The Instigator
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Riversidegirl4life
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,585 times Debate No: 21463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (9)

 

Zaradi

Pro

Resolution: Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers.
I wished to challenge Riversidegirl4life to this debate after seeing the last one participated in by her was done horribly on the pro's half. I hope to do a better job why schools are justified in not hiring teachers based off of their sexual preferences.

First round acceptance only.
Riversidegirl4life

Con

I accept! Good luck, you'll need it!
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Although, I contend that she will need the luck in this situation. My argument will take the form of a few syllogisms and an extended annalogy that is almost never really talked about, but applies perfectly to this situation. So, without further adieu, I shall begin.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation. We have a female home owner, let's call her Jane, who's peacefully sipping from a cup of sweet iced tea when the sound of breaking glass comes from a different room. Curious about what caused it, she walked into the room to see a man dressed in all black with a ski mask on his face, climbing in the window. "Don't worry, I'm just here to steal some stuff. I won't hurt you if you don't resist."

Obviously Jane isn't going to like the fact that some mysterious man is climbing in, and she's going to tell him to get out before she calls the cops. But why is she justified in telling him to scram? Sure, some may say that he's violating a personal home, that he's commiting a crime. But I think that we can go a bit more simple than that. It's because she doesn't want him there, and she has the authority in that place of residence. So, in the form of a syllogism, the justification would look like this:

P1: Jane is in charge of her home.
P2: Jane has the authority to say who can come onto her residency.
P3: Jane doesn't want the burglar there.
C: Jane is justified in making the burglar leave her house.

This is a general conclusion that nobody would object to. Of course she has the authority to tell him to hit the road.

Now let's take it another step in the direction of the proposed resolution. Let's suppose that Jane has a teenaged daughter who's friend is homosexual. Being homophobic, every time that her friend comes over, Jane gets uncomfortable. Eventually, Jane gets fed up and tells her friend to leave.

"Hold on Zaradi!" I predict my opponent will say in a rather up-right manner. "These two situations are in no way, shape, or form related!" But aren't they? The scenario is the same, except the intruder is replaced with a regular person. But both are not wanted there, and Jane still has the authority in her home. So, the syllogism for this argument would look like this.

P1: Jane is in charge of her home.
P2: Jane has the authority to say who can come onto her residency.
P3: Jane doesn't want the homosexual friend there.
C: Jane is justified in making the homosexual friend go home.

The only difference is who is there that is in dispute. But that doesn't change either thing. Just because of her sexual orientation, this didn't change Jane's authority in her home. Because she was in charge of the home, she was justified in telling the friend to go. "B-b-but this isn't even slightly related to schools! A house and a school are two different things! So this doesn't apply!" my opponent will say, grasping at straws in a last ditch attempt to try to make this argument not relevant.

Ah, ah, ah. Not so fast. While I was not using a school setting, this can still apply straight to it. In a school setting, the principal is at the head of the school. In that sense, he is in charge of the school and what happens in it. So because of it, it is his job to choose who to hire and who not to hire. So, let's continue the example, that we have a principal, let's call him Principal Brown. Principal Brown has a open slot in a teaching role that he really needs to fill. So he puts out the notice that he's hiring and two prime looking applicants come to the top. Both of them are really good teachers, have the resume to back up their skills, previous work experience, the whole nine yards. There is only one difference between them: one is homosexual, one is not. Principal Brown realizes that hiring a homosexual teacher would piss off a lot of parents and it would make him look bad, so he hired the teacher that was straight. "See! Sexism!" I can already hear my opponent claiming. But was he not justified in doing this? Let's put this in a syllogistic form:

P1: Principal Brown is in charge of the school.
P2: Principal Brown has the authority to choose who to hire and who not to hire.
P3: Principal Brown doesn't want to hire the homosexual teacher.
C: Principal Brown is justified in not hiring the homosexual teacher.

Because the government protects our ability to regulate what happens in the areas we operate, it justifies us to not hire whomever the person in charge does not want to hire. Nevermind unfairness, nevermind sexism, all it comes down to are we justified under the government to turn them away. And we are. So not only should homosexual teachers ought not be hired, but that if the principals really wanted to, they are justified in turning them down.

I'll now turn the floor over to my opponent, with a tip of the hat and wishing her good luck. She will need it.
Riversidegirl4life

Con

You have given a suitable argument... if the debate was "Principals can not hire homosexuals if they don't want to". But it isn't, it's about whether homosexuals ought or ought not be hired for a job. It seems that you have strayed from the topic, and I'd encourage you to think more about whether homosexuals are suitable for the job, which is what your debate topic is about.

Saying this, there are still some aspects of your debate that I'd like to rebut.
Firstly, "Principal Brown is in charge of the school."
Unless you are reffering to private schools (you should have specified) this is incorrect. Although a principal is hired to manage the staff and school, the school is still in the power of the government, as it is a government-funded institution, therefore, the Government does have ruling power, and the principal doesn't have permission to do whatever he or she would like. If you meant that the principal is in charge of hiring staff you should have said so. Even in Private Schools where the government isn't in charge, the school still has a Governer and a board of governers (like gov-funded schools have) and the school Governer is at a higher position of authority that the school principal. After all, the governer and board of governers can dismiss (fire) the principal, whereas the principal can't fire the governer.

Secondly, "Principal Brown has the authority to choose who to hire and who not to hire"
I'm not rebutting this point per se, as it is true, but more the context in which you have used it. It is true that the principal has the authority to hire a teacher, but this should be based on their qualifications, experience and how suitable they are for the job. Not their gender, race, ethnicity or sexuality. This is discrimination. I think you'd agree with me if I said that it was wrong for a male principal to only hire other men, because he just didn't want women working in his school- yet you beleive it's okay if "women" in replaced with "homosexuals"? It is against the law to hire someone discriminatively, so your next point, "Principal Brown is justified in not hiring the homosexual teacher." is entirely false.
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Pro

First off, I would like to appologize to my opponent. She vastly misunderstood the position I was taking on the resolution. I do hope that you as the voters are not making the same mistake, but I will try to clarify on my position, and why her rebuttals don't apply or are fallacious in themselves.

My argument basically states that BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT justifies us to act as we wish within legal constraints (i.e. we can't kill in our house just because we own the house) in areas that we own, we are justified in refusing work to those that we choose. I.e. restaurants are justified to turn down business to those that they don't want to serve, barbers can turn down work that they don't want to cut, schools don't have to hire those they don't want to hire. Point out the law that proves me wrong, and I'll point out the law that proves your law wrong. Therefore, if it is in our best interest, we ought not hire teachers who are homosexual. So her argument that I'm not talking about the resolution falls flat on it's face. Now, since my opponent did not present a case of her own, I will refute her two scant rebuttals against my argument, as well as present a new point, what happens if we DON'T have the authority to choose serivce to whom we want and have the government say who we have to serve and who we can't serve. I'm allowed to do this because there's still plenty of time for my opponent to refute it, making it a fair argument.

R1:

1. I'd like to point out one of the specific wording that my opponent used that undermines this entire refutation and actually strengthens my position:

"a principal is hired to manage the staff and school"

Since this is a large part of my case, this undermines her two rebuttals by essentially conceding to a large part of my argument. So I'd like to thank my opponent for that. This was the part of my argument I was most worried about, but you eased a lot of my worrying. And, to clarify, I did say that the principal was in charge of hiring staff. I guess my opponent needs to read my argument better next time. Deduct a conduct point if you found that too insulting to give it to me. I found it necessary.

The fact that the State/Governer can fire the principal is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that as long as he is principal, he chooses who gets hired or doesn't get hired. This doesn't undermine this authority in any way, shape, or form.

R2:

If you are not rebutting the point per se, then why do I have to respond to this? You would say that I do, but then wouldn't that be a rebuttal of the point? So are you contradicting yourself here? Because there is clearly arguments against my case here. So if it is true, as you said it was, are the arguments you placed against my case here false? Please, drop the pretenses. If you're going to put arguments against me, man up and say that you're putting arguments against me. Now, I'll adress the "not rebuttals" made here.

First, I appologize to my opponent. I didn't make this a flat-out stat heavy, link heavy debate. I went with the more hypothetical, theoretical argumentations. Work just as well, but don't give you any sort of advantage. Now, I will give you two common cases that will come up more often than not, and then a third case that complicates your position further:
Situation One: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher and a homosexual teacher are at equal merit and skill as a teacher. How are we to decide who is better if, in a professional sense, they are of equal talent and merit? There is no other way to decide except for personal belief. So unless you'd rather not hire anyone at all, there's not a reason to reject one off of their personality if they are of equal merit

Situation Two: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher of greater merit and talent is competing against a homosexual teacher of lesser merit and talent. If what you believe is true, then I would have to hire the teacher STRICTLY because she is homosexual, or risk the cry of sexual discrimination in the job place, which wouldn't be good for me as the principal. But if I were to hire the homosexual teacher, I risk a reverse sexual discrimination charge, basically that I hired her STRICTLY because she was homosexual, which still wouldn't be good for me. This creates another impass, which means that nobody ends up getting hired, which is a result neither of us desire.

Situation Three: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher of lesser merit and talent is competing against a homosexual teacher of greater merit and talent. The complication here is similar to that of situation two. If I hire the homosexual teacher, I risk a cry of reverse sexual discrimination against him simply because the other teacher was homosexual. If I hire the heterosexual teacher, I will most likely get a sexual discrimination charge. Again, another impass, and no teacher hired. A result neither of us want. So if we aren't allowed to turn people away, it leads to worse results.

Now, I'd like to point out exactly what would happen if schools aren't allowed to follow what my case lays out. Since this justification is based on the previous two contentions, which were conceded, refuting one would sever the link between all three. So if you buy her arguments that schools can't turn people away because of sexual orientation, the previous two syllogisms I gave would be false. This means that the first syllogism would be false. Which means that the wife, who was being robbed, would not be able to turn away the burglar without commiting a crime herself. Which means that she would have to sit there and let herself be robbed. I doubt that my opponent wants to support that, so if her arguments are true, it would lead to more horrendous acts being commited with no power to stop it.

Thus, I urge a con vote.
Riversidegirl4life

Con

My response to your points:

"
we are justified in refusing work to those that we choose"
This is true if you are refusing work based on lack of job suitability, not discrimination. It seems you have vastly misunderstood the concept of freedom of hiring. Yes you can refuse work to people, but it can't be based on discriminative terms. This is against the law. (1)

" schools don't have to hire those they don't want to hire"
Any evidence? Any sources? You haven't shown me anything to back up your false claim. See my answer for the last quote.

" the principal was in charge of hiring staff." , "as long as he is principal, he chooses who gets hired or doesn't get hired."
Again, it seems like you have vastly misundestood the hiring process. You can't hire discriminatively, and even though the principal is in charge of hiring, doesn't mean that he or she can do it wrong. For example, just because a dictator is in charge of a country doesn't make it legal to subject his subjects to genocide.

"man up"
Lets try to avoid sexist terms shall we!?


"why do I have to respond to this? "
No one said you had to, but as I explained; your point wasn't entirely true so I couldn't rebut it, but your point was untrue though in certain circumstances; and I just wanted to point that out to the voters.



Situation One: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher and a homosexual teacher are at equal merit and skill as a teacher. How are we to decide who is better if, in a professional sense, they are of equal talent and merit? There is no other way to decide except for personal belief. So unless you'd rather not hire anyone at all, there's not a reason to reject one off of their personality if they are of equal merit
In a situation where both applicants are of equal merit, further interviews should be carried out until the best candidate is chosen. It's impossible that two candidates will have the exact same merit. Personal beleifs on the applicant's sexuality shouldn't ever come into account when hiring.

Situation Two: in competition for one teaching role, a heterosexual teacher of greater merit and talent is competing against a homosexual teacher of lesser merit and talent. If what you believe is true, then I would have to hire the teacher STRICTLY because she is homosexual, or risk the cry of sexual discrimination in the job place, which wuldn't be good for me as the principal. But if I were to hire the homosexual teacher, I risk a reverse sexual discrimination charge, basically that I hired her STRICTLY because she was homosexual, which still wouldn't be good for me.
Who's going to accuse you of sexual orientation discrimination? Details of the applicants for a job are kept discrete, so unless the applicant themself believes you have discriminated, you have no problem. If the applicant does have a problem the case will be reviewed by a judge, and then an unbiasd decision is made. Apart from the one applicant, no one can accuse you of sexual discrimination!

"If what you believe is true"
Please be more specific when reffering to my argument.


Situation 3: Like I previously said, no one can really accuse you as details are kept discrete.

In conclusion, Con should take a logical approach when creating scenarios, be more specific when reffering, and avoid sexist terms which may offend the competitiors!




1. http://www.emplaw.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Pro

This debate is going to be really simple for those people judging the round. My opponent is just not doing enough work to prove her side true, and since she doesn't have a case of her own, the lack of adequete coverage is going to cost her the round.

First, off of the source she quotes:

We are talking on completely different levels. I assumed that you were talking about the US, but instead you are in the opinion of the UK. My arguments are specific to the US, as that is where I am from. And in the US, there is no specific law that shows that it is illegal to not hire anyone because of sexual orientation(1).

But even if you're going for the UK, reading the article is going to provide a game-over argument against her source. The most relevant and recent law in the UK, the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, according to the article, are "not directly related to employment law". In this essense, she is strawmanning this source to construe it in a sense that it was not meant to adress. So on both levels, I'm going to be winning. This is the first place to vote pro.

On the no evidence:

Refer to the source I provide. As per the given resolution, we don't have to hire them if we don't want to.
Also, since I refuted the argument given on the last quote, she would then concede this point. This very wording is the second reason why we can vote pro.

On the hiring discriminatley argument:

This relies on her evidence being good. I've shown you exactly why it doesn't apply to the debate. So this argument is moot.
Also, the example she gives is incorrect. If a dictator is in charge of a country, he would decide what would be legal. I doubt this is the example she meant to use, but she failed to make the argument properly, so don't give it to her.

On the question of response:

No one said I had to respond to any of your argument. Then again, no one said I had to even participate. So if you're going to put arguments against me, have the guts to admit you did and not try to hide behind semantical wording. If not, I'll just make the argument that if you're not intending this to be an argument, then they don't have weight in the round, and the voters can skip over it.

On Situation One:

Further interviews wouldn't do anything if they have the EXACT SAME merit, as the situation implicates. If they didn't, then they would fall under the other two situations. So if we could not refuse to hire someone off of orientation, then it would only be causing more harm than before. Thus, we can vote pro pretty easy off of this situation.

On Situation Two:

Any warrant as to how or why they're kept discriminate. If one person is obviously homosexual and one person is obviously not, to hire the person STRICTLY off of the homosexual person's sexuality would almost guarenteed lead to a sexual discrimination claim. If I didn't, then I would face a sexual discrimination claim from that angle. So not being able to just dismiss people because of homosexual orientation would only cause these problems further. Again, this situation creates another easy place to vote pro.

On Situation Three:

Refer to my argument for Situation Two. Since I've already refuted this, Situation Three becomes another easy place to vote pro.

Before I close, I'd like to go back and refer to a point I made in my last round. If we aren't allowed to refuse to hire homosexual workers, we would be refuting the third syllogism I gave in my case. If we refute the third syllogism, then the first and second syllogism would become false as well. This makes a big problem for my opponent's case, especially since it would invalidate the first syllogism. If the first syllogism becomes false, home owners would not have the legal right to tell people who are breaking into their homes to leave and to force them to do so. This would cause vastly more harm if we vote con. This is going to be the best and easiest place to vote pro this round, since SHE NEVER REFUTED THIS ARGUMENT. This was effectively dropped in her last round. Don't weigh any arguments she places against it in her last round because I'm unable to defend myself against those arguments, which makes it highly unfair to me. So if you vote con, it leads to more crimes and more horrendous acts that we are powerless to stop. This outweighs any claims made by the con debater. So if you're not buying any other argument made so far, if you think she's won on every other level of the debate, this is the one that's going to outweigh all the others in the fact that by negating the resolution she causes an infinite amount of more pain and crime. So off of this very conceded argument, you have to vote pro.

As I've shown you, this debate round breaks down very simply. My opponent simply just isn't doing enough work to cover everything that I've talked about in this round. And since she provided no case of her own to gain offense off of, she has literally no offense coming out of the end of this round. There, literally, is no reason to vote for the con debater. I have sufficiently affirmed the resolution, so you must vote for the pro debater.
Riversidegirl4life

Con

Ah well.

I beleive that my argument is true, but you are clearly the better debator. I don't concede, but besides your sexist term mishap, you have presented your arguments very well in this debate.

Voters, vote whoever you think was best, but I'm not going to waste my time debating when I feel I have lost.
Well done to my opponent, you put up a great case!
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by elvellian 5 years ago
elvellian
As I said, don't be too hard on yourself, Riversidegirl4life. Your mistake wasn't so much a lack of skill but a lack of ruthlessness. And when someone is making clearly irrelevant arguments, you have to be ruthless about pointing it out, not letting them get away with it and not letting yourself get sucked in to debating something completely different. Again, as I said before, had you stuck to that position and, as I did in the comments, got him to admit the blatantly false prejudice underlying his whole position - namely that no-one wants to hire homosexuals anyway - then you would have won very very easily.
Posted by Riversidegirl4life 5 years ago
Riversidegirl4life
Okay you've won, lets not take a dig at the loser :(
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Against a more skilled opponent, I probably would've prepared more than the five minutes I did xD
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
True, but against a more skilled opponent who would discuss harms of segregation and prejudice, you probably would not be able to outweigh.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
If she did that, I probably would've just tried to outweigh or get out of it. It would've been really easy in this debate to outweigh since she basically conceded her entire case.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
No, it would not be nontopical if she used that anlaysis to demonstrate the atrocious impacts of your argument.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
One could apply it to that purpose, but that would be off-topical.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Zaradi, your argument could also be used to allow schools to discriminate based on race, gender, etc.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
@ elvellian: k cool
Posted by elvellian 5 years ago
elvellian
I'm just glad that I've been able to demonstrate that when confronted with reason and logic, your arguments, based as they were on ignorance and homophobic bigotry, evaporate into dust.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave up.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Allkid. (already countered)
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Allkid nevermind, thett already countered, I remove my vote.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter allkid
Vote Placed by alkid96 5 years ago
alkid96
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A person's sexual orientation shouldn't matter on whether or not they get a job or not
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In the very last NR, Con says they do not concede, but then provides no arguments. Thus i view this as a concession, and vote pro
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: this debate seemed to be more about the power that principals have over school staff then actually discussing the merits of homosexual teachers so I couldnt give anyone arguments since none were more convincing than the other. con used 1 irrelevant source, no decipherable spelling errors, the con though did basically FF so I gave conduct to the pro
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought that the Pro case was pretty weak, but the Con case was basically nonexistent and she conceded, so I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ZaradiRiversidegirl4lifeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically conceded. I think pros arguments where better presented and well thought out. Also second round she FFd much of pros case with the quote About the principal. And con said this: " Voters, vote whoever you think was best, but I'm not going to waste my time debating when I feel I have lost. Well done to my opponent, you put up a great case!"