The Instigator
BladeArcon482
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
57 Points

Homosexuality cannot be changed and is healthy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/27/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,904 times Debate No: 15613
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (40)
Votes (11)

 

BladeArcon482

Con

This debate will be interesting for whomever is going to debate with me. If someone is to cry homophobia, I will cry heterophobia and a bisexual will cry biphobia. Let us not go through that nonsense. It's a debate. At least take it seriously. I have seen arguments about homosexuality being genetic. That alone bothers me. Let us go over the criteria of why it is not as genetically overpowering enough for there to be as many homosexuals as there are now. (At the least)

1) Our brain has a filter system in which acts like a radio. When we have a certain thought, we can choose to either bring it in or change the thought entirely. We also have other choices beyond this as well. Of course, the information must be present for a change to occur. You can't have a straight turn homosexual without information on homosexuals in their brain and vice-verse. That is a given.

2) If Homosexuality is genetic, there would be more homosexuals. There was an empire called the Roman Empire. This place was riddled with them. The only reason it seems to riddled with them is because they could have cared less about sexuality. Since this country was put into play, not many people even thought of being homosexual. Now we have people thinking about homosexual. What is my point? Look how many people are homosexual now since the homosexuality introduction compared to in the past. Look genetic now?

3) If we apply number and number 1 together, it makes logical sense. Did you know we can change our genetics? You might think I am talking about nothing, but wait until you see the sources. It has been seen in animals as well. If you're to argue against this, you are to argue against science itself unfortunately. As people say, the brain is the central the brain is the central organ of stress and adaptation. You think homosexuality is an exception? If homosexuality is an exception because it's genetic, what stops us from treating murders well? Gays can turn straight if they try hard enough. Same for murders. [Apparently society thinks genetics is a given for murderers if so.]

4) Homosexuals alone cannot have babies. By alone, I mean no sperm donation and not able to reproduce. They also re not assisting the human population. Before you argue "But what about the straights who don't?" at least they could if they wanted to. Homosexuals cannot. I apologize for stating the facts to those who wish it was otherwise.

5) The health of homosexuals is horrible. AIDS chance increase, HIV increase, orgies increase, fear increase, depression increase, life expectancy decrease, and etc. (I am not saying all homosexuals, but we do know these are the risks. It's a bit bigger than heterosexuality; don't you agree?)

6) Before someone argues, "But heterosexuals have health issues too!", did you forget? They can continue the human population through a process called reproduction. How is reproduction a health problem? It is necessary even if it was a health problem. Also, heterosexuals have less chance of AIDS. Less chance of depression. More life expectancy. Who wants to die early if it means depressing your spouse? I don't want to.

7) Before anyone says this is only applying to gay men, think about it logically for a second. Are there not lesbians who lick anally? I don't think you can say they don't. We both know that when cats lick each others butts it is unhealthy. So why is it not the same for lesbians? Oh the irony.

8) The "moral system" of homosexuality (Assuming I am religious) has a very high chance of being very immoral. We are talking about people who are rebelling against society. Also, I want you to check something. The founding father's religions. What religion was the majority? Anglican.

9) "In God We Trust" You remember this on Dollars and coins? Good. Do you also remember the freedom of religion thing? So what happened to it? We destroyed it apparently. Apparently Christians cannot bring up the "immorality" of homosexuality without people throwing a hissy fit. I am not Christian and I could bloody care less if they were to pray in front of me. At least logic backs up the homosexuality commandment.

10) Humans are imperfect right? Tell me how homosexuals will share sperm donation if they start hating? Heterosexuals can hate and still be able to reproduce. Homosexuals will have a bit of an issue however.

11) Lastly, we cannot discriminate against homosexuals. They can against us however. See the irony? I have met multiple homosexuals who have fear of men. Same for men who have fear of women. Technically, they are practicing discrimination themselves. They are discriminating against the opposite sex and against heterosexuals. It works both ways.

12) I did not say heterosexuals cannot becomes homosexual. If you wish to argue against the obvious, go ahead. As you would find from Google, it works both ways. Have fun with the massive amounts of results. Don't lie about the results.

Discrimination- treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

I would never forget my lovely sources:

http://www.fitbrains.com...

http://quizlet.com...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

http://www.yaledailynews.com...

http://www.pennmedicine.org...

http://books.google.com...

http://www.medindia.net...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

http://escience.washington.edu...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

http://www.soulforce.org...

http://www.ctv.ca...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.cnn.com...

http://www.rome.info...

http://www.roman-colosseum.info...

http://www.ccel.org...

http://www.csun.edu...

http://www.tulsabeacon.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.traditioninaction.org...

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

http://www.avert.org...

http://www.freerepublic.com...

http://www.alliance4lifemin.org...

http://healthmad.com...

http://www.bpnews.net...

http://www.thebody.com...

http://www.catholiceducation.org...

http://www.equip.org...-

http://cmpage.org...

http://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com...

http://www.cbsnews.com...

http://www.wallbuilders.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Danielle

Pro

If I can negate Pro's contentions or demonstrate their irrelevance, then I have won this debate as Pro would not have fulfilled his burden of establishing the resolution to be true.

1. Con's first argument is that without being exposed to homosexuality, one could not become a homosexual. Unfortunately for my opponent there is both biological and anecdotal evidence proving contrary. Consider children who are sheltered and not taught about sex and/or hormones. Does that mean they will not experience sexual urges just because they have not learned about it formally? Of course not. Toddlers masturbate as a reaction to their sexual urges, even if they have not been exposed to masturbation [1]. The same applies to homosexuals.

2. Next Con states that if homosexuality were genetic, there would be more homosexuals. About 5% of the population identify as homosexual [2]. However, Pro's logic proves to be invalid considering the following example: Schizophrenic people account for just 1.1% of the population [3], and yet schizophrenia is proven to be genetic [4]. If Pro's logic is correct, schizophrenia would not be a genetic disorder because so few people have it. However that is clearly absurd considering most diseases are genetic, and most diseases affect the minority of people. Just because a minority is affected by something does not mean the cause is not genetic.

Another example I would like to present is Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. This is considered a genetic disorder [5]. "HBS is a congenital intersex condition that develops before birth, involving the differentiation between male and female. It is believed that every 1 out of 500 is born with this condition. Therefore, a girl with Harry Benjamin's Syndrome would have a female brain's sex but her genitals would appear male. The boys born under this condition have female genitalia even thought their brains are male. So far, it is impossible to diagnose this condition at the moment of birth causing the babies to be raised in the wrong gender role" [6].

1/500 is a pretty high statistic. As of now, DDO has 25,603 registered members. Statistically about 51 members here are being raised the wrong gender (that figure may be hard to reconcile since there are so few active members). Their genitals don't match their hormonal brain balance. Many of these people identify as gay. For instance a female with a male's brain chemistry is very likely to be attracted to another female. Why? The brain acts like a male's brain though the person has female genitalia. It has in fact been demonstrated that lesbians have very similar brains to straight men and vice versa [7]. Since sexual chemistry is derivative in the brain via hormones, it makes sense to acknowledge that people cannot choose who they are sexually attracted to.

Did a teenage boy with a random erection plan or control that occurrence? I'd argue that while one can control how they react to their thoughts, they do not necessarily always demonstrate complete control over their thoughts, and Pro hasn't argued as such. If that were true, nobody would ever feel stressed out or emotional. Moreover I would like Pro and the judges to consider the following: can you control your particular sexuality? If asked to suddenly become attracted to the opposite of your current sexual preference, could you decide on a whim to switch it up and suddenly stop being attracted to one gender in particular and switch teams?

It's true that some people express a preference and then wind up with another sex. However, I would argue that this person always had bisexual tendencies, or a homosexual preference but chose to suppress it for a plethora of potential reasons. Pro hasn't argued contrary, so throughout his round he hasn't proved that one's sexuality changed rather than the fact that one can simply express particular aspects of their overall sexuality at a given point in time.

3. Pro says we can change our genetics. I contend that we have no control over our genetic make-up, as it was determined by our parents before we were born [8]. Pro says disputing this would be arguing against basic science, though science is undoubtedly in my corner. Furthermore it would be irresponsible to suggest that it's my or the audience's job to sift through every one of Pro's sporadic links to find the source that allegedly confirms this. He hasn't properly cited or sourced any of his "facts," actually.

Finally on this point, my opponent presents a misleading analogy between homosexuals and murderers. While one could argue that a killer kills partly on behalf of their genetics, one could also argue that an athlete plays sports partly on behalf of their genetics. So what? Genetics very likely play a role in determining sexual orientation [9] as they do most other aspects of our personality [10] -- but homosexuals need not be punished like murderers do, as homosexuals have not done anything inherently wrong or immoral.

4. Just because homosexual endeavors do not naturally produce children is not an argument in favor of sexuality being transient or unhealthy. Furthermore the world is overpopulated so I don't see why not having children naturally is either relevant or necessarily positive. In fact it can be seen as a negative, as one theory suggests that homosexuality is nature's response to the overpopulation problem [11]. Any benefits of parenting can be easily obtained by homosexuals via adoption, in vitro or other processes.

5. Pro says that homosexuals are less healthy than their heterosexual counterparts, though clearly this is a mass generalization not applicable to every individual gay person. Pro also suggests that homosexuals have a higher rate of AIDS than straight people, though by homosexual he is only referring to gay men. In fact, lesbians are the demographic with the LOWEST rate of AIDS and HIV, and they are of course homosexual [12]. Pro cannot disregard lesbians from the homosexual discussion, and these statistics simply to not apply to them.

I think it's pretty obvious that unsafe sex and not particularly homosexual sex is what is inherently dangerous, thus smarter choices amongst the gay community can easily change these statistics thereby negating this point. Pro hasn't demonstrated that it was homosexuality itself as unhealthy (i.e., sex between people of the same sex).

6. Pro writes, "Also, heterosexuals have less chance of AIDS. Less chance of depression. More life expectancy." I've already argued the AIDS issue, and regarding depression, most of the depression gay people feel is in response to the bigotry, homophobia, ignorance and intolerance that causes people to treat homosexuals as if they are disgusting, unloved or defective [13]. The life expectancy statistic is directly related to the AIDS statistic.

7. Pro says lesbians are also at risk for STDs. That's true, but so are heterosexuals who engage in similar sexual practices; i.e. cunnilingus :)

8. Pro hasn't proven that rebelling against the social norm is necessarily immoral. Pro hasn't actually argued one point in favor of homosexuality being immoral other than an appeal to majority, and even that is entirely irrelevant to the resolution. So is Pro's false point about America's founding fathers [14].

9. Religion is irrelevant to the resolution.

10. Pro repeats the reproduction argument which was already addressed.

11. The false point about homosexual discrimination is irrelevant to the resolution.

12. The false point about heterosexuals being able to "turn" homosexual is irrelevant to the resolution.

I'd also like to note that an American Psychological Association research committee concluded no evidence demonstrates that "corrective (reparative) therapy" or any other attempt to change sexual orientation is effective [15].

SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adrianaesque 5 years ago
adrianaesque
Con is so ignorant. They go by generalized, assumed definitions. And Con is wrong on a lot of points. Con had the loss coming to them.
Posted by boggleface 5 years ago
boggleface
I'm sorry but putting your ding dong in an a-hole can't be too healthy.
Posted by unlikely 5 years ago
unlikely
One thing that needs to be explained is that homosexuality is very good fun. Gay men have terrific sex lives, great anal sex is amongst the finest of all human experiences ( im sure straight sex is quite good too ;))
Oral sex can be and often is a terrific experience
Any nutjob who tries to take this away from 2 consenting adults should be fought against by all lovers of freedom. Any one who tries to stop this because of a crazed religious or superstitious sense should seek help.
Posted by Yurlene 5 years ago
Yurlene
Amen, griffo, well said...
Posted by griffro 5 years ago
griffro
BladeArcon482: Your sources do not prove your point. No experiment dealing with humans can be empirically proven by scientific study. Not only is it impossible, it is unethical. The only thing that can be done is show that there are correlates. For example: there is a strong positive correlation between the consumption of ice cream and rapes. Does this mean that eating ice cream causes rapes? No, there is a confounding variable: the weather. Another: scientists cannot prove that smoking cigarettes or second hand smoking causes cancer in humans. They can PROVE it does in rats, but not humans. Therefore, it can only be said there is a strong positive correlation between smoking/second hand smoke and the rates of cancer.

On another note, if you cannot use proper ethics while debating; then, it is probably best that you leave this site and stick to your anti-gay communities, where gay bashing is acceptable.
Posted by BladeArcon482 5 years ago
BladeArcon482
Part 3:

"Your Genetic Code Is Not Carved in Stone: New research is revealing how your environment actually changes your genetics - and it's putting you in the driver's seat. Scientists in an emerging field of research - epigenetics - have discovered that your genes are only 15 percent of the total genetic material you get from your parents. For example, your genes give you many individualizing traits like blue eyes or brown hair. The remaining 85 percent - the epigenome - is a scaffolding of proteins that surround your DNA's double-helix pattern." - http://www.beinghealthynaturally.com...

You see how this all links together? If you don't, you need to study a bit more. Good bye.
Posted by BladeArcon482 5 years ago
BladeArcon482
Part 2:

Argue against the government.

"The first study of its kind to pinpoint environment-triggered genetic changes in schizophrenia has been launched with $9.8 million in funding from NIMH. The five-site study seeks telltale marks in the genome that hold clues to how nurture interacts with nature to produce the illness." - http://www.nimh.nih.gov...

""Understanding schizophrenia's epigenome can reveal how factors like diet, chemicals, infections and experience impact genetic predisposition," explained Feinberg. "Since epigenetic changes are potentially reversible, our findings may lead to new ways to treat schizophrenia." - http://www.nimh.nih.gov...

"Scientists are rewriting the laws of heredity as they learn more about a mysterious second genetic code that turns our genes on and off. The traditional idea that we are the passive carriers of our genes is being challenged by the notion that we are their custodians. Our lifestyles -- what we eat, how much we exercise, whether we smoke -- may play a role in a chemical switching system that activates or deactivates our genes. There are signs that our behaviour may program sections of our children's DNA, and that how we live may even affect our grandchildren's genes." - http://www.precaution.org...

Some people believe it. Are you calling them idiots now?

"In reality, it's a combination of both, and to complicate things a little, sometimes the environment messes with your genes, as beautifully demonstrated in a recent article published in the journal Nature Neuroscience." - http://scientificchick.blogspot.com...
Posted by BladeArcon482 5 years ago
BladeArcon482
Part One:

The twin thing? Contradicted completely.

"It is currently unknown how much genetic activity is programmed from birth and how much is caused by environmental factors. However, some studies performed with identical twins have shown that twins separated at birth and raised in totally different environments with completely different lifestyles had more disparity in their genetic activity than twins who were raised together." - http://www.healthtree.com...

Genetic Mutation

"Human genetic mutations can either be inherited from a parent (hereditary or germ line mutations) or acquired over an individual's life span (acquired or somatic mutations). Hereditary mutations exist in almost every cell in a person's body and are present throughout the individual's life." - http://www.healthtree.com...

Not only has it been proven in humans, it has been proven in mice as well. Are you saying humans are stupid? "When mice are exposed to enriched environments, their offspring can overcome genetic defects that impair long-term memory." - http://www.scientificamerican.com...

A new theory is being created as we speak. "The process of physical creation has given rise to a hierarchy of material and biological forms – from the infinitesimal atom and molecule to the living cell, differentiated organs and multi-cellular life forms of increasing complexity and capacity for adaptation. The process of social creation gives rise to a similar hierarchy of forms. But society is a field of life, not matter; of activity, not the sum of living organisms but their constantly changing interactions. The social forms it creates are not patterns and arrangements of material substance but patterns and arrangements of human activity – not "architecture" but something more like chemical reactions in a liquid solution." - http://www.icpd.org...
Posted by BladeArcon482 5 years ago
BladeArcon482
@Yurlene and Griffro.

I will post the sources and leave this site. Apparently, everything is a fallacy to people here. Kind of ironic how Philosophy technically says it works both ways, considering. "Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people." http://www.iep.utm.edu...

If you are a reasonable person, you will figure out that the fallacies cancel out. So how do we know if someone is using a fallacy? How do you know you're not lying. If you say that it is because you know, that is a fallacy. If you give a reason, there is a counter to your reasoning. Every single argument you make can be considered a fallacy. Why?

This is why things like the Liar's Paradox work. Saying otherwise will be calling Philosophers idiots, which is a contradiction within itself. "Experts in the field of philosophical logic have never agreed on the way out of the trouble despite 2,300 years of attention. Here is the trouble–a sketch of the Liar Argument that reveals the contradiction: Let L be the classical Liar Sentence. If L is true, then L is false. But we can also establish the converse, as follows. Assume L is false. Because the Liar Sentence is saying precisely that (namely that it is false), the Liar Sentence is true, so L is true. We've now shown that L is true if and only if it is false. Since L is one or the other, it is both." - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
__________________________________________________________________________________

Now, to prove something... Saying Homosexuality cannot be changed by environment is a fallacy. Why? If we get rid of the Philosophy and focus on the "reality", you will notice that many things link together. Watch. With my next post. This is going to be long and rough. Have fun screwing around while I am gone.
Posted by griffro 5 years ago
griffro
I completely agree with LoremIpsum. I'm not gay. In addition, Con's arguments are illogical, irrelevant, and not well documented. Con seems to be speaking from personal opinion, not fact. One further suggestion would be to check your grammar, and seek advise on how to write a persuasive argument with proper documentation.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro get arguments by a land slide.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro numbers her sources. While Con just lists a bunch of links. Pro refutes all of Con's points. She affirms the resolution.
Vote Placed by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Kerb stomp. Pro displayed the ignorance behind all of Con's contentions.
Vote Placed by PervRat 5 years ago
PervRat
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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: Con had poor grammar, seemed confused, and lacked coherency. The spamlist of links at the end was not described and, just gleaning over the non-news sites (which would report what others report and the same news sites probably also contain opposing views from other links that con selectively ignored) seem to be (not surprisingly) religious in nature, none from the A.M.A. nor W.H.O. The unreferenced spamlist of links, therefore, is a negative to me against Con's source quality.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: 1 round debates are always stupid. I'll admit, I did not check every single one of Con's sources, though I went though many of them, and many of them were just horrendous. Some made blind assertions, others just pulled numbers out of their buts. Either way, it was bad. Pro used more scientigic knowledge and a single, better source.
Vote Placed by jimmye 5 years ago
jimmye
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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 Freeman 5 years ago
Freeman
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's random jumble of sources was not impressive. Pro's scientific evidence and rational dissection of the resolution won her the debate. According to the APA, one's sexual orientation is not something that can consciously be changed.
Vote Placed by alextp7 5 years ago
alextp7
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though I'm against homosexuality, I agree with Danielle for several reason. Also con stated some rather insulting things for lesbians.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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: Con did a good job of displaying his/her ignorance while pro actually did a good job of looking at the real research/science. Thank you Danielle! :)
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
BladeArcon482DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: (arguments)con simply ranted for most of the debate and made baseless assertions while pro was able to refute every one of them. (sources)con put many sources but did not correctly cite any of them so there is no way of knowing what each of them was referring to. Pro used reliable sources.