The Instigator
aodanu16
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
bigbass3000
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

Homosexual Marriage should be legalized by the United States Government.

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: 3/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,417 times Debate No: 3059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (24)

 

aodanu16

Pro

"i now pronounce you husband and husband." It is because i agree with the Hit hit movie I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry, i am compelled to affirm the resolution

Resolved:Homosexual Marriage should be legalized by the United States Government.

Definitions:
Homosexual Marriage: the lawful union between 2 men or 2 women.
should: implies an obligation
legalized: the act of making something practicable by law
United States Government: The congress, executive, and judicial branches.

contention 1: Discrimination

we must look to the fact that heterosexual couples can get married, but not homosexual couples. this is unfair due to the fact that the United States "tolerance" in our schools. moreover, the US also values liberty as a major point. thus, homosexual couples should have the right to marriage.

Contention 2: Religion

This anti-gay marraige outlook by the United States is very hypocritical due to the fact that the the Bible says "But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23). thus, there must be love in our lives, or else there is total anarchy. also, i should point out the fact that the United States says Under God in the pledge of alliegence, means that everyone is Under the Christian religion, no matter if they believe in it or not. thus , the United States values Religion as a major point.
bigbass3000

Con

First I will post my case, then I will debate your points, also voters, please keep a open mind on this.

Contention 1. Marriage
Sub Point A-What it is
"No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.", according to http://www.vatican.va...
Marriage is an institution of religion that should not be state regulated. The state has an institution of it's own called "Civil Unions". The state should recognize civil unions between same sex couples, since they should be afforded the same rights under government as any other partnership (i.e. marriage). The idea of marriage should be defined only in the context of religious beliefs and the state should not have any power over what the church deems as appropriate or inappropriate. So the Gov't should not intrude on the churches laws.
Sub Point B-Reproduction
According to http://findarticles.com...
"A husband is, until otherwise proven, the acknowledged father of his wife's off-spring, with recognized rights and duties that may vary from society to society but always exist in some form. And a wife is a woman who can expect a certain specified sort of help from her husband in the raising of her off-spring. All other functions of marriage borrow from or build upon this one. Even marriage among those past child-rearing age or otherwise infertile draws on notions of partnership and mutual aid that have their primary roots in the experience of shared biological parenthood...Disputes over fatherhood, for example, or variations in parental attachment to their children, make it reasonable for societies to supplement and sometimes override the natural bonds established by and through the processes of human generation. Marriage is, before all else, the practice by which human societies mark, modify, and occasionally mask these bonds." , Which means that it is based on reproducing, Homosexuals can't reproduce.
Sub Point C-Institution of marriage
Little A-Love
According to http://www.freerepublic.com...
"The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.", so the logical basis of marriage will be gone.
Little B- Polygamy
According to http://www.weeklystandard.com...
"If gays had a right to marry, why not polygamists?... Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician...The [Tom] Green trial in 2001 was not just a cable spectacle. It brought out a surprising number of mainstream defenses of polygamy. And most of the defenders went to bat for polygamy by drawing direct comparisons to gay marriage...Writing in the Village Voice, gay leftist Richard Goldstein equated the drive for state-sanctioned polygamy with the movement for gay marriage. The political reluctance of gays to embrace polygamists was understandable, said Goldstein, but our fates are entwined in fundamental ways....Syndicated liberal columnist Ellen Goodman took up the cause of polygamy with a direct comparison to gay marriage...Stephen Clark, the legal director of the Utah ACLU, has said, 'Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives.", This means a vote for the neg is a vote for polygamy.
Contention 2-Economics
According to http://www.freerepublic.com...
"When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children."
Adam Kolasinksi "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" 2/20/04 - "Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society." . It is going to damage are already shaky economy.
What you need to look at in this debate is that making same sex marriage legal will hurt are economy,hurt what marriage stands for and will promote polygamy. Please, don't let it happen, I know I may sound bad, but look at the facts, not your own personal beliefs. Also my opponent has no sources to back up his claims, so I will negate his points next about diversity and religion.
Debate Round No. 1
aodanu16

Pro

I am going down the Negative flow and then affirmative.

1)the seperation of church and state is not constitutionally mandated, it is just a theory posed by Madison in the Federalist Papers. therefore, the US must mandate it.

2)males can reproduce

it has been proven that males can reproduce."Oral doses of female hormones were administered to Mr. Lee to make him receptive to the pregnancy"(RYT Hospital). this is why the US must grant the right to homosexuals to have marriage, according to you since you say that reproduction is a major foundation of marriage

3)in my definitions, i clearly state that "Homosexual Marriage: the lawful union between 2 men or 2 women." therefore, polygamy has no ground in this debate. thus, it should be dropped from this round. However, i will debate the fact of love. if anyone denies the right of homosexuals to get married, then they are being discriminant. What makes it more just for a heterosexual couple to get married than it does a homosexual couple? If the United States Cannot grant gay marriage, then they will only be promoting sexism and thus they will be considered hypocrite by the rest of the world.

4) once again, polygamy doesn't apply to this debate seeing how my definition holds and you drop it completely so therefore you agree with it.

5) if economics were a factor in homosexual marriages, then the United States wouldn't allow any marriage at all. moreover, if they cannot have the equal right to have all of their "spouse's' stuff collected, then this only weakens the inherent right to equality granted by our declaration of independence and our pledge of allegiance that we have taken everyday since kindergarten. Also, it doesn't matter if they can create a will or a co-signer on a house, they cannot be co-signers on a marriage certificate. that is all that matters in this debate.

6)You drop the discrimination argument, therefore you concede the fact that by not allowing gay couples to marry, you will then allow discrimination to occur. this discrimination will weaken our credibility in the world because then peole don't know if we are promoting sexism or not...

7) all you say is that polygamy is bad and this has no room in this debate. gay or straight love is all the same and therefore, they should have the right to get married like any straight couple...
bigbass3000

Con

Now onto my opponents case

"Definitions:
Homosexual Marriage: the lawful union between 2 men or 2 women.", He defined a homosexual relationship as this, so his arguement about procreation, should be dropped because obviously if a guy has a baby, one he has no evidence, and two it is a man and a woman now.

"contention 1: Discrimination

we must look to the fact that heterosexual couples can get married, but not homosexual couples. this is unfair due to the fact that the United States "tolerance" in our schools. moreover, the US also values liberty as a major point. thus, homosexual couples should have the right to marriage.", No evidence, and liberty is achieved by doing what you want as long as you are not intruding on the rights of other so, is actually is against it.

"Contention 2: Religion

This anti-gay marraige outlook by the United States is very hypocritical due to the fact that the the Bible says "But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23). thus, there must be love in our lives, or else there is total anarchy. also, i should point out the fact that the United States says Under God in the pledge of alliegence, means that everyone is Under the Christian religion, no matter if they believe in it or not. thus , the United States values Religion as a major point.", This contention, because he says, one statement out of scripture proves it, but obviously he is biased because he is only showing is the christian side, and he is not even taking into account every religion, because there are obviously more muslims than christians.
Now onto my opponents attacks.
"1)the seperation of church and state is not constitutionally mandated, it is just a theory posed by Madison in the Federalist Papers. therefore, the US must mandate it.", What!!!!!!, The U.S. doesn't mandate it, where is your evidence for this anyways, besides, if you talk to Mikendra McCoy about that you will realize, there is not separation.

"2)males can reproduce

it has been proven that males can reproduce."Oral doses of female hormones were administered to Mr. Lee to make him receptive to the pregnancy"(RYT Hospital). this is why the US must grant the right to homosexuals to have marriage, according to you since you say that reproduction is a major foundation of marriage", Where is your evidence, two, I already went over this it goes against your definition.

"3)in my definitions, i clearly state that "Homosexual Marriage: the lawful union between 2 men or 2 women." therefore, polygamy has no ground in this debate. thus, it should be dropped from this round. However, i will debate the fact of love. if anyone denies the right of homosexuals to get married, then they are being discriminant. What makes it more just for a heterosexual couple to get married than it does a homosexual couple? If the United States Cannot grant gay marriage, then they will only be promoting sexism and thus they will be considered hypocrite by the rest of the world. ", What first you are calling me discriminant, two, I'm not, I am saying it is bad, for it to be called marriage.

"4) once again, polygamy doesn't apply to this debate seeing how my definition holds and you drop it completely so therefore you agree with it.", It does apply, by legalizing same sex marriage it encourages polygamy.

"5) if economics were a factor in homosexual marriages, then the United States wouldn't allow any marriage at all. moreover, if they cannot have the equal right to have all of their "spouse's' stuff collected, then this only weakens the inherent right to equality granted by our declaration of independence and our pledge of allegiance that we have taken everyday since kindergarten. Also, it doesn't matter if they can create a will or a co-signer on a house, they cannot be co-signers on a marriage certificate. that is all that matters in this debate.", First off equality can never be achieved and second, equality in the declaration of independence is not a right it is a privilege. Also we take in Kindergarden, to make us believe it, but wake up people. Whatever it does effect the economy. Not everyone is married, if we add more people it will harm our economy, what do you want, a depression, that will make the homosexuals look good. Sometimes, you have to take it like a man.

"6)You drop the discrimination argument, therefore you concede the fact that by not allowing gay couples to marry, you will then allow discrimination to occur. this discrimination will weaken our credibility in the world because then peole don't know if we are promoting sexism or not...", I did not drop it, I already told you in my last speech, that I will touch in this speech. Their will always be discrimination, so this arguement will fall, because whether it is leagl or not, it will be discrimnated against.

"7) all you say is that polygamy is bad and this has no room in this debate. gay or straight love is all the same and therefore, they should have the right to get married like any straight couple...", Polygamy is only illegal, but you must look at that polygamy and same sex marriage share some things in common in that, they are radical forms of a union. Legalizing same sex marriage goes against religion, because of polygamy. If you really want me to argue that, then I must, because your arguements fall.
Discrimination falls and religion fall, I really don't want to post anything on that, because, I win on that.
Debate Round No. 2
aodanu16

Pro

1) if you want to be arrogant, then that's fine, but argue the case WITH LOGIC!!!

on to the case:

1)

my opponent has 8000 characters to make a case and then debate my case. you cannot allow him to bring up any new arguments, therefore, it is abusive. thus, drop all of his current attacks. however, to not stiffle debate, we shall now look towards the attacks anyways... follow the flow

2)

WTF is my opponet talking about... if you continue down my case, you see how we promote "liberty and justice for all" as directed by the pledge of alliegence. and moreover, if you only allow heterosexual couples to get married, you are discriminating against the homosexual community.

3)

i am not biased. as you say that not all straight people are married, then you can show that not all homosexual people will get married. thus, they should have the right, that is the liberty and freedom i have been talking about. i am not saying that when they have this right to marry they will be force to, but it is always nice to have someone at your side "until death do us part."

3)

i have sited my source for males getting pregnant in MLA format. you should have learned this in your debate, forensics, or various English classes by now. but if you want me to elaborate, i will. males get estrogen shots. then they have an egg implanted. then they are pregnant. and WA-LAH! 9-months later and you have a baby...

4) then what should it be called? Marriage is marriage! it is lawful union of 2 people. gay marriage is the lawful union of 2 men or 2 women.

5)

Any know how homosexual marraige encourages polygamy? neither do i. once more, we are debating the homosexuals' right to get married!!!! NOT POLYGAMY!!!!!!!!
please combine his last remark on polygamy with this one. not only is this contention not topical in the first place, but if you would like to debate polygamy, than make up a case and i will debate you on that. also, there are people called mormons! not all, but a handful practice polygamy. have you not seen the hit show on HBO called BIG LOVE???? probably not since you say that polygamy is not good and ot allowed...

6)

The hell its not a right!!!! it is John Locke's theory of UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. so you are born with them and no one can take those from you!!!! how would more people getting married harm our economy???? it would help stimulate our economy and not be in a recession because the people getting married are going to buy a lot of extravagant things like the cake, they need to rent a place to get marries, they need to buy tuxes or dresses, they need to have someone run drinks and/or liquor... this would actually help the economy more than Bush's "economic stimulus plan." if he want the US to be out of a recession, then he would legalize gay marriage and allow people to get married and spend their money on a lifetime of happyness (or 8 months**** of misery). either way, the economy is helped.

****the average marriage in the US.

7)

to say that there will always be discrimination is an absolute and cant be proven. maybe in the near (or distant) future, the people will be more tolerant towards people because they are now on equal terms. what starts discrimination is that one entity feels they are better than a certain entity. thus, if gays and straights were on equal playing fields, then they would not be looked down upon as inferior beings or anything of that nature.

8) i feel that Homosexual Marriage should be legalized by the United States Government solely due to the discrimination... this will help the problem with discrimination and thus be a benefit to our society.

9) i feel that you must vote on the affirmative side due to the fact that i have attacked my opponent's case and my opponent has weak points that are hardly considered topical... also, my points still stand due to the fact that my opponent dropped them all in his time to speak with 8000 characters. i still have approximately 4000 characters left thus proving that my opponent could have argued my case and said his as well. thus, i urge an affirmative ballot with 3881 characters remaining.
bigbass3000

Con

"1) if you want to be arrogant, then that's fine, but argue the case WITH LOGIC!!!", have you ever heard of the ad hominem attack, I feel this isa the strongest voting issue, because he obviously does not have respect for me or anyone.

"WTF is my opponet talking about... if you continue down my case, you see how we promote "liberty and justice for all" as directed by the pledge of alliegence. and moreover, if you only allow heterosexual couples to get married, you are discriminating against the homosexual community.", No I am not, the people make the laws and the people consent to the government. I defined marriage as many things of what the real term is. It is not just we are married yea, no. My opponent also should watch his language as well.

"i am not biased. as you say that not all straight people are married, then you can show that not all homosexual people will get married. thus, they should have the right, that is the liberty and freedom i have been talking about. i am not saying that when they have this right to marry they will be force to, but it is always nice to have someone at your side "until death do us part.", Yes but freedom is to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the freedoms of others. I have already proven that this will leadf to polygamy and the economy going down into the drain.

"i have sited my source for males getting pregnant in MLA format. you should have learned this in your debate, forensics, or various English classes by now. but if you want me to elaborate, i will. males get estrogen shots. then they have an egg implanted. then they are pregnant. and WA-LAH! 9-months later and you have a baby...", MLA format, whatever, I did not find anythoing to support that. Also where are they going to put the baby, also I already told you this arguement will fall because of your definition.

"then what should it be called? Marriage is marriage! it is lawful union of 2 people. gay marriage is the lawful union of 2 men or 2 women.", You don't know what marriage is, or the history. Look up the definiton and the ideals, before you say any outrageous claims like this.

It will lead to polygamy, read the arguement.

yea life, liberty, and property, but John Locke also believes in majority rule, if the majority rules it is promoting liberty. Also liberty is a privilege, not a right. If you break the law, you lose your privileges. Take the Japanese internment camps. Also John Locke's rights are just a little fairy tale, that they teach children. It is a theory at best and what does a theory mean, ooh yeah, it may never come true. This is reality people.

No, your logic on discrimination will never come true. even if all the humans on earth were all white, women, poor, rich, middle class, the music you listen too, etc., will still be discriminated.

It won't help discrimination, because obviously this new marriage would be treated differently. "Gay MarriageCouples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, and be recognized by the State. Against .", so he is a hippocrate. Also I still have 4,266 characters. Vote Neg.

My points are topical, take this and please have a open mind, My opponent dropped my religion arguement. Why, because the majority of religions are against homosexual marriage. Take the Catholics for example, in the olden days, they owned brothels, to prevent sodomy. Lastly, diversity is just a idea they teach school children it will never be achieved. And finally my opponent says I post 8,000 characters, so I am a bad debater. No, maybe he should fill his up with real arguements and evidence. My opponent has attacked personally and that is all you should vote on in this debate and saying I discriminate and also
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Too bad on the voting, BigBass3000. You had a very good argument and I gave you the vote based on it (I decided your slippery slope fallacy could be looked over, but watch out next time as your challenger may have some philosophical background*. Even though I am pro-gay rights, I do believe you argued well. Good job to the both of you.

Cheers,

Vi
Posted by aodanu16 9 years ago
aodanu16
I DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE A BIASED DECISION EITHER!!!! I DON'T CARE IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR ME AT ALL AS LONG AS YOU DON'T BIAS YOUR CHOICE BASED ON SIDE...
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
i voted for bigbass because he kicked some serious bigass. I should be a comedian. But seriously, the Pro's argument fell completely apart and bigbass' arguments are rational and logical. Notice that once Pro started to realize his arguments were falling apart, he started attacking the individual. Sounds like a lib to me. Good job bigbass.
Posted by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
And please do not be bais voters out there. I don't like debating these topics, because individuals have strong feelings about it.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
not* should be now* in my last comment.

Those that were against it are now* pro-same sex marriage.
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
aodanu16, the contender bigbass3000's whole argument on homosexuality is based on the Slippery Slope Fallacy (any time he mentions polygamy a majority of the time). I wouldn't hold an argument built on philosophical fallacies as a legitimate one.

Also, ask your opponent for statistics of other nations that allow same sex marriage and how their economy has changed -- and how a majority of those against it are not pro-same sex marriage after it had been legalized for quite some time.

Good luck, aodanu16 :)
Posted by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
Any source that ends in ".com" has no real ethos. freerepublic.com is not a source.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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 aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 deliciou6 8 years ago
deliciou6
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Creator 9 years ago
Creator
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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 twinkiesunite 9 years ago
twinkiesunite
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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 rnsweetswimn1 9 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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 rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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 DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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 Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
aodanu16bigbass3000Tied
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