The Instigator
aero36
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Homosexuality with a twist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,699 times Debate No: 24444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

aero36

Con

The argument of homosexuality is always Con using religion and pro using every thing else. In this the Pro side may only use religion (specifically Christianity) and the Con, I, cannot use religion at all. This is homosexuality in general, 8000 words, so its not specific, just themed with 4 rounds, and this first round as Acceptance. Be as broad as you like in which aspect you take up, I am currently looking into homosexuality in marriage in correlation to the current American debate and also homosexuality in more natural terms.

Round 2 = Arguments
Round 3 = Rebuttals
Round 4 = Conclusions
bluesteel

Pro

Okay, I accept.

Thanks for the debate aero. I look forward to it.

I will be arguing in favor of homosexuality, my opponent will be arguing against. Mostly, I will be arguing that we should respect homosexuals and treat them equally. It's my understanding that my opponent will be arguing that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should be not be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1
aero36

Con

Marriage:

Tax incentives for marriage were designed to encourage having children in an America that was rapidly giving females rights beyond the household, for women were being encouraged to attain jobs. Females would either hold off on having children or refuse to have them in general so that they could seek individual success that had always been restricted to the males. In a relationship by which natural children cannot be conceived, it breaks the purpose of marriage at the national level. One may argue that infertile marriages nullify this, but if a heterosexual marriage was blocked by the fertility of couple at the national level it gives the government the power of intervention in which hinders free will, but a homosexual relationship cannot induce conception so there is no precedence for the government to intervene, they are simply not giving the incentive. A government that does not give incentives differentiates from one that intervenes, for offering a reward to a heterosexual relationship is different than setting up camps to check fertility if the law was based around the fertility of the relationship. A governments' job is to the future through protection and the slightest of guidance when necessary, not to the happiness, the people make their own happiness through the freedoms encouraged by the government.

Evolution:

As Elvroinn_vonn_trazem stated in the comments: evolution has not been eliminated through natural selection, I wish to acknowledge this, and request it is read prior to the following:

Natural selection does not choose the advantageous traits, it is completely random mutation with the assumption that the better traits will survive. Starting in Greek culture, civilization became a lot more stable in comparison to the tribes in the Fertile Crescent. There was war and famine, but the people had rulers with a set military protecting them. Natural selection for survival became less pertinent, it was more important for reproduction, which holds survival aspects in mating. This holds up in the United States even more, as mating has become a social game in which the males confidence is tested more than their survival capability.

Moving further into evolution, its purpose is to create genetic diversity through the mating of heterosexual couples, which is impossible through homosexual relationships. Particularly when the citizens with the higher capacity to remember or comprehend concepts do not reproduce and continue their genetics, whether it is through homosexuality or a refusal to have children because of their individual success.

To conclude my argument, homosexuals can marry into civil unions under national terminology, but they should not receive the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage since there is no prospect for children. Which also ties into the detriment that occurs in the evolutionary process as the number of genes reduces as the smartest, more powerful females choose to marry a female because they seek to be the dominate.

Also, as this is my first debate, if you want to leave feedback in the comments or the opening of the next round, I would appreciate receiving such.
bluesteel

Pro

== My argument using Christianity ==

"Some Christians believe that marriage is the union of two people and that homosexual behavior is not inherently sinful." [1]

"Following the lead of Yale scholar John Boswell, it has been argued that a number of Early Christians entered into homosexual relationships, and that certain Biblical figures had homosexual relationships, despite Biblical injunctions against sexual relationships between members of the same sex. Examples cited are Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi, Daniel and the court official Ashpenaz, and, most famously, David and King Saul's son Jonathan." [1]

"Desmond Tutu, the former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has described homophobia as a 'crime against humanity' and 'every bit as unjust' as apartheid: 'We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. ... We treat them [gays and lesbians] as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God – and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.'" [1]

"Others consider that Christ made the commandments to "love God and one's neighbour," and to "love one's neighbour as oneself" touchstones of the moral law; that these imply a radical equality, and that, by this principle of equality, the Law of Moses is to be adjusted or even abrogated." [1] Jesus wrote that loving one's neighbor was the most important rule. [2] This was unqualified. If Jesus wanted us to hate our neighbors under certain conditions, he would certainly have listed said conditions. We must show compassion to everybody.

Al Sharpton, a Baptist minister said, "asking whether gays or lesbians should be able to get married [is] insulting: "That's like saying: . . . give blacks, or whites, or Latinos the right to shack up – but not get married [...] It's like asking 'do I support black marriage or white marriage'... The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings." [1]

In Matthew 25.35-40, Jesus expounds God's passion for the oppressed and instructs his followers that they will be rewarded for interceding on behalf of the downtrodden. [2] In Matthew 5.3-12, Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth ... Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." [2] This passage clearly states that those that are persecuted have a special place in Heaven, which also means that we should seek *not to* persecute others. Matthew 7.1-5: "Judge not, that you be not judged." This passage literally tells us not to judge others: live and let live. This is the opposite of intervening in the lives of homosexuals and telling them what they can and cannot do. Matthew 7.12: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them." This is the Golden Rule. Supposedly, if we want to be persecuted and be denied marriage rights, then we have acted properly towards homosexuals.

I'll refute my opponent's points, as per the rules, in the next round.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
aero36

Con

Rebuttal:
My opponent makes claim that Jesus said to accept all, this is true, but Jesus' purpose was not for condemnation, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17. He came to give the message "'The neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin,'" John 8:11, as to say we must repent for what is an error in the sight of God. The ways of sinning were already established, Jesus only came to forgive, not to abolish the laws, and to show men that they do not have the power, God is the final judgment, and as the following states, sinners will never enter Heaven.

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Desmond Tutu and Al Sharpton statement is based on the assumption that homosexuality occurs naturally, and does not take the differentiation of nurture into account, for which a black cannot be turned into a White (Michael Jackson not included). The nature vs. nurture argument for homosexuality is still in tow. There is no definitive proof, for elvroinn's comment is the concept that will guide the research, but not the research itself. If it's a lifestyle and not a life itself, there statements become invalid as is it is the same as saying we should acknowledge serial killers and rapists because it is how they want to live. On the other hand, if its nature, it still goes back to the serial concept because the research is may become theory soon, as serial killer minds are being found to have and oddity in the frontal lobe of their brains in comparison to the mass populous.

The beatitudes were to make claimant that the humble will be rewarded, not the flamboyant. This goes back to my previous paragraph, its making claim that this is a natural occurrence which has not been proven yet. It definitely can be proven one way or another, but our technology needs to be stronger so that we can read the builds up of the genome accurately. Homosexuality is being oppressed, but it is not weak unless you take the nurture argument and say: "They are weak, so they must be gay as homosexuality is effeminate submission," which does not cover the effeminate stereotypes, which is that lesbians are trying to take the role of the man.
bluesteel

Pro

== Rebuttal to Round 2 ==

{{{ Having children }}}

My opponent claims that having children is a key justification for marriage. He argues that the existence of infertile couples does not imply that we should disallow straight marriage because it would be intrusive for the government to intervene in the lives of straight couples to determine their fertility. However, gay people can have children, just not with each other. Marriage seems more about raising children (in a "stable home") than about *having* children, given people have children outside of marriages as well.

In addition, I'm sure my opponent and I could agree that women over a certain age (say 55) can no longer have children. It would be easy for the government to disallow straight marriages over this "age limit," without any more intrusion than into gay marriages. Yet this would clearly be unacceptable; thus, children are a poor justification for limiting marriage rights.

{{{ Tax incentives }}}

My opponent claims, with zero evidence, that the US tax code was written to encourage people to have children. However, the US tax code was written long before the US realized a drop in its fertility rates. So the historical accuracy of this statement is doubtful.

In addition, no evidence is provided that marriage somehow increases the number of children that people are willing to have. Thus, there is no reason for the government to incentivize marriage. So my opponent merely invokes the is-ought fallacy, assuming the tax credits are good merely because they are currently in use.

The resolution is also not US specific. According to the Independent (UK), Gordon Brown abolished all tax incentives for marriage in 2000 and replaced them with tax incentives for each child a couple had. [1] This led to a drastic decline in the marriage rate and an increase in the number of partners deciding to co-habit. [2] This is because there is a marriage penalty: marrying someone with his or her own income bumps you up into a higher tax bracket. [3] This proves a few things: 1) not all countries incentivize marriage with their tax codes, thus this is a poor justification to disallow gay marriage across the board; 2) tax incentives aimed at incentivizing couples to have children fail to increase the marriage rate, and 3) tax incentives for having children can be pursued separately from marriage incentives. All of this proves that the tax code is a poor justification for denying equal rights to homosexuals.

Furthermore, in the US, some couples receive tax benefits from marriage but some receive a tax penalty. Couples with comparable pay are more likely to suffer a tax penalty when marrying. Gay couples are thus more likely to suffer a tax penalty than a tax incentive.

For all these reasons, the tax code is a horrible justification for violating the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal protection under the law.

{{{ Evolution }}}

My opponent claims that we lose good genes because homosexuals refuse to reproduce. This assumes a number of things. For one, it assumes that if society becomes less accepting of homosexuals, then they will suddenly choose to enter straight relationships and reproduce. But let's assume this is true for a second. In terms of survival of the species, homosexuality is not a desirable trait because, as my opponent points out, it gives its owner the desire *not to* reproduce.

In a normal population, the gay gene has approximately 10% prevalence in the population. This is because, although the gene is selected against, as a recessive gene, it is passed on to offspring by the heterogeneous siblings of gay individuals. These siblings have one (dominant) straight gene and one (recessive) gay gene. In a society with no stigma against homosexuality, the prevalence of homosexuals in the population will stay below 10% because they won't reproduce.

However, if society forces homosexuals to marry into straight relationships and have children, either at gunpoint, through social pressure and stigma, or through "gay conversion" centers, then the proportion of the gay gene in the population will rise. Eventually, statistics predict that one-fourth of the population will be gay, and 50% will be heterogeneous straight individuals who carry one gay gene. This poses a problem for the survival of the species. Eventually, gay people will rebel once again and refuse to procreate, since that's what their genetics are telling them to do. When this happens, all the same "great traits" that my opponent talks about will be lost anyways. But in this scenario, one-fourth of population has no desire to procreate.

You can also turn this argument: gay couples in long-term relationships are more likely to pursue in vitro fertilization options than couples not in long-term relationships. Gay marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality increase the chances that gifted (read: wealthy) gay couples will pay for alternative reproductive options that *do* carry on their genes. Natural selection works, in this way, because non-gifted individuals cannot afford in vitro fertilization or surrogate mothers.

This also turns tax incentives because gay couples *can* have children. The child not being related to both parents is irrelevant, unless you believe that straight couples who adopt should not receive tax incentives related to child-rearing. In fact, in terms of "evolution", it's better to have a gay couple with a child related to *one* of them than a straight couple with children *unrelated* to *both* of them.

{{{ Are Civil Unions "good enough" }}}

Firstly, I don't understand how my opponent can argue against homosexuality, in general, but concede that they deserve equal rights, just not the name "marriage."

In addition, remember the quote from Al Sharpton. It's insulting to even *ask* if you support gay marriage. This is like asking if you support black marriage or Latino marriage. The question assumes that gay people are something other than a normal human being. It assumes they are a special class of people deserving of fewer rights. This violates the spirit of Christianity and the 14th Amendment, which requires that people in the US be treated equally by the law. Domestic partnerships are state-level and due to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), gay couples cannot qualify for federal marriage benefits unless they are "married," which isn't allowed under DOMA. It makes no sense that gay people who are in love with someone from another country cannot get a green card for the love of their life. It makes no sense that gay people are denied access to the social safety net (Medicare, Social Security) because they cannot qualify for their life-partners' benefits. A stay-at-home gay dad or mom would lose all of his partner's benefits upon their death. And every single gay marriage debate is an *insult* to gay people because it says to them that we continue to see them as abnormal, sub-humans. We refuse to see them as part of the rest of us. And we think that merely giving them access to the name "marriage" will forever destroy the institution. How could someone *not* take that as an insult?

So no, if we love our (gay) neighbors or believe in the Constitution, then civil unions are *not* good enough.

== Rebuttal to Round 3 ==

{{{ Homosexuality is due to nurture, not nature }}}

My opponent makes this claim. However, homosexuality is not a choice. As I've shown in previous debates, researchers at the National Institutes of Health have spliced a homosexuality gene into the DNA of fruit flies, which makes the fruit flies shun females and mate with males instead. [4] According to New Scientist, a similar gene has been discovered in female mice. [4] For humans: a study by Kallman et al found a 100% concordance rate for homosexuality among identical twins, but only an 11% concordance rate among fraternal twins. [5] Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., documents 1500 species that exhibit homosexuality, at rates ranging from 5% to 25%. [4] All this evidence goes to show that homosexuality is just as immutable a trait as skin color.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
aero36

Con

Gays should enter a union, not a marriage. Even the Merriam Webster dictionary says Marriage is for 2 people of the opposite sex [1]. This playing with semantics, there is a difference in the nature of the relationship when both of the gender, so there must be a different title. One should be able to sign whatever rights to whomever, but these terms are meant to be specifically broad terms such as animal, it covers many organisms, but plants can only take on that term in the form of a metaphor or simile to prevent confusion.

Vote Con! (Though I concede his rebuttal was vastly superior to my own)

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the debate aero.

== Voting issues ==

{{{ 1. Burden of proof }}}

My opponent had the burden to negate homosexuality, not just gay marriage. He clearly fails to do so, at the point where he argues for civil unions and merely against calling gay marriage "marriage."

{{{ 2. Homosexuality is an immutable trait }}}

My opponent concedes that homosexuality as just as immutable a trait as race. Homosexuality is determined by genetics. Thus, you're going to vote on my evidence from Desmond Tutu: "black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. ... We treat them [gays and lesbians] as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God – and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are."

Homophobia is no better than racism.

{{{ 3. "Marriage" }}}

My opponent's only real argument in the last round is that Webster's defines "marriage" as opposite gender, and thus we must keep it this way. This is the is-ought fallacy. Webster is defining common usage. Since we don't allow gay marriage, the common usage, according to Webster, is opposite gender. In addition, times have changed. Webster's *does* include same sex marriage under its definition: "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Regardless, it's silly to say we'll get "confused" if marriage doesn't mean between a man and a woman. When is it important for us to know the gender of a couple, merely by us saying they are married? If I say "Jonathan and Kathy are married," then the gender is obvious. If I say, "Jonathan and Abraham are married," again, the gender if obvious. If I say, "those two are married," then I'm referring to people that the listener can either see or knows, so my audience already knows the gender of the people involved. It isn't the job of the word marriage to tell us the gender of the people involved, just like it's not the job of marriage to tell us the *race* of the people involved. The same argument could be used against interracial marriages: that calling them normal marriages, rather than something like "multi-racial unions," takes away clarity from the term marriage. Marriage used to mean a union between two people of the same race. Now the term is more confusing. But who cares? This is a silly argument against gay marriage.

Thus, you should vote on the Al Sharpton evidence that it's an insult to even *ask* if someone supports gay marriage; this is "like asking 'do [you] support black marriage or white marriage'... The inference of the question is that gays are not like other human beings." This is *insulting.* If gays are just like all other human beings, who did not choose their sexuality at birth, then it makes no sense to create separate institutions for them. Brown v. Board ruled that separate is inherently unequal (and insulting). Vote Pro because gay people are human beings and deserve equal rights, both under the Golden Rule (treat others the way you want to be treated) and under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

{{{ 4. Equal protection }}}

This is an easy voter. Homosexuals don't have equal protection. They can't help their life partners get a green card. They can't qualify for their life partner's Social Security, Medicare, or employer health insurance. They cannot automatically inherit from their life partner. Federal law (DOMA) prohibits them from having equal protection under federal law, which is clearly unjust. Easy way to vote Pro.

{{{ 5. Evolution straight turn }}}

Another easy way to vote is the turn I put on evolution. Gay marriage increases the chances that gay couples will raise their children in a stable home and that wealthy/talented gay couples will have biological offspring (related to one of them). This ensures that good genes are passed on. My opponent concedes this turn.

{{{ 6. Tax revenue }}}

My opponent concedes that since gay couples (particularly two men) are more likely to both work and have comparable incomes, they are more likely to pay *more* in taxes after marrying, not less. This is known as a tax penalty. This means allowing gay marriage would raise additional tax revenue for our cash-strapped state and federal governments. This turn is another easy way to vote Pro.

For all these reasons, I urge you to affirm homosexuality. Affirm it as a valid lifestyle choice. Affirm it as an immutable trait. Affirm acceptance of homosexuals. Affirm a society that treats others the way that you want to be treated. If *you* want the right to marry and *you* don't want to be persecuted for traits over which you have no control, then the Golden Rule *requires* you to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by aero36 2 years ago
aero36
And to those saying I lost interest, it was my first debate, so I was not sure about what to put, especially with the conclusion. Do not consider this when grading, I just wish to say I did not lose interest, just a lack of experience that I believe I have gained from this.
Posted by aero36 2 years ago
aero36
Thank you for taking part in my first debate Bluesteel, I will be using your work as a structural reference for when I do debates on 'important' topics in the future.
Posted by aero36 2 years ago
aero36
Ah English, the bastard son of Germanic and Romantic languages, that was only able to exist because it is extremely difficult to invade an island (though the Nords managed it somewhat a few times). If everyone spoke English right now, it would only last a small amount of time before it was British English, Aussie English, and E/W Coast English. Though the internet may prevent that, its not an assured concept.

Hebrew has many word for love as well, so it was primarily that era (Jews and Greeks did not really interact since Jews were tribal and Greeks had other priorities) that had those views, and as my parentheses says, they were divided so it was an idea that was born in two completely separate areas.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 2 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
I think condoms basically didn't exist (certainly not in quantity) that long ago.

Perhaps I should have said a bit more about the ancient Greeks. While they embraced homosexuality, they didn't actually shun heterosexuality. I once ran across a phrase or quotation that went something like this, "If you want love, find someone of the same sex; if you want children, find someone of the other sex." They weren't ignorant, and they had no objection to people "finding" both sorts of other people.

There's been some stuff in the "press" recently about how the world is losing languages. Each language represents a distinct world-view, related to how that language developed. Many mundane advances in human comforts, technology, arts, etc., came from combining different world-views, so losing languages is a thing to avoid if possible. Also, words from other languages can be useful; English is infamous for stealing words from other languages. On the other hand, English may be the most versatile single language on Earth, just as a result of that. (They say Eskimos had something like 20 different words for types of snow; it could perhaps be argued that we want to make sure that language isn't lost, just so we can have those words should they be needed in the future (say during an Ice Age :)

Back to the Greeks. They had three major different words that are variants on the English word "love". "Eros" was about sexual love; "agape" was about spiritual love, and "philos" covered most other situations, as in, "I loved that stage play!" Two of the three were added to English in various ways --a bookworm is also a "bibliophile", and "erotic" stuff tends to be about sex whether love is involved or not. Sometimes I think "a-ga-pe" (three syllables; each "a" is the "short" vowel sound, and the "e" has the long "a" sound) should be added to English, too. We need more of it!
Posted by aero36 2 years ago
aero36
Just a thought, wouldn't homosexuality be a pretty good contraception for the Greeks since the poor could probably not afford condoms.
Posted by aero36 2 years ago
aero36
That is fine with me, I'll take you all on at once!(if bluesteel accepts your aid of course)
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 2 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
aero36, thank you for your kind words about my earler comments, in your Round 2 argument. Regarding your request for comments, note that many such could easily be things that belong in your opponent's arguments. I might have been willing to accept this Debate if it had been stated that the Pro side could focus on religious arguments promoting toleration of homosexuals, while not specifically promoting homosexual acts --there are probably several generic places in the Bible that could be used to support that.

If you wish (and of course if bluesteel also accepts), you might consider the possibility of cooperation between bluesteel and myself, in presenting the Pro arguments. I would simply recuse myself from the voting period (except I don't need to, since I actually can't vote here, anyway). Then, for example, my previous comments can be considered part of Pro's Round 2 argument. And I wouldn't have to wait for the end of the debate, to comment on your own arguments.
Posted by aero36 2 years ago
aero36
Sorry for the confusion, reread your comment, particularly the end of it where you said you were refusing to join this debate.
Thank you for taking the opposition bluesteel
Posted by aero36 2 years ago
aero36
Yes Bluesteel, its only there argument that has to be based in religion
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
presumably in rebuttal, Pro can respond to what you say and challenge any claims you make directly, rather than just quoting scripture back at you?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by HunterSego 2 years ago
HunterSego
aero36bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't do what he was supposed to do.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
aero36bluesteelTied
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: The debate fell apart in R4 when Con argued from a dictionary definition and completely dropped Pro's arguments showing that (A) marriage by Con's conception was structured to incentivize stable families and child rearing, irrespective of whether the child came about naturally or through in vitro, that (B) homosexuality did in fact occur naturally and (C) Pro's scriptural case showing why Christianity properly supports the acceptance of everyone equally. Con's R4 dropped all of these and more.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 2 years ago
Kinesis
aero36bluesteelTied
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: Interesting and systematic refutation from Pro. I especially enjoyed his arguments regarding tax incentives and repressing homosexuality promoting gay genes.
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 2 years ago
LaissezFaire
aero36bluesteelTied
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: Pro completely refuted Con's case, as even Con admits: "Though I concede his rebuttal was vastly superior to my own". It looked like Con basically gave up at the end. He also had much better sources.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
aero36bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, the idea was good in general, but it seemed that Con resorted to religious arguments. Also, it seemed that Con lost interest, seeing how each of his rounds was shorter than the last.