The Instigator
Amazingfeminist1213
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Homosexuals make great parents

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,090 times Debate No: 36635
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Amazingfeminist1213

Pro

There are many reasons why homosexuals make great parents. I will make three main arguments regarding this topic.

1.they tend to be more open minded

2.there more motivated

3.they teach kids to express themselves however they want

I will go further in depth when my opponent excepts this debate. I welcome my opponent
xXCryptoXx

Con

I accept.

In essence, this debate is about the No Difference Theory, which states that homosexual parents can raise children just as well as heterosexual parents.

However, my opponent takes this a step further and has the burden of proof that homosexual parents are not just the average set of parents, but that they actually a great set of parents.
Debate Round No. 1
Amazingfeminist1213

Pro

I wanna start off by saying thank you for accepting.

Now I will start going into depth about how homosexuals can make great parents.

My first argument stated they are more open minded and tolerant of others. This is a true fact because homosexuals know what it feels like to be descrimnated against because of there sexual orientation. They teach there children to be excepting of others because they know how it feels to be looked at diffrent. Children of homosexuals often tend to make friends better than children of heterosexuals.

My second argument stated that they are very motivated. According to guttmacher institute about half of u.s pregnancies are unplanned, and half of those unplanned pregnancies end in birth rather than abortion. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying parents of unplanned children aren't good parents because they can be however some are in dire circumstances. Studies show two-thirds of unplanned births were paid for by Medicare or other low income insurance programs. This is where homosexual parents motivation come in to play. In contrast homosexual parents have to plan there children before having them whether it be adoption or artificial insemination. Homosexuals on average tend to be more commited and motivated because they choose to be parents.

My final argument stated that they express them selves however they please. What I mean by that is that they don't conform to gender rolls in society. Judith Stacey, a professor of contemporary gender studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater interest in both masculine and feminine qualities unlike children raised in heterosexual households. She also found that girls of lesbian parents had higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female. She found that boys of lesbian households were less aggressive and violent and more nurturing and affectionate towards others.

That is the end of my arguments until further notice. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

(1)http://www.narth.com...
xXCryptoXx

Con


My Arguments



Children need to be raised well in order to keep the society moving forward without problems. Homosexuals cannot achieve the expectations set in raising children well, or even better than heterosexual parents and I will now explain why.


A study taken in July of 2012 proved that homosexual parents fail in all categories in being better than their heterosexual counterparts at parenting.


"Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children."(1)(2)


A study taken from the Journal of Human Sexuality concludes the following:



  1. The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.

  2. Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.

  3. “Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.”

  4. People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.

  5. Fathers help children with interaction among other people.

  6. When going through puberty, the father teaches the son “how to be assertive and how to be a “man”.


violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages”. (2)


I will concede to the point that there are homosexuals that can raise children better than some heterosexual couples. To clear up why it still isn’t appropriate to allow the exceptions, I will give this analogy:


If laws were based on exceptions, we would have to do away with virtually every law we have. It would require that we do away with all laws against running red lights because sometimes running a red light will not hurt anyone.


This is obviously illogical, for law must be based around a general case.


When my argues that homosexual couples are great parents, she argues that from a general point of view, that the majority of homosexual couples would make great parents.


However, I have shown that only a minority of homosexual couples can even raise children in an environment that is deemed suitable.



All of the arguments I have just presented are compelling enough to actually off-set the supposed advantages homosexual couples may bring, so even if I don’t successfully refute my opponent’s arguments, keep in mind the arguments I have already presented are enough to show that generally homosexual couples are not great parents.


Contentions


“My first argument stated they are more open minded and tolerant of others. This is a true fact because homosexuals know what it feels like to be descrimnated against because of there sexual orientation. They teach there children to be excepting of others because they know how it feels to be looked at diffrent. Children of homosexuals often tend to make friends better than children of heterosexuals.”


The argument my opponent has presented should be disregarded because homosexual couples will not always inherently raise their children to be more open and tolerant of others. Basically, my opponent’s argument only stands under the situation where homosexuals are discriminated against. However, once homosexuality becomes part of the social norm (Much like how African Americans were once heavily discriminated against, but are not part of the social norm) then there is no argument for your case.


Although this argument may work under current societal conditions, it will probably not work in the future as homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted in society.



“In contrast homosexual parents have to plan there children before having them whether it be adoption or artificial insemination. Homosexuals on average tend to be more commited and motivated because they choose to be parents.”


However, if according to my arguments homosexual couples do not put children in a suitable environment under a general case, you’ll find that it really doesn’t matter whether homosexual couples are committed and motivated to raise that child with love and care.



“My final argument stated that they express them selves however they please. What I mean by that is that they don't conform to gender rolls in society. Judith Stacey, a professor of contemporary gender studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater interest in both masculine and feminine qualities unlike children raised in heterosexual households. She also found that girls of lesbian parents had higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female. She found that boys of lesbian households were less aggressive and violent and more nurturing and affectionate towards others.”


Although the things my opponent stated aren’t necessarily bad, not at all in fact, but I would like to note that gender roles are healthy for the overall efficiency of the society. To be raised in an environment that doesn’t support gender roles isn’t bad, but it does take away from societal norms and overall efficiency that gender roles bring.



The arguments my opponent presented for the most part can’t actually be refuted or shown to be negative since they are scientifically supported. I would like to note again though, that even if I conceded every one of my opponent’s arguments, my own arguments are still enough to win this debate as they directly show that homosexual couples do not generally put children in a suitable environment.



Sources



  1. http://catholiceducation.org...

  2. http://www.allaboutlove.org...

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

Debate Round No. 2
Amazingfeminist1213

Pro

I will now address your arguments 1 by 1

"Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children."(1)(2)

Thats odd you say that because a study done by Melbourne's researchers has collected data from over 500 children, and 315 lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents, to monitor key indicators of health. What the Australian Study of Child Health found is that there's no difference between the children in same-sex-parented families and those with heterosexual parents when it comes to issues of self-esteem, emotional behaviour, and the amount of quality time spent with their parents. However, when it came to overall health and the strength of the relationship they had with their parents, kids raised by gay parents scored higher than the national average.

No study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston stated that studies show that children of same sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. She also shared that children of same sex parents actually may have advantages over other structured families.

Study done by the American academy of child adolescent found the following.

Children of same sex parents are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Children of same sex parents are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Children of same sex parents do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Children of same sex parents do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior).


"The presence of a father reduces the chances that the child will participate in criminal activities and reduces the chances the child will take drugs.

Lesbian mothers make children more sexually active. Fathers help the child stay chaste.

"""Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex."

People have the best sex lives when raised by heterosexual parents.

Fathers help children with interaction among other people.

When going through puberty, the father teaches the son """how to be assertive and how to be a """man"."

Well few months ago the very reputable American Academy of Pediatrics released a paper that draws on 30 years of research to conclude, among other things, that "many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents' sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.

That statement basically says it all. It's not about the gender or sexual orientation. A women can easily teach those things a father teaches and vice versa. A financially stabbled home with care and love determines if the child will have these problems not gender.

For example a 33-year-old man with lesbian mothers told Goldberg "I feel I'm a more open, well-rounded person for having been raised in a nontraditional family, and I think those that know me would agree. My mom opened me up to the positive impact of differences in people."

I'm not sure if you have heard about zach wahls. A another young man raised by lesbian parents. He has grown to be a great young man that has now started his own small business, Iowa City Learns, that offers tutoring services to junior and high school students. He also studied for a time in India.

Also a lot of young boys in heterosexual households feel pressured to act in a masculine way because of society. This why a lot of men commit violent crimes as they get older. Boys of lesbian parents don't have this problem because they are free to express them selves and they don't have people constantly telling them no that's a girls thing or not that's a boy thing.

Don't you think the whole comment about kids raised by hetero parents having better sex lives is a little far fetched.

"violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples, and homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages". (2)

Same sex violence isn't more common than heterosexual violence. Studies have shown that there both around the same area. Neither are higher or lower than each other

I also wanna throw in that divorce rates amoung heterosexual couples have rised. Around 50% of married couples in the us today are divorced. So if anyone is having relationship resolving issues, its definitely heterosexual couples.


"The argument my opponent has presented should be disregarded because homosexual couples will not always inherently raise their children to be more open and tolerant of others. Basically, my opponent"s argument only stands under the situation where homosexuals are discriminated against. However, once homosexuality becomes part of the social norm (Much like how African Americans were once heavily discriminated against, but are not part of the social norm) then there is no argument for your case."


But homosexuality won't be apart of the social norm because we will all ways have those right wing conservatives who fight to keep homosexuality out of the social norm so you comment is irrelevent.


"However, if according to my arguments homosexual couples do not put children in a suitable environment under a general case, you"ll find that it really doesn"t matter whether homosexual couples are committed and motivated to raise that child with love and care."

It does matter. You can't have a home without a loving and commited environment. I have encountered many situations were the child was raised in a financially stabbled heterosexual household where the parents never showed that they were commited to spending time with ther kids and giving them the love and care they need. Most kids raised in those types of familes don't turn out well. I know because I work with a lot of kids with familes like this.

"Although the things my opponent stated aren"t necessarily bad, not at all in fact, but I would like to note that gender roles are healthy for the overall efficiency of the society. To be raised in an environment that doesn"t support gender roles isn"t bad, but it does take away from societal norms and overall efficiency that gender roles bring"

Gender rolls may be good in some cases but in other cases it can be harmful to your child's self worth. I will give you a short example on how it can effect your child negatively.

imagine that you are the parent of a 2 year old twins a boy, and a girl. He picks up a big rock while playing outside and you comment on what a big strong boy he is. His sister picks up the same rock and looks to you for praise and compliment mimicking her brother and instead receives a be careful warning because she might get hurt. This child has just learned two valuable lessons, one, she is too weak to do thing that her brother can, more damaging is the second, more subtle lesson which says, because you aren't strong enough to pick up the rock you don't deserve my love and praise. You are bad because you are weak, and you are weak because you are female, and that is something you can't change about yourself. Are you beginning to see how something as subtle as what happened in this play interaction can send a strong (often subconcious) message to children?

What it all comes down to is love, care and a stable house hold to raise a child not the gender of the parent.

(1)http://www.livescience.com...
(2)http://www.webmd.com...
(3)http://www.aacap.org...
(4)http://www.autostraddle.com...
xXCryptoXx

Con

Introduction

Thank you for your response.

My opponent cites counter sources to my own in order to justify her position.

Now, obviously this whole debate was probably destined to be about throwing as many sources as possible at each other and then criticizing each other’s sources, but I’m going to pull out a source that will show that the sources that find no difference between same-sex parenting and heterosexual parenting are generally flawed due to the selection of families in each study, and the amount of families studied.



“A persistent claim by those supporting same-sex marriages is that there is “no difference” in the outcomes of children raised by a biological mother and father and those who have been raised by two women or two men. That claim was made to the courts below, and will no doubt be made to this Court by associations like the American Psychological Association (“APA”). But as recent scholarship indicates, the claim is difficult to support because nearly all of the studies upon which the “no difference” assertion is based are rather limited, involving non-random, non representative samples, often with relatively few participants. Specifically, the vast majority of the studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.”(1)



Rebuttals

My opponent cites the Melbourne study to counter my arguments on how same-sex couples suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse.

You see, the Melbourne study is actually a very flawed study. The study is notorious for actually advertising the study they were conducting and actually hand picking volunteer gay families for the research. (2)

A good study must be one with completely random samples and a large amount of families studied.

A study that actually picks the families that have volunteered (logically a volunteer family will be one of a stable house-hold) will of course be flawed.



“No study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

Actually I already gave studies that showed same-sex couples are disadvantaged in raising children.



“Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston stated that studies show that children of same sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way.”

Until you can give me specific studies, this statement should be disregarded because anyone can say anything about certain studies. I don’t care about what someone says these studies concluded, I care about the consistency of the studies themselves.



“Study done by the American academy of child adolescent found the following.


Children of same sex parents are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Children of same sex parents are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Children of same sex parents do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Children of same sex parents do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior).”

This study completely contradicts the first study you posted, which stated that children of same-sex couples were more likely to be homosexual, and also showed differences and independence in gender role behavior and gender identity. In fact, the narth study you posted contradicts ¾ of that study’s conclusion! (3)

In addition, after looking at your source they didn’t even do their own research on the matter, all it says is “from current research…” I have already shown that generally, current research on same-sex couples raising children is flawed.



My opponent cites the AAP to counter my arguments on some of the negative affects same-sex parenting can biologically bring.

“The AAP looked at a relatively small handful of studies which only examined white, almost entirely middle-class lesbian-headed families. The number of families studied was not a sample size that met research standards, and low-income couples and gay parenting couples were not even a part of most of the studies.”(4)

“Nowhere in any of the AAP’s article or the research it cited is the most fundamental question asked: To what kind of heterosexual home is the AAP comparing the children from lesbian homes?”(4)

“The AAP — nor any of the studies they cite in their statement — mention what form of hetero-homes they are comparing the lesbian-parented kids to.”(4)

In addition, the AAP is notorious for already supporting gay marriage and same-sex parenting, which may lead to certain bias in studies they have conducted. (4)



My opponent argues that because there are individuals that have turned out well. I don’t contend that there are children that have been raised well by same-sex parents. I previously stated that we are arguing from a general standpoint, and not an individual standpoint.



“Also a lot of young boys in heterosexual households feel pressured to act in a masculine way because of society. This why a lot of men commit violent crimes as they get older. Boys of lesbian parents don't have this problem because they are free to express them selves and they don't have people constantly telling them no that's a girls thing or not that's a boy thing.”

Regardless of what home you are raised in, everyone is pressured into certain gender roles. Children raised by heterosexual parents naturally, and biologically fulfill these gender roles. It is children of same-sex couples that are confused and pressured into gender roles since they have not been raised in an environment that supports these roles. Your statement on crimes among men is not scientifically supported.



“Same sex violence isn't more common than heterosexual violence. Studies have shown that there both around the same area. Neither are higher or lower than each other”

Cite the studies.




“I also wanna throw in that divorce rates amoung heterosexual couples have rised. Around 50% of married couples in the us today are divorced. So if anyone is having relationship resolving issues, its definitely heterosexual couples.”

This is a false statement. The divorce rates all-together among married couples is between 40-50%(5)



“But homosexuality won't be apart of the social norm because we will all ways have those right wing conservatives who fight to keep homosexuality out of the social norm so you comment is irrelevent.”

You’re arguments don’t work because they are not inherent among homosexual couples.



I agree that there must be love and care in a home, what I argue is that homosexual couples still cannot biologically raise children well, nor do they put children in a psychologically sound environment.



I agree with my opponent on how in some cases gender rolling isn’t advantageous, however I argue from an overall stand point of the efficiency of the society, gender roles are advantageous.



Conclusion

My opponent’s sources are flawed, and for as long as I can show they are flawed and my own source on same-sex couples stands, then I win this debate.



Sources

http://www.adfmedia.org...

http://www.mercatornet.com...

http://www.narth.com...

http://www.citizenlink.com...

http://www.apa.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Amazingfeminist1213

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate. Now that we are in the last round i will address your points.

"You see, the Melbourne study is actually a very flawed study. The study is notorious for actually advertising the study they were conducting and actually hand picking volunteer gay families for the research. (2)

A good study must be one with completely random samples and a large amount of families studied.

A study that actually picks the families that have volunteered (logically a volunteer family will be one of a stable house-hold) will of course be flawed."

Every study has its flaws. Whether it be a very large flaw or a very small flaw.

"Actually I already gave studies that showed same-sex couples are disadvantaged in raising children."

All families have a disadvantage in one way or another. The sexual orientation or gender of the parents do not determine if the child will have disadvantages or not. The

"This study completely contradicts the first study you posted, which stated that children of same-sex couples were more likely to be homosexual, and also showed differences and independence in gender role behavior and gender identity. In fact, the narth study you posted contradicts " of that study"s conclusion! (3)

In addition, after looking at your source they didn"t even do their own research on the matter, all it says is "from current research"" I have already shown that generally, current research on same-sex couples raising children is flawed."

You are putting word in mouth. My studies do not contradict at all. No were in my first post does it say children of homosexual parents are more likely to be gay because we all know most gay children come from heterosexuals. My first post stated that children of homosexuals take on both gender rolls but they also still embrace there own gender roll. The study never said they act completely like the other gender and have trouble identifying themselves.

"My opponent argues that because there are individuals that have turned out well. I don"t contend that there are children that have been raised well by same-sex parents. I previously stated that we are arguing from a general standpoint, and not an individual standpoint."

That was from a general standpoint. They was proof that these kids turned out fine.

"Regardless of what home you are raised in, everyone is pressured into certain gender roles. Children raised by heterosexual parents naturally, and biologically fulfill these gender roles. It is children of same-sex couples that are confused and pressured into gender roles since they have not been raised in an environment that supports these roles. Your statement on crimes among men is not scientifically supported."

Being raised in a heterosexual house hold does not mean you will naturally have these gender rolls. Gender rolls are instilled into society. You don't have to come from a heterosexual home to know which gender to act like. You learn gender rolls everywhere you go.

"Cite the studies"

" The rates of domestic violence in same-gender relationships is roughly the same as domestic violence against heterosexual women (25%)" ://www.lambda.org/DV_background.htm

"This is a false statement. The divorce rates all-together among married couples is between 40-50%(5)"

That's not what the study said. Feel free to look at it again.

"You"re arguments don"t work because they are not inherent among homosexual couples."

It may not be inherent but they will always be there.

"I agree that there must be love and care in a home, what I argue is that homosexual couples still cannot biologically raise children well, nor do they put children in a psychologically sound environment."

You don't need to be a biological parent in order to raise children well. If you really understood that raising a child only takes love, care and a stable home then we would be agreeing with each other.

My conclusion

Like I said before regardless of the parents sexual orientation or gender they can still be great parents. Every family has there ups and downs and no one is perfect. Sexual orientation does not effect your ability to be a outstanding parent. Laern to look past those thing and know that being a great parent takes , commitment, motivation, stable home and most importantly love. This was my fistt debate and I enjoyed this debate and I hope to win. Thank you

(1)http://www.bu.edu...
xXCryptoXx

Con



Introduction



I would like to note that at this point, my opponent officially dropped all arguments attacking my study. Since my opponent has done this, my study has gone successfully defended and must be taken as scientific evidence for this debate. Instead of attacking my studies my opponent drops the arguments then continues to persist it’s about love, care, commitment, ect. ect. Although these are indeed important, I have still successfully shown that there is a negative biological factor in homosexual couples raising children.



Rebuttals



“Every study has its flaws. Whether it be a very large flaw or a very small flaw.”


This does not justify using your study has scientific evidence. I have shown that this flaw is far too big to give your source any credibility whatsoever.



All families have a disadvantage in one way or another. The sexual orientation or gender of the parents do not determine if the child will have disadvantages or not.


In my opening arguments I already that there is a biological factor in this. You cannot simply dismiss this by arguing the opposite of the study’s results without any scientific back-up.



My studies do not contradict at all. No were in my first post does it say children of homosexual parents are more likely to be gay because we all know most gay children come from heterosexuals. My first post stated that children of homosexuals take on both gender rolls but they also still embrace there own gender roll. The study never said they act completely like the other gender and have trouble identifying themselves.”


This is taken from your study conducted by the AAP:


“Children of same sex parents are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Children of same sex parents are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Children of same sex parents do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Children of same sex parents do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior).”


This is taken from your Narth Study:

“1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.

2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.

3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).

4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.

5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.

6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.”


I have bolded the conclusions that contradict each other.


Not only have I shown that both of these studies are unreliable due to improper conduction of each study, but I have also shown that these studies contradict each other on gender roll behavior and on homosexual behavior.



On kids turning out well: “That was from a general standpoint. They was proof that these kids turned out fine.”


Not according to my uncontested studies. You can’t just say things without backing them up. I have been successfully attacking your studies; in fact, you haven’t even attempted to defend the studies I have showed are unreliable. In addition, you stopped attacking my studies, therefore going uncontested, and therefore can be properly used as scientific evidence for this debate.



“It may not be inherent but they will always be there.” – Talking about prejudice against homosexuals in society.


This isn’t about what is “right now”. This is about what is inherent and biological no matter what circumstance you are put in. You’re statement that there will always be a handful of people who hate homosexuals is unsupported, and flawed, especially seeing that they have been getting more and more support recently.



Conclusion


My opponent persists in arguing that sexual orientation and gender has nothing to do with it, but fails in arguing this seeing that not only did I successfully show that every study my opponent presented was unreliable, but that my opponent also stopped trying to attack my source showing that gender and sexual orientation does have an impact, and an inherently negative one at that.


I dropped a couple things like the argument gender roles and their relevancy to society (was getting off-topic from the debate), and domestic violence among couples because I realized that these were unsupported by the study I presented. I am only defending my study because it successfully showed that gender and sexual orientation does make a difference. I felt no need to expand off that so I dropped arguments that were not relevant to it.



Leave All Biasness At The Door When You Are Voting On This Debate. Vote On What Was Presented, Not On What You Personally Believe.

Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
@Amazing Um, excuse me? You care to explain your claim of bias to me? Because I'm against Gay Marriage, any vote on the matter is bias? Than is it bias for a pro-gay marriage person to vote pro--gay?

Typical idiots.
Posted by Amazingfeminist1213 3 years ago
Amazingfeminist1213
When going into this debate you should not vote based on your own opinion but more so based on who had the most convincing arguments. That would be very bias. 2 of http://www.debate.org... votes are very bias. I have checked there profiles and both are against civil unions and gay marriage. They are also right wing conservatives. Not that that's a major problem, however it does show some bias going on. I ask for the rest of the people who are going to vote, please vote based on who had better arguments and sources rather than your own opinion.

http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
12 font
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
What size?
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
It looks bolded because it's font is Times New Roman, which has a slightly bolded looking texture.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@Pro: Please click the little thing that says "Rich Text." That way you can bold the quotes from the other side, making your argument easier to follow.

@Con: Not sure what font you used, but it all looked bold until the REALLY bold parts came. If not for this, I likely would have voted in your favor due to superior presentation (which is a part of DDO voting criteria, not to say the vote would have been just for that, but it would have played a role in swaying me from the middle ground).
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Amazingfeminist1213xXCryptoXxTied
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 to Con. He made very good arguments in the debate and was able to refute Pro's arguments. Con used strong evidence to back him up. Con had far more and better sources than Pro did.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Amazingfeminist1213xXCryptoXxTied
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 made the better argument over all... By a long shot. I took sources away from Pro before her sources and studies contradicted as seen in Round 3.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Amazingfeminist1213xXCryptoXxTied
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: Arguments to Con because Pro mainly relied on anecdotal evidence
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
Amazingfeminist1213xXCryptoXxTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro managed to refute everything Con offered up. Also she managed to show that some of the studies he cited were directly related to the cause he was supporting. Sources mostly went out the door for me when he used a catholic site as a source to support his argument. Good debate but pro takes it for me