriage act that actually protects it.

That short list is very brief and incomplete, read entire debate and see how the resolution is clearly AFFIRMED.
Debate Round No. 3
76 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Its hard to win these because people always vote against whoever is against gays.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
you had a few over a hundred at first
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Actually....I've only lost fifteen points. But what I'm curious about is if those removed votes were from closed accounts [by Phil] or just deactivated accounts.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Appearently i got bombed, i knew i didnt lose that bad. She's lost over 30 points since the voting time ended
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
I will make one moderate change to my RFD. I will submit that Pro used two sources that were not cited in the text, and which I did not catch on my first read through. I looked at those sources and found them unconvincing, but it does reduce the gap in my eyes. Not enough to switch votes on that, but enough for me to concede that I overstated the lack of sources on Pro's part.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Before: Pro (see my comment about civil unions)
After: Tied (less than compelling arguments made on either side)
Conduct: Tied (I think both debaters exhibit enthusiasm for the topic, but a times walk a fine line in terms of respectfulness. Ex: "are you Ann Coulter?")
S/G: Con (slight edge for grammar & organization)
Args: Barely Con (though plenty of bad arguments were made by the Pro, Con doesn't slam dunk some of those really bad arguments. Examples:

-Slippery slope (addressed that in another post)

-Definition of marriage federally (addressed in another post)

-Democratic ideals/laws/rights/etc.: tyranny of the majority, man. Rights deserve to be protected even if the majority votes to take them away. Like, if 51% of the population votes to kill the other 49%, is that okay?

-"We All Have The Same Rights": that's just patent ridiculousness on the side of the pro. Sure, all people of any sexuality have the right to legally wed…someone of the opposite sex. That isn't an equitable distribution of said right. And, without civil unions being universally awarded throughout the country, marriage at this time is the only way to access all of the rights & benefits of being a legally joined couple. The marijuana vs. tobacco analogy doesn't come close to winning this argument. And, the same arguments cannot be extended (as U_E did point out) to people marrying animals or minors or whatnot b/c those unions do directly violate established US law. The age of consent and bestiality laws bar that indefinitely, while homosexuality is not illegal, and rightfully so, as it is a relationship between two consenting adults.

Sources: Close Con (though the preponderance seems to go Con here, graph jam is hardly a worthwhile citation. The rest is all dictionary definitions, which aren't amazingly above & beyond. The NY Times article is worthwhile. I would have liked to see Pro cite his federal statute definition of marriage from somewhere tangible)
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I wasn't indicting your position :) Just expounding.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Hey, like i said in a message i sent to untitled_Entity, insuring her that i have absolutely nothing against non-heterosexuals, it was simply a debate, i had my side and i argued my side. Is that not what were here for? =P
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
What can I say? I've simply never been a fan of mixing church & state policy :) It isn't a lack of love or respect for all sexualities. It's simply a necessity to preserve equal rights, since many religious folk tend to dislike anything outside of heterosexuality.

I find the lack of acceptance for many other sexualities (I don't want to call them alternative-- that's not cool) rather disgusting, and I think that making this clear cut from the institution of marriage for *all* parties to be the best way to solve the problem, rather than trying to destigmatize marriage, which seems like a backwards move. I would just as soon disassociate myself with a religious movement, and still claim the rights I know the state owes me :)
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Alto, i completely agree with your last paragraph on your first post. I have never heard an atheist have and say a resolution like that. Very nice.

Also, thank you for acknowledging the incredible lack of respect in the comments.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
untitled_entityAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 methodicalmadness00 7 years ago
methodicalmadness00
untitled_entityAlexTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
untitled_entityAlexTied
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 chrisintina 7 years ago
chrisintina
untitled_entityAlexTied
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 prozoro 7 years ago
prozoro
untitled_entityAlexTied
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 Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
untitled_entityAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 SKEPTICISM 7 years ago
SKEPTICISM
untitled_entityAlexTied
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 Gmoney 7 years ago
Gmoney
untitled_entityAlexTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
untitled_entityAlexTied
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 Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
untitled_entityAlexTied
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