The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Winning
52 Points
The Contender
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

Homosexual, Bisexual, and Transgender tolerance should be briefly taught at schools.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 4/10/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,550 times Debate No: 3587
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (19)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

Recently, a Minnesota boy was murdered by a classmate for being homosexual. All across the nation and the world people are bullied, discriminated against and murdered for being homosexual. If there were brief assemblies teaching that homosexuality is not wrong, is natural and should not be discriminated against in any way, then these violent crimes would be significantly reduced and attitudes toward Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgendered (LGBT) would change. Currently, schools have a "Red Week" where there is an assembly about drugs and their harmful effects. Students are asked to wear red in support for drug safety and abstinence. This has proven very effective and has changed many attitudes about drugs. If LGBT tolerance would be given this same attention, arguably a more important issue than drugs, then less violent crimes and discrimination would occur.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

Allow me to clarify from the outset my intentions for taking this debate. My intent is not to persuade you or the reader why homosexual tolerance shouldn't be taught in schools for reasons of disliking homosexuality or anything else. Rather, my argument will focus on why it is not a school's place to indoctrinate children on social matters -- why they should strive for neutrality.

"A MINNESOTA BOY WAS MURDERED BY A CLASSMATE FOR BEING A HOMOSEXUAL."

Does the motive make it more or less heinous? Suppose a person was murdered for glancing at someone. Should the penalty for the crime be worse because it goes against some arbitrary social condition, or should murder simply be charged on the basis of itself? Uncovering motive only helps establish why the murder was committed, and by whom. It doesn't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) make the penalty more or less offensive. The action or actions, I believe, are the only pertinent details in sentencing.

"ALL ACROSS THE NATION AND THE WORLD PEOPLE ARE BULLIED, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND MURDERED FOR BEING HOMOSEXUAL."

All around the nation and the world people are bullied, discriminated against and murdered for being fat, being white, being black, being Christian, being atheist, being Muslim, being a girl, etc, etc. The greater thing in my mind is the action. Secondary is the motive.

"IF THERE WERE BRIEF ASSEMBLIES TEACHING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT WRONG, IS NATURAL... VIOLENT CRIMES WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED."

1. What evidence is there to suggest that it would? People said that if you took guns away from the people that it would reduce the murder rate. In many cities, in actually increased it.

2. Why should it be a school's job, particularly public school, to teach you about morality -- incidentally, their own biased morality? Shouldn't that be your parents job? Something tells me you wouldn't like it if a school was scheduling a special time to tell you how terrible homosexuality is. If so, why should others not conforming to your view be subjected to your morals, when you don't like it when others impose them on you? Golden Rule, anyone???

A school is supposed to teach fundamentals, like arithmetic, language, science, etc -- you know, what schools once solely focused on before they turned in to a mouthpiece for a social agenda. A public school should not be making moral pronouncements unless it directly affects the school and its students. Invariably, you teaching that homosexuality is not wrong tells the students protected under the First Amendment that their opinion is wrong and is invalid. And I'll tell you what, if my kid tells me about ANY social indoctrination (whether its homosexuality is bad or good, or anything else) going on in her public school, I'll be calling a lawyer promptly.

3. Thirdly, some people believe that homosexuality is not natural and is immoral. If we are all entitled to our own personal opinions, then what grants a public school the right to unilaterally support a specific moral outlook? Shouldn't public schools be neutral in those regards to avoid usurping the student's parents? I don't believe it is a school's job to indoctrinate and spread propaganda in any direction. It is their job to teach the fundamentals.

Now, I would agree that during times of "social studies" or history, time could be allotted to discuss these things. But a teacher should remain neutral in the debate with a cool, calm, and collected detachment so as to not bias the students, but rather to mediate as a judge would do.
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

Allow me to clarify from the outset my intentions for taking this debate. My intent is not to persuade you or the reader why homosexual tolerance shouldn't be taught in schools for reasons of disliking homosexuality or anything else. Rather, my argument will focus on why it is not a school's place to indoctrinate children on social matters -- why they should strive for neutrality.

--- [Motive] doesn't (or shouldn't, in my opinion) make the penalty more or less offensive.

+ I am not debating that either. The fact that murders happen on the basis of homosexuality makes homosexual toolerance a priority. Violence and discrimination is given to homosexuals daily and can be stopped. The Community United Against Violence, a San Francisco anti-violence advocacy group, says
= Nationwide, 2,475 people were victimized by anti-gay violence, up 10 percent from 2,249 in 1999.
= Attacks resulting in serious injury throughout the country were down 41 percent, from 363 in 1999 to 215 last year, while assaults in general rose 60 percent from 90 to 145.
= One in six attacks nationwide were against transgender people.
The group gathered its data from victim reports given to 26 anti-violence nonprofit organizations across the country.

--- "The greater thing in my mind is the action. Secondary is the motive."

+ You say people kill people for being black, a girl, or Christian but racism is not the social norm, sexism is not the social norm and 94% of Americans are Christian. However, homophobia and heterosexism are social norms that promote violence and discrimination and it can be stopped. Social influences are very effective. My question is if you can stop or reduce this violence and discrimination with maybe 3 hours a year out of your kid's schooling, then why not?

--- "1. What evidence is there to suggest that [violence and discrimination]would [decrease]? People said that if you took guns away from the people that it would reduce the murder rate. In many cities, in actually increased it."

+ I am a Libertarian. I love gun rights. I don't understand your connectiuon, however. There are no stats that prove this that I can find but I am confident that in schools where Red Ribbon Week is had, a drug free week, drug use is a social taboo. I go to one of these schools and many people have been convinced that drug use is bad and harmful. Also, there is a program in Uganda called ABC for Abstinence, Be faithful, Condoms. This program is designed to reduce AIDS because it educates people and makes it a social norm to be edeucated and take one of these 3 actions. This social influencing technique was very effective in that HIV/AIDS cases among adult Ugandans dropped from an estimated 15 percent in 1992 to roughly 6 percent.

--- "2. Why should it be a school's job, particularly public school, to teach you about morality -- incidentally, their own biased morality?"

+ School's teach about drug education and kindness now and will more than likely ever stop. They have school rules that are identified as social norms to follow with some exceptions. And this would decrease homosexual geared violence and discrimination advancing our culture socially. This is an incredible benefit and the only negative aspect is 3 hours worth of class time, which is important, but not as important a reducing violence and discrimination against homosexuals and potentially other groups.

--- "A public school should not be making moral pronouncements unless it directly affects the school and its students."

+ Homosexuals are just as much students as heterosexuals. That boy in Massachusetts died from a hate crime. That boy is dead. His best friend is sad, practically traumatized. The boy who committed the crime is facing life in prison. And these crimes happen all over the nation and the world on smaller scales and on larger scales. This can be significantly reduced. How dare you say that this does directly affect these students.

--- "Invariably, you teaching that homosexuality is not wrong tells the students protected under the First Amendment that their opinion is wrong and is invalid. And I'll tell you what, if my kid tells me about ANY social indoctrination (whether its homosexuality is bad or good, or anything else) going on in her public school, I'll be calling a lawyer promptly."

+ And you'll loose...promptly. The Supreme Court decided in favor of education of students as opposed to keeping them in the dark because of their parents' ot their own personal beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of teaching evolution and not teaching creationism at all because it is the more fact based and beneficial curriculum. Not necessarily the better. But the more fact based and beneficial.

--- "3. Thirdly, some people believe that homosexuality is not natural and is immoral. If we are all entitled to our own personal opinions"

+ Homosexuality is natural and is not immoral. So says most scientists who have decided on the issue. The American Psycholical Association is the leading source on this. They say that homosexuality is determined from pre-natal and post-natal influences. It is not determined by yourself and cannot be changed.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"THE FACT THAT MURDERS ON THE BASIS OF HOMOSEXUALITY MAKES HOMOSEXUAL TOLERANCE A PRIORITY."

Why should one group receive special treatment over another? Murder happens every day in every land, and always has since the dawn of man. There has never been a time where people were more accepting of homosexuality. Its working itself out in its own way. Students can also form groups for awareness on their own time. Teachers can go to rallies outside of school to raise awareness against intolerance. My chief argument is that preferential treatment should not be taught at schools at all, as it is inappropriate to do so. Inexorably, if you give one group special pleading, you end up alienating another. And in that way, you would actually increase the stigma, not ameliorate it.

"MY QUESTION IS IF YOU CAN STOP OR REDUCE THIS VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION WITH MAYBE 3 HOURS A YEAR OUT OF YOUR KID'S SCHOOLING, THEN WHY NOT?"

Because it is not a school's responsibility to indoctrinate children in any way. As a parent, its my job and my responsibility to instruct my child about what is (in)appropriate on social issues. As they age they then can begin to forge their own beliefs as they see fit. Schools, however, are institutions for learning fundamentals. Pandering to social agendas is a huge problem on college campuses, and has been for quite awhile now. There has been this shift for the last 100 years or so where many college professors smuggle in their own agendas and biases and launder them through a legitimate curriculum. All it has produced is dumb graduates with an inflated sense of ego and a martyr's complex. Its time for schools to remember what a school is for. These kids are being manipulated by teachers and professors because they are young and impressionable. Woe to them, as it is not their place.

"I AM A LIBERTARIAN. I LOVE GUN RIGHT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR CONNECTION."

There is no connection to gun rights and homosexuality. My reason for mentioning it was an illustration of faulty logic. The logic for removing gun rights is that it would decrease violence. It hasn't done that. Similarly, putting up red ribbons only further alienates the person who doesn't feel that homosexuality is natural. They would be more apt and prone to falling in with a bad group with more extremist views. It would be more dangerous for homosexuals, as it creates this "Us vs Them" atmosphere.

But since you talk about libertarianism, I assume that you could understand what I was referring to in my prior post. If schools teach that homosexuality should be tolerated, then the one's that don't agree are removed their Constitutional rights. Every one is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, so long as it does not infringe, impinge, or impede someone else's rights. Why the unilateral support of one group over another at a school that should remain neutral on such issues so they can avoid it?

"HOMOSEXUALS ARE JUST AS MUCH STUDENTS AS HETEROSEXUALS"

Of course they are. And they should receive the same rights and protections afforded under the Constitution. But schools have nothing to do with that. At most, a school should quell violence and disruption by curbing violence, not trying to force people to side with a particular social agenda. Instead of saying, its not right to hit him because he's gay, why not say, its not right to him him, period? Do you understand the difference I am referring to? Why say, don't bad-mouth him because he's a Christian. Rather, say, don't bad-mouth him, period. Extrapolate that neutrality for anything, and that is how schools should handle it.

"THAT BOY IN MASS... DIED FROM A HATE CRIME... HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT"

What is a "Hate Crime?" Its nonsense. Is a persons motive supposed to make the fact that they killed someone greater because of it? That's absurd. And what is happening now is that it is setting itself up to erode personal freedoms, not protect them. Its like affirmative action. We all can recognize that its trying to do the right thing. And that's fantastic, but sometimes our good intentions have terrible consequences. The reality is that it is racism in reverse, and ends up perpetuating the very thing it was supposed to take away. These "Hate Crimes" are exactly the same, as it sets a precedence for the motive over the action of the crime.

"THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN FAVOR OF EDUCATION OF THE STUDENTS AS OPPOSED TO KEEPING THEM IN THE DARK OF THEIR PARENTS BELIEFS"

They've done no such thing. The last few Supreme Court cases concerning schools have come by way of religious expressions made by students, and whether or not it is unconstitutional. What you are referring to was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to not teach creationism in science class, and a similar case in Georgia, as it is not considered legitimate scientific material. Consequently, that bears no relevance to anything, nor does it prove that a parent can be usurped by a school system.

In any case, you have neglected to explain to me why it is a schools job to teach children about social issues.
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

--- "My chief argument is that preferential treatment should not be taught at schools at all, as it is inappropriate to do so. Inexorably, if you give one group special pleading, you end up alienating another. And in that way, you would actually increase the stigma, not ameliorate it."

+ The fact is that homosexuality is the most open hate in America. Contestably with Muslims. And I think that if Muslim hate crimes are high as well and discrimination and intolerance, then 3 hours a year out of school to educate students is acceptable. But homosexual hate crimes are chief and can be reduced. Social assemblies and influences have proven to be effective. This can be as well. Why is it a bad thing to reduce violence and discrimination? The alienation of another group does not increase the stigma. Drug awareness is at schools but this has not risen teen pregnancies. Georgia health classes teach about STDs and the numbe of teen AIDS cases have decreased as well as pregnancies.

--- "All it has produced is dumb graduates with an inflated sense of ego and a martyr's complex. Its time for schools to remember what a school is for. These kids are being manipulated by teachers and professors because they are young and impressionable. "

+ ...Well. I'd like to see some evidence of how education of a concept is bad for students. It's people like you that want to hide kids from concepts like evolutio because you personally disagree. What about removing the Holocaust from the curriculum for Holocaust denyers? Or removing burgers from Home Ec class because of vegan parents?

--- "Similarly, putting up red ribbons only further alienates the person who doesn't feel that homosexuality is natural."

+ As putting up Red Ribbons now alienates the drug user, which is the intention.

--- "It would be more dangerous for homosexuals, as it creates this "Us vs Them" atmosphere."

+ Let's look at other social movements. Red Ribbon Week against drugs. Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms. Etc. Neither of these created an Us vs. Them atmosphere. This atmosphere, however, is going on now and can be reduced with social education. Violence and discrimination are going on now and if you're truly against those things, then you should be for reducing them.

--- But since you talk about libertarianism, I assume that you could understand what I was referring to in my prior post. If schools teach that homosexuality should be tolerated, then the one's that don't agree are removed their Constitutional rights.

+ No Constitutional right gives you the right to hide your child from concepts that are logical and beneficial. The Supreme Court ruled the opposite. Evolution is taught in schools because every child has the right to learn the concept. If you want your child to be a prejudice gay basher then that's your loss unless you reinforce other, contrary concepts.

--- Every one is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, so long as it does not infringe, impinge, or impede someone else's rights. Why the unilateral support of one group over another at a school that should remain neutral on such issues so they can avoid it?

+ The Buddhist lobby might want to have math removed from the curriculum because it is a human created concept. The Satanist lobby might want to remove teaching of Abrahamic religion. The French lobby want to have Latin removed from the curriculum so that more students will study French. Each student has the right to learn eavery concept every other student learns. You can't pull a concept that makes sense and is beneficial because you personally disagree. Some evangelical abstinence supporters are trying to pull condoms from the curriculum despite their helpfulness and the number of lives they may save. They also have successfully pulled Harry Potter books from some schools despite the fact that children were reading at a higher level and were actually interested in reading. Homosexual awareness assemblies would reduce violence and each person has the right to check their kid out that day so the kid can become prejudice.

--- "Instead of saying, its not right to hit him because he's gay, why not say, its not right to him him, period?"

+ What about discrimination still? And physical violence will still occur. I understand your point but it wouldn't be nearly as effective.

--- "What is a "Hate Crime?" Its nonsense. Is a persons motive supposed to make the fact that they killed someone greater because of it? That's absurd."

+ Ok. Even if you may not understand that people are targeted because of the sexuality, race and creed, people reading this will. Hate crimes exist.

--- "Consequently, that bears no relevance to anything, nor does it prove that a parent can be usurped by a school system."

+ I'm very much aware of what I'm referring to. And it proves that a parent cannot keep all kids from learning about a logical, beneficial concept because they want their kid to be unaware of concepts and unable to think for themself.

--- In any case, you have neglected to explain to me why it is a schools job to teach children about social issues.

+ Ah.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"THE FACT IS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE MOST OPEN HATE IN AMERICA"

Even supposing that it is, why is that a schools responsibility? Try to think of your argument in reverse, and perhaps you will gain a sense of what I am trying to get across. Suppose that I was advocating that schools should teach its students about the dangers and horrors of homosexuality. Is it a schools place to foist their agendas on you at the expense of a homosexual?

It sounds kind of fascist when you see it in reverse, huh? That's because it is. A Libertarian, I would think that you would want to get away from that since it doesn't focus on individual rights. What you are suggesting is actually a conglomerate of fascism and socialism.

"I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME EVIDENCE OF HOW EDUCATION OF A CONCEPT IS BAD FOR STUDENTS."

Okay. The earth is round. That is one example of how teaching a concept can be bad for students. Its not that concepts are bad. Everything is a concept, including mathematics and language. The problem is specifically with siding on social issues, particularly social issues that stir dissension. Homosexuality just so happens to be one of those heated debates. All I'm saying is reserve the soap box for after school, as it is not pertinent to an education.

"ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT WANT TO HIDE KIDS FROM CONCEPTS LIKE EVOLUTIO BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY DISAGREE."

Oh, really? That's news to me. I'm a little curious as to how you would know that, supposing it were true (which it isn't, btw).

"WHAT ABOUT REMOVING HOLOCAUST FROM THE CURRICULUM FOR HOLOCAUST DENIERS?"

The holocaust is a part of history, and as such, belongs in history class. The moral of it is for you to decide.

"Red Ribbon Week against drugs. Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms. Etc. Neither of these created an Us vs. Them atmosphere. This atmosphere, however, is going on now and can be reduced with social education. Violence and discrimination are going on now and if you're truly against those things, then you should be for reducing them."

All of those are social issues, and as such, has no place within school curricula aside from a social studies class. And to be clear, an abstinence class can alienate a young person who is promiscuous. An abortion class can alienate somehow who had an abortion and can sway their decision in either direction. These kind of topics illicit strong emotion in people. I'm certainly not suggesting that we pretend they don't exist. Please don't misunderstand me to mean that. I simply think that it is in a schools best interest, not to mention the students, especially in the public domain, that these issues be dealt with outside of their class.

"CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO HIDE YOUR CHILD FROM CONCEPTS THAT ARE LOGICAL AND BENEFICIAL."

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. But it does not mean that you are necessarily right in what is logical and beneficial.

"The Buddhist lobby might want to have math removed from the curriculum because it is a human created concept. The Satanist lobby might want to remove teaching of Abrahamic religion. The French lobby want to have Latin removed from the curriculum so that more students will study French."

Fine. Let them lobby. That's their Constitutional right to lobby.

"EACH STUDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO LEARN EVERY CONCEPT EVERY OTHER STUDENT LEARNS. YOU CAN'T PULL A CONCEPT THAT MAKES SENSE AND IS BENEFICIAL BECAUSE YOU PERSONALLY DISAGREE."

Well, lets put your money where your mouth is. Bear in mind this is your convoluted idea. Lets have special classes teaching about the dangers of homosexuality and evolution because it is beneficial to teach students what other students learn. Just because you personally disagree does not give you the right to silence the opinions of others.

Doesn't sound so good anymore, does it? To reiterate, that's your argument, not mine.

Thanks for the debate. I look forward to any future debates me might have.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by elizabethPC 6 years ago
elizabethPC
I don't believe that being tought to accept us as the gay community would change the matter. Its simple, because they are already at the age where they know what it is, and have chosen to either accept or neglect it. You can't teach a mind set to like something, and if they don't already know what it is, then teaching them at that young of an age does spark the desire to try things, or choose to like or hate it. Its simply a matter that can not be solved, as the drug use, suicide, sex, or bullying. We choose to think on our own and you can't alter that to your liking. :) thank you
Posted by popachu2 7 years ago
popachu2
I feel that Homosexual, Bisexual and Transgender tolerance should be briefly taught at schools.
-Children are not being indoctrinated by being taught about this. If children are being indoctrinated can't we say that they have their whole lives then because they do go to school, and there are things that they do not want to learn, but have to anyways because it's part of the curriculum. So are the children in school being indoctrinated. No, they are being taught what they need to know to be able to make your own decisions on what you believe.
-This topic can be added to health classes because it deals with health issues. For example HIV/AIDS deals with homosexuality. You are taught HIV/AIDS in school, why not along with learning about this, just add homosexuality along with it, briefly talking about how nothing is wrong with being different. People shouldn't be treated differently just because their not heterosexual. Most homosexuals do not have HIV/AIDS but are targeted, which causes more controversy.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 9 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"the fact that so few people voted pro worries me."

That's because these people aren't voting on the person or the position, rather, they are rightfully voting on the skill of debate. This isn't a popularity contest, its a debate forum.

The fact that so many people vote with a bias worries me.
Posted by XsamacadoX 9 years ago
XsamacadoX
the fact that so few people voted pro worries me.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jesus_lovesu 8 years ago
jesus_lovesu
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 DylanAsdale 8 years ago
DylanAsdale
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Kals 8 years ago
Kals
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 christiandebater 9 years ago
christiandebater
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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 b3rk 9 years ago
b3rk
notpolicydebategodParadigm_LostTied
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