The Instigator
kgantchev
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
JTSmith
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

Hermaphrodites are proof that homosexuality is not just a life-style

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,055 times Debate No: 4279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (58)
Votes (17)

 

kgantchev

Pro

First, I shall request that the observers vote for the best argument!
Second, I'd like to define hermaphrodite:

adj : (biology) of animal or plant; having both male female
reproductive organs [syn: hermaphroditic]
n : one having both male and female sexual characteristics and
organs; at birth an unambiguous assignment of male or
female cannot be made [syn: intersex, gynandromorph,
androgyne, epicine, epicine person]

Biological Clarifications:
A person born with both ovary and testicular tissue, this could be 2 seperate gonads ( one of each) or a combination of both in one (an ovotestes). The genitalia can vary from completely male or female, to a combination of both or even ambiguous looking. The chromosome (karotype) compliment can be XX (female), XY (male), XX/XY (mosiac) or even XO (extremely rare). Those XX with female genitalia are raised female ( some have even given birth). Those XY with male genitalia are raised male ( a few have fathered children). The children born XX/XY or XO (with genitalia male or female are raised in the sex they look most like) ,Those born with ambiguous genitalia have many medical tests for the doctors to determine which sex they should be assigned. Doctors then recommend early surgery to make the child look physically like the sex assigned to them.

Reference: http://www.jax-inter.net...

I'm addressing a specific Christian view, but you're welcome to propose your own:

"It is very possible for a child born with both sex organs to grow up to have a healthy view of sexuality and successful relationships. From early on, the child should be taught how valuable, loved and accepted they are by their family and also by God. He or she is not a victim of divine judgment, but God has a plan for each one of us that will bring Him glory, as we can learn from a man who was healed by Jesus Christ.

"'Teacher,' his disciples asked him, 'why was this man born blind? Was it a result of his own sins or those of his parents?' 'It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins,' Jesus answered. 'He was born blind so the power of God could be seen in him'" (John 9:2-3)."
Reference: http://www.gotquestions.org...

Argument:
Based on the definition, a hermaphrodites is inherently both homosexual, since they technically have intercourse with the same sex no matter what sex they pick. If God created hermaphrodites, then, as the Christian definition suggest, that's an example of God's power.

From a biological point of view it's argued homosexuals are born that way, attraction to the opposite sex is based on hormones, and understanding hormonal disorders are relatively common, it's not surprising that homosexuality is found relatively frequent too.

Given that God doesn't hold a grudge against hermaphrodites, Jesus never said anything against gays, and gays are God's children too, I don't see any reason to believe that being gay is a sin.

Thanks to those who wish to take on this debate!
JTSmith

Con

First, my opponent has not addressed his supposed topic at all. The only thing he has tried to prove is that homosexuality is not a sin, which is not the choice of topic he claimed to argue in his title.

I will however, argue both.

Now, before i get into prooving homosexuality as being a sin and everyone starts hating on me, I would like to mention that I am, in fact, pro gay rights. Gays should have the right to practice that lifestyle. I do however, believe that it is still a sin.

1. As far as homosexuality being a sin, I can give you plenty of places in the Bible, where Jesus and his apsotles have condemned it.

Leviticus 18:22
Deuteronomy 23:17
Romans 1:27
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:9-11
Jude 1:7

(fact to know while reading verses that refernce Sodom and Gomorrha. Sodom and Gomorrha were renouned for their wickedness, but especially in homosexuality as is written in Jude 1:7 and throughout Genesis)

As far as hermaphrodites go, they choose one way of life or another. They still very much have the choice to remain loyal to only one sex, which is the opposite of the one they choose to become. Hermaphrodites almost always choose to become one sex or another and thusly, they are perfectly capable of following God's laws.
The verses I listed are clear proof that Homosexual activities are, in fact, a sin.

2. As far as Hermaphrodites being proof that Homosexuality is not just a life style, that is COMPLETELY untrue.

Hermaphrodites do, in fact, have the capability to have feelings for both sexes without hormonal treatment. The reason this isn't proof however, becuase there is one major difference.
Hermphrodites have equal amounts of both estrogen and testosterone. Because of this, they naturally do, in fact, have feelings for both sexes.
Homosexuals have no such balance of hormones. Any gay guy you may meet on the street has about the same amount of testosterone as any other straight guy. They have very little estrogen at all. Otheerwise they would be developing breasts.
No, gay guys emotions have nothing to do with hormonal irregularities. They hormones are working just fine, which is why hormonal imbalances DO NOT explain their homosexual feelings. Hermaphrodites, however, ARE suffering from hormonal irregularities that explain their feelings.
There is yet to be any kind of scientific explaination that justifies a gays guys feelings. There have been loads of pscological evidence to prove that its all in the head.
Either way... hermaphrodites are sepcial cases that have no relation or similarity to homosexuals at all.
Debate Round No. 1
kgantchev

Pro

I would also like to point out that while I didn't address the topic of lifestyle, my opponent didn't either (although he explicitly said that he would). In his second point he addressed hormones with respect to sexual attraction, not lifestyle.

With my opponent's permission I would like to exclude lifestyle form the debate since neither of us addressed it and stick with what we have addressed so far: sin and hormones in relationship to homosexuals and hermaphrodites.

================
FIRST POINT
================
I would also like to define homosexual (Merriam-Webster):

[DEFINITION-homosexual]
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
— ho•mo•sex•u•al•ly adverb

I would also like to point out that the main reason why God punished the citizens of Sodom is NOT because of their sexuality, but because of their sexual mischief:
"having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh," (Jude 1:7)

As a matter of fact the only place where sodomy is ever addressed is in Deuteronomy 23:17 but looking at most Bible translations we actually find that the translation is: "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute." And God's Word Translated Bible also defines it as a temple prostitute not as sodomy. Furthermore, looking at the LITERAL translation of the verses provided by my opponent we see that the people who were punished by God did not in-fact commit a sin by pursuing their sexuality, but by breaking one of the 10 commandments.

This brings me to my second point: God gave Christians the 10 commandments which theoretically will get Christians in to heaven if those commandments are followed. None of the 10 commandments address homosexuality, therefore sexual orientation is not a sin.

My opponent also stated that hermaphrodites chose one way of life or another. This brings in another factor: choice. But that leaves us with more questions than answers: hermaphrodites get to chose their sexuality, but when? Do they actually choose, or do their parents choose? How long do they have to make the choice, and finally if they're born with both sexes, then didn't God already choose their sexuality for them?

I would like to answers those questions:
1. Most of the time hermaphrodites don't get to choose their sexuality, it's done by their parents and a doctor (in modern societies).
2. Some are left to figure out their own sexuality, usually by the early teens.
3. God created hermaphrodites, therefore he selected their sex for them.

My opponent also said that hermaphrodites can be loyal to one sex, and I would say that this applies to homosexuals which also remain loyal to only one sex.

Neither the verses provided, nor the arguments brought forward prove that homosexuality is a sin. As I have explained, the literal translations of the Bible don't show homosexuality as a sin.

================
SECOND POINT
================

My opponent has stated that hermaphrodites have the equal or same levels of estrogen and testosterone, but that's not really true. As a matter of fact, based on the definition of a hermaphrodite, how one is identified by their XY/XX chromosomes and the fact that hormone levels are rarely equal it really comes down to sexuality being a choice. In addition, the hormone levels often lean to one side or another and that's how doctors tend to decide which sex (sex chromosomes are also considered) they'll assign to a hermaphrodite.

My opponent also stated that hermaphrodites are a SPECIAL case which has no relation or similarity to homosexuals at all. While I agree that hermaphrodites, biologically speaking, are a special case, I would like to point out that there are similarities.

When we consider that emotions are just chemical reactions in our brains, an imbalance in certain hormones or chemicals can cause the "wrong" emotions. This clearly shows that sexuality and sex are fairly similar, thus making homosexuals and hermaphrodites conceptually similar.

There have been medical studies that show a relationship in that area:

"Pillard speculates that Mullerian inhibiting hormone, or a substance analogous to it, may have brain-organizing effects. Its absence or failure to kick in sufficiently may prevent the brain from defeminizing, thereby creating what Pillard calls "psychosexual androgyny." In this view, gay men are basically masculine males with female aspects, including perhaps certain cognitive abilities and emotional sensibilities. Lesbian women could be understood as women who have some biologically induced masculine aspects."
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com...

Based on the presented arguments I conclude that the literal translations of Bible so not identify homosexuality as a sin and that the similarities between homosexuals and hermaphrodites are sufficient enough to establish inherent natural causation for both.
JTSmith

Con

I did very much, in fact, address your lifestyle topic.
It is clear that my point went straight past your head so let me write it out clearly.

In the last round the point I made regarding hermaphrodites as being evidence that homosexuality is not just a lifestyle is as follows:

If hermaphrodites have absolutely no connection to gays and lesbians; if hermaphrodites are a completely separate case for obvious reasons who have no similarity to homosexuals, then they CAN NOT be proof of anything having at all to do with homosexuals.

Furthermore, I may come off as a jerk, but I will continue to press my argument regarding "lifestyle evidence", as well as pursue the argument of sin.

I have no further need to address the matter of lifestyle evidence as my opponent has not countered but instead tried to change the subject.

I will move on to whether or not homosexuality is a sin.

I myself will use the King James version of the Bible as it is the only version yet remaining that has been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek and has been unchanged and unsimplified. It is a direct translation from the original writing unlike the "God's Word Translated Bible.

The original translation of the text is written as follows.

"7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
-Jude 1:7

Having gone after "strange" flesh or "other flesh" refers to homosexuality. In fact, you don't have to take my word for it. If you read both versions of the verse, the Lord already addressed fornication. To pursue strange flesh does not mean simply fornification, for that would be redundant. Furthermore, "strange flesh" was how romans and greeks referred to homosexuality.

Continuing on, my opponent stated the following:

"I would also like to point out that the main reason why God punished the citizens of Sodom is NOT because of their sexuality, but because of their sexual mischief"

I have two questions for my opponent.
1. Isn't homosexuality sexual mischief???
2. If they weren't being punished for their homosexuality, then why would god mention it along with the other sins they are guilty of???

My opponent continues:

"This brings me to my second point: God gave Christians the 10 commandments which theoretically will get Christians in to heaven if those commandments are followed. None of the 10 commandments address homosexuality, therefore sexual orientation is not a sin."

Homosexuality is a form of fornication just like cheating on your wife is. Just like prostitution is. Just like premarital sex is. ( I apologize if anyone feels offended. I am not trying to condemn anyone. I am just trying to prove a point.) Homosexuality is, in fact fornication. It is Sodomy. It is "sexual mischief".

If anyone has any question of that they can read the verses I provided in the last round. In almost every verse the lord throws in homosexuality as a violation of the sexual commandment.

Just because God wasn't as specific as saying:
"Thou shalt not cheat on your wife, have sex before marriage, and have sex with other members of your sex"
doesn't mean that its not a sin.

Moving on, as far as my opponents "three questions go:

"hermaphrodites get to chose their sexuality, but when? Do they actually choose, or do their parents choose? How long do they have to make the choice, and finally if they're born with both sexes, then didn't God already choose their sexuality for them?"

I ask my opponent this question:
What does that have to do with them being proof of homosexuality being a lifestyle and/or a sin? I fail to see your questions' relevance in this debate.

Whether or not hermaphrodite's hormone levels are perfectly equal is irrelevant. Their emotions are still the direct result of hormonal imbalances that stimulate the mind and influence it in different directions.

As far as the similarities you gave are concerned, all I got out of that was that they both like the same sex…
I shouldn't be blunt but this a quite a "duh" statement.

The article you cited is one theory of one UCLA scientist who studied hormonal balances in rats.

Either way, the theory does not have to do with estrogen vs testosterone levels. It has to do with testosterone distribution and is therefore very different that that of a hermaphrodite whose hormonal imbalances are the result of the appearance of both estrogen and testosterone.

Lastly, I want to clarify this for the sake of my readers. In this debate I am not arguing whether or not homosexuality is in natural occurrence. I can't pretend to know that. I AM arguing that hermaphrodites ARE NOT EVIDENCE to say that homosexuality is in natural occurrence.
Seeing as both are very different cases and are completely unrelated, hermaphroditism( I wonder if thats a word...) cannot be used as evidence. It would be like saying that the existence of inflatable aliens proves the existence or extraterrestrial life because they both have egg-shaped heads.

…illogical and unrelated.
Debate Round No. 2
kgantchev

Pro

To iterate the fact that neither I, nor my opponent addressed lifestyle, I'll provide the definition of lifestyle (Marriam-Webster):

[DEFINITION- lifestyle]
Noun 1. lifestyle- the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture

Please look back at the previous two rounds and try to find anywhere that "the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture" is addressed. My opponent would like to suggest that my intellectual level is too low to actually make that observation, but I'll let the spectators make that judgment.

My opponent suggests that the following sentence addresses lifestyle:
"If hermaphrodites have absolutely no connection to gays and lesbians; if hermaphrodites are a completely separate case for obvious reasons who have no similarity to homosexuals, then they CAN NOT be proof of anything having at all to do with homosexuals."

My opponent has also noted that he may be perceived as a jerk, perhaps because he's not debating the topic, but trying to make personal attacks.

---------------------
REBUTTAL 1
---------------------

This is the highlight of the argument:
"I myself will use the King James version of the Bible as it is the only version yet remaining that has been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek and has been unchanged and unsimplified. It is a direct translation from the original writing unlike the "God's Word Translated Bible.""

First of all, I would like to remind my opponent that we're not debating the validity of one Bible over another.

Second, since my opponent has brought it up, I will address it: out of 450 English Translations of the Bible, he has concluded that King James is the ONLY version which is in use today and is directly translated from Jewish/Greek. The New American Standard Bible happens to be another literal translation from Greek/Hebrew and here is how the same passage is written there:
(New American Standard Bible)
"None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, (B)nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute." (Deuteronomy 23:17)
Clearly that passage says "cult prostitute" and NOTHING about sodomy!

Furthermore, my opponent would like us to believe that "strange flesh" specifically refers to homosexuality, but I would like to assert that it has been a long standing position of the Church to suggest that this is the case, not that it's really true, but because they're anti-gay.

---------------------
REBUTTAL 2
---------------------

Furthermore, my opponent already has preconceived ideas of homosexuality and that's evident in his questions:

"I have two questions for my opponent.
1. Isn't homosexuality sexual mischief???"
Clearly my opponent is asserting that homosexuality is inherently a mischievous act. This is a socially acquired notion, in many other countries homosexuality is openly accepted. My answer to that question is no, homosexuality is not sexual mischief as long as it's between partners who are in a stable relationship and don't cheat on each other (infidelity).

"2. If they weren't being punished for their homosexuality, then why would god mention it along with the other sins they are guilty of???"
God punished the people of Sodom because of their infidelity.

My opponent has used translation of the Bible which specifies sodomy, there are many others that don't. As a matter of fact many other translations specify the act as being a male prostitute...

My opponent also said:
"Just because God wasn't as specific as saying:
"Thou shalt not cheat on your wife, have sex before marriage, and have sex with other members of your sex"
doesn't mean that its not a sin."

If God didn't specifically say something, then it means that you shouldn't take it upon yourself to create a meaning that wasn't there to begin with. This is the inherit problem with "interpreting" the Bible, people insert their own ideas where God didn't specify something, that's equivalent to you pretending to be God and telling other people what should be inserted into the Bible.

---------------------
REBUTTAL 3
---------------------

My opponent goes on to make the following statement:
"Whether or not hermaphrodite's hormone levels are perfectly equal is irrelevant. Their emotions are still the direct result of hormonal imbalances that stimulate the mind and influence it in different directions."

This statement contradicts his previous claim that hermaphrodites have equal hormonal levels, therefore they can chose their sexuality. My opponent initially claimed that the equal distribution of estrogen and testosterone was the reason that hermaphrodites are a special case and different from homosexuals (see previous rounds). Now my opponent has changes his argument and says that the hormonal imbalances, even if they're not at equal levels,0 stimulate the mind and influence it in different directions which also happened to work in my defense, since MY claim also states that hormonal imbalances in homosexuals can cause the same effects as they do in hermaphrodites.

---------------------
REBUTTAL 4
---------------------

My opponent has responded with the following statement:

"Lastly, I want to clarify this for the sake of my readers. In this debate I am not arguing whether or not homosexuality is in natural occurrence. I can't pretend to know that. I AM arguing that hermaphrodites ARE NOT EVIDENCE to say that homosexuality is in natural occurrence.
Seeing as both are very different cases and are completely unrelated, hermaphroditism( I wonder if thats a word...) cannot be used as evidence. It would be like saying that the existence of inflatable aliens proves the existence or extraterrestrial life because they both have egg-shaped heads.

…illogical and unrelated."

Referring to my opponent's new claim that hormonal imbalances (even if not proportional) are the reason which lets us allow hermaphrodites to chose their own sexuality, I would say that this equally applies to any person including homosexuals. We know that these hormonal imbalances don't happen to hermaphrodites only, as a matter of fact they happen to many people. My opponent earlier stated that if we saw hormonal imbalances in males, then they would experience breast enlargement, which in fact happens to be true (Reference: http://www.associatedcontent.com...)

CLEARLY, comparing hormonal imbalances between homosexuals and hermaphrodites is not the same as "inflatable aliens" and ET life, if not for the obvious reason that we have NEVER seen ET life, the for the logical reason that the process which determines a hermaphrodite's hormonal level happens to be the same process which determines every other person's hormonal levels.

---------------------
FINAL ARGUMENT
---------------------

Even reliable translations of the Bible don't specifically define homosexuality as a sin, and if one interprets that sexuality is a sin based on what's not written in the bible, then they're asserting their beliefs in place of God's [lack of] words. If God does not find that hermaphrodites are sinful, then God shouldn't find homosexuals to be sinful because both are formed by the same process, thus both are an occurrence which is unavoidable.

Hormone levels within hermaphrodites, heterosexuals and homosexuals are formed by the same process during the conception of the baby, so if the process can go wrong for hermaphrodites then it can SURELY go wrong for other people.
JTSmith

Con

JTSmith forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
Trudat. This argument is pointless. You use sarcasm, and you say it's ok. But if I do? Holy sh*t, that's a crime.

Good bye. Good riddance....
Posted by Amplifier 9 years ago
Amplifier
Kgantchev.

I'm sure you will see this even though your account has been closed. What reasons I have none, I said I would debate you, though it seems we will never speak again.

Amplifier.
Posted by kgantchev 9 years ago
kgantchev
"I will not however challenge you until soon. Though this is due to my leave of absence from your world."

Where are you going? Mars? They haven't set up the Mars Space Station there yet... you're probably better off staying in this world for now, but that's just a suggestion. When you come back feel free to let me know.
Posted by Amplifier 9 years ago
Amplifier
Kgantchev.

Yes you are correct.
I will not however challenge you until soon. Though this is due to my leave of absence from your world.

Amplifier.
Posted by kgantchev 9 years ago
kgantchev
"You words are to these people of the world."
A world in which YOU and I exist :), a world which you're going to live in until the day you die :).

"Many sheep also speak like you, but that way of speaking provoke the law within you and within them."
Unfortunately Christians are the sheep because they not only need but they claim to have a shepherd :). Moreover, sheep exhibit a certain type of herd behavior, more precisely the need to be forced to follow the herd regardless of the consequences. I praise the independent thinkers, the innovators, the ones who stand out of the crowd, unfortunately that doesn't happen often with Christians :).

"Though God is not of law, but spirit, so it profitable to speak from the spirit like the spirit."
The only problem is that you can NEVER assume what the spirit would say :)! You pretending to talk like the spirit is not only pointless, but I'll also go as far as to say it's ignorant. I would say that you're correct it COULD be PROFITABLE (really bringing in cash) for those who pretend to speak like the spirit, and that's truly vile and disgusting. I find it despicable that a human would place himself on the same level of that which he considers holy.

"Though I refeer to other messages, I have continued to speak only truth to you so you may now see."
Oh I see :) Are you going to post the debate or just waste my time on comments here?
Posted by Amplifier 9 years ago
Amplifier
Kgantchev.

You words are to these people of the world. Many sheep also speak like you, but that way of speaking provoke the law within you and within them. Though God is not of law, but spirit, so it profitable to speak from the spirit like the spirit.

Though I refeer to other messages, I have continued to speak only truth to you so you may now see.
Posted by kgantchev 9 years ago
kgantchev
Amp,
Your words do serve many purposes, you've learned from an example which teaches you to say things in a way that people can interpret them for themselves. I on the other hand, prefer to mean what I say, specifically so people won't question my words :). I suppose there could be a need for your type of words, but I know there is a demand for my type of words :)... I don't expect you to understand.
Posted by Amplifier 9 years ago
Amplifier
Kgantchev.

So now that one truth has be physcially given to you. What others which you must find have you overlooked? A simple truth, yes many of them are. I do not speak as you do, for my words serve many purposes. If I were to speak as you do then my words become arrows of one point to one place.

I thankyou here and now for your will to listen to me.

Amplifier
Posted by kgantchev 9 years ago
kgantchev
"Though my messgae below (which was sent long ago) was addressed to all people, it was for you. Rather it was for you to understand my words, maybe now you understand my words have many purposes and speak to all people."
OK, so you were indirectly addressing me, that's great :)

"Do you understand that your reply to me was pointless becasue it was not concerning you at all. Rather it was for you to see."
You would find my reply pointless if you didn't take the time to understand it, I try to give you the time of day and I try to understand you :). I think that although we disagree on some issues, I still take the time to read and understand what you tell me :)

"Surely even you can now see what I say is true."
Philosophically speaking: I do see that what you say is true, as a matter of fact, EVERYTHING I see seems to be true :)...
Posted by Amplifier 9 years ago
Amplifier
Kgantchev,

Though my messgae below (which was sent long ago) was addressed to all people, it was for you. Rather it was for you to understand my words, maybe now you understand my words have many purposes and speak to all people. Do you understand that your reply to me was pointless becasue it was not concerning you at all. Rather it was for you to see.

Surely even you can now see what I say is true.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 RequireTruth 9 years ago
RequireTruth
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 InquireTruth 9 years ago
InquireTruth
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 debatist 9 years ago
debatist
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 night 9 years ago
night
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 shdwfx 9 years ago
shdwfx
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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 8_belles 9 years ago
8_belles
kgantchevJTSmithTied
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