The Instigator
Fluer
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
YoungBrain
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Gay marriage should be legal

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 9 votes the winner is...
YoungBrain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,025 times Debate No: 20574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (9)

 

Fluer

Pro

Straight forward debate on gay rights. Men should be allowed to marry men and women should be allowed to marry women. My opponent will argue that this is only heterosexual couples should marry.
Set up
Round 1 = acceptance
Round 2 and 3 = arguments and rebuttal
Round 4 = closing speech (rebuttal but no new arguments)

Rules
Forfeit and you lose conduct.
New arguments in R4 and you lose conduct.
No "shouting" or bad language
Only accept this debate if you are actually against it.

I look forward to hearing my opponents points.
YoungBrain

Con

I accept this debate and agree to the rules. I look forward to reading your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Fluer

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
My arguments are all based around the fact that I believe political policies should always be held independent of any religious beliefs. I also base this debate in the USA.
To start with I will prove why there is no reason that gay marriage should not be legally recognised by the USA government and then I will prove why it is better for society that gay marriage is approved.

Why not?

1. Gay people are still people and they have the right to love whoever they want. Also once they reach 18 they are consenting adults and have the same rights as their heterosexual peers to get married. Heterosexual people have the right to love who they want and once they are consenting adults they can marry who they want. This is no different just because a man loves another man and not a woman and vis versa.

2. This campaign is now one that is supported by many members of religion too.

This man is just one of the growing support for gay marriage within religious communities. This shows that even if religions were to hold power over the governments decision this would not restrict the passing of this motion for long because people are willing to accept others because most people are generally quite pleasant. Religious marginalization happens all the time and it is overcome because people are more willing to see that you cannot hate someone and restrict them because they have a different belief to you.

Benefits for society

1. When many people feel that due to oppressions in society their love is "wrong" or invalid and the best thing they can do is kill themselves, society has a serious problem. The Trevor Project is aimed at helping youths in the LGBT society.
Just a few facts from their website highlights the how serious the problem is.
"Suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24-year-olds, accounting for over 12% of deaths in this age group; only accidents and homicide occur more frequently (National Adolescent Health Information 2006)...
For every completed suicide by a young person, it is estimated that 100 to 200 attempts are made (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey 2003).
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Massachusetts Youth Risk Survey 2007).
More than 1/3 of LGB youth report having made a suicide attempt (D'Augelli AR - Clinical Child Psychiatry and Psychology 2002)."
"LGBT students are three times as likely as non-LGBT students to say that they do not feel safe at school (22% vs. 7%) and 90% of LGBT students (vs. 62% of non-LGBT teens) have been harassed or assaulted during the past year. (GLSEN From Teasing to Torment 2006)...
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens (Marshal MP, Friedman MS, et al – Addiction 2008)."
What we see here is a world of pain because they cannot help who they love and society has branded them as lesser than their heterosexual peers. This is a large number of people in our society that are suffering unnecessarily because they love someone. This has to stop. The way we can go about lessening this this social stigma is by having the government recognise gay marriages so that they are of the same social standing as heterosexual marriages. When the government accepts everyone's right to love as equal there is less of a social barrier. It will not be resolved immediately but then nothing ever is.

For the reasons that there is no real reason why the government should not legalise gay marriage and because it benefits society. Vote Pro.

http://www.thetrevorproject.org...
YoungBrain

Con


To start my argument I will first define “marriage”


Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law [1]


“Gay people are still people and they have the right to love whoever they want. Also once they reach 18 they are consenting adults and have the same rights as their heterosexual peers to get married.”


You are correct. Gay people are allowed to love whoever they want. They are also allowed to get married. Gay people have the right to be united “to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. Marriage is the union of a man and woman so it is not actually possible for a gay couple to marry each other.


“This campaign is now one that is supported by many members of religion too.”


You said in your introduction: “My arguments are all based around the fact that I believe political policies should always be held independent of any religious beliefs.” Since religion should not matter in deciding the legality of gay marriages, this point is irrelevant.


“When many people feel that due to oppressions in society their love is "wrong" or invalid and the best thing they can do is kill themselves, society has a serious problem.”


Legalizing gay marriage would not change the way society views homosexual relationships. Most of the statistics you list have to do with adolescents and young adults who are hurting themselves because they are being harassed or because they do not feel accepted. Gay marriage would not help them Society would have to change their views completely and that will not happen by legalizing gay marriage.


You also fail to mention how legalizing gay marriage will benefit society as a whole. You only show how it will benefit the LGBT community.



[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Fluer

Pro

Ok first of all I did not state any definition for marriage because the whole point of this debate is that we should be changing how society defines marriage. That is the definition as it stands the now but this debate is about changing the definition therefore your first point of rebuttal becomes irrelevant.

For your second point of rebuttal, I was using my religious point as pre-emptive rebuttal for any religious arguments you may have brought up. The points are still relevant however because much of the stigma against gay people arises from religious beliefs. I have proved why these religious beliefs are no reason why the government should not recognise gay marriage to support basing my arguments around the separation of the church and the state.

As for your third piece of rebuttal I will explain my point more clearly.
Gay marriage not legal.
Heterosexual marriage is legal.
Government says gay marriage is wrong.
Government says heterosexual marriage is right.
Society believes gay marriage is wrong.
Society believes heterosexual marriage is right.
Society believes gay love is wrong.
Society believes heterosexual love is right.
Only a minority in society now still believe that gay marriage is wrong but the common belief that we had about gay marriage being wrong stemmed from the fact that the government would not allow it to happen. It is legally bad therefore it must be morally wrong. When the majority of people change this view because they disagree with the torture these people were being subjected to then they have the power to demand that the laws be changed which is where we are at the now.
When the laws are changed and the government legalises gay marriage showing it is right then the minorities that still believe that gay marriage is wrong have no more reason to. This stigma will soon die out when that happens. It was the same with black people and women being given the same rights as white men. It takes time but the old views die out and it starts with the government accepting the minorities to have the same rights as the white males. Therefore societies views will change and it happens by the government legalising gay marriage. It has already been proven to work.

"You also fail to mention how legalizing gay marriage will benefit society as a whole. You only show how it will benefit the LGBT community."
This is a very strange view indeed. Not only are the LGBT community part of our society, and a big part at that, I thought the rest was kind of obvious. I'll explain it then. Most people in society are classed under a minority (women, religious minorities, sexual minorities, ethnic minorities, disabled people). When one minority is still being attacked and marginalized it shows that society still cannot fully accept anyone who is not a healthy,straight,white male. This is bad for society as it gives more legitimacy to hate crimes and other acts that marginalize minorities thought to be accepted. When we get rid of this last piece of "legal stigma" society can then fully integrate. There is far less stigma overall. Less stigma in society leads to less unnecessary crimes. When we are no longer fighting each other we function far better on the whole as a society. I hope this explains it better for you. Also less young people feeling the need to commit suicide and take drugs is a massive benefit to the whole of society.

I would also like to point out for the benefit of the readers and voters that the definition that you give for marriage is only part of the definition supplied on the website that you linked. Here is the full thing.

"(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage "

The only difference here is that heterosexual marriage is " recognized by law " and homosexual marriage is not. That is what this debate is about. You so far have not provided any substantive points that prove that gay marriage should not be recognised by the law.

Substantive

To add to my case I will bring in one more point about international relations.

1. America is meant to be a world leading country. At the moment all we are proving to be are stubborn children. We believed it was wrong for centuries and even though we have absolutely no other reason to keep marginalizing these people we will do it anyway. This is one of the last big areas of stigma that our government still says is ok. By changing our laws to bring them into a 21st century world we tell the world that it is better to move forward. America is no longer a country that will marginalize minorities. It is no longer a country bases it's actions on out of date social beliefs. We can leave our past behind and form a properly integrated society. Our allies respect this change. Not only that but countries like Britain are more likely to move to change their own laws to legalise gay marriage. America becomes the driving force for political and social change. This improves our relations with our allies.

Because gay marriage does benefit our society and it can lead to improvements in other societies gay marriage has to be legalised.
Vote Pro.

I look forward to hearing a stronger substantive case from Con.
YoungBrain

Con


You never said that the point of the debate was changing how society defines marriage. This debate is supposed to be on whether gay people should be allowed to get married. Therefore, my point is relevant.



“I have proved why these religious beliefs are no reason why the government should not recognise gay marriage to support basing my arguments around the separation of the church and the state.”


You stated in your previous argument “This man is just one of the growing support for gay marriage within religious communities. This shows that even if religions were to hold power over the governments decision this would not restrict the passing of this motion for long because people are willing to accept others because most people are generally quite pleasant”.


When you brought up the religious supporters of gay marriage, you implied that religion should be part of the decision. The majority of the religious community is still against gay marriage. So if religion held power over government decisions, gay marriage would not be legalized. You did not prove anything about the separation of church and state.


“Only a minority in society now still believe that gay marriage is wrong”


Can you prove that statement? From what I know, a large percentage of society does not support gay marriage.


“the common belief that we had about gay marriage being wrong stemmed from the fact that the government would not allow it to happen”


I would also like to see the proof for that.


“When we get rid of this last piece of "legal stigma" society can then fully integrate”


You have not yet proved that legalizing gay marriage would make more people support. If people hated gays before gay marriage was legal, they will hate them after it is legal. Society will still not fully integrate. But you still do not bring up the benefits for society as a whole. The stigma and hate crimes relating to gay couples are directed at the LGBT community. The rest of society is not harmed by it. Legalizing gay marriage would benefit the LGBT community but it would not end the stigmas or hate crimes. It would also not benefit society as a whole.


“the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage”.


This definition still supports my point. Gay couples can be united in a relationship LIKE that of a traditional marriage. It is called a civil union, so you are practically “married”. It is not and should not be recognized by the law because it is not the same as a traditional marriage.


“The only difference here is that heterosexual marriage is " recognized by law " and homosexual marriage is not. That is what this debate is about.”


You should really decide what this debate is about. Since at the beginning of you argument you stated “the whole point of this debate is that we should be changing how society defines marriage. That is the definition as it stands the now but this debate is about changing the definition”.



“Because gay marriage does benefit our society and it can lead to improvements in other societies”


You have not proved why gay marriage is beneficial to a society so you cannot say it would lead to improvements in other societies. You also say in your first argument that this debate is about American government and society. If this debate is about America, it does not matter whether or not it benefits other societies.


Gay marriage should not be legalized for multiple reasons.


First, it would require the definition of marriage to be changed. If the government changes its definition of marriage to allow gay couples to get married, people could then say it should be changed so that they can marry their family members or pets.


Marriage is a very sacred thing to many people. Allowing gay marriage would take away the value of marriage because it would show that the meaning of marriage can be changed to suit the needs of a group of people.


Gay couples are already allowed to have civil unions. They can be joined together but it is not called the same thing as when heterosexual couples are joined. They are not the same thing so they should not be called the same thing.


Same-sex couples are unable to procreate, meaning that there is no compelling interest to subsidize their marriages. The majority of heterosexual couples can procreate or were able to procreate at some point. There are exceptions but those are exactly that, exceptions. Homosexual couples cannot naturally procreate. There are no exceptions.



Debate Round No. 3
Fluer

Pro

Gay marriage should be legal. By making it legal this leads to a change in the definition of what marriage is. It has to be changed because it is a social problem. Making gay marriage legal is being proposed as a solution to the problem. Since this is the case then the social view on marriage will change. I am not changing the debate. I really hope this makes it clear for you.

Rebuttal

1. Religious people are still part of society and it is society that is forcing this change. Because of beliefs it is generally religious people that are against gay marriage however this is also changing shown by my first point. There is a growing support for gay marriage and there are less and less reasons to be against gay marriage.

2. Yes I will prove that most people support gay marriage.
"Right now, the most recent gay marriage poll comes from CBS News in July 2011. It showed that most people support gay marriage rights. According to the poll, 53% say the government should legally recognize same-sex marriages."[1]
"An ABC News poll conducted in July 2011 showed similar results. According to that poll,

51% support gay marriage
45% are against it.
4% are unsure."[1]
"35. Do you think marriages between gay and lesbian couples should or should not be recognized by the
law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?
Apr. 9-10 Apr. 23-26 Dec. 19-21 June 26-29
2011 2009 2008 2008
Should be recognized as valid 51% 44% 44% 44%
Should not be recognized as valid 47% 54% 55% 53%
No opinion 2% 2% 1% 3%"[2]
So as you can see not only does the majority support gay marriage that support is growing rapidly.

3. This is the point of having laws. You're not allowed to do something because the government says it is wrong. Take ethnic discrimination in America. A very relevant example would be the anti-miscegenation laws which "remained in force in many US states until 1967" [3]. These laws prohibited any interracial marriages from taking place. Nowadays interracial marriages are common and there are no social stigmas attached. The law said it was wrong and people took the view that inter-racial love was wrong. Now that the laws are changed this view is dying out.

4."You have not yet proved that legalizing gay marriage would make more people support." See rebuttal point three.
"But you still do not bring up the benefits for society as a whole." So when people are not forced to drugs unnecessarily (see my last argument) because they think that the way they love is wrong this is not a benefit for society as a whole? When young people stop feeling the need to commit suicide because they think their love is wrong his is not a benefit for society?

5. Pro- gay marriage should be legal which would make it equal to that of "traditional marriage". Civil unions are not the same as marriage because they do not carry the same social status and it is the social status that is damaging which is why gay marriage should be recognised by the law.

6. See first paragraph of argument.

7. I have actually proved that it has benefits for society. You have not proved that it is harmful for society. Your attempts at that are rebutted below. How it benefits other societies is still a valid point as I have shown it has an affect on how other nations view America therefore still has an affect on American society.

8. "people could then say it should be changed so that they can marry their family members or pets." Family members will never be allowed to marry because inbreeding is biologically dangerous. Pets are not consenting adults so can't get married.

9. Your own definitions state that the only difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage is legal recognition. They are the same thing so they should be called the same thing.

10. In what way are we subsidizing their marriage? We are giving them the same legal recognition as heterosexual marriage which they have a right to.

http://www.gaymarriageresearch.com... [1]
http://i2.cdn.turner.com... [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]
YoungBrain

Con


Gay marriage should be legal. By making it legal this leads to a change in the definition of what marriage is.”


Gay marriage cannot be legal until the definition changes. Gay people are already allowed to get married, just not to each other. If the definition changes, then the law can change. Gay marriage cannot be made legal until the definition changes.


So as you can see not only does the majority support gay marriage that support is growing rapidly.”


51% support gay marriage and 49% do not [1]. There is most likely some source of error in that poll so it is basically half and half. Your own source says that the margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. You cannot say that the law should change because of the beliefs of one half if there is not a real benefit to society.


This is the point of having laws.”


The point of having laws is not to change a society’s views. The point of laws are to protect society. That is why gay marriage is illegal, to protect society.


“The law said it was wrong and people took the view that inter-racial love was wrong. Now that the laws are changed this view is dying out.”


People did not think inter-racial love was wrong because the law said it was wrong. Their own personal views caused them to think that. The law changed because people’s personal views changed. The law did not change peoples’ personal views.


“So when people are not forced to drugs unnecessarily (see my last argument) because they think that the way they love is wrong this is not a benefit for society as a whole? When young people stop feeling the need to commit suicide because they think their love is wrong his is not a benefit for society?”


People are not forced to do drugs just as they are not forced to commit suicide. They choose to do it. They also choose to think that their love is wrong. You also said that the majority of society supports gay marriage, so why do they feel that their love is wrong? The must be bothered by the views of what you called the “minority”. The views of the “minority” will not change if gay marriage is legalized so they will still feel the need to harm themselves.


“Pro- gay marriage should be legal which would make it equal to that of "traditional marriage". Civil unions are not the same as marriage because they do not carry the same social status.”


They do not carry the same social status because they do not contribute to society in the way that the majority of heterosexual marriages do. It should also not be made equal to a traditional marriage because it is not the same as a traditional marriage. A gay marriage will not result in a traditional family with traditional views. That is why they do not get the traditional benefits of marriage.


“I have actually proved that it has benefits for society”.


You have not proved the benefits for society. You have brought up the same points multiple times and I have rebutted them.


“How it benefits other societies is still a valid point as I have shown it has an affect on how other nations view America therefore still has an affect on American society”.


You state in round 3 that “by changing our laws to bring them into a 21st century world we tell the world that it is better to move forward”. According to what you say, the rest of the world will not change their views or laws unless we do. Therefore, if we do not change our laws or views, they will not change theirs either so they will not view us in any negative way.


" Family members will never be allowed to marry because inbreeding is biologically dangerous. Pets are not consenting adults so can't get married.”


Pets cannot get married because the law says that only consenting adults can get married. The law says that only a man and a woman can get married but gay marriage supporters are fighting to change that. People who want to marry their pets can fight to say that the definition and law needs to be changed so that animals can get married. You statement implies that family members should not be allowed to marry because they cannot produce healthy children even though they adopt or use a surrogate. Gay couples cannot produce healthy children without adoption or a surrogate either. Therefore, they should also not be allowed to get married because according to you, married couples have to be able to produce healthy children.


“Your own definitions state that the only difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage is legal recognition. They are the same thing so they should be called the same thing.”


My definitions state that one is between a heterosexual couple and one is between a homosexual couple. They are not the same thing. A man is not the same as a woman. So a couple composed of a man and a woman is not the same as a couple composed of two men or two women.


“In what way are we subsidizing their marriage? We are giving them the same legal recognition as heterosexual marriage which they have a right to.”


The legal recognition of a heterosexual marriage provides certain financial benefits when it comes to things like taxes and insurance. Giving gay couples the same legal recognition would subsidize their marriages by providing those financial benefits. Gay people have a right to those benefits when they marry someone of the opposite sex. Their rights are not being taken away from them. They are asking for more rights than everybody else because they want those benefits when they marry someone of the same sex too. Homosexual couples do not have a right to those benefits because they do not benefit society in the way heterosexual couples do, by producing children which are needed for the future.


[1] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...



My opponent has failed to prove why gay marriage should be legalized. He/she has not proved that it will provide any benefit to society. He/she also said things that could contradict his or her argument and was not always clear as to what she was debating.


I have proved that gay marriage should not be legalized because it does not produce the same benefits as the majority of heterosexual marriages. It would also require that the meaning of marriage be changed and lead others to fight that the meaning of marriage should be changed to suit their situations.


My opponent also used Wikipedia as a source and sources that were supporting the LGBT community. His/her only neutral source was CNN. I used neutral and reliable sources.


Vote Con


Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Connor666 4 years ago
Connor666
That was irrational of me to say that. And im sorry if i offended anyone. What i mean is that if god loves them he should not care whether they are straight or gay.
Posted by Connor666 4 years ago
Connor666
Screw god. No one knows if he is even real...
Posted by Guitar_Guru 4 years ago
Guitar_Guru
Yet another scenario where god is the center of conflict.
Posted by morganhill 4 years ago
morganhill
Homosexuality is disgusting, and against what god wanted for our world. I believe it is a serious psychological problem, that we should try to treat, not legalize them marrying eachother.
Posted by YoungBrain 4 years ago
YoungBrain
There was no vote bombing happening before but it seems as if pro has encouraged some vote bombs
Posted by Fluer 4 years ago
Fluer
@SDavy totally not a vote bomb
Posted by YoungBrain 4 years ago
YoungBrain
If the debate was suppose to be about defining what should be legal then the debate should have been "should the definition of marriage be changed". That was not the debate. It seems like nobody is understanding this.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
It is interesting to see how so many people will commit suicide do to orientation bullying. From my days in high school, it seemed to me that most people will generally accept them. And I live in Utah, which was among the most conservative states (probably not now-a-days).
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
CONT: Also, This debate is about defining what should be legal. Thus the definition of marriage used by cons is null and void, and looks like semantics.
Posted by Connor666 4 years ago
Connor666
You dont know what god is. No one knows. truth is no one will ever know till they die.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by ATL 4 years ago
ATL
FluerYoungBrainTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 4 years ago
DevonNetzley
FluerYoungBrainTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons lie within my vote.
Vote Placed by bcresmer 4 years ago
bcresmer
FluerYoungBrainTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: deserves a tie
Vote Placed by SDavy 4 years ago
SDavy
FluerYoungBrainTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not disprove cons arguments and seemed to be making a more emotional argument
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
FluerYoungBrainTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: While I am undecided on the issue of gay marriage, I am forced to give convincing arguments to PRO. Con never Properly introduced an arguments, more over, just produced rebuttals. Also Con is correct in saying that Pro contradicted himself when using the religous video, as religion should be removed from politics. Pro also used good sources. Due to not providing an opening case, Pro gets arguments and conduct. S/G to con, though not by much. You both has good grammar. Cont: in comments
Vote Placed by Lesterfreeman 4 years ago
Lesterfreeman
FluerYoungBrainTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dismantled pros case, though the cons case was not very strong, pro didn't unravel it. I must vote con, this was the better debator in these rounds.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
FluerYoungBrainTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried a cheap trick of defining marriage so that he won, but Pro pointed out that that's not the only way to define marriage. Pro gave several arguments that Con couldn't refute.
Vote Placed by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
FluerYoungBrainTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: good debate
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
FluerYoungBrainTied
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: YoungBrain's whole argument was semantic, and Fluer gave many reasons to legalise, and removed reasons not to.