The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
oboeman
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Gays should be allowed to marry.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,325 times Debate No: 775
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (16)

 

policydebategod

Pro

For gays not to be allowed to marry is archaic and discriminatory. idon't understand why anybody would think gay marriage is acceptable. Please explain your reasoning.
- Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
- Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
- Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation.
- Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
- It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
- The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
- The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create.
oboeman

Con

Greetings, fellow debater.

I warmly welcome your challenge. To start things off, I will inform you that this is my first "online debate," but I will do my best. :P

To initiate my argument, I feel the need for clarification: There are many "definitions" of gay marriage and gay rights, given by multiple people. However, for conventional purposes, I decided to use the definition given by the website pertaining to gay marriage: "Couples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, and be recognized by the state." This implies mandating the government to officially recognize gay marriages. With this mandate, it disregards the church's say in the matter; and considering the fact that the church was the first to originate the term "marriage," it violates the fundamental separation of church and state. What I mean by this is that the term "marriage" began as a religious term. Of course, at the current time, there may seem to be two distinct definitions of marriage: legal and religious. However, I do believe that what is best for society is to simply "get rid of" the legal definition (pertaining to the legal benefits regarding marriage), and create a new term (civil unions would work) that would associate with all the legal aspects and benefits normally acquired at legal marriage.

Essentially, everyone, both heterosexuals and homosexuals, would receive the benefits given by the state. I also think that this satisfies the extremely religious people (Just to make you aware, I am not one of them) by reserving the term marriage for just religious purposes, and instead of the legal benefits, the "married" couple would receive any such entailments permitted by the church.

One may argue that this is discriminatory, but in reality it is not. It is true that there would be no more legal marriages, but instead "civil unions" (or whatever other term that is found adequate). Civil unions would in essence be the exact definition of legal marriage as it is today, but it just changes the terminology a bit, as well as allowing the rights and legal benefits to homosexuals as well.

I do agree that homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle, and also that being gay harms no one. Well, essentially I agree with all the claims that you have made, but I just think we ought to alter the terminology for governmental purposes.

Thanks for the debate, and I look forward to your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

For gays not to be allowed to marry is archaic and discriminatory. idon't understand why anybody would think gay marriage is acceptable. Please explain your reasoning.
- Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
- Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
- Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation.
- Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
- It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
- The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
- The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create.

- Civil unions
+ Civil unions are:
= not recognized by most states or nations so gays cannot travel or live elsewhere. also the benefits dont apply there. this is unfair to couples who just want to have a normal marriage. why should they have to settle?
= not recognized by civilians. 86% of employers in New Jersey do not recognize civil unions. if heterosexual marriages were not recognized there would be riots in the street. a civil war for christ's sake.
= civil unions do not carry the same social weight. if i was to say "i just got civilly united" it would not be as recognized as "i just got married." people respect the age old institution of marriage more.

Marriage is not a religious institution:
Atheists and Satanists get married everyday.

Most benefits of marriage come from the government!!!

All marriage sgould be recognized by the state. Most marital benefits are provided by the government: (THIS IS JUST A LIST OF MARITAL RIGHTS-- YOU DONT HAVE TO REFUTE EACH ONE-- TRY THE GENERAL LIST) Social Security pension, veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing survivor benefits for federal employees, $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty, renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse, employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits, veteran's disability, Supplemental Security Income, disability payments for federal employees, medicaid, property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates, joint filing of bankruptcy permitted, joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records, family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce, domestic violence intervention, access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods, Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens, Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act, Threats against spouses of various, federal employees is a federal crime, Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse, Court notice of probate proceedings, Domestic violence protection orders, Existing homestead lease continuation of rights, Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption, Funeral and bereavement leave, Joint adoption and foster care, Joint tax filing, Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society, Legal status with stepchildren, Making spousal medical decisions, Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver, Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation, Right of survivorship of custodial trust, Right to change surname upon marriage, Right to enter into prenuptial agreement, Right to inheritance of property, Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

VOTE PRO!!! VOTE PRO!!! VOTE PRO!!!
oboeman

Con

Hi again, fellow debater.

Alright, to start things off, let me alter some of your initial arguments, so they would be compatible to mine.

For gays not to receive benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage would be archaic and discriminatory.

Benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage should be available to all couples.

Denying civil unions to any couple desiring to acquire one is a form of discrimination.

I am advocating that no marriage be federally recognized by the state. Instead, while keeping all the marital benefits currently provided by the government, we should JUST switch the terminology used: instead of "marriage," we use "civil union" (Or, like I said in my preceding post, any other term deemed adequate.) I am getting the impression that you believe both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples should receive the same "marital benefits," so we are obviously in agreement on that. Which means that the only point of the debate in which we differ is the term used to describe those governmentally-bestowed benefits. So, in essence, all we have to do is determine which term is most appropriate and applicable for governmental purposes.

Just for clarification, I do believe that the Defense of Marriage Act is unreasonable and ridiculous; like I said earlier, government should totally withdraw from manipulating the term "marriage." The government should not tell the church what is and what is not "marriage."

I do agree, at the time, non-religious people get married on a regular basis. However, I am assuming that you are inferring to the current "legal marriage," which bestows the rudimentary rights and benefits currently associated with the term. However, under my argument, the term would just be altered to a completely non-religious term, so that these non-religious people would still acquire the same benefits and rights. So, ultimately, non-religious people would still be able to receive the same governmental rights and benefits, it just would not officially be called "legal marriage." With consent of the church or any religious organization, people may still acquire a "marriage" by means of its religious institution definition, in which a service can be provided or whatever the religious organization desires to do, and this ought to cover the theological aspects of a religious marriage.

As well, we should not prohibit the church from conducting gay marriage services. As, based on my argument, marriage is indeed a religious institution, we should not intervene with the church's own philosophies. If such a service were to occur, it is the church's private matter, which is to be respected.

When you say that marriage is not a religious institution, you gave your reasoning for that claim as being that non-religious people get married on a regular basis. So overall, while this is obviously true, you are inferring to the legal definition of the term marriage. And you already are already aware that I want that term, "legal marriage," to be eliminated, and instead use a less religious term to substitute the word marriage in the public sphere.

Alright, now I understand that you may consider myself an idealist here, but on the topic of civil unions: obviously some decisions are decided at the national level, some at the individual state level. But I think that the issue of civil unions ought to be decided at the national level; no state should ignore civil union status, and I think it ought to be federally recognized. If this idea pertaining to civil unions being recognized at the nation level were to be implemented, homosexual couples would no longer be limited as to where they may or may not live while being recognized by the government. Therefore, the benefits would apply everywhere in the nation, so they would not have to settle in any specified area; civil union recognition would be universal throughout the country.

Regarding your statements issued condemning civil unions:
If ordinary citizens were to not recognize civil unions for gays, who says they would recognize gay marriage?? There is no difference between the two; they just have different terms to describe them. As well, if I may inquire, how does civilian recognition affect anything?? The couple receiving the civil union would still receive the same benefits and rights provided by the government. Perhaps it is best that other citizens come to accept other people's achievements, rather than saying it has no importance.

I do agree with you in regards that most people may respect the institution of marriage more, and it may inherently seem more impressive. However, that does not change its status as a religious term; just because it may be respected and admired more, it still has religious origins.

As well, our government ought to require employers to recognize civil union status.

Gay marriages can still be recognized, but like all marriages, I think they should just be recognized by the church, assuming the individual church has no objection.

Next, you state that heterosexual marriages not being recognized would lead to riots in the streets, and could further lead to a civil war. However, anyone who desires to be married and have a marriage service conducted by a religious organization is most welcome to do just that. In fact, most marriages today ARE indeed performed in such a manner. The only difference here is that a couple would need civil union status, regardless of their being heterosexual or homosexual, in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits.

Again, I look forward for your rebuttal in which I await to further rebut against :P

P.S. TO VOTERS
Remember that for voting con, it does not mean you are against gay rights, but just for the separation of church and state (Here meaning altering the term "marriage" to fit a better non-religious term when used for governmental purposes). Gays and lesbians will still receive the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

http://eqfed.org...
http://www.alternet.org...

Regarding your statements issued condemning civil unions:
If ordinary citizens were to not recognize civil unions for gays, who says they would recognize gay marriage??
- People generally respect marriage more than any other union.

As well, if I may inquire, how does civilian recognition affect anything??
- The employer is the main person that matters in a marriage or civil union.

Perhaps it is best that other citizens come to accept other people's achievements, rather than saying it has no importance.
- Duh! But we will not get that!

I do agree with you in regards that most people may respect the institution of marriage more, and it may inherently seem more impressive. However, that does not change its status as a religious term; just because it may be respected and admired more, it still has religious origins.
- You have not explained why religious origins are bad. Many churches and all courtrooms will honor gay marriage. Why should we all have to settle? I'll get to this in further depth in my last speech.

As well, our government ought to require employers to recognize civil union status.
- The New Hampshire government requires this however this is not accomplished. And will not be accomplished through anything but marriage.

Gay marriages can still be recognized, but like all marriages, I think they should just be recognized by the church, assuming the individual church has no objection.
- Then you agree with same sex marriage. All we wantis for marriage to be recognized by everybody and for everybody. I dont see why gays are excluded from society like some modern caste system or jim crow.

Next, you state that heterosexual marriages not being recognized would lead to riots in the streets, and could further lead to a civil war. However, anyone who desires to be married and have a marriage service conducted by a religious organization is most welcome to do just that. In fact, most marriages today ARE indeed performed in such a manner. The only difference here is that a couple would need civil union status, regardless of their being heterosexual or homosexual, in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits.
- Most marriages are performed by the church and should be if wanted. That marriage should be marriage instead of civil unions.

P.S. TO VOTERS
Remember that for voting con does mean you are against gay rights! The separation of church and state (Here meaning altering the term "marriage" to fit a better non-religious term when used for governmental purposes) is unrealistic. Gays and lesbians will not still receive the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples!

And here is why:
Today, marriage is one of the oldest institutions and most respected. The term itself means something powerful. My opponent is not only suggesting that we exclude homosexuals from this institution but all of America. He admits that he is an advocate for church and state in marriage. This means that every marriage will be called civil unions. This means that Americans' marriages will no longer be recognized internationally. He is banning Americans from getting married. This person is outlawing marriage.
AND
If he says that you will have the choice to have a civil union or marriage then he is once again banning gays from marriage. This is ridiculous because legal marriage is not a religious institution. If legal marriage is a religious institution then Atheists and Satanists would be deemed religious.

This is NOT a compromise. This IS exclusionism! My opponent is banning gays from the institution of marriage while allowing Atheists and Satanists to join. OR he is banning all Americans from marriage.

Please vote PRO if you are against exclusionism including: racism, sexism, classism, and exclusionism against sexual orientation.
oboeman

Con

Pertaining to the following points, we can derive that you are in agreement with me:

You agree that "For gays not to receive benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage would be archaic and discriminatory."

You agree that "Benefits and rights normally associated with today's heterosexual legal marriage should be available to all couples."

You agree that all of the current "marital benefits" currently associated with legal marriage should be given to both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, and by not giving such rights and benefits would be discrimination.

You agree that the church should not be prohibited from conducting gay marriage services. As I mentioned in my previous round: We should not intervene with the church's own philosophies. If such a service were to occur, it is the church's private matter, which is to be respected.

We also agree that the Defense of Marriage Act is bad. However, our reasoning for this differs. You say that the term "marriage" should include both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I say that the term "marriage" should not be given an explicit definition by the government at all, and that the individual church should decide for itself what should be recognized by the church.

As mentioned in my previous round, the only part we are in fact debating is what term we should use to describe those governmentally-bestowed benefits. So, in essence, all we have to do is determine which term is most appropriate and applicable for governmental purposes. Again, regardless of which term is used, the governmentally-bestowed benefits remains constant.

"You have not explained why religious origins are bad. Many churches and all courtrooms will honor gay marriage."

I am not at all saying that religious origins are bad. I am just saying that if it does have religious origins, then it is not the duty of the government to manipulate it. As well, I still stand by what I said in the previous round: With consent of the church or any religious organization, people may still acquire a "marriage" by means of its religious institution definition, in which a service can be provided or whatever the religious organization desires to do, and this ought to cover the theological aspects of a religious marriage. Therefore, with the consent of the church, any gay couple can still be married. However, a governmentally-recognized civil union will ensure the governmentally-bestowed rights and benefits.

Additionally, the fact that courtrooms honor gay marriage is great. However, this still does not change its status as a religious term.

"As well, our government ought to require employers to recognize civil union status. (Oboeman)
- The New Hampshire government requires this however this is not accomplished. And will not be accomplished through anything but marriage." (Policydebategod)

+ Our state and federal governments should work harder to enforce civil union recognition among employers. (Oboeman)

And, like I said in the preceding round: Obviously some decisions are decided at the national level, some at the individual state level. I think that the issue of civil unions ought to be decided at the national level; no state should ignore civil union status, and I think it ought to be federally recognized. If this idea pertaining to civil unions being recognized at the nation level were to be implemented, homosexual couples would no longer be limited as to where they may or may not live while being recognized by the government. Therefore, the benefits would apply everywhere in the nation, so they would not have to settle in any specified area; civil union recognition would be universal throughout the country. (Oboeman)

"Perhaps it is best that other citizens come to accept other people's achievements, rather than saying it has no importance. (Oboeman)
- Duh. But we will not get that." (Policydebategod)

+ If it remains such a problem, then our education system should educate the nation's children about people who choose to live their lives differently from others. This will yield a greater tolerance for gay and lesbian couples. (Oboeman)

"Gay marriages can still be recognized, but like all marriages, I think they should just be recognized by the church, assuming the individual church has no objection. (Oboeman)
- Then you agree with same sex marriage. All we want is for marriage to be recognized by everybody and for everybody. I don't see why gays are excluded from society like some modern caste system or jim crow." (Policydebategod)

+ Remember, I am personally not against gay marriages, I just think the individual church should ultimately be in charge of it. (Oboeman)

"Next, you state that heterosexual marriages not being recognized would lead to riots in the streets, and could further lead to a civil war. However, anyone who desires to be married and have a marriage service conducted by a religious organization is most welcome to do just that. In fact, most marriages today ARE indeed performed in such a manner. The only difference here is that a couple would need civil union status, regardless of their being heterosexual or homosexual, in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits. (Oboeman)
- Most marriages are performed by the church and should be if wanted. That marriage should be marriage instead of civil unions." (Policydebategod)

+ If my plan were to be implemented by the government, people who wanted to would still be married, by the church. Pretty much, the only difference would be that the government would grant the couple civil union status. Again, any couple can acquire such status in order to acquire their state-ensured rights and benefits.

My opponent's P.S. TO VOTERS response is a bit flawed. I am totally for gay rights and for them receiving the same governmental rights and benefits as heterosexual couples. As I said previously, marriage will be just as abundant, but the church would be in charge of it, not the government. The government would give civil union rights and benefits (same rights and benefits currently associated with legal marriage) to all heterosexual and homosexual couples. As well, every couple would receive civil union status, in addition to their choosing of getting married. Again, many churches and religious organizations respect gay marriages at the current. The individual church decides what to recognize as marriage. But there are still governmental-ensured rights and benefits for all.

As I stated in a previous round:
I do agree, at the time, non-religious people get married on a regular basis. However, I am assuming that you are inferring to the current "legal marriage," which bestows the rudimentary rights and benefits currently associated with the term. However, under my argument, the term would just be altered to a completely non-religious term, so that these non-religious people would still acquire the same benefits and rights. So, ultimately, non-religious people would still be able to receive the same governmental rights and benefits, it just would not officially be called "legal marriage," but instead civil unions.

I do think that each individual church and religious institution is a private organization. Therefore, they ought to decide their own principals based upon their own philosophies, not be forced to follow those of the government. Again, most religious institutions recognize gay marriages, which is beneficial. But imposing the government's own arbitrary philosophies upon religious organizations is wrong.

I am totally against any form of exclusionism, as it is unethical and wrong.
Therefore, I ask that the readers and voters of this debate vote CON.

I thank policydebategod for challenging me to this enthralling discussion. The debate was fun. Thank you,
Oboeman.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
I abstain from voting, but Oboeman - a job well done. You offered a completely different perspective to this extremely trite debate.
Posted by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
Arrivaltime - just to make you aware, I do not consider myself all that religious of a person. As well, I am, personally, all for gay marriage. I argue, however, that it is indeed a religious term, and that the government ought to not intervene with and manipulate religious terminology.

And, under my argument, marriage would not be reserved for just the religious necessarily. Instead, religious organizations would, in essence, be in charge of marriage services and ceremonies. As well, you must remember that my argumentation was solely based upon the "definition" of gay marriage given by debate.org.

In addition, the term "civil union," under my argument, does not HAVE to be any particular service or ceremony, but can be just a status. This status simply ensures that all of the citizens not desiring a marriage ceremony can still acquire the governmentally-ensured rights and benefits associated with the union of two committing people.

As well, you would still be able to get a marriage, of course. However, the only thing changing using my plan is this: instead of receiving the rights and benefits from the government because you were married, you would instead be given a governmentally-assigned status saying you are in a committing union, or something along those lines (which, again, could be called a civil union, or whatever else the government would decide to call it, but that is irrelevant for the point I am trying to get across to you), and therefore still acquire all of the governmentally-ensured rights and benefits that any couple deserves.

Does this answer your question?? If not, I would be delighted to clarify any further confusion. As well, I am open to any suggestions you might have.
Thanks for following the debate,
Oboeman.

P.S.
If policydebategod reads this, I would like to note that he is quite the debater, and I thank him for challenging me.
Posted by policydebategod3 9 years ago
policydebategod3
got 'em! now ill write randomness for the minimum.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
Nooo way no way no way. Sorry. I think it's totally unfair to revert to marriage being for the religous only. Your church is free to refuse a ceremony to whoever they want but if the government were to really say that its a civil union unless you're both Christian is too much! That is way too much control! I want to get married, I don't want a civil union. I want to invite people to my wedding, not my civil union ceremony.

If you think civil unions and marriages are exactly the same except marriage is a "religous" term, why can't your church just not allow gays to get married there and the state can allow gays to get MARRIED at the court house, and they can have there own ceremony?
Posted by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
All I am doing is suggesting an idea. I consider myself a "listener" and am open to all other ideas. The idea I am using in this debate just encourages establishing a new term for what we consider "legal marriage." I think that this idea would lessen the religious opposition to what they call "gay marriage." These highly religious people would have no valid argument against civil unions (To my current knowledge), as civil unions are not even in a questionable status in regards to its origins, as the term was obviously brought up by the government, not the church. And of course people get to choose what to do with their lives, as long as it harms no others; no personal faith from outsiders should intervene. Civil unions would work for all heterosexual and homosexual unions.

And to your example, of your parents: If this idea was implemented, your mother and father would receive everything in the definition of "legal marriage." All that would change would be what the state calls these benefits and rights; instead of calling it "legal marriage," it would simply be called a "civil union." So basically, all it is would be to change the term, which is quite a minor alteration most definitely.

Does this answer your question?? If not, you are welcome to comment your message of inquiry again.

Remember, this is only an idea, and I am open to any and all suggestions for improvement. If eventually there comes along another idea which is better than mine, I believe that I would be ignorant not to accept it, and ignorance is futile. Because of that, I am always open to change.

Great question, and I hope I answered it.
Posted by arrivaltime 9 years ago
arrivaltime
So like, can Atheists not get married too then? Or what about an Atheist and a Catholic like my parents? I mean if it's in total disregard of the Church's will as we always follow in the states apparently...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CaliBeachgirl 8 years ago
CaliBeachgirl
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by edwardsdebater 9 years ago
edwardsdebater
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by utdebater 9 years ago
utdebater
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by johnwooding1 9 years ago
johnwooding1
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
policydebategodoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30