The Instigator
Republican14
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
rogue
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,842 times Debate No: 14899
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (77)
Votes (12)

 

Republican14

Con

It is wrong and immoral
rogue

Pro

On what basis do you find gay marriage to be immoral and wrong?

The fact is, that marriage gives you legal rights that are helpful to families. The Declaration of Independence says that all people should go in search of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Not allowing gays to marry is contradicting two of those statements. Gays are not liberated enough from oppression, hate, prejudice, and discrimination from the American people to allow them just to get married. Gays are not allowed the happiness of having a wedding and getting the legal benefits marriage gives. It is sad that American citizens would keep rights from their fellow citizens who have committed no crime, nor hurt them in any way. Most Americans wouldn't be in favor of not having equal rights and opportunities for women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Latinos, Catholics, Irish, and disabled peoples. All of these people have gone through discrimination and oppression, yet legally they have all been liberated. Why not gays? What makes them less deserving?

Because they love who they want? Homosexuality is natural. It even occurs in nature frequently: http://articles.sfgate.com...

Gay love is just like straight love in that it is two consenting adults who have deep feelings of love for one another. It is not like loving an animal, as the animal does not love the person back in the same way a person would. It is not like incest where a parent "loves" a child because the child is too young to experience love like and adult and is easily misguided because they are young.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with anyone but the two people involved in it. You wouldn't think that someone else's failed marriage reflects badly upon yours, so why should gays being married make your marriage less sacred(if that is what one believes)?

I see no reason to keep gays from marrying.
Debate Round No. 1
Republican14

Con

Yes ,but gay marriage is undermined because most people in the world are straight and gay marriage would tarnish the the good name of America. The bible says that marriage is to be between a man and women, not a man and man or a women and a women. legalizing same-sex marriages is that doing so would undermine the institution of marriage. A marriage between members of the same sex is a self-contradiction, and if their unions are legalized, then marriage itself across the country will be harmed. Because the institution of marriage is in such trouble already, we can't afford further damage. Just how much damage could gay unions do, though. legalization of gay marriage in America is about more than just the status of gay couples; it's also about the future of American civil law. Either civil law is defined by the needs and rights of citizens and gay marriage will be legalized, or civil laws will be placed under the dominion of religious laws and gay marriage will remain banned. Opponents of gay marriage try to offer legal and social reasons for their position, but it always comes back to religion and religion-based animosity towards gays for them. For Christian Nationalists, legalized gay marriage would represent a defeat for their religion in the fight to define the boundaries of American culture and law.

Gay marriage furthermore represents a threat to established norms of authority, identity and power. Those who possess that authority and power and who have used them to create their identities are thereby threatened by the prospective changes. One thing that has often puzzled me and others is the argument from so many religious and political conservatives that same-sex marriages "threaten" and "undermine" traditional heterosexual marriages. The same is said even about domestic partnership laws which would give same-sex partners a few of the same basic rights as married couples. Why is this? How can one relationship threaten or undermine someone else's?

Marriage is not just an institution, but also a symbol representing our culture's ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships. Symbols are important — they are a common cultural currency which we each use to help create our sense of self. Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people's basic identities. By asking legislatures to pass "Defense of Marriage" acts, voters are using the law to create the cultural equivalent of a copyright or trademark on the institution of marriage to prevent it from be challenged too much.
rogue

Pro

Yes ,but gay marriage is undermined because most people in the world are straight and gay marriage would tarnish the the good name of America."- Two things: 1. It is true that most people in America are straight, but 1.5% label themselves as gay or bisexual. This doesn't sound like much, but that means that approx. 4,300,000 people in America are being denied legal benefits. This is unacceptable. Not to mention that these are only the ones that label themselves. There are many more who are scared or ashamed to because of the reactions of others which I think is so sad that people feel they have to hide who they are in America because they will not be treated right by others and the law. source:http://www.adherents.com...

2. Why does this "tarnish the good name of America"? That is an unsupported assertion. Even if we do legalize gay marriage, that doesn't mean people won't realize that lots of Americans find it wrong. Just because we don't have national health care and I want it doesn't make me feel "the good name of America is tarnished". Not to mention that the "good name of America" is already tarnished. Most countries hate us. We torture and kill people everyday. We had a president who put us in a terrible deficit and we were stupid enough to elect him. We are controlled by businesses who stay rich at the expense of those who are really poor. We have a terrible record of violent and unnecessary imperialism. This is just the beginning. The last thing I would be worried about is "tarnishing the good name of America". It was tarnished long ago.

"The bible says that marriage is to be between a man and women, not a man and man or a women and a women."- This is about the worst argument you can use. You know what else the Bible says? To kill your neighbor if he works on the Sabbath, not to cut your hair or you should die, that selling your daughter into slavery is ok, that you need to stone people for swearing, that women are lesser than men, and the list of ridiculous things it says are ok and that you must do. People hardly do or believe a lot of things the Bible says nowadays because it is outdated. There are so many things that were ok back then and considered awful now, and things we do today that they would consider awful back then. Times change and social changes will occur.

"legalizing same-sex marriages is that doing so would undermine the institution of marriage." How so?

"A marriage between members of the same sex is a self-contradiction, and if their unions are legalized, then marriage itself across the country will be harmed." How so?

"Just how much damage could gay unions do, though." What? Why is this an issue?

"Either civil law is defined by the needs and rights of citizens and gay marriage will be legalized, or civil laws will be placed under the dominion of religious laws and gay marriage will remain banned."- One of the basic principals America was founded on was "separation of church and state". Making gay marriage illegal for religious reasons violates that principal. Civil law should be made based on the rights and needs of the citizens.

"For Christian Nationalists, legalized gay marriage would represent a defeat for their religion in the fight to define the boundaries of American culture and law."- This is irrelevant. Many Christians are pro gay marriage. It doesn't matter what they "feel" it would be. Christianity still would have tremendous control over the people.

"Gay marriage furthermore represents a threat to established norms of authority, identity and power. Those who possess that authority and power and who have used them to create their identities are thereby threatened by the prospective changes."- So? The established norms are no always good. Things change and this time I believe it to be for the better because it is about equality.

"Marriage is not just an institution, but also a symbol representing our culture's ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships. Symbols are important — they are a common cultural currency which we each use to help create our sense of self."- I think something great about America is that we are a melting pot. You can go around the U.S. and find places so radically different and unique from each other that you would think it was another country entirely. There is no symbol that America needs to uphold except that we are united, stand for freedom and justice, and acceptance of all people. This is what legalizing gay marriage would support.
Debate Round No. 2
Republican14

Con

Good argument but prepare for this. kids that a rasied by gay parents often grow up that way. Will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals. How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system. And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?
Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world, just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind.11 Almost instantly, the English-speaking countries liberalized their laws against smut. America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global.

The point is that numerous leaders in other nations are watching to see how we will handle the issue of homosexuality and marriage. Only two countries in the world have authorized gay marriage to date-the Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is leaning in that direction, as are numerous European countries. Dr. Darrell Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, told me two weeks ago that his country is carefully monitoring the United States to see where it is going. If we take this step off a cliff, the family on every continent will splinter at an accelerated rate. Conversely, our U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it looks to European and Canadian law in the interpretation of our Constitution.13 What an outrage! That should have been grounds for impeachment, but the Congress, as usual, remained passive and silent.
Perhaps most important, the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed. The family has been God's primary vehicle for evangelism since the beginning.

Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children. Malachi 2:15 reads, referring to husbands and wives, "Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because He was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth" (NIV).

That responsibility to teach the next generation will never recover from the loss of committed, God-fearing families. The younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. This is morally wrong, and is condemned in Scripture. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!
The culture war will be over, and I fear, the world may soon become "as it was in the days of Noah" (Matthew 24:37, NIV). This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance.

This apocalyptic and pessimistic view of the institution of the family and its future will sound alarmist to many, but I think it will prove accurate unless-unless-God's people awaken and begin an even greater vigil of prayer for our nation. That's why Shirley and I are urgently seeking the Lord's favor and asking Him to hear the petitions of His people and heal our land.

As of this time, however, large segments of the church appear to be unaware of the danger; its leaders are surprisingly silent about our peril (although we are tremendously thankful for the efforts of those who have spoken out on this issue). The lawless abandon occurring recently in California, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere should have shocked us out of our lethargy. So far, I'm alarmed to say, the concern and outrage of the American people have not translated into action.

This reticence on behalf of Christians is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His Church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has prohibited, is to court disaster.
rogue

Pro

kids that a raised by gay parents often grow up that way. Will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions."- You haven't supported this.

"The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy."- Polygamy doesn't have to do with gay marriage. Being raised by gays doesn't support polygamy.

"Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed."- This is an unsupported assertion. As if people will all accept gays and every other romantic idea when gay marriage is legalized. Even if it is, there will be people like you who oppose it very greatly and keep that idea going.

"After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights.""- I'm not quite sure what exactly you are trying to say here but families are not made by rights. Families are made by the people and how they love and treat each other. Gay marriage being legalized won't change that.

"Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four."- So what? That is not the norm and I doubt it will be. They have nothing to do with you, so why should you decide who they can marry? Being gay is natural as I have shown previously. Polygamy is not.

"How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey?"- Ugh. I already addressed this. Incestuous people will be shunned I bet. I doubt that will ever be the norm. There are many many less incestuous people than there are gays. Adults and children won't be legalized because you can't marry until you are an adult under the law anyway. A donkey can't say "I do", not to mention that neither children nor animals can love like adults can.

"The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. An even greater objective of the homosexual movement is to end the state's compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriages have been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver's license or a hunting permit."- So what? The meaningfulness of your marriage isn't determined by the law or how easy it is to get married or unmarried.

"With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this perversion is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman."- Schools don't teach about morality and marriage anyway. This is a very unsubstantiated assertion lol.

"How about the impact on Social Security if there are millions of new dependents that will be entitled to survivor benefits? It will amount to billions of dollars on an already overburdened system."- And we should leave them out because it costs us money? As if they are less deserving of these rights than the rest of us?! Surely this is not moral or just.

"And how about the cost to American businesses? Unproductive costs mean fewer jobs for those who need them. Are state and municipal governments to be required to raise taxes substantially to provide health insurance and other benefits to millions of new "spouses and other dependents"?"- Business are already in surplus in this recession! We don't have to worry about them.

"Marriage among homosexuals will spread throughout the world"- So? It's already legal in many places around the world.

"just as pornography did after the Nixon Commission declared obscene material "beneficial" to mankind"- Actually it is in many ways as long as the people involved are all consenting and above the age of consent.

"America continues to be the fountainhead of filth and immorality, and its influence is global."- Sure, but gayness is not filthy or immoral. What is filthy and immoral is others discrimination towards minorities and denying them legal benefits.

"the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be severely curtailed."- Um no, this is definitely not true. People will still be opposed to gays and try to convert people. Christianity will remain strong no matter what happens with gay marriage.

"Its most important assignment has been the propagation of the human race and the handing down of the faith to our children."- Wanna debate this?

"Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids."- This is unsubstantiated and I doubt there would be any more than there are already.

"Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to "normalize" and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!"- Aieee. You know God also says slavery is ok according to the Bible?

Well, this debate has been interesting. I can't even congratulate my opponent on a good debate because frankly I don't think he did an adequate job. Most of his posts were evangelic rants against gay marriage stuffed with unsubstantiated assertions. Even if you are against gay marriage, my opponent did not once respond to what I said. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
77 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
Lol, so many of Con's arguments were copy and pasted.

Type his argument "Gay marriage furthermore represents a threat to established norms of authority, identity and power. Those who possess that authority and power and who have used them to create their identities are thereby threatened by the prospective changes. One thing that has often puzzled me and others is the argument from so many religious and political conservatives that same-sex marriages "threaten" and "undermine" traditional heterosexual marriages. The same is said even about domestic partnership laws which would give same-sex partners a few of the same basic rights as married couples. Why is this? How can one relationship threaten or undermine someone else's?" into google.
Posted by i8JoMomma 5 years ago
i8JoMomma
hang em and get it over with....these tea bags got no rights
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Paul for example in 1st Corinthians says that it is better to be unmarried than to be married. However, many scholars look at this and say that he probably doesn't mean it to be a universal dictate. Here is how you come to that conclusion.

On the surface of the text, Paul says that. However, when you look at the surrounding text in the letter of 1st Corinthians, we see that there was something going on in Corinth that Paul calls "this present distress." (Most likely a Grain Famine that was happening locally around the time of his letter) He says in 1 Corinthians 7:26 "I think that in view of the present distress it s good for a person to remain as he is (in regard to marital status)." So we see that his assertions about marriage are in the context of this present distress, rather than universal. Furthermore, Paul uses the Greek word for Widow, only in the Masculine form. This is unusual because the Greek's never used the word in the masculine sense (because if you were a man whose wife died, you just got remarried. A woman's who's husband died was in a dire situation). We know that Paul was likely married at one point as he was a part of the Pharisee group and marriage was a requirement of a Rabbi in that group. So when he says "to the Unmarried and widows" he is talking to people who were once married and no loner are (v7, "as I myself am").

Beyond that we can know that he doesn't mean a general prohibition on marriage, because in other Pauline texts, he gives explicit instructions for how marriage should work, with no condemnation or reference to concession.

So in this case, we can be reasonably certain that Paul was giving instruction to persons in Corinth that in light of the present grain famine that it is wise for people who are not married to remain that way, rather than to say to all Christians everywhere that marriage is bad.

This is only one example of how to reconstruct authorial intent, it is not that difficult if you understand the context.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Rogue,

You are misreading that text, even just the surface meaning. No where does that say that cutting your hair warrants the death penalty. "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27, in fact... nothing in that entire chapter includes the death penalty.

This section is what is known as the holiness code. As I said before, this portion of Leviticus is laws for God's covenant people of Israel. These parts of the law were set up to A) Distinguish Israel from their neighboring nations, and B) Protect them from falling into certain social ailments.

As far as sourcing my info, our primary discussion has been about text criticism. I listed a link to an article by Michael Holmes, who is one of the worlds leading Text Critics. He has virtually identical credentials with Bart Ehrman.

If you would like me to cite commentaries regarding the meaning of this portion of Levitcus, I can. The same can be said about how to properly exegete and understand various passages.

You claim that we an not know what the author actually meant to say. And while this is true in a certain sense (In reality, we cannot even look back at what we wrote 15 minutes ago and know EXACTLY what we meant to say... this is an epistemological issue that all of us face), it is not in another sense. When you read my words, you assume you know my intent. You assume that you can look at them, look at the culture I am coming from (Reformed Conservative Christian), look at the cotext (other text within the same document... in this case, our conversation in the comments of this debate), and the context (other texts I have written, in this case other debates on this site) and draw conclusions about what I am saying. This is no different than what we do with the ancient authors.
Posted by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
Oh, you are right. I forgot to source. here: http://www.humanistsofutah.org...
Posted by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
Here: http://www.bibletruthkeys.com...

As if you sourced your info. I am pretty sure I put a source at the bottom of that argument. But I will check.

What don't I understand? Stop telling me what I am doing wrong, and tell me where I am mistaken.

Also, I am not trying to make the Bible mean whatever I want, but there is no way you can actually know what the author MEANT to say.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You don't actually source it... you simply say that the Bible says it.

Rogue, you continue to prove that you do not understand how manuscripts work. You claim that there has been editing... with no proof. You claim that there has been "so many translations," but don't seem to understand how the modern translations work. You clearly don't understand how text criticism works, and you continue to say things without support.

As far as the author having one purpose... they may have had multiple purposes within a given book, or even within a given text. But that doesn't mean that we can simply make it say whatever we want it to say. The author had an intent, and we need to respect that intent.

We cannot know the exact intent of the author, however we can get pretty close to it. The same way you can read my words, know my context, and understand my intent... we can do with the original author. Unless of course, you are claiming that you cannot know my intent.
Posted by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
I sourced the hair cutting thing in the debate. It is almost impossible for a document to go through so many translations and editing without being changed! How would you know the exact intent of the author? As if each author had ONE purpose? You oversimplify a crazy amount.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You need to provide references for your claims. I'm not familiar with the passage that says cutting your hair warrants the death penalty.

Beyond that, you still haven't shown any actual proof that the Bible has been changed... yet you continue to treat that as though it is an established fact.

As far as the multiple authors and multiple intents. Yes, each book has an author with one intent. So it is important to understand that author and his/her intent in writing. This is called exegesis.

You are right, the Bible has many parts that are confusing or unclear. That is why it is important to understand the context into which it was written.
Posted by rogue 5 years ago
rogue
I am not sure that I think the Bible is corrupt, but I do think it does depict some awful events and laws that God sanctions. Many laws in the Bible do not warrant death, like cutting hair, which I talked about in the debate. Also, you act as if the Bible had one author with one intent. The Bible had many authors and the original intent may not be shown in the Bible we see today as it has likely been changed greatly since its original form. Also, the Bible is not a clearly written book. Most verses are "interpreted" by your local preacher. They are not straightforward.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Lerch 2 years ago
Lerch
Republican14rogueTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Rogue (Pro) successfully countered all of Con's attempts to satisfy the burden of proof. The debate goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by Spamkybones 2 years ago
Spamkybones
Republican14rogueTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: No one voted con
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Republican14rogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Lol, Con only ranted Pro actually argued...
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Republican14rogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was nearly all rhetoric
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Republican14rogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm pretty sure con was just trying to make a joke, or is he really that ignorant?
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
Republican14rogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Too muddled
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Republican14rogueTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost conduct for her tirade about "What else the bible says." It shows a poor understanding of what the Bible actually says, and it is poor conduct to bring in information you are not educated in. Other than that, Pro swept the debate clearly.
Vote Placed by Robikan 5 years ago
Robikan
Republican14rogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to support any statements with evidence.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Republican14rogueTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Assertions rather than arguments from Con.
Vote Placed by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
Republican14rogueTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were often unsupported and untenable.