The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
christiandebater
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States of America.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,100 times Debate No: 4185
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (116)
Votes (21)

 

libertarian

Pro

Gay marriage is great.

1. Gays do not have a choice to be gay and it is perfectly natural.
Homosexuality is found in animals and in societies that are completely isolated.
http://apahelpcenter.org...
http://www.gaywired.com...

2. Gays can take care of kids just as well, if not better, than heterosexuals.
http://apahelpcenter.org...

3. More couples means more families, which is great for society.

4. The definition of marriage can change. It'll deal.
There is such a thing as Old English. One word can deal with the change.

5. The government should not try to stop love. It is immoral.

6. Gays will be able to visit their sick partners in the hospital.

7. Gays will be able to automatically inherit money from their spouses.

8. There will be less orphans. Gays are statistically more likely to adopt special needs children.
christiandebater

Con

Hello libertarian. I look forward to this debate. Let's start with the rebuttals:

Gays do not have a choice to be gay and it is perfectly natural.
Homosexuality is found in animals and in societies that are completely isolated.
-Wow and you're accusing me of biased sources. Let's start with the animal myth. This link is from NARTH. It is a non-Christian center that researches homosexuality. It has evidence so don't accuse me of biased sources. http://www.narth.com...
As for the societies this has nothing to do with anything. Stealing occurs, murder occurs, lying occurs, as well as love, kindness, and morals. This fails to prove a gay gene. Your link simply told me what I should believe. It didn't give evidence on why I should believe it or how they arrived at that conclusion. I have 2 questions regarding this.
1.If there is a gay gene how come 99% of gays are born in heterosexual homes with heterosexual parents? If it's not a choice how can 2 straight parents produce a gay child? It simply makes no sense.
2.What about bisexuals? What gene do they have? If it's a time of questioning (which contradicts the theory of sexuality before the age of 5) how come so many carry that into adulthood? It makes no sense.

Gays can take care of kids just as well, if not better, than heterosexuals.
-This comment actually offended me. First off, you posted the same link twice. It really didn't have a lot to say on the issue. Second, it's one thing to say they can take care of kids just as well as heterosexuals (which I agree is probably true although I think a mother and a father in a good relationship are the best type of parents.) But it's another to say "if not better." So you're saying gays are better than straights. You demand equality but in this instance you demand you're better than us! We are people and we are equal! You CAN'T prove to me gays are better parents than straights! This is just a stupid statement I STRONGLY disagree with.

More couples means more families, which is great for society.
-First I would like to argue that any couple isn't good for society unless they are in an equal loving relationship. I have seen sites of gay marriage statistics saying it's "too early to tell" about the divorce and affair rates of gay marriage. However here is one that does say. It is not a neutral site but then again what is. Even Wikipedia can't achieve neutrality. This site takes surveys from all over the media and posts them on their site about gay marriage. http://www.pureloveclub.com...

The definition of marriage can change. It'll deal.
There is such a thing as Old English. One word can deal with the change.
-But should it change? It's not necessarily the definition that's important it's the meaning. Should the meaning change? If you change the meaning of marriage you could change the meaning of anything to fit your standards. This is sometimes what the liberals do to the Bible. (Sorry liberals but it's the truth.) And if you include homosexuals with the definition of marriage why stop? Why not include dogs, or plants, or chairs? When does it stop? There are actually people out there who agree with animal marriage. Think I'm crazy? http://www.marryyourpet.com...
http://cowtwngrl.blogspot.com...
http://www.canadafreepress.com...

The government should not try to stop love. It is immoral.
- You're right! They shouldn't stop love. However I have some points:
1.It is possible to love a person outside of marriage. Marriage is not necessary for love.
2.Gays tend to have high levels of promiscuity. Look at these statistics. Again, NARTH asked gays on the street what their levels of promiscuity were. This is what they said. http://www.narth.com... Is this morality to you?
3.Often being gay is a cry out for a relationship with the same-sex they never had with their parent. This is not love it is lust.

Gays will be able to visit their sick partners in the hospital.
-From here on it seems you've simply run out of points.
If the patient requests for you to see him/her then you don't have to be a family member or be married to the person to see the person. This is not a good reason to legalize gay marriage.

Gays will be able to automatically inherit money from their spouses.
-If you're mentioned in their will you will receive money. I don't see what point you're making. If they love you enough for you to receive money from them, there should be no problem.

There will be less orphans. Gays are statistically more likely to adopt special needs children.
-But will simply adopting them make their lives easier? http://www.narth.com...
Your argument is that gay marriage should be legalized. Single parents can adopt kids. This fails to prove why gay marriage should be legalized.

I have some points:

1.I find that a man and a woman in an equal loving relationship are the best parents to have. I believe this because it has been this way for centuries producing many loving families, showing the male and female role in society, and producing children. Having single parents or gay parents only confuses this process. While not all marriages result in families, families most of the time result from a marriage. A marriage binds the parents together, which is the ideal condition for raising children. Marriage is important because raising strong kids in strong families is important.
2.So, now the big question is who has the right to marry whom. Should anybody be allowed to marry anybody and raise a family? Anybody, meaning heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamists, and adult-child pairs. Yes, all of these exist, so it would be unfair to leave one out. Obviously, all of these groups should not be allowed to marry. Most people in the world should agree on that. One has to figure out which group is helping society the most, similar to how when you cook something, you strive to use only the best ingredients. Using ingredients that are not as good would diminish the quality of the food. A heterosexual couple can produce healthy children on their own. A homosexual couple, a incestual couple, and adult-child pair would either produce no children, or run a very high risk of producing a mentally retarded child. If you argue that they can have healthy children in another way, such as through adoption, a surrogate mother, or third-party sperm, you better be arguing that all three couples are allowed to obtain children by those means, or that would be discrimination. What about polygamy? Polygamists can produce healthy children just like heterosexual couples. However, the one spouse has to split their time between all the different spouses, often causing jealousy and confusion. So clearly, even though not all heterosexual couples produce children, they are the couple that has the best chance of producing new healthy children and raising them strong for a new generation. Allowing any other type of marriage would not promote this goal.
3.How come there are many gays who do not support gay marriage? It's so obvious that you think they have committed relationships so how can anyone not support it?
4.How could there have been "gay societies" when they would just die out? This further contradicts the gay gene theory.
5.Explain why there are ex-gays.
6.Explain how the gay gene is possible.
7.Explain why a gay gene has never been found when there's so much "evidence" to support it.
8.Do bisexuals, transgender, pedophiles, and bestiality people have a gene? If not, why?
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

I. The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)
I forgot to mention this aspect of the Constitution that shows that discrimination against marriage is illegal. In the interracial marriage case Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously voted against discrimination in marriage based on the Equal Protection Clause.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is fair for you to have to rebut this argument, because it is so important and you have ample time to rebut it, two rounds.

II. Topicality
My opening statement was simply an introduction to my position and self as a debater. The topic, in debate, is always what is to be debated. That is one of the few rules of debate. I am sorry to confuse you, but legality is an issue as well as naturality.

III. Natural Behavior Justification
You used the argument that violence is justified for its naturality. However, violence hurts people. Love does not hurt anybody. This is a common sense argument.

IV. Leviticus 20:13
A. This scripture was not presented by God. Most knowledgable Bible scholars, even the most conservative, will conceed that these rules are not from God. They are rather presented from Israeli religious leaders. They do not have the right, as well as any other human what is right or wrong.

B. Leviticus 20:2 reads "speak to the children of Israel." Christians are NOT the "children of Israel".

C. Leviticus also bans round haircuts and even playing with the skin of a pig (football).

V. Romans 1:24 - 27
A. These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies. This is the sin the Bible is referring to. God is obviously not condemning the way he created a group of people.

B. These people refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God.

C. The scripture says that God gave them up for vile affections against nature, but how is it referring to homosexuality, which is proven to be from birth? And is natural? It is not referring to homosexuality. That is an incorrect assumption.

D. Romans 2 begins with the scripture "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." That is what Romans 1 is about: judging others, not homosexuality. How dare you twist a message from God for your own personal benefit to spread hate!

VI. You Being A Jerk
DO NOT try to convert me to your religion or your sexual preference! I know what I am and who I am. I am not sinning, as I have proven. However, you are for being judgmental. There are only 6 scriptures that can be twisted to condemn homosexuality. While a main message of your Bible is to not judge others! Practice what you preach, buddy.

VII. My sources
My related sources all stated that homosexuality is natural and at least partially genetic.

VIII. Scientific Consensus
You have the nerve to only copy and paste the part of my source that states that there is no scientific consensus on the GENETICS of homosexuality. However, among respectable scientific sources that are not biased the consensus is that homosexuality is in part genetic or set in very early in life. It is unfair and dishonest that you only copy and paste one part of the source just like you did with the Bible.

IX. From the Comment Box
>>>The Bible says "Anyone who curses their mother or farther is put to death."
"This was primarily in the Old Testament, or the Jewish law. A lot of these commandments don't apply to us today since Jesus came and fulfilled the law of the Old Testament.

How dare you!!! You can't pick and choose what Jesus likes and dislikes. You can't say God hates the gays in Leviticus and then say that you don't apply because it's the Old Testament. You loose the Leviticus argument, because you don't agree with it yourself. I am truly disgusted by your level of dishonesty in the name of religion.

X. Gay Parents
I said that gays can take care of kids just as well if not better. I hardly demanded gays are better parents as you stated. There is no scientific source stating that gays are not good parents. It does not hurt the child socially. Gay marriage will bring about less orphans, which is a good thing.
[http://www. apa. org /pi/parent. html]
[http://www. urban. org/ publications/411437. html]

XI. "First I would like to argue that any couple isn't good for society unless they are in an equal loving relationship."

Gays have equal loving relationship.

XII. "I have seen sites of gay marriage statistics saying it's "too early to tell" about the divorce and affair rates of gay marriage."

A. Theres a first time for everything. There is no reason to think it wont work.

B. Show these sources, if they're accurate or even existent.

XIII. pureloveclub.com
Did you just show an anti-gay biased website to try and prove that gays don't want gay marriage!?

XIV. Don't change the meaning of the Bible [like Liberals].
A. Conservatives change the meaning of the Bible to include hate.

XV. Gay marriages are like dog and plant marriages.
Gays are human beings! We should not be second class citizens! Two humans who love each other should be able to get married!

XVI. "It is possible to love a person outside of marriage. Marriage is not necessary for love."
If you're acknowledging that it is love, then why are you supporting denying marriage rights? How does marriage hurt anybody? Marriage helps families and loving couples.

XVII. Gays tend to have high levels of promiscuity. (narth.com)

A. This is a dumb stereotype, that is simply untrue!

B. NARTH is the single most biased organization in the world!

C. Isn't promiscuity a reason to let people get married so they will only have one partner?

XVIII. "Often being gay is a cry out for a relationship with the same-sex they never had with their parent. This is not love it is lust."

I'll try to be respectful here, but it's really difficult, because you're not being respectful. You're lying here! This has never been substantiated! Psychologists can predict if a child will be gay in preschool. Most kids have a great relationship with their parents in preschool. Homosexuality is atleast in part biological. Period.

XIX. "If the patient requests for you to see him/her then you don't have to be a family member or be married to the person to see the person."
Lying again!
[http://www. clgs. org/ marriage/sermon_small. html]

XX. Gays will inherit money from spouses like in straight families
A. The fact that it is in any way different is dispicable and dicriminatory.

B. Some people simply don't have wills because of untimely deaths. Their money should go to their lover, not the state. Why would you advocate this inconvenience? And discrimiation?

XXI. Adopting kids does not make kids' lives better (narth)
A. That makes no sense! Kids are better off in a safe, loving home than a crowded, uncaring orphanage.

B. Stop using NARTH!

XXII. There is no proof or truth that gays are not good parents. Don't use surveys about kids with only one parent. That's not the same model.

XXIII. Where does gay marriage end?

Marriage ends with two loving human beings.

XXIV. I don't know any gays that don't support gay marriage. Maybe they support civil unions.

XXV. The Greeks were a bisexual society.

XXVI. There are not ex-gays. Therapy has a 0% success rate. Show me a scientific source that disagrees! You can't

XXVII. I NEVER SAID A GAY GENE! I said it has proven to be natural.

XXVIII. Transgenders and bisexuals are biological.

Support love! Not lies + hate!
christiandebater

Con

Alright let's start Round 2. Ding, ding!

The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)
-This specifically mentioned marriage. The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. To make this applicable you must first change the definition of marriage which I explained why we shouldn't above.

Topicality
-Alright but if you make a point expect me to address it. It's common sense.

Natural Behavior Justification
-When did I say anything about violence? Show me where I said violence.

Leviticus 20:13
-Um, ok I don't remember saying anything about this either but…

-How do you know it wasn't inspired by God? Were any of us there to see it written? No. This was necessary in the tribes of Israel to keep the culture alive and healthy. If anyone was unclean from a wrongdoing that person must die for making the whole culture unclean.

-You're right the Jews were the children of Israel. This applied to them. However it is reiterated in the New Testament so it is still wrong.

-This was also necessary to keep a unique culture among the Israelites. Round haircuts were probably significant about something bad at the time (kind of like the mohawk although this isn't bad necessarily) and to play with the skin of a pig you had to kill a pig which was their precious livestock. Neither of these are reiterated so it no longer applies.

Romans 1:24 – 27
-I am sure that in this condemnation that Paul is including that, but the text does not state that this is what the focus of the text is. This text is a condemnation of men having sex with men and women with women.

-You're assuming that God created people gay. If this was true He would have openly announced it so as to avoid any confusion. The assumption that the writers of the Bible had no knowledge of gay as a gene is to say God had no knowledge of this. This is false.

-Judging is being cruel to another for no reason. I am not being cruel.

"How dare you twist a message from God for your own personal benefit to spread hate!"
-How dare you accuse me of something I didn't even say! I didn't even mention the Bible before you did.

You Being A Jerk
-I'm sorry you feel this way libertarian. I don't think you're a jerk.

-I'm not judging you! If I was judging you my argument would be like this:
"You sick, ignorant, fool. How could you go against the Bible! etc."

-We aren't twisting. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong as I showed.

My sources
-I know that. It doesn't make them correct though.

Scientific Consensus
-Are you feeling all right libertarian? I…NEVER…DID…THIS!!!! Stop accusing me of things I never did or said! And just because it is a consensus doesn't make it right. People once thought the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe.

From the Comment Box
-I don't choose. The Christians of the New Testament do. Homosexuality is reiterated in the New Testament so it is applicable. Round haircuts and skins of pigs aren't.

Gay Parents
-Alright if you say so. That "if not better" thing really irked me though. The sites you provided had evidence that they can take care of kids just as well. (claps) I of course said this as well. However I stand by my original belief. And if it brought about less orphans why would they go in the surrogate business. And what's wrong with orphans? They can be adopted by good people.

Gays have equal loving relationship.
-Are you saying ALL of them do? I gave the promiscuity argument above.

There's a first time for everything.
-I know.

Show these sources,
-A lot of these sites says it's "too early to tell" about the statistics of gay marriage. http://search.yahoo.com...

pureloveclub.com
-No. If you read the link it showed a poll of gays promiscuity rates.

Don't change the meaning of the Bible [like Liberals].
-I'm sure some do. But bottom line if the person is a good Christian they won't change the Bible meanings.

Gay marriages are like dog and plant marriages.
-What about a man and a dog loving each other? Shoudn't they be allowed to get married? And children and grown men? What about them? This was the example I was using.

"It is possible to love a person outside of marriage.
-I should have made my point more clear. I meant if two people love each other there should be no need for marriage. I'm challenging the fact of how many gays actually love each other.

Gays tend to have high levels of promiscuity.
-If it's a stereotype how come I found statistics on it? You failed to disprove it.

-Yet you fail to disprove it. Just because something's biased doesn't make it unreliable. Here's the definition of bias. http://dictionary.reference.com... Using these definitions neither of our sources are biased.

-My point is if they have promiscuity should they get married in the first place since some of them can't hold partners. This goes for any straights too. People with high promiscuity shouldn't get married.

Psychologists can predict if a child will be gay in preschool.
-How? Just because someone acts different doesn't mean they're gay! It's a stereotype in most cases. And this could be proof that since they didn't spend a lot of time with they're same-sex parent they don't see how men/women are supposed to act.

Most kids have a great relationship with their parents in preschool.
-Some kids are abused everyday from birth on up. How do you rationalize this?

Homosexuality is at least in part biological.
-Then tell me when they discover the gay gene please. 30 years and counting…

"If the patient requests for you to see
-Your link didn't show what the issue was. I was talking about people seeing each other in hospitals.

Gays will inherit money from spouses like in straight families
-It's not different. If someone mentions you in their will it is no different.

-This is why I advocate against estate tax. So things like this don't happen.

Adopting kids does not make kids' lives better

-Why do you say orphanages are crowded and uncaring. The mere fact that an orphanage is there makes it caring. And how many orphanages are crowded?

-Why? You failed to disprove it.

XXII.
-If you looked at my link it showed it's good if parents have male and female roll models. That way they know how to treat their spouse.

Where does gay marriage end?
-What about dogs and humans? Both can love each other so why not? What about pedophiles? If you wanted to marry an adult and the law forbids it why would that be wrong? It's obvious not everyone should marry who or what ever they want.

I don't know any gays that don't support gay marriage.
http://www.rabble.ca...
http://theosebes.blogspot.com...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.classicalvalues.com...
http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com...

The Greeks were a bisexual society.
-This has nothing to do with my point. I said gay societies.

XXVI. There are not ex-gays.

-Change is hard for anything. Why do you think it's so hard for alcoholics to quit? I have some arguments though:
1.It depends on the organization you're using. If you go into an organization that "forces" people to turn straight they will have little success if at all. If one of them teaches love it is a lot easier to cooperate with them.
2.0% is a big claim. I've read stories about people who became straight. It is possible.
3.Here is a statistic. www.christianpost.com/article/20070915/29318_Ex-Gay_Study:_'Conversion'_is_Possible.htm

I NEVER SAID A GAY GENE! I said it has proved to be natural.
-How can something be natural if it's not in their genes. That's like saying "just because I said red doesn't mean I'm referring to color." And you didn't answer the question.

LOOK AT THE COMMENTS
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

libertarian forfeited this round.
christiandebater

Con

It seems as if you've gotten pretty busy libertarian. No matter. You've taken on a lot of debates at once so it's understandable.

I. The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

I stand by my point of the definition of marriage not being changed.

III. Natural Behavior Justification

I can't refute this because I never said it. I don't know what you're talking about.

IV. Leviticus 20:13

I stand by my point of Jesus fulfilling the law of the Old Testament. If homosexuality wasn't reiterated in the New Testament it would be accepted by all Christians. But it is so it is a sin.

V. Romans 1:24 - 27

This clearly states a man with a man and a woman with a woman. Simple as that.

VI. You Being A Jerk

I don't think you're a jerk and I'm not judging you. If you don't want me to try to convert you to my viewpoint then you shouldn't have challenged me to this debate. I'm not calling you a jerk because you're trying t convert me. That's what a debate is. Your statement is hypocritical.

VIII. Scientific Consensus

I've read this over 10 times and it still doesn't make sense.

1. I never did this. If you're accusing me of something I didn't do just to win a debate that is wrong. I don't do that to you.

2.You said nothing about genetics. How could I copy and paste something you didn't even say?

3.I said nothing about the Bible before you did. This entire statement is completely ludicrous. I don't get it.

Gays have equal loving relationship.

Not all do. You need proof.

Two humans who love each other should be able to get married!

What about a human and his dog? Look at me and my dog. We both love each other so why would it be wrong for us to get married. Obviously not everything that involves love should be moral.

This is a dumb stereotype, that is simply untrue!

Then please prove it. I'm asking for 1 or 2 reliable links. It's not that difficult.

Isn't promiscuity a reason to let people get married so they will only have one partner?

That's like saying "Shouldn't we combine all the races together so we only have one race?" It won't work.

I think I've refuted everything else in Round 2. I'm sorry you weren't able to respond libertarian. Maybe next time. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
116 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by christiandebater 9 years ago
christiandebater
bacon

I did not say NARTH was biased. Although you don't have to if you really want to prove me wrong show me where I said this. Even if I did say it, it doesn't make it true. And yes. Although biased doesn't mean unreliable like you said two sides to everything is always good. (That's why debate.org is good.) That's why I don't use biased sources. I was just making a point.
Posted by bacon 9 years ago
bacon
sr bo the spelling either my fingers r now stiff or my keeyboard is losing batery and not using the all the keys i punch
Posted by bacon 9 years ago
bacon
ok but i think u have said narth was baised not making it a good source and please dont ask me to search through all thses pages or all ur debates but i saw it. ayways ur right biased doesnt make it unreliabel but it gives a one sided stroy only on the negatives but there is ALMOST alwyas a good side to everything. and yea i agree with ur homo phobic term too but people call homosexuals homo or gay for short and gay alos means happy so the cant use gayphobia and homophobia stuck in better. but w.e
Posted by christiandebater 9 years ago
christiandebater
bacon (lol, the spelling)

Sorry it's been a while. 4th of July vacation.

"If usk a ai prson about his black neighbor..."

I stand by my argument. Biased doesn't necessarily mean unreliable. If the racist neighbor tells another neighbor about the black man's character some of the things might be true. (Such as the black man getting out of jail recently or something like that.) Or some things might not be true. The best way to find out is to ask the black neighbor yourself.

NARTH is not biased because they are not prejudiced against homosexuals. The broad definition of prejudice means "hatred of." NARTH does not hate homosexuals. Some people in the past have hated them but NARTH has fired all persons who openly hate homosexuals. There is a difference between hating a PERSON and hating their ACTIONS. I could hate it when someone drinks and smokes but I could love them as a person. There is a difference.

Another thing. Homophobia does not mean hatred of homosexuals. The gay community coined this term on their own. Homo- means "same" and -phobia means "fear of." So it would mean "fear of the same." It has nothing to do with homosexuals.
Posted by bacon 9 years ago
bacon
CD
"Just because something's biased doesn't make it unreliable."
If usk a ai prson about his black neighbor whom he has had few intecctiions with and he says ony egatie things wilu taae whaat he says into accunt of the bllck mans chaarter.
-First of all that seems illlogiccllbeccuueewy would you ask a racit aout his bla neighbor because we knw his answer will be biased ggiist theenbbr so why wouldyou go to lesa a homophobic site to get information on gay marraige when you will only get negative answers
Posted by HellKat 9 years ago
HellKat
Meh, it's not really important, I doubt I could explain it, that would probably just confuse everybody.
Posted by christiandebater 9 years ago
christiandebater
bacon

"u need a shorter name"

call me CD and I'll know who you're talking about.

"if ur sources where biased which narth is"

Whoa, back up. How was Narth biased? The definition said "prejudice." Here is the definition of prejudice. http://dictionary.reference.com... Overall the basic definition is "a preconceived notion based without knowledge." If I hated sugar for no reason other than the fact I didn't like it, that would be prejudice against sugar. If I showed knowledge of why I hated sugar such as statistics on diabetics, obesity, and overall health then this would not be prejudice. Since Narth has overall reasoning for what they do they are not prejudice. Not to mention there is a difference between hating a person and hating their actions.

"it will hate on gay marriage"

However there is a reason they dislike gay marriage so it is not biased. And there is not one definition of biased which means "unreliable." I am personally opposed to biased sources, but if I did use one, chances are it would still be reliable.
Posted by christiandebater 9 years ago
christiandebater
Hellkat

If you tell me what you're confused about I will be happy to explain.
Posted by bacon 9 years ago
bacon
-Yet you fail to disprove it. Just because something's biased doesn't make it unreliable. Here's the definition of bias. http://dictionary.reference.com...... Using these definitions neither of our sources are biased.

yea so today i actually read ur debate in an effort to get u to argue with me again lol.
i read it and i got
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

if ur sorces where baised which narth is then it would fit this because it will hate on gay marraige so i see it as fitting the definition
Posted by bacon 9 years ago
bacon
christiandebater
like those but u kno it is sumthin i need to answer myself cuz i can take what u say but its gonna go into a big pile of facts that i have to sort through but u r helping.

second thing i would like to say is u need a shorter name cuz i dont like typing it out.

Three is that ur arging with another person has me offended i cant belive i leave for a few days and u have a new argue budy. lol jp but yea ur last thing is kind of confusing i get it but it took a while
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by libertarian 9 years ago
libertarian
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
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 Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 9 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
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 Killer542 9 years ago
Killer542
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ally93 9 years ago
ally93
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by AdventureCat 9 years ago
AdventureCat
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
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 dbershevits 9 years ago
dbershevits
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 9 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
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 HellKat 9 years ago
HellKat
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
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 Dorian 9 years ago
Dorian
libertarianchristiandebaterTied
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