The Instigator
Rhetorician
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
gt4o2007
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Homosexuality is Morally Wrong, Therefore Unjust, Gay Marriage must therefore be illegal.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
gt4o2007
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 34730
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Rhetorician

Pro

Homosexuality is morally wrong, and therefore unjust.

I am compelled against my beliefs, to accept that homosexuality is a very personal matter, one which may bring with it the love, adornment, and care of one man to another or one woman to another. In these respects, homosexuality is a good thing, it encourages love, adornment, caring, and even acceptance. It is also true that we should learn to accept all people, no matter their sexuality, race, age, gender, or otherwise. All people should be accepted as they are.

It is a strong argument in favor of homosexuality indeed. However, although we must accept our homosexual brother's and sister's, we must not approve of them. They act with good intent, as does the thief who steals from the baker to feed his family. Though good intent is not enough to correct a moral wronging.

How is homosexuality morally wrong? It entails so many good things, love, adornment, caring, acceptance. What can be morally wrong with these things?

Nothing. Nothing is wrong in the matter of love, adornment, care, or acceptance.

Moral is defined as conforming to a standard of right behavior, according to the merriam-webster dictionary, among others.

Humans, among other animals, have a need to continue to reproduce. Failure to reproduce would mean the inevitable end to the Human race. It must be indeed be seen as morally wrong, to attempt in any way to bring the end to the human race.

Just, is defined as morally upright and good, according to the merriam-webster dictionary, among others.

An action which is morally wrong, must also be seen as unjust. This is by definition.

It is fair to say, that man or woman can only act morally wrong if they know indeed what they are doing is wrong. In this case, it can only be determined that homosexuals act morally wrong if they indeed know that they cannot reproduce. This is obviously known to any and all homosexuals. Thus they do act willingly, and not under the cloak of ignorance.

Homosexuality, a natural occurrence in human society as well as in other animals, is indeed morally wrong. If all men and women collectively decided to partake in strictly homosexual acts, humans would cease to exist at the death of the last born before this movement to homosexuality.

This is of course an extreme example, we have to be careful not to partake in a slippery slope theory, this is fallacious. The example however demonstrates the point, homosexuality works against mankind, unintentionally, with love, adornment, care, and acceptance at its root, though all the same it is the unfortunate case that homosexuality must be deemed morally wrong, and therefore unjust.

This means that the courts must make gay marriage illegal, it is the duty of the court to deliver what is just. It has been demonstrated that homosexuality cannot be just.

Gay Marriage is the allowance, if not encouragement, of homosexuality, this cannot be the role of the courts to allow.

Though this is true, a virtuous man, must lie in the mean. To make gay marriage illegal is necessary, as it allows and may encourage homosexuality. However, as humans we must not only accept, but approve of that which is loving, adoring, caring, and accepting. Homosexuality must be accepted and approved by individuals, as although it is morally wrong, it is not the intention of those involved to be morally wronging.

The court must do what is just.

Individuals must do what is moral, it is right and good to love those who do not act maliciously, but with love, adornment, care, and acceptance.

My argument holds that the courts must outlaw gay marriage, but people must be accepting of homosexuality.

Please present your counter.
gt4o2007

Con

I accept,
I'm not sure how stealing and being homosexual are the same because having sex with the person you love is completely normal. "Moral is defined as conforming to a standard of right behavior, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, among others". This is the definition of morality but who gets to decide morality? If your argument turns religious you have lost because in the U.S. constitution there is a separation of church and state and people can not impose religious beliefs on others.

"Humans, among other animals, have a need to continue to reproduce. Failure to reproduce would mean the inevitable end to the Human race. It must be indeed be seen as morally wrong, to attempt in any way to bring the end to the human race." You do realize that we are suffering from over population at this moment right? Homosexuals would be doing the world a favor by not reproducing and just adopting children already here without a family. I also would like to ask you a question is it morally wrong for someone that is sterile to get married since they cannot reproduce? If a soldier comes back and was shot in there genital area and they now have no genitalia are they immoral for getting married?

"An action which is morally wrong, must also be seen as unjust. This is by definition." Again not saying the definition is wrong but who gets to decide morality?

"It is fair to say, that man or woman can only act morally wrong if they know indeed what they are doing is wrong. In this case, it can only be determined that homosexuals act morally wrong if they indeed know that they cannot reproduce. This is obviously known to any and all homosexuals. Thus they do act willingly, and not under the cloak of ignorance." I am 100% sure homosexuals know if they have homosexual sex they cannot reproduce based on definition and science.

"Homosexuality, a natural occurrence in human society as well as In other animals, is indeed morally wrong. If all men and women collectively decide to partake in strictly homosexual acts, humans would cease to exist at the death of the last born before this movement to homosexuality." You have made it seem as if homosexuality Is a choice if you are able to switch between sexualities then you are bisexual not straight or homosexual. I also would like to ask you when did you decide to be straight? There is no movement to homosexuality in the world at all because you can't choose to be gay or straight you are born that way only 3.8% of people in America say there gay, bi or transgender. http://gaylife.about.com...

"This means that the courts make gay marriage illegal, it is the duty of the court to deliver what is just. It has been demonstrated that homosexuality cannot be just." I don't agree you have demonstrated it can be unjust at all.

"Gay marriage is the allowance, if not encouragement, of homosexuality, this cannot be the role of the courts to allow." Homosexuality is natural as you stated earlier so by definition it is allowed you cannot turn someone gay so you cannot encourage someone to be gay. But you do realize that homosexuals already are in long relation ships so gay marriage would not change anything except that can get all the perks of being married
1.Visiting in the hospital
2.Divorce money
3.Less taxes
4.If husband or wife dies you get there money after death with less taxes on the money.

I send this back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Rhetorician

Pro

Please site credible sources when using a reference. About.com is written by users similar to wikipedia, and is often not fact checked.

However this reference is altogether a digression. The point is not what percent of people are homosexual and the point is not if homosexuality is a choice. As such I will not address these points.

You have stated "Homosexuals would be doing the world a favor by not reproducing, and just adopting children already here without a family." This is a subjective argument, a favor to you is not necessarily a favor to me. Adopting children already here without a family is a good thing, but does not have to do with the issue at hand, homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to adopt, this does not make homosexuality moral.

You have missed that I have acknowledged in my argument that I accept homosexuality personally, though I am a heterosexual male. I even go so far as to say I recommend others do as well. Notice my conclusion "People must be accepting of homosexuality".

Your comparison to the soldier who dutifully served his country and was stricken by ill fate in the loss of his genital area, is a sad comparison. A soldier serves his country, a moral duty. The resulting loss was the result of good intentions. A man who serves his country, and suffers the loss of his genitals, is no less of an honorable man.

This is outside of the point however, as you continue to sway outside the question, I must fight to steer it back to the correct path.

The soldier was not born with a handicap, he only received his handicap through honorably serving his country. The homosexual is born with this handicap, it is unfortunate, but being unfortunate does not make it morally right.

In regards to your statement on over population. This is a nice point, however we fail to realize that according to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...) 39% of our citizens live on the coast, which makes up only 10% of the country.

We do not suffer from over population, so much as we suffer from collecting all in one place, so to speak.

You ask multiple times who decides morality. Morality is judged by right and wrong. What is right and wrong? Right and wrong are subjective to the case at hand. But in general, right is something that is for your betterment, wrong is something not for your betterment.

If you wish to posit a new definition of right and wrong, please ensure that it is extremely different from the definition I have put forth, as well as disprove my statement. Anything less would be considered another attempt to steer the debate in the wrong direction.

All animals look to have their species continued, reproduction is how this is accomplished, thus reproduction is for a species betterment. Any part of a species which cannot contribute to its betterment, is morally wrong.

I concede your point homosexuality is natural. Encouragement is not to be used in the sense of encouraging a new person to become gay, but rather approving of the person in question.

Example:
Congratulating a student on a high test mark. This encouragement is your sign of approval of his or her high mark.

A court that encourages immorality, is no longer a court at all.

Homosexuals have indeed been in long term relationships, my fiancee's boss' are homosexuals who have been together for more than 15 years, never married, and are also against gay marriage ironically.
gt4o2007

Con

It is definitely a credible source if you read the article it is an interview on Gary J. Gates who is co-author of The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. His doctoral dissertation included the first significant research study of the demography of the gay and lesbian population using US Census data. His work on that subject has been featured in many national and international media outlets. He holds a PhD in Public Policy from the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University along with a Master of Divinity degree from St. Vincent College and a BS in Computer Science from the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.
Favor-(1) : friendly regard shown toward another especially by a superior (2) : approving consideration or attention :

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

It is a good thing to adopt a child that has no family so they did a favor to the population. Not to me.
Over population is an issue http://www.globalissues.org...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://howmany.org...
Overpopulation is not how many people are in a spot at once it is the resources that are being depleted by the population.

"A court that encourages immorality, is no longer a court at all."
Again it is not immoral it is just how you think of it like you tried to say how a favor is. Something moral to you may be moral to another person this is why gay marriage should not be based in courts on morality it should be decided on how many people support it like how laws are supposed to be made. http://news.yahoo.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://abcnews.go.com...
Even if you want to decide a law on morality this one would pass because more than 50% of Americans agree it should be legal.

Your last point means nothing there are straight men that don't agree with straight marriage, drug users that don't agree with drug legalization, and thieves that don't agree to legalize stealing.

"Any part of a species which cannot contribute to its betterment, is morally wrong." By this statement homosexuals are not morally wrong because just because they can not reproduce with one another because for one providing money to pay for all the people that can reproduce kids would mean helping provide a better education with taxes they go to help Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Military, Government, and Food Stamps a clear betterment to the species.
Debate Round No. 2
Rhetorician

Pro

I must say you spend a lot of time debating points which are immaterial.

I concede the following points to be true:

-Gary J. Gates is qualified to give an opinion. *This does not relate to how homosexuality is moral.
-A favor is an approved consideration or attention *In which case, once again, makes it subjective. If I do not approve of homosexuals adopting children, I would not consider it a favor. This does not relate to how homosexuality is moral.
-Over population is debatable, as many articles as you find in favor I can find against. It is not a fact. *This does not relate to how homosexuality is moral.

Agreement does not constitute morality. Please do not seek to confuse. When Hitler was at the height of his power, his approval rating was well over 50%, somewhere between 80% and 90%. Do not debate this, this is a fact which you can look up, and is not the basis of this debate.

The purpose for stating this fact is this: Hitler received well over 50% approval from the people of Germany. Yet we can agree, since I assume you are no Neo Nazi, that his actions were morally wrong.

Would you argue that Hitler was morally right? Since the people of Germany obviously believed he was? No.

Please do not attempt to confuse.

Unfortunately morality is not subjective. Killing is immoral, no matter how you try to define killing. Abusing someone is immoral, no matter how you try to define abuse. Cheating is immoral, no matter how you try to define cheating. Donating to those less fortunate is moral, no matter how you define it.

I could go on but this is enough to demonstrate the point. Encouraging the stagnation of your species is immoral. Encouraging the demise of your species is immoral as well.

Homosexuality stagnates the growth of our species. Approving of it, is to approve of stagnation of your species, which is also immoral.

Quite possibly you believe it is good and right to halter the development of the human race, perhaps you would like to encourage its stagnation? But I think you are a reasonable person.

Again I must state.

I do personally approve of homosexuality, I have homosexual family members, however it is recognized that approval from a citizen does not mean the law should justify it.

Example:

Man kills your mother. Your brother kills this man. You approve of your brother's action, he has avenged your mother. The law puts your brother in jail, he has killed a man.

Here in lies the disconnect between man's Approval of Behavior, and the laws duty to act Justly.

Do not respond to this example, you may not approve of your brother's actions, but many people will, and I am sure you are reasonable and can understand the point for more than the example.

In closing, it was clever but noticed that you concluded by taking a statement of mine erroneously out of context. So I will rephrase it here.

"All animals look to have their species continued, reproduction is how this is accomplished, thus reproduction is for a species betterment. Any part of a species which cannot contribute to its betterment, is morally wrong."

Yes homosexuals pay taxes, as required by law of all citizens of the United States of America. This is not a matter of moral, but a matter of acting within the law. Many murderers, rapists, thieves, extortionists, all paid their taxes which helps to provide a better education, help social security, medicaid, medicare, military, government, and food stamps. Many criminals pay with money they got illegally.

Should we forgive all who act immorally, on the grounds that it is okay as long as they pay their taxes?

Please do not try to make this an emotional debate over whether taxes save the children. We know they do. That we are not debating.

Show me that homosexuality does not do what I claim. Homosexuality "Halters the continuance of the human race."

Please refute this point, if you cannot refute this point, you must accept Homosexuality is immoral, therefore unjust.
gt4o2007

Con

Pro states all I have to do is refute hit point "Homosexuality' Halters the continuance of the human race.'" This is not hard less then 2 percent of the population of America http://www.theatlantic.com... and maybe 10% of the worlds population is gay or lesbian http://www.gallup.com.... Based off of what I have provided in previous rounds the United Nations estimates the world population to rise to 9.5 billion in 2050 clearly the population cannot become stagnant off of homosexuals.

For homosexuality to be the cause of stagnation would mean that more than 50% of the worlds population would have to be gay please provide some facts that homosexuality is on the rise and causing the population to go down. Then you can call it immoral by your definition.

Now onto your legalization of Gay Marriage you want to decide the legalization of gay marriage with morality my point was that 53% do not agree with your morality. That is how laws are decided in our country agreement.

Oh by the way on my definition or morality Hitler did not follow my morals but to Hitler he was very moral.
Your saying the only way to better your species is to reproduce that means you should constantly start pumping out babies no matter what the world you are bringing them into is like due to how many people there already is.
Debate Round No. 3
Rhetorician

Pro

Unfortunately I am going to have to assume you are very young. Voters support gay marriage. This doesn't mean gay marriage is moral. It means it is supported by a majority of voters.

At one point in our country slavery was accepted by a majority of voters, this did not make slavery moral. It in fact took the minority group (those in favor of abolition) many years to get the majority to see the error in its ways.

So please again, do not confuse voter support with morality. They are not the same thing by any means.

You have conceded my point. Through stating your belief that more than 50% would have to be homosexual to produce stagnation, you yourself have stated that homosexuality can cause stagnation.

The only remaining issue is your lack of understanding for the term stagnation, stagnation means inactivity. If 50% of the population were homosexual, this would indeed encourage stagnation.

However if 1% of the population is homosexual, this too encourages stagnation. Or encourages inactivity.

Homosexuals are in and of themselves inactive in terms of population growth. Homosexuals cannot directly contribute to population growth.

If you cannot contribute to growth, you contribute to inactivity, or to decline.

Homosexuals do not contribute to the DECLINE of humans. They contribute to the inactivity of human population growth.

Something that contributes to the inactivity of human population growth, may lead to decline in the future, though this is neither here nor there. However inactivity of population growth is morally bad.

Your exaggeration is either immature or misinformed. I no where in this debate stated the only way to better a species is to reproduce.

However I do state that contributing to inactivity of a species works against the betterment.

Obviously there are many ways to better your species, when homosexuals adopt children they are bettering, when all Americans pay taxes they are bettering, when we educate ourselves we are bettering, when we realize the difference between morals and opinions we are bettering, there are many ways to better, many ways to act morally.

However 2 moral rights, do not correct 1 moral wrong. Nor do 3 or 4. A moral wrong works against the betterment of mankind.

You have admitted that you see the potential for homosexuals to work against the betterment. Your confusion lies in belief that small statistics are insignificant.

As if to say "Genius' do not change the world, to change the world more 50% of the world's population."
or to say "Murder does not cause stagnation, that would mean more than 50% of the world's population is murdered."
or to say "Bird flu shouldn't be feared, to be feared it would need to effect more than 50% of the world's population."

If 50% was the basis for effecting change, how often would things change?

Again now that you have conceded the point that homosexuality does indeed cause stagnation.

Please justify your requirement that it will only cause stagnation if it effects more than 50% of the world's population.

More clearly stated:

Demonstrate that homosexuality, which in and of itself is an inability to contribute to the population, does not contribute to inactivity of population growth.

To do this you will need to show how homosexuals do help the population grow.

If they do not help it grow, they must encourage it to be stagnate.

If they encourage it stagnate, they work against the betterment of mankind.

If they work against the betterment of mankind, they must be immoral.

If they are immoral, they must be unjust.

If unjust, then the courts must not side with them.*

*This statement is only true if you believe the court is meant to deliver that which is just.
gt4o2007

Con

Again it is your opinion that to not be able to reproduce is immoral. If that is the case and there is no exceptions like you said 1 moral does not take away 1 immoral nor 3 or 4 I understand your point but with your example just like I said before if a soldier was moral and fought for his country but came back without being able to reproduce then he is now immoral because he can't reproduce if someone is born sterile then they can do anything they want but yet they are immoral. Your opinion on reproduction being moral and not reproducing is crazy if a straight couple decides not to have kids there immoral if they have a miscarriage they are immoral because they are not reproducing.

To not do something is not supporting the other as I have shown you can not want to have kids but do not say hey make everyone not have kids because there kids. Your definition of betterment being reproduction again is not supported by facts the world population is suffering from overpopulation so I would argue that to help lower the population in a way that does not include murdering someone or just letting them die without health care would be a completely moral thing to do.

I never stated that homosexuals work against the betterment. It actually is possible for a homosexual to repopulate they can use in vitro fertilization or pay a woman to have a child for them aka adoption. There are ways for homosexuals to have children.

I think it would be more moral if people would stop having so many children and started adopting the ones that are without a family. http://abbafund.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Rhetorician

Pro

The soldier is not the issue. Perhaps you can challenge me or someone else to this debate on another time.
Perhaps both are immoral, perhaps the soldier is moral. I am not deciding this issue.
A straight couple is not the issue. Perhaps you can challenge me or someone else to this debate on another time.
Perhaps both are immoral, perhaps a straight family choosing not to have kids is moral. I am not deciding this issue.
In Vitro Fertilization is risky, 30% of them are complicated by Ovarian Hyper Stimulation Syndrome.
We have accepted adoption is a possibility. Yet it does not explain the moral state of the adopter(s).

The issue is homosexuality. Comparing homosexuality to a soldier, to a straight couple who chooses not to have children, or to miscarriage does not increase or decrease the morality of any of these issues.

Your argument in its entirety has been based on distraction.

I'm not saying you support homosexuality as immoral, but through your lack of sufficient argument, one must wonder. Quite possibly you believe my point to be true, but would rather provide confusion than concede.

I conclude with this.

Homosexuals are great people, beautiful people, I believe many homosexuals raise great families, make great parents, and contribute in many ways to a society of love, adornment, caring, and acceptance. Their lack of morality does not cause them to lack great qualities, they are great assets to America. Some see them as different, I see them as American, what else is an American if not someone different.

All Americans have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All Americans also have a right to a government who's judicial system will always uphold that which is just and moral. A government which will not excuse a good man, simply because he has many good qualities. The judicial system has one duty. To deliver and uphold that which is Just.

Do not be fooled by distraction. Look only at what is evident. Homosexuals are great and beautiful people, however they possess a natural difference which keeps them from acting entirely morally good. We as people must love homosexuals and accept them as people, but the government must not encourage that which would encourage the stagnation of its people. In this case, the government is forced to do what people hate, it must limit what a natural born citizen assumed he or she had the right to do. It must not remove the right to marry, but it must make certain that while encouraging love and marriage. It does not encourage stagnation of our population.

I must regretfully say my argument holds, that the courts must outlaw gay marriage, but people must be accepting of homosexuality.

If my opponent wishes to refute this, let him prove one thing.

It is understood and conceded that homosexuals are able to contribute to the betterment of society. It is understood that they possess many moral attributes.

However, to refute my argument, and thus enlighten myself and those watching. We must have proof of one thing. If no proof can be furnished, you must concede. If adequate proof is furnished, I will concede happily.

Prove: Homosexuality contributes to the growth of the population, thus homosexuals do not contribute to stagnation, thus homosexuals are not immoral.

If there is no adequate proof, then the opposite must be true.

To address anything other than this issue is resorting again to illusion and confusion.
gt4o2007

Con

Since this is the last round I will not start a new argument. My point of using the soldier as an example is Pro stated earlier that "All animals look to have their species continued, reproduction is how this is accomplished, thus reproduction is for a species betterment. Any part of a species which cannot contribute to its betterment, is morally wrong." He cannot justify this as moral because there are many people other then homosexuals that he would have to call immoral anyone that does not have a child is immoral by this definition of betterment. I do not find this definition to be true by any means.

I have already addressed the issue of homosexuals contributing to the growth of the population and how even if they did not they are not contributing to stagnation. To not do something is not supporting the opposite think of it this way
in the last election if you voted for Romney then you did not vote for Obama but if you did not vote you did not vote for either of the candidates not that you voted for one of them.

"Prove: Homosexuality contributes to the growth of the population, thus homosexuals do not contribute to stagnation, thus homosexuals are not immoral." Already have addressed that they can add to the population but either way reproduction does not prove or disprove immorality or you would be calling everyone without a child immoral.

"Homosexuals are great and beautiful people, however they possess a natural difference which keeps them from acting entirely morally good." So because they poses something they cannot change and it is different than other people there immoral? lets think about this since I'm born with a penis can I call a woman immoral for possessing something that is a "natural difference" or vise versa?

My opponent failed to accept that his definition of betterment would call everyone that does not have a kid immoral. I suggest that you think about your position more and come up with a better argument other than reproduction. I would love to continue to debate this with you another time.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by zigstum 3 years ago
zigstum
Reading Pro's argument I am reminded of the quote:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." -- Immanuel Kant.
Posted by Philophile 3 years ago
Philophile
Rhetorician your arguments are so bad.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
I read the PRO's opening, and just couldn't help but laugh.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
I read the first argument rolled my eyes and checked the comments. I then laughed for about 4 seconds. In closing, Jon Oliver has done a great job so far.
Posted by jdog2016 3 years ago
jdog2016
Rhetorician YOU CAN LEAVE!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Rhetoriciangt4o2007Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro claims that immorality is defined by a failure to reproduce, so he must say whether or not everyone who does not reproduce is immoral, everyone sterile couples to Catholic priests. But if the argument is accepted then he must show that if gay marriage is illegal, gays will become straight, marry, and reproduce. But Pro granted that homosexuality was natural and that homosexuals must be accepted -- therefore fertility would not increase. Con should have attacked Pro's logic: if everyone became a truck driver we would have no farmers and we would all starve -- therefore truck driving is immoral. Note "morally wronging" = immoral.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
Rhetoriciangt4o2007Tied
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: Unlike most who oppose gay marriage, pro actually made some decent logistical arguments. However, there were some holes in pro's reasoning which con found and ripped apart, so this one goes to con.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Rhetoriciangt4o2007Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was fairly easy to judge. Pro argued that not being able to reproduce or contribute to a species benefit is morally wrong, but Con pointed out examples which make that notion absurd. Pro did not substantiate his claim, and therefore, did not meet the burden of proof.