The Instigator
heyitsjay
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
mongoose
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

Gay marriage should not be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
heyitsjay
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,637 times Debate No: 8420
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

heyitsjay

Pro

I take the affirmative side of the topic and will give a brief summary for my reasons in support of my case.

First I will define key terms:

Gay: To be happy or another way of saying homosexual
(in this case, it refers to homosexuality of course)

Marriage: Union of individuals that creates kinship.

Kinship: (To give a brief meaning) Relationship.

I as well as many other people in the world are pro gay marriage. There are those who dispute it and say it is "immoral", though of course their ideal of immoral refers to the biblical term "sin".

Immoral:
-Against what is right
-Against the Bible

Sin: a violation or something told not to do in biblical law (referring to Christ).

I argue that what is thought to be right and wrong is all in determination upon a large group of people, this would mean the US. Then on the other hand, what is right and wrong is all to be an opinion upon the union. An opinion is simply not fact. Therefore, how can anyone prove that homosexuality or the partnership of homosexuals is wrong? Simply, no one can.

As for sin. The Bible states many things that are immoral. Like shaving your beard for example is immoral. Many would say that God "hates" homosexuals. God did create everyone yes? So how exactly can He hate his own creation? He did after all create everyone including homosexuals. I can only argue that the ideal of hatred against gays is only a mere act of discrimination.

The United States grants freedom to any person no matter gender, race, ideology, religion, etc. The Constitution to grants freedom as well as the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights. For the US to take the right of partnership between those who are homosexual away is no different than taking the right of marriage away from two people who we would call "straight" or non-homosexual. I affirm that banning gay marriage is no different than banning any right, therefore it is unconstitutional.

To who ever may accept this debate...
Your are free to proceed with your opening statement in support of your case.

Thank you!
mongoose

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate.

I accept the definitions.

"I argue that what is thought to be right and wrong is all in determination upon a large group of people, this would mean the US. Then on the other hand, what is right and wrong is all to be an opinion upon the union. An opinion is simply not fact. Therefore, how can anyone prove that homosexuality or the partnership of homosexuals is wrong? Simply, no one can."

No one? Watch.

Wrong: not in accordance with what is morally right or good. [1]
Morally: in a moral manner [2]
Moral: opposite of immoral [3]
Immoral: against the bible [as said by opponent]

So the partnership of homosexuals is against the bible, therefore immoral, therefore not moral, therefore not morally right or good, therefore wrong. See? It can be proven.

"As for sin. The Bible states many things that are immoral. Like shaving your beard for example is immoral. Many would say that God "hates" homosexuals. God did create everyone yes? So how exactly can He hate his own creation? He did after all create everyone including homosexuals. I can only argue that the ideal of hatred against gays is only a mere act of discrimination."

What do you mean, how can He hate his own creation? That's easy. If you do a science project and you don't like it, you might hate it. The hatred against gays is because it is immoral. It's the same way we hate serial killers. Is it discrimination to hate them?

"The United States grants freedom to any person no matter gender, race, ideology, religion, etc. The Constitution to grants freedom as well as the Bill of Rights and the Civil Rights. For the US to take the right of partnership between those who are homosexual away is no different than taking the right of marriage away from two people who we would call 'straight' or non-homosexual. I affirm that banning gay marriage is no different than banning any right, therefore it is unconstitutional."

What about the "right" to run around naked? Somehow, I think it makes sense to remove that "right." The difference between taking the right of partnership of homosexuals and heterosexuals is that the former is immoral, similar to the running around naked thing. If you want to defend your stance, try defending the right of people to run around naked. Hard, isn't it?

"To who ever may accept this debate...
Your are free to proceed with your opening statement in support of your case."

As I did.

"Thank you!"

You're welcome.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://thesaurus.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
heyitsjay

Pro

I thank my opponent for his prompt response to my previous statement.

My opponent has agreed to the definitions for the key terms listed in round 1.

I will proceed with countering my opponent's responses.

Counter Argument 1.
Like I have stated, our definition of right and wrong is all in determination of our own opinion. For example, you think homosexual marriage is wrong, therefore you consider it to be immoral. Proven before, this is your opinion as well as many others who feel the same way. Opinion can be supported by facts but cannot be proven to be true if only an opinion.

I ask this simple question...
How exactly can homosexuality be immoral if it does not cause any harm?

Fact: God teaches us to love not hate, not to discriminate. Taking a right away from a specific group of people is in FACT discrimination. Therefore, it violates biblical law as well as the Constitution.

I would like to note that the Bible was not written by God. It is only our interpretation of morality, A.K.A. our opinion of what God thinks is right. But can we prove that God's beliefs match to those of the Bible? With the evidence proven, no it cannot. If what the Bible says is true, then the Bible contradicts itself entirely.

For example: Do not hate, only love. Yet if you are homosexual, you are condemned to hell? Contradiction 1.
Contradiction 2: The Bible states you can love who ever you may please, yet it states you cannot love someone of the same gender? How contradictory!

I would also like to remind the audience that for the years of the Bible being around. For thousands of years, how are we so sure that it was not reformatted? Everything that we interpreted could have been reformatted. Though of course not saying this is true, it is only a theory.

Counter Argument 2.
Let me clarify why the government of the US makes laws that prohibit things like running around naked. The Constitution, Bill of rights, as well as the Civil Rights grant freedom to all men yes. This freedom is the type that allows the people of the United States to have a fair life with equal treatment to that of others. Running around naked may be an example of freedom. But the US makes certain laws that are appropriate for the people. Running around naked is inappropriate. Therefore it is harmful to the people and the government prohibits it. Homosexual marriage on the other hand is only an act of union no different to marriage between different gendered people. Therefore it is unharmful and the government has no way of saying it can be banned without evidence it is harmful.

Contention 1.
We certainly cannot compare politics with religion. Because the Bible states certain things that can cause people to be too radical, we cannot follow it's set of rules. Especially considering the fact it is only our interpretation of God. In addition, the Bible is all one large contradiction to itself, why should we follow a set of rules when we are supposed to be a free nation, because the Bible takes away some of the freedom some of us would like to endure.

Further more, I extend my arguments.

Thank you!
mongoose

Con

"Like I have stated, our definition of right and wrong is all in determination of our own opinion. For example, you think homosexual marriage is wrong, therefore you consider it to be immoral. Proven before, this is your opinion as well as many others who feel the same way. Opinion can be supported by facts but cannot be proven to be true if only an opinion."

The definition of wrong is "not in accordance with what is morally right or good", which is not an opinion but a fact. I'm going through the logic backwards: it is immoral, so it is wrong. This I have proved with the statements made in round 1 in my list of definitions. It can be "proven true" by using facts, as I have done, because definitions are considered facts.

"I ask this simple question...
How exactly can homosexuality be immoral if it does not cause any harm?"

Because it is against the Bible (as given by your definition from round 1). I will elaborate later.

"Fact: God teaches us to love not hate, not to discriminate. Taking a right away from a specific group of people is in FACT discrimination. Therefore, it violates biblical law as well as the Constitution."

It's not taking a right away from a specific group. It takes the right away from everybody. Whether or not everybody wanted the right in the first place is irrelevant. Additionally, in order for a right to be a right, it must remove the rights of others. I can elaborate on this if you want me to.

"I would like to note that the Bible was not written by God. It is only our interpretation of morality, A.K.A. our opinion of what God thinks is right. But can we prove that God's beliefs match to those of the Bible? With the evidence proven, no it cannot. If what the Bible says is true, then the Bible contradicts itself entirely."

How does it necessarily contradict itself? In order to do that, it would have to claim to be wrong, or not what God wants, which it clearly does not do.

"For example: Do not hate, only love. Yet if you are homosexual, you are condemned to hell? Contradiction 1.
Contradiction 2: The Bible states you can love who ever you may please, yet it states you cannot love someone of the same gender? How contradictory!"

There is a difference between love and marriage. It could be "brotherly love." Love and sex are not the same thing. It doesn't say you can't love somebody of the same gender. It says you can't have sex with them.

"I would also like to remind the audience that for the years of the Bible being around. For thousands of years, how are we so sure that it was not reformatted? Everything that we interpreted could have been reformatted. Though of course not saying this is true, it is only a theory."

It has existed long enough, with enough different copies, so that it could not be reformatted. That would involve destroying all previous copies of the Bible.

"Let me clarify why the government of the US makes laws that prohibit things like running around naked. The Constitution, Bill of rights, as well as the Civil Rights grant freedom to all men yes. This freedom is the type that allows the people of the United States to have a fair life with equal treatment to that of others. Running around naked may be an example of freedom. But the US makes certain laws that are appropriate for the people. Running around naked is inappropriate. Therefore it is harmful to the people and the government prohibits it. Homosexual marriage on the other hand is only an act of union no different to marriage between different gendered people. Therefore it is unharmful and the government has no way of saying it can be banned without evidence it is harmful."

Homosexuality is inappropriate. It is not natural, and if done, could lead to the extinction of the human race because nobody would be reproducing. Therefore, it is harmful to the people and the government should prohibit it. This is using your logic. Where is your proof that people running around naked would be "harmful?" Until you find this proof, I have won this argument.

"We certainly cannot compare politics with religion. Because the Bible states certain things that can cause people to be too radical, we cannot follow it's set of rules. Especially considering the fact it is only our interpretation of God. In addition, the Bible is all one large contradiction to itself, why should we follow a set of rules when we are supposed to be a free nation, because the Bible takes away some of the freedom some of us would like to endure."

Why can't we compare politics with religion? You give no reasoning. And why can't we follow the Bible? Again, you don't have reasons. Just because it is only our interpretation of God does not mean that it shouldn't be followed. There is a high chance that it is His wishes. I'm sure that many crazy people out there would love to run around naked, and feel that we are taking away their freedoms. You must respond to them in the same way that you must respond to gay marriage.

"Further more, I extend my arguments."

I will also extend my arguments.

You're welcome, and thank you again for this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
heyitsjay

Pro

I thank my opponent again for his response. I will now post my final words in this round.

I would like for the audience to read these statements:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity,
provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."
-U.S. Constitution

"We the people" refers to all the people of the US. Basically this means that all people in the US will be granted liberty.

Liberty: Political philosophy meaning people may act freely according to his or her own will.

Contention 1./Counter Argument 1.
Liberty is granted to all men and women in the US. Be mentioning all men, this includes the population of homosexuals. My opponent stated that by taking the right for gays to marry is not just taking the right from homosexuals, but everyone in general. This is only partially true. I certainly dispute that all of us are homosexuals. Therefore there are certain people who are. The population of homosexuals is classified as the gay community, therefore meaning a specific group of people. So, my opponent is incorrect. The act of eliminating gay marriage turns out to be taking the right from a specific group of people because the topic is specifically about homosexuals. In this case, not all people are granted liberty.

"I pledge allegiance
To the flag
of the United States of America
And to the republic
For which it stands
One nation
Under God, Indivisible
With liberty and justice for all"
-United States Pledge of Allegiance

Here again, we have granted freedom, liberty and justice to all. "For all", I might add. When taking the right for gays to be married away but still allowing straight marriage is not justice at all. Like said before, it is a mere act of discrimination. This violates the United States policy, Constitution, Civil Rights, Bill of Rights, etc. Certainly this cannot be allowed.

Contention 2./Counter Argument 2.
My opponent pleads morality. But this morality is in accordance with his idea of right and wrong. He disputes that what is right and wrong is all our own opinion. I dispute his philosophy. We have been taught by our parents and many other people what is right and what is wrong. This occurs to everyone but some parents and others teach us different ideals of what is right and wrong. Clearly if one person says one thing is right and the other says it is wrong, then it is obvious that it is all in determination of their opinion. Immorality only comes from our idea of what is wrong. My opponent disputes this as well as the fact that homosexuality is not immoral. Although he is incorrect.

Contention 3./Counter Argument 3.
We, meaning the US, share equality. My opponent mentions the Bible quite often in his arguments. He solemnly states that the Bible is the book of Christ. Yes this is true, but it was not written by Christ. It was written by a human being who had his own opinion of what he thought God thought was right and wrong. We cannot prove that the Bible is in exact accordance with God's message. And with the Bible being around for so long, look at the possibility after being modernized often, that slowly it came to be too radical.

Believers of God know that He created everyone. This includes homosexuals. By discriminating against homosexuals, we are not being fair, we are being hateful. This is in violation of the Bible as well.

Contention 4.
People dispute that people are born gay. This is absolutely false. People are infact born gay. If people can be born mentally challenged, then the possibility of a man or woman having more opposite sex chromosomes is 100% possible.
For example, there was a woman in a local supermarket near my house whom we visited quite often. She was a lesbian. One day she was in tears because she tried to commit suicide three times all due to persecution. Many people would say that she only chose to be a lesbian so that she could gain attention from the world. How could this be if she is in tears from suicide attempts? It is strictly impossible. Obviously if she chose to be a lesbian, she would not try to kill herself. It is immoral to be gay but it is not immoral to oppress and to hate? I absolutely, positively, 100% disagree with full heart.

Another example is the Laramie, Wyoming murder. This was mainly about a homosexual who was condemned for being a gay and was killed for it. Many people in the community segregated from gays, but at the funeral and court trial is where they found in their hearts discrimination is wrong. The murderers thought he was immoral but it was moral of them to kill him? How can this represent freedom, liberty and justice for all. It simply cannot.

Contention 5./Counter Argument 4.
My opponent made it very clear to me that he thinks homosexuality is immoral.

"Homosexuality is inappropriate. It is not natural, and if done, could lead to the extinction of the human race because nobody would be reproducing. Therefore, it is harmful to the people and the government should prohibit it. This is using your logic. Where is your proof that people running around naked would be "harmful?" Until you find this proof, I have won this argument."

He proved here his radical behavior as well as his overseen contentions. I will present my response in the following way.

First of all he has brought up an irrelevant topic: Allowing homosexuality. This is not the topic. The topic is allowing gay marriage. He is too jurassic when he mentions the extinction of mankind. First of all, allowing gay marriage will not stop people from being gay, it is absolutely uncontrollable. Overall, just because a couple is married does not mean they are going to have kids.

Let me point this out. It is not immoral for two teenagers to get married, not love each other and end up with children they can't support. But allowing two people who just happen to be the same gender and really love each other to be married is immoral? This cannot simply be true.

My opponent states homosexuality is immoral and should be prohibited. We are supposed to be a free nation. By taking peoples' freedom of being a certain way and saying we are a free nation is absolutely contradictory. We would not be a free nation, we would be a dictorial one.

Examples of dictorial nations: Joseph Stalin of the USSR/Russia (communist) and Adolph Hitler of the Nazi Party/Germany (fascist). Both these two nations spoke out clearly that being gay as well as being Jewish was immoral and they took action. The US on the other hand disputed this. It would absolutely be hypocritical for the US to rant freedom, liberty and justice but in the end not provide none of those. We would not be a free nation, only a dictorial. And all dictorial nations have suffered great loses all due to their blindness of what is moral and immoral.

In conclusion, I affirm that allowing Gay marriage is an act of freedom and banning it is discrimination and is dictortial. We as a nation are supposed to negate dictators as well as discrimination. Our conception of right and wrong is all upon our determination. My opponent disputes this, even though that is fact. Banning gay marriage will not stop people from being homosexual. Basically meaning homosexuality cannot stop for as long as people have a way of seeing the world as well as being born an individual. We are a nation under God but have our own conception of what is right. Our conception is freedom of the people to be independent and have the right to pursue their own measure of happiness. I have countered all of my opponent's arguments and have proven much more. Besides opinion, there is absolutely no legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.

Thank You!
mongoose

Con

Time for the final round.

"Liberty is granted to all men and women in the US...."

Not really. Homosexuals aren't being discriminated against. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry those of the same sex. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry those of the same sex. See? Same rights. It takes the rights from all people, not just gays. For example, most people do not want to run around naked. However, nobody is allowed to run around naked. Is this discriminating against those who want to run around naked? No.

"My opponent pleads morality...."

If Bob says that 2+2=5, and Joe says that 2+2=4, does that make those opinions? No, it means that Bob is stupid. Just because people disagree does not mean that neither one is right. Your contention is not necessarily correct.

"We, meaning the US, share equality. My opponent mentions the Bible quite often in his arguments. He solemnly states that the Bible is the book of Christ. Yes this is true, but it was not written by Christ. It was written by a human being who had his own opinion of what he thought God thought was right and wrong...."

He doesn't have to write it for it to be the book of Him. It was written by many human beings, who were talked to by God. We can't prove anything in history. Can we prove that the Constitution had all of those signatures? Maybe some were faked. We can't tell. But because it has been around for so long, and more and more copies were made, it would become harder and harder to edit them all, so your reasoning that it could steadily change over time is incorrect.

"Believers of God know that He created everyone. This includes homosexuals. By discriminating against homosexuals, we are not being fair, we are being hateful. This is in violation of the Bible as well."

As I have mentioned, we are not discriminating against them. These laws apply to everybody. Said who that it was hateful? It is just for the better of society.

"People dispute that people are born gay. This is absolutely false. People are infact born gay. If people can be born mentally challenged, then the possibility of a man or woman having more opposite sex chromosomes is 100% possible.
For example, there was a woman in a local supermarket near my house whom we visited quite often. She was a lesbian...."

"Opposite sex chromosomes?" That doesn't make any sense. How is her wanting attention impossible? She could try to kill herself anyway. You can't really tell. As I have said, it is not oppressive or hateful, but for the good of the nation.

"Another example is the Laramie, Wyoming murder. This was mainly about a homosexual who was condemned for being a gay and was killed for it. Many people in the community segregated from gays, but at the funeral and court trial is where they found in their hearts discrimination is wrong. The murderers thought he was immoral but it was moral of them to kill him? How can this represent freedom, liberty and justice for all. It simply cannot."

It was not moral to kill him. I never said that it was. It doesn't represent freedom, liberty, or justice. The point here is that murder is immoral. This is hardly relevant.

"My opponent made it very clear to me that he thinks homosexuality is immoral."

Correct.

"First of all he has brought up an irrelevant topic: Allowing homosexuality. This is not the topic. The topic is allowing gay marriage. He is too jurassic when he mentions the extinction of mankind. First of all, allowing gay marriage will not stop people from being gay, it is absolutely uncontrollable. Overall, just because a couple is married does not mean they are going to have kids."

You were the one who brought up homosexuality in the first round, defining what "gay" meant. I know that the extinction point was exaggerated, but I put it anyway. How would allowing gay marriage stop people from being gay in the first place? Your point is obvious. I never said that married couples will have kids. They just usually do, while gay couples do not.

"Let me point this out. It is not immoral for two teenagers to get married, not love each other and end up with children they can't support. But allowing two people who just happen to be the same gender and really love each other to be married is immoral? This cannot simply be true."

That's because it isn't true. I never said that the former situation was moral. They both seem to be immoral.

"My opponent states homosexuality is immoral and should be prohibited. We are supposed to be a free nation. By taking peoples' freedom of being a certain way and saying we are a free nation is absolutely contradictory. We would not be a free nation, we would be a dictorial one."

So we should allow homosexuality, but not allow people to run around naked? That is a right that some crazy people out there would like to have, and you aren't letting them have it. Is this contradictory, no, it's not.

"Examples of dictorial nations: Joseph Stalin of the USSR/Russia (communist) and Adolph Hitler of the Nazi Party/Germany (fascist). Both these two nations spoke out clearly that being gay as well as being Jewish was immoral and they took action. The US on the other hand disputed this. It would absolutely be hypocritical for the US to rant freedom, liberty and justice but in the end not provide none of those. We would not be a free nation, only a dictorial. And all dictorial nations have suffered great loses all due to their blindness of what is moral and immoral."

This is largely irrelevant. When you create more rights, you at the same time are removing other rights. By giving people the right to not see crazy naked people running around in the street, you're removing their right to run around naked. So by that logic, you can't ever have all rights, so all nations are… "dictorial" is not even a word. So that logic can't work.

"In conclusion, I affirm that allowing Gay marriage is an act of freedom and banning it is discrimination and is dictortial. We as a nation are supposed to negate dictators as well as discrimination. Our conception of right and wrong is all upon our determination. My opponent disputes this, even though that is fact. Banning gay marriage will not stop people from being homosexual. Basically meaning homosexuality cannot stop for as long as people have a way of seeing the world as well as being born an individual. We are a nation under God but have our own conception of what is right. Our conception is freedom of the people to be independent and have the right to pursue their own measure of happiness. I have countered all of my opponent's arguments and have proven much more. Besides opinion, there is absolutely no legitimate reason to ban gay marriage."

In the same way, banning gay marriage is another act of freedom: the right to not have gay marriages in our nation. That is how rights work. So, that does not mean that we are a dictatorship. By your given definition, we can conclude that wrong can be determined. Even though we ban murder, people get murdered every day. We know that it can't stop it, but it can greatly discourage it.

Besides opinion, there is no legitimate reason to ban running around naked.
Besides opinion, there is no reason to do anything.
Besides opinion, life is pointless.

It is your opinion that you should do something with your life, not a fact. Opinions can matter, should matter, and do matter. With opinions, things can be optimal for the wellbeing of society.

I proved that banning gay marriage is not discrimination, and thus not hateful, that rights are simply the removal of other rights, and that by definition, homosexuality is wrong. All of my opponent's points have been rebutted. My opponent has given no valid reasons why we should treat the situation of gay marriage any different than letting people run around naked. Vote CON.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
Regarding homosexual marriage threatening the foundation of marriage; aren't the heterosexuals doing a pretty good job of that on their own? The adultery and divorce rates are rampant. Are they getting divorced and cheating on each other because of gay marriage?
Posted by heyitsjay 7 years ago
heyitsjay
I honestly think this is where you can have any style debate you want so why be obligated to LD?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Where do you suggest one researches LD format? I don't know too much about it, either.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
How do you figure?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
CON needs to study LD so that he might be better able to answer a case (even though this wasn't LD, it certainly should have been).
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
I think that my comparing letting people run around naked comparison was amazing though... ah well.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Yeah, it's said really. Did you get two 7's and a 4?
Posted by heyitsjay 7 years ago
heyitsjay
After a while, seriously these debates are nothing more than public opinion. Certainly someone who is con is going to vote for con and pro is going to vote for pro. Rarely someone decides to actually read them and stop to think "who has better contentions?" But I cannot change that. Not saying that is the case here. Good job I propose.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by keepergurl123 7 years ago
keepergurl123
heyitsjaymongooseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
heyitsjaymongooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Orangeman333 7 years ago
Orangeman333
heyitsjaymongooseTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
heyitsjaymongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by TheSeeker04 7 years ago
TheSeeker04
heyitsjaymongooseTied
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 Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
heyitsjaymongooseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Warden 7 years ago
Warden
heyitsjaymongooseTied
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