The Instigator
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
MasturDeBator2009
Pro (for)
Winning
65 Points

Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
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 14 votes the winner is...
MasturDeBator2009
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,446 times Debate No: 10975
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (14)

 

Itsallovernow

Con

Since Aff has the burdon of proof, I will allow him/her to go first. I, as Con, assume the Burdon of Clash. I would sincerely appreciate this being an articulate and reasonable debate. As a noteable side note, I am enlisting next year, and I am a homosexual.

Without further ado, let us begin.
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

Resolution affirmed: Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy, because we shouldn't have a military in the first place. If we do not have a military then by definition homosexuals can not be allowed in it.

=Quality of Life=

Evidence shows quality of life will improve if we abolish the military. Some countries like Costa Rica do not have a military. Costa Rica abolished its military in 1949 and invested in education instead. Costa Rica has enjoyed internal peace and stability and is ranked as the happiest country on Earth[1]. Costa Rica also has the best healthcare in Latin America and even has a public government-run program[6] along with private clinics. It is easier to afford these programs because no money is spent on military. Although it is widely recognized as a developing country Costa Rica's healthcare system is ranked as better than the American health care system[8]. It also has a higher life expectancy[9].
By contrast the US military budget is the highest in the world, using up money that could be spent on domestic programs like improvements in education and health care[7].

=Abuse of Military=

The United States government uses its military to invade and attack foreign countries at the whim of commercial interests. It is far too easy for leaders to lie to the public and get everyone rallied together for war. The amount of harm is astronomical. American interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been disastrous. In particular America keeps going back to Afghanistan. Each time the country still falls apart. Companies influenced the US government into participating in many military actions with disastrous humanitarian consequences particularly in Latin America[2].

The solution is abolishing the military. The very existence of militaries perpetuates war and conflict. Militaries give countries enough force to make war on other countries.

=National Defense Can Still Be Secure Without A Military=
Some will argue that with no military other countries with militaries will invade. However, there are many reasons not to think this especially for the United States. The United States has a large population and it is a heavily armed population compared to other countries. The American people are fiercely defensive of their freedom. We already see that even when a country is invaded and its government defeated and overthrown it is difficult for the occupying power to enforce its will. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. If a country invaded the United States it is unlikely it would even succeed in taking over, and if it did the insurgency would never end. This fact would make most countries consider invading the United States not to be worth the effort.

In addition to well armed civilians we have police. Police are not military, but they are trained to engage in armed conflict, albeit on a smaller scale. But it is not inconceivable that in an invasion the police with the help of volunteers wanting to protect their country could coordinate well enough to break the morale of the invading country and turn it back. The only difference is a lack of offensive potential. The armed citizens and the police are likely strong enough to deter and even resist an invasion attempt but not to launch one against foreign countries.

Furthermore it is unacceptable in this day and age for a country to invade another country without cause. Even then it is unacceptable for it to keep territory it conquers. It can only put a stop to what ever it was justified in putting a stop to, set up a new government, help that government establish order, and leave. So unless the United States started a campaign of genocide, which given our history is unlikely and would be even more unlikely without a military a foreign country would not be able to justify an invasion to the international community. It is likely other countries would condemn the attack, and possibly come to our aid. At the least they would likely to push economic sanctions. The combination of things that could go wrong and problems that could be expected to face in an invasion would be a strong enough deterrent even if the US had no military.

=Military Distorts Democracy=

The military-industrial complex has simply become too big an influence in American politics[3]. This level of influence from the arms industry puts our democracy at risk and allows an elite few to profit off of bloodshed. The arms industry has a vested interest in the United States being at war as much as possible. If we abolish the military we strike down the arms industry and its influence from politics. The companies currently profiting off of war will have to retool and invest in other industries like improving infrastructure, education, and other peaceful endeavors.

=Fraud[4]=

The military is sold to young people as a good way to make money for college and as having a slew of other benefits. In reality opportunities for college benefits in the military are not what enlistees are told they are.
Firstly, recruiters are allowed to lie to potential recruiters, doing things like promising they will not be sent to war even though this can not be guaranteed.

A military contract can be changed any way the government wants any time without reason. That includes reducing or removing promised benefits.

The top bonus commonly advertised to potential recruiters of $20,000 is only ever seen by 6% of enlistees.
The military if anything reduces financial security. 48% of people in the military report financial difficulty and on any given night 200,000 veterans are homeless.

Finally, the main benefit people expect joining the military, college benefits rarely materialize at all. 65% of soldiers never see a single penny in college money.

These proud great Americans wanted to serve their country but their honorable intentions were not rewarded. But there are other ways to serve your country that make a much bigger, more positive difference. Americorps and the Peace Corps are great ways to help your community, your country, and the world. These organizations exist to help build and fix problems like poverty and starvation not to destroy and make war, and their promises for aid for jobs and for college are real[5].

If we abolish the military many people who would have otherwise dropped out of the military would find other opportunities for college such as Peace Corp or Americorps and instead of being shorted would get the benefits they deserve. It would also lead to more of a political push to expand college opportunities in general since politicians can't just dismiss these concerns by saying we have the military to take care of it.

=Sources=

1.http://www.nytimes.com...?
2.http://www.zompist.com...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.alternet.org...
5. http://www.americorps.gov... , http://www.peacecorps.gov...
6. http://tamborhills.com...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://www.photius.com...
9. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Itsallovernow

Con

I disapprove of how my opponent depriciates the value of our military, especially as an American. Our military exists to provie us with freedom. Every word that you write, every letter, bulges with the blood of those who sacrifieced themselves for you so you have the freedom of speech, freedom which you seem not to value.

When I go into the military, I want to protect those who are innocent, and it shames me, marrs my p[pride of societ, when I hear things like this. If other countries could fend off armies wwith civilans, they wouldn've done it. Major countries do not. You emphasize war and killing are bad, but on a note acknowledge defense nessicary. That's what the US military does. We are a democracy, so we don't "invade and attack" countries, we seek to help an existing gov.

You clearly have issue with the military, and this is the the debate to have your contentions. I refuse to debate your proposed contentions since it holds no ground and it begins an entirely new debate: "We shouldn't have a military." and does not support this resolution.

There was one thing though, about your speech I want to bring up: As for civilans owning arms and protecting their country: If the desire to protect your country is all you need in order to defend it, who not allow homosexuals in the miliitary?!!?!

Your defense offends me.

(Please post (with valid arguments) either Sat. afternoon or later, else I can't partake in the next round, because I don't have computer access this weekend.)
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

"I disapprove of how my opponent depriciates the value of our military, especially as an American. Our military exists to provie us with freedom. Every word that you write, every letter, bulges with the blood of those who sacrifieced themselves for you so you have the freedom of speech, freedom which you seem not to value."

This is empty rhetoric wrapped up in an ad hominem attack(implying I don't value freedom). Con offers up no evidence of any of these claims.

The US military exists to serve the state, i.e. the United States government. It will only "provide us with freedom" if that is the government's intentions. Our government has shown time and time again that pleasing lobbyists and campaign contributors is more important to them. As far back as the Mexican War the government has waged war for commercial interests, at the time Southern slave owners excited about getting more land to build plantations and more representatives to defend slavery[1].

Lobbyists from the military-industrial complex and the oil industry that go to Congress to encourage war are not thinking about our nation's freedom. They are thinking about turning a buck. Anything can be made to look like a threat to national security with the right "witnesses" and paper work and will be accepted more readily if you have a big pocketbook. Take for example the phony "weapons of mass destruction" used to con the nation into invading Iraq[2].

Con states "Every word that you write, every letter, bulges with the blood of those who sacrifieced themselves for you so you have the freedom of speech, freedom which you seem not to value". He is implying that without the military we will lose our freedom of speech. But history shows the military has been used to suppress freedom of speech such as the Kent State Massacre. However, con is most likely alluding to the threat of invasion that if we don't have a military a nation that does will come in, invade us, and take away our freedoms. Con offers no evidence of this whereas I addressed this concern in Round 1 and gave thorough evidence that our nation would still be difficult and costly to invade if we had no military. It would not be worth the effort for foreign powers.

"If other countries could fend off armies wwith civilans, they wouldn've done it. Major countries do not."

Are you seriously arguing that smaller countries are more able to fend off invading armies with civilians than major countries?

"You emphasize war and killing are bad, but on a note acknowledge defense nessicary. That's what the US military does."

This still does not prove the "necessity" of the military. That it is used for defense (though I'd like to point out it has not been used to defend our country since the Civil War, the last war fought on American soil besides the Indian Wars) does not prove it is needed for defense.

"We are a democracy, so we don't "invade and attack" countries, we seek to help an existing gov."

Dictionary.com defines democracy as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."[3] Nothing about being a "democracy" means we don't "invade and attack" countries. A democracy will invade and attack other countries if those in power can convince Congress and the people to do it. We DID invade Iraq, this is a fact. Our military went in, removed the government from power, created a new one, and is trying (with little success) to help it govern. Life in Iraq has became worse than it was before the war[4].

The new Iraqi government is not even a democracy. It is an islamic republic run under shariah law. Before it had been a dictatorship but at least it was secular. The new regime has a horrible human rights record, and even executes homosexuals[5].

"You clearly have issue with the military, and this is the the debate to have your contentions. I refuse to debate your proposed contentions since it holds no ground and it begins an entirely new debate: "We shouldn't have a military." and does not support this resolution."

If you will not debate then I win. The resolution is stated "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy". If we don't have a military then nobody is allowed in the military and so "Homosexuals" would not be allowed in by definition. So proving the military should not exist at all would prove that homosexuals should not be allowed in the military. Had you stated the resolution "If We Have a military then homosexuals should not be allowed in it, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" or had stated something to that effect in Round 1 then I would not be supporting the resolution by arguing against the existance of the military.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://www.commondreams.org...
5. http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Itsallovernow

Con

If my opponent wishes to debate his made-up resolution:
"Resolution affirmed: Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy, because we shouldn't have a military in the first place. If we do not have a military then by definition homosexuals can not be allowed in it."
In contrast to the actual one on the top of the screen:
"Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy"
Then so be it, but I will not argue his points, but instead ask him a question of his defenses against his own resolution:

=Question=
Since you maintain that "we shouldn't have a military in the first place", what military would there be to ban homosexuals from it?!?! "We" implies more than one entity, one that I will assume to be the United States and all other countries. If no countries have a military, HOW CAN ANYONE BE DENIED FROM SOMETHING THAT DOESN"T EXIST!?!?!

I just got into an arguement with my girfriend and I"m going to continue to rant. This debate has taken a turn away from the resolution, so why should I continue something that my opponent won't contend?! ARGH!

1. Evidence shows quality of life will improve if we abolish the military- How can you say that for everyone based on your example of a lone island? You cannot. All experiments need a large testing sample, and small islands don't account as a wide ranged piece of "evidence".

2. The United States government uses its military to invade and attack foreign countries at the whim of commercial interests. It is far too easy for leaders to lie to the public and get everyone rallied together for war- Prove that we attack on mere whim, prove that we don't have a reason. And if you knew anything about our civics, then you'd know Congress declares war, not the public. Most of the public wants troops to come home. Have we pulled out? No.

3. The solution is abolishing the military. The very existence of militaries perpetuates war and conflict.- That's like saying a buff person standing beside people perpetuates fights, solely because he appears designed for conflict. He could be a personal trainer, helping people get into shape. The military doesn't perpetuate war and conflict by it's presence. Did the National Guard perpetuate war when they helped restore power to many, many states over the years? No! They helped! Did they perpetuate war in 9/11? NO!

4. Companies influenced the US government into participating in many military actions with disastrous humanitarian consequences particularly in Latin America- No company can partake in Congressional affairs. That used to be a problem back during the Tea-Pot Dome Scandel and early 1900's. Laws were passed to prevent this.

5. Are you seriously arguing that smaller countries are more able to fend off invading armies with civilians than major countries?- No, I'm saying an army of civilains with handguns have no chance against armies of trained soldiers with standard issue machine gun-fire, nukes, explosives, tanks, ect.

6. This still does not prove the "necessity" of the military. That it is used for defense (though I'd like to point out it has not been used to defend our country since the Civil War, the last war fought on American soil besides the Indian Wars) does not prove it is needed for defense.- What in the name of GOD are you saying? There was no American military back then! There were militas with guns that had difficulty fending off bows and arrows! Defense is nessicary, or else we would have died with arrows in our throats!

7. .....We DID invade Iraq, this is a fact. Our military went in, removed the government from power, created a new one, and is trying (with little success) to help it govermentn. (entire paragraph)...- We didn't do that! That would define us a communists! WE ARE A DEMOCRACY! How dare you say that the lives spent in Iraq were a waste! HOW DARE YOU!? Since the 1970's, Abdul Kahn has been mooching off the US government for nuclear information, due to us giving nuclear energy to India. But we wouldn't, so he stole it. We found out about it and then we went to look for "Weapons of Mass Destruction". There are several nuclear power plants, nuclear building facilities, and other things! You have no idea what they have saved you from!

8. The new Iraqi government is not even a democracy. It is an islamic republic run under shariah law. Before it had been a dictatorship but at least it was secular. The new regime has a horrible human rights record, and even executes homosexuals- YOU DEFEND HOMOSEXUAL'S WAY OF BEING! Your implyingness declares that the homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted for who they are, yet you would deny them right in the military! Should we deny those who have bled and died for their beliefs, just because they are different from ours? THIS IS AMERICA! THIS IS WHAT OUR MILITARY WAS MADE FOR! To protect our beliefs.

9. "If you will not debate then I win. The resolution is stated "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy". If we don't have a military then nobody is allowed in the military and so "Homosexuals" would not be allowed in by definition. So proving the military should not exist at all would prove that homosexuals should not be allowed in the military. Had you stated the resolution "If We Have a military then homosexuals should not be allowed in it, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" or had stated something to that effect in Round 1 then I would not be supporting the resolution by arguing against the existance of the military."

I will depict and dissect every sentence of this, so you can see the flaw of your words. First, look at the resolution. MY RESOLUTION. "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy"

That's all there is! If you do prove that there isn't a military, then the resolution doesn't exist, so all your arguments are false anyways, which would revert back to there being a military! It's a paradox that makes no sense! If I do not debate, then ordinarily I would win. But you have yet to provide ANY ANY ANY ANY reason why homosexuals should be in the military. You started another policy debate: There should be no military.

YOU MAKE NO SENSE AND NO ARGUEMENTS! You've infurated me!!! She infurated me!!! Everyone just get along and accept people for their #@%&ing differences!!!
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

"Since…it?!?!"
It states "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy." To not allow someone in something does not imply others are allowed in there. For example, it's right to say that heterosexuals are not allowed to rape in the United States, & I think we'd all agree they should not be allowed to rape. The fact that homosexuals aren't either & shouldn't either does not negate this. Similarly, saying heterosexuals should not be allowed in the military does not negate the position that "homosexuals should not be allowed in the military".
""We"… countries."
"We" can also mean a "collective" of "people" such as the American People. For example, in the Declaration of Independence it says "We the People". By "we" I was referencing "we" as a country and a people.
"If…EXIST!?!?!"
But you can be denied from something that does exist because it is removed from existence. For example, you get a job. Your position is eliminated. You are denied that job because it no longer exists.
"How…island?"
Costa Rica isn't an island, it is in Central America[1]. This shows Con's lack of knowledge about the world.
"You…"evidence"."
Costa Rica is a small country compared to the United States, but considering its population of 4,509,290[1] Costa Rica as a testing sample is way larger than most scientific experiments. I admit the experiment's limited as most political science experiments are since setting up carefully controlled experiments is hard. Almost all political science experiments are unintentional, since no country goes out of its way to implement policies they think will bring disaster just to test it. But there's compelling evidence. Countries with similar cultures and levels of economic development in Latin America that do have militaries all have by the indications I gave in the last round a lower quality of life than Costa Rica. It a has a higher life expectancy than any other Latin American country other than Guadalupe and even higher (as I've pointed out) than the United States[2]. I've already pointed out it exceeds the US in health care too. Costa Rica has enjoyed a long peaceful history with no major domestic or foreign conflict since it abolished its military[3]. Since Costa Rica is doing so much better compared to other developing Latin American countries and better in many respects than the economically developed United States it's a good indication that banning the military helps lead to great increases in life quality.
"The…No."
I know Congress declares war. But in a democracy it's important to persuade the public. At the time the public supported the war. If they didn't Congress would've thought twice about it. Now that we're at war it's not hard to keep it going even with public opposition. It's harder to start a change in policy even with popular support than it is to oppose a change in policy.
"Did…NO!"
Helped restore power to states over the years? What are you talking about? States have not lost power except in the Civil War when the northern states fought the southern states.
"Companies…this."
Companies can not write policy or bribe officials directly, but they can and do take part in influencing the political process. Companies donate money to candidates and this money often comes with some kind of understanding. In some cases it is the other way around. Congresspeople seek out companies and tell them their views to get the companies to pay them. The congresspeople who hold views closest to the richest companies win the primaries and ultimately the elections.
"No,…ect."
Then how do you explain the ongoing insurgency in Iraq?
The only concern for a country that invades is not "can I defeat the ruling government?" it's also "can I restore order under a regime favorable to my interests? How much will this cost in terms of blood, money, and morale? Will I get enough out of it?" There would be a huge insurgency using guerilla warfare against any occupying power and since there are so many more Americans than Iraqis the insurgency would be even bigger.

"What…then!"
And now Con shows ignorance of history. The United States DID have a military back then, in fact it had one as far back as the Revolution, the Continental Army[3].
"There…throats!""
Or we could've made peace with the Native Americans and let them keep their land averting one of history's biggest human rights tragedies.
"We DID…a communists!"
Con apparently doesn't know what "communism" is. Communism as defined by Dictionary.com means
"1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4.communalism."
Communism has nothing to do with invading or not invading other countries and neither does Democracy (as I have already explained).
The word "invade" means "to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent". By definition this is exactly what the US government did. It entered Iraq forcefully as an enemy of its government and military and definitely with a hostile intent, maybe not (in theory) hostile to Iraqi civilians but certainly hostile to the Iraqi government and military so it fits the definition.
"WE…YOU!?"
Screaming does not help your side.
"Since…Destruction"."
And when the United States invaded there were none[4].
"There…things!"
Sources please.
"You…from!"
You honestly think Saddam would've used his WMD even if he did have them? If he struck with even one nuclear weapon Iraq would have been turned into an instant parking lot. The most that would've happened is he would've said he had weapons of mass destruction and used that to tell the world never to go to war with his country again. As it is if he really had nuclear weapons going to war with him would've been too dangerous. A country being invaded that knows it will lose that has nuclear weapons has nothing to lose by using them so invading a country that has nuclear weapons makes no sense.
"YOU…military!"
It isn't persecution or discrimination to deny a group of people something if you deny it to all others equally. Nothing in your resolution stated I must defend the right of heterosexuals to be in the military.
"THIS…beliefs."
More pretty words. In reality the military was made for using force for the US government. Whether that protects our beliefs depends on the intentions of the US government.
Anyways Con still refuses to respond to the fact that the United States government has a record of setting up non-democracies or at least illiberal democracies including the new Iraqi and Afghan governments.
"That's…military"
But I'm not trying to prove there isn't a military. Clearly there is. I'm trying to prove we should get rid of it.
"then…sense!"
Let's look at the resolution "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the don't ask don't tell policy".
For people to be allowed in the military the military has to exist. So if the military should be abolished then nobody should be allowed in the military.If nobody should be allowed in the military then that includes homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, everybody.If I prove the military should be abolished that proves "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the don't ask don't tell policy."
"If…win."
No if you don't debate me you concede to me.Remember since you brought forth the debate you have the burden of proof.
Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Itsallovernow

Con

I don't care anymore. I knew someone would do this, so I'll just say this:

If a homosexual went through basic, then was open about it, he would be barred from the military. If he said we shouldn't have a military, then he would still be barred. Just because his "job is terminated", doesn't mean it no longer exists. It does without him. I detest how people twist the resolution like that when, in my eyes, it makes NO SENSE. I will not and refuse to be moved into opposing the military with ridiculous arguments that hold no ground.

If the military, like my opponent contends, is abolished, they would be NO JOBS there to apply for and be denied on the basis of homosexuality. The entire debate is based upon this question for the public:

Is not having a military make it alright to ban homosexuals?

Kind of pointless isn't it? Yeah, I thought so.
MasturDeBator2009

Pro

Since Con offers up no real arguments or rebuttals I win.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by job 6 years ago
job
I hate gays they are unnatural.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
Oh my God! I desise people like atheistman! It's not about your personal beliefs, but who debates the best! That's biased votes and it sickens me that the best debater in the world could log on this site and lose because people may not agree with the belief. It's reidciulous! On my old account, that's how I lost my debate "Satanism is a good thing." (p.s. I don't have the account any more. I have only one and I can't vote, because I don't have a phone for the site to text.)
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
"Pro refused to debate topic and made no relevant arguments. Con asked that the debate be rationally argued, and by accepting Pro agreed."

When? As far as I can tell, Con offered up a resolution and Pro immediately argued something else? If I say "Porn should be allowed on daytime television" and you counter with "Porn should not be allowed on daytime television because television shouldn't exist" how would you even win the debate with that? It is true that Con offered a rebuttal to what Pro twisted the resolution to be, but it doesn't make sense to me...
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
I do agree with Con's stance that homosexuals should be allowed in the military for the time being, but I voted for Pro, since I agree that the military should eventually be abolished.
Posted by HazelMystic 7 years ago
HazelMystic
It's really quite simple... on the battlefield, more troops means more potential stopping power. It's absolutely ridiculous to prevent someone from serving because of their sexual orientation.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro refused to debate topic and made no relevant arguments. Con asked that the debate be rationally argued, and by accepting Pro agreed.
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
This whole topic makes me think..........
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
EXACTLY TulleKrazy!!! Oh, and I vary from boys to girls. I think the girl part is just part of the biological tendencies that nature had for me, but I WILL NOT CONFORM! Gay pride! (except for the ones that talk like fruitcakes, they shame me.)
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
I gave all points to Con because Pro didn't make any sense. His argument was not valid for the question that was posed, going off on a minor technicality is bad conduct, and his sources were to prove his minor technicality. How is Pro even winning?
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
'god-given right' lol
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mds1303 7 years ago
mds1303
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by gbpacker 7 years ago
gbpacker
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by tochter_aus_elysium 7 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
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 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 7 years ago
pbplk58
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Brooklyn1223 7 years ago
Brooklyn1223
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by MasturDeBator2009 7 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by QiiXii 7 years ago
QiiXii
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
ItsallovernowMasturDeBator2009Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07