The Instigator
KeithKroeger91
Con (against)
Losing
39 Points
The Contender
iamadragon
Pro (for)
Winning
78 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 17 votes the winner is...
iamadragon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,938 times Debate No: 8723
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (17)

 

KeithKroeger91

Con

Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. I will allow my opponent to begin.
iamadragon

Pro

Just to clarify, I'm going to use the phrasing "the right to homosexual marriage."

I think this is quite straightforward. My opponent believes that the right to homosexual marriage is not granted by the Constitution. I will argue that it is, under the Fourteenth Amendment, citing the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia.

Loving v. Virginia was a case regarding Virginia's right to prosecute Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial married couple. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's laws prohibiting interracial marriage, declaring them unconstitutional as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]

This idea can be pretty easily extended to homosexual marriage. Let's look at part of the Supreme Court's written decision in Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

And now, the language of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

This is pretty clear to me. The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right of man, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution does not say anything that would cause Loving v. Virginia and the idea of marriage as a basic civil right to apply to heterosexual interracial marriages but not to homosexual marriages.

Therefore, under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a basic civil right not to be denied to any couple due to sexual orientation.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
KeithKroeger91

Con

"the Supreme Court struck down Virginia's laws prohibiting interracial marriage, declaring them unconstitutional"

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage, "interracial" is the key word here.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man"

Yes, legal marriage is a basic civil right, everybody has the same right to be married as long as it is with one man and one woman.

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State"

Again this is talking about racial discrimination and has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

"The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right of man"

Legal marriage is a basic civil right.

"the idea of marriage as a basic civil right to apply to heterosexual interracial marriages but not to homosexual marriages."

No, because there has been no constitutional amendment stating homosexual marriages will be protected by the law. The fourteenth amendment only speaks of interracial marriages nothing about homosexual marriages.

"the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, marriage is a basic civil right not to be denied to any couple due to sexual orientation."

No, now your rewording the amendment, again this amendment speaks nothing of the sort.

Now, here is a set of questions I would like to ask you.

Would you support illegal marriages for example, a man who would like to marry his horse?
Or a pedophile who would like to marry a 9 year old?
How about a father who wants to marry his daughter is that acceptable in your view?

If all marriages are a basic civil right than you would have to agree with all of the above.
iamadragon

Pro

I don't think you understand my argument.

"The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with gay marriage, "interracial" is the key word here."
"Again this is talking about racial discrimination and has nothing to do with sexual orientation."

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with interracial marriage, under that same argument. I am saying that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was used in Loving v. Virginia to protect a basic civil right for interracial couples, can be easily extended to protect a basic civil right for homosexual couples.

"everybody has the same right to be married as long as it is with one man and one woman."

This was the same argument used by those who sided with Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court ruled that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the same race" violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like I said, this logic can be easily extended to show that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the opposite gender" also violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"No, because there has been no constitutional amendment stating homosexual marriages will be protected by the law. The fourteenth amendment only speaks of interracial marriages nothing about homosexual marriages."

There does not have to be an amendment. It is already protected by the Fourteenth. Also, like I said, the Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT speak of interracial marriage at all. However, its intent can be applied to protect interracial marriage. Same with homosexual marriage.

I will post the first section of the amendment again:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

Nowhere does it mention race or sexual orientation. Therefore, we can use its language to protect the right to marriage regardless of either.

"No, now your rewording the amendment, again this amendment speaks nothing of the sort."

It's not supposed to mention specifics. It's supposed to be applied specifically to each scenario.

"Now, here is a set of questions I would like to ask you.

Would you support illegal marriages for example, a man who would like to marry his horse?
Or a pedophile who would like to marry a 9 year old?
How about a father who wants to marry his daughter is that acceptable in your view?

If all marriages are a basic civil right than you would have to agree with all of the above."

I would like to say that I can easily show why all of these slippery slope scenarios are immoral and/or are ridiculous comparisons to homosexual marriage, but I wish to stay within the bounds of the resolution–not whether or not homosexual marriage should be allowed, but rather that it is protected by the Constitution. I don't even know if these scenarios are really relevant to the debate, but I'll go ahead and answer them anyway.

"Would you support illegal marriages for example, a man who would like to marry his horse?"

A horse isn't "man." A horse isn't capable of consent. Homosexual partners are capable of consent.

"Or a pedophile who would like to marry a 9 year old?"

A pedophile is a criminal. A pedophile has therefore given up his or her rights. A 9 year old is incapable of consent in that a 9 year old is typically incapable of making such a decision.

"How about a father who wants to marry his daughter is that acceptable in your view?"

As long as they're both consenting, then the only reason not to allow it is because of the health risks posed to possible children.

I'd like to point out that your scenarios aren't protected by the Constitution because they bring up issues addressed in other laws–age of consent, criminals, the possible harm done to babies by incestuous relationships, and the like. Gay marriage, however, should be protected by the Constitution, because it does not fall under any of the other categories.
Debate Round No. 2
KeithKroeger91

Con

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with interracial marriage, under that same argument. I am saying that the language in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was used in Loving v. Virginia to protect a basic civil right for interracial couples, can be easily extended to protect a basic civil right for homosexual couples."

Okay, I will admit that I misunderstood, but the fact remains that the court case Loving vs. Virginia speaks about the civil rights of interracial couples(of opposite sex) getting married but not the rights of homosexual marriages.

I will explain why it is in fact that it is a civil right to be married if your a interracial couple(of opposite sex) to get married but not a homosexual couple. The definition of marriage is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

So, the idea of a homosexual marriage is a fallacy within itself.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

"This was the same argument used by those who sided with Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court ruled that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the same race" violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like I said, this logic can be easily extended to show that a restriction such as "everyone has the right to marry so long as it be with the opposite gender" also violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

No, there is no constitutional right for the legalization of gay marriage. Everybody in this nation is treated equally, yes even gays. Nobody forced those people to be gay it was a choice that they made. Now blacks on the other hand didn't have a choice, they were forced into this world being black so therefore must be protected by the law. Everybody has the right to be married with one man and one woman since that is indeed the definition of the word itself. By saying that homosexuals have the right to marry other homosexuals then you are using the word incorrectly. You want to know what its called when a homosexual couple wants to be joined together? A civil union.

Civil union-a legally recognized and voluntary union of adult parties of the same sex.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

You see gays do legally have to right to be bonded together in unity already there is a just a wording difference. They just can't get married with same sex couple as opposite sex couples don't get civil unions.

"I would like to say that I can easily show why all of these slippery slope scenarios are immoral"

One can just as easily argue that homosexuality is immoral therefore should be illegal.

"I don't even know if these scenarios are really relevant to the debate"

Of course they are relevant scenarios if you believe marriage is a civil right for homosexual marriage then you must believe that it is a civil right to bring man and son together and 23 year old and 12 year old together is the same union.

"A horse isn't "man." A horse isn't capable of consent. Homosexual partners are capable of consent."
I will give you this one.

"A pedophile is a criminal. A pedophile has therefore given up his or her rights."

Yes, today if you are a pedophile it is a crime to have sex with a minor or touch a minor inappropriately. But gay acts used to be considered highly immoral and also illegal. But, somehow the Supreme Court decided that in 2003 gay acts will be protected by the law in the court case Lawrence V. Texas. The court ruling stated that the state can not legally punish people for doing sexual activities in the privacy of their own home. Remember the state cannot legally throw somebody in jail for suspicion of being a pedophile. The only way the state can do that is if the pedophile either had illegal sex with a kid or touched the kid inappropriately. You can just as easily use the case above "Lawrence vs Texas"
to justify the acts of a pedophile as long as its in the privacy of their own home. Do you see how that works? It is the same argument you are using to justify homosexual marriage.
http://www.foxnews.com...

"A 9 year old is incapable of consent in that a 9 year old is typically incapable of making such a decision."

No, that is not true there are many cases of children consenting with having sex with adults. Why wouldn't there be cases of child marriage consentors? Want some examples of child consent? MANBLA(Man boy love association) Also Nambla(North American man boy love association)

"As long as they're both consenting, then the only reason not to allow it is because of the health risks posed to possible children."

So your saying that these marriages shouldn't be legal due to health risks?

"I'd like to point out that your scenarios aren't protected by the Constitution because they bring up issues addressed in other laws–age of consent, criminals, the possible harm done to babies by incestuous relationships, and the like. Gay marriage, however, should be protected by the Constitution, because it does not fall under any of the other categories."

I would like to point out that the Constitution does not protect homosexual marriage for simple reason of the definition of marriage is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
iamadragon

Pro

"Okay, I will admit that I misunderstood, but the fact remains that the court case Loving vs. Virginia speaks about the civil rights of interracial couples(of opposite sex) getting married but not the rights of homosexual marriages."

The significance of Loving v. Virginia was the labeling of marriage as a basic civil right. Plain and simple. Marriage = basic civil right.

"I will explain why it is in fact that it is a civil right to be married if your a interracial couple(of opposite sex) to get married but not a homosexual couple. The definition of marriage is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

Since when are rights and arguments about rights going to be restricted by what the dictionary says? I don't care what the definition of marriage is. Mankind created the word and the definition, and mankind can (and should) change the definition to provide equal rights, to uphold the Constitution.

"No, there is no constitutional right for the legalization of gay marriage."

There is a constitutional right for all citizens to be treated equally. Treated equally means that they all have the right to marry, barring their being a criminal or something like the absurd scenarios you provided in Round 2.

"Everybody in this nation is treated equally, yes even gays."

No. Not under the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Nobody forced those people to be gay it was a choice that they made. Now blacks on the other hand didn't have a choice, they were forced into this world being black so therefore must be protected by the law."

If you want to argue that it's a choice, provide some evidence–but even then, it's irrelevant.

"Everybody has the right to be married with one man and one woman since that is indeed the definition of the word itself."

The definition doesn't matter. Under current practices, the rights of law-abiding citizens who want to enter into a homosexual marriage are not being upheld, because they don't have the right to marry, which is a basic civil right, because of Loving v. Virginia. This is very straightforward.

"You see gays do legally have to right to be bonded together in unity already there is a just a wording difference. They just can't get married with same sex couple as opposite sex couples don't get civil unions."

This is completely irrelevant. We are discussing whether or not the right to homosexual marriage is protected by the Constitution. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it is.

"One can just as easily argue that homosexuality is immoral therefore should be illegal."

I don't agree, but this is all irrelevant to the debate, so let's just drop that here. If you want to debate that separately, I'd be willing to challenge you.

"Yes, today if you are a pedophile it is a crime to have sex with a minor or touch a minor inappropriately."

You're misunderstanding Lawrence v. Texas. Here's a line about the case:

"Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private." [1]

Notice the word "consenting." Under your argument, that all sexual acts in the privacy of one's home are legal, rape is legal–as long as it's inside a home. Since minors can't give consent, a pedophile's criminal act won't ever be consensual and therefore not protected.

"No, that is not true there are many cases of children consenting with having sex with adults. Why wouldn't there be cases of child marriage consentors? Want some examples of child consent? MANBLA(Man boy love association) Also Nambla(North American man boy love association)"

They can't legally give consent. Period.

"So your saying that these marriages shouldn't be legal due to health risks?"

Sorry if I have to spell it out. Health risks from incestuous relationships = mental retardation and birth defects. Yeah, that's a good reason not to allow marriages.

"I would like to point out that the Constitution does not protect homosexual marriage for simple reason of the definition of marriage is the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

Refuted above.

Marriage, a basic civil right of man as outlined in Loving v. Virginia, is protected by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Vote PRO.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
KeithKroeger91

Con

The significance of Loving v. Virginia was the labeling of marriage as a basic civil right. Plain and simple. Marriage = basic civil right."

Yes, marriage is a civil right I completely agree. Marriage-the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

"Since when are rights and arguments about rights going to be restricted by what the dictionary says?"

If rights cannot be restricted by the definition of the words then anyone could change anything they wanted in the constitution fitting to whatever agenda they support.

"Treated equally means that they all have the right to marry"

They do have the right to marry fitting with the definition itself. Gay marriage is not a right its a fallacy.

"No. Not under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Yes, we are all equal for reasons explained above.

"The definition doesn't matter"

Of course the definition matters, the definition matters in any logical debate.

"the rights of law-abiding citizens who want to enter into a homosexual marriage are not being upheld"

Again, "Gay marriage" incorrect usage of the word marriage.

"a basic civil right, because of Loving v. Virginia. This is very straightforward."

Loving vs. Virginia ruled that one man and one woman regardless of race have the basic civil right to marry. Yes, it is straight forward.

"This is completely irrelevant. We are discussing whether or not the right to homosexual marriage is protected by the Constitution."

It is not irrelevant I was making the point that the constitution does not protect gay marriage based on the definition of the word. I then made a side point that their is just a wording difference between the word marriage and the word civil union and that we all have the same rights in the end.

"Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private."

You just made my same exact argument I used against Loving vs. Virginia. Here is a line of Loving vs. Virginia:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. "

Notice the words "interracial marriages" the court ruled that interracial marriages(between one man and one woman) is a civil right. Lets replace the word marriage real quick by the definition of the word itself. The court ruled that the interracial social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments and religious ceremonies is a "basic civil right" So, even though they did not specifically say that they should be opposite sex couples the word marriage implies that.

Just as Lawrence vs. Texas ruled that it must be between consenting adults. Loving vs. Virginia ruled that marriage must be between one man and one woman.

"They can't legally give consent. Period."

Gays can't legally get married. Period.

"Sorry if I have to spell it out. Health risks from incestuous relationships = mental retardation and birth defects. Yeah, that's a good reason not to allow marriages."

So, are those marriages protected by the constitution as long as the man sterilizes himself?

"Refuted above."

Have not refuted it above.

"Marriage, a basic civil right of man as outlined in Loving v. Virginia, is protected by the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Agreed.
iamadragon

Pro

"If rights cannot be restricted by the definition of the words then anyone could change anything they wanted in the constitution fitting to whatever agenda they support."

Sorry. Any agenda would still have to adhere to the Constitution. I'm saying the definition of the word, in a dictionary, should be changed to promote equality as mandated by the Constitution.

"Yes, we are all equal for reasons explained above."

No, we are not. Some consenting, law-abiding adults do not have the ability to marry other consenting, law-abiding adults. That is not equality, and therefore, it violates the Constitution.

"Loving vs. Virginia ruled that one man and one woman regardless of race have the basic civil right to marry. Yes, it is straight forward."

To be more specific, it ruled that the right to marriage is a basic civil right. A pair of consenting, law-abiding homosexuals should have this same right, because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"It is not irrelevant I was making the point that the constitution does not protect gay marriage based on the definition of the word. I then made a side point that their is just a wording difference between the word marriage and the word civil union and that we all have the same rights in the end."

The Constitution doesn't explicitly protect any marriage. However, when marriage becomes a civil right, the Constitution protects it, because it protects all civil rights for all law-abiding, consenting (in the case of marriage) citizens.

"Loving vs. Virginia ruled that marriage must be between one man and one woman."

Now you're twisting what happened. Loving v. Virginia ruled that marriage is a basic civil right.

"Gays can't legally get married. Period."

It shouldn't be that way. That's what we're debating.

"So, are those marriages protected by the constitution as long as the man sterilizes himself?"

I don't know. That's a ridiculous question. There would have to be laws regarding the sterilization and all that, but if someone wanted to legalize incestuous marriage, that might be a logical step. You seem to be subtly hinting that incestuous marriage is automatically immoral. That is irrelevant, but just for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with it.

"Agreed."

Then you seem to agree with my side. If marriage is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all (law-abiding, consenting) citizens, then marriage should apply to all (law-abiding, consenting) citizens.

Thanks for this debate.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pokan 7 years ago
pokan
The definition of marriage is very important in this debate, but who determined whose definition was appropriate? For example, one person may define marriage as "one man-one woman" where another could say "between two people." Just because the dictionary you quoted, Kieth, uses the one man - one woman approach doesn't mean that other people wouldn't define it as a more broad "two people" argument.

The question is then, who has the right to define marriage. Since all words earn their definition from the people, it falls upon the will of the people to determine what the definition of marriage is. I support same-sex unions with equal benefits to heterosexual marriage, but I do not support gay marriage due to the fact that the majority of people define marriage as between one man and one woman. This may be due to their ideologies, their upbringing, their religion, whatever, but the fact is most people see marriage as a union of a man and a woman, and by that definition gay marriage cannot exist.

I would rather see this debate over the pros and cons of Civil Unions, as opposed to a debate over semantics.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
We were arguing whether it was constitutional, not if it is morally permissible. I think I proved my point using definitions
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 7 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
Con, why do you care? They're not trying to marry YOU...
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
No problem ;P
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
I agree. Thank you.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Good debate.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Again, what was the definition of marriage?
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
I probably could have done a better job arguing that, as I'm new to debating this issue formally.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Lol, too true.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Dead horse alert...
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rook 7 years ago
Rook
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by devildog3024 7 years ago
devildog3024
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
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 patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by Banetor 7 years ago
Banetor
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jilko 7 years ago
jilko
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
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 andrew36 7 years ago
andrew36
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by welldonesteak 7 years ago
welldonesteak
KeithKroeger91iamadragonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07