The Instigator
Sieben
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

If developed, a pre-natal cure for homosexuality would be desirable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 11 votes the winner is...
Sieben
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,357 times Debate No: 12812
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (11)

 

Sieben

Pro

First round is used to clarify the resolution. Make sure both participants understand and are happy with their ground. If necessary, we can go to the comments section to clarify everything further.

Second round is for constructives. No rebuttals.

Third round is for cross examination. 10 question limit.

Fourth and fifth rounds are for rebuttals. No new arguments can be brought up in the fifth round. Only extensions.

-----------------------------------------
The basic idea of the resolution is if you know a child will be born homosexual, a vaccine to make them heterosexual would be desirable.

Pre-natal is the incubation period between fertilization and birth.
Homosexuality is defined as sexual attraction between members of the same gender
Vaccine can be treated as medical magic that simply makes the condition disappear
Desirable is in the interests of the unborn child.

I plan to argue desirability from behind the veil of ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org...

This topic is not my specialty. I sided pro with my gut, and I hope to learn a lot as I research this position! Cheers.
larztheloser

Con

I accept your format with one caveat. In round three (cross examination) ONLY QUESTIONS must be asked, no answers or other arguments. Answers are given in round 4, where extra rebuttals may also be given. Otherwise it's not fair because I need to respond and ask questions, while you only have to ask questions.

I also agree mostly with your definitions, although I think "desirable" should not only be for unborn children, but society as a whole. In this debate I agree that unborn children are the most important consideration, but that doesn't mean other stakeholders can be excluded from the discussion. In particular, one of my arguments will focus on specific cultural practices that your narrow definition would exclude, but which are important a relevant to the discussion.

As foreshadowed, I plan to argue the good old "There is no problem!" reasoning, that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that therefore there is nothing particularly desirable about removing it. Like you this is not my area of specialty and I'm not sure if this is a good case to run, but I'll enjoy it for sure! Thanks for making this topic, I look forward to round 2 when you're ready.
Debate Round No. 1
Sieben

Pro

I agree that round 3 should be composed ONLY of questions. Their answers should come at the start of round 4 before rebuttals.

Desirable can be extended to include society as a whole.

Contention 1: Being homosexual is physically disadvantageous

A) Anal sex is prevalent and dangerous

Estimates vary, but approximately 50% of sexually active male homosexuals engage in anal sex (1), while the large majority of studies put hetero anal sex rates at ~10-25%, significantly lower (2).

Anal sex is the riskiest of "conventional" copulation. Small tears in the skin (3) as well as the thinness of rectal lining make STDs and infections especially easy to contract. Anal sex is not smooth sailing either... hemorrhoids and anal cancer are caused by the physical trauma of anal sex (4).

B) Homosexual partner pools are swimming with disease

According to the CDC, homosexuals are 50x more likely to have aids (5), and more likely to have many other serious STDs (6). You can get STDs from having sex with other people who have STDs (7). Since homosexuals are more likely to have STDs, sex with them is more dangerous.

C) Worse Physical Metrics
Regardless of the reasons, homosexual life expectancy is significantly lower than the general population (8). They also have a worse quality of life index (9). It is enough to show that homosexuals are systematically less healthy than heterosexuals, even if the exact causes are not fully understood.

D) Fewer partners to choose from

Around 6% of males identify as gay (10), while approximately 50% of the world is male (11), and 50% of the world is female (12). Given that you meet a person, your chances are significantly higher that you can have a serious romantic relationship with them if you are heterosexual.

Contention 2: Homosexuality poses difficult social problems

A) Homosexuals are widely disliked

Polls show significant opposition to gay rights (13). We can all agree that these people are probably bigoted and ignorant. They are in the wrong. But the resolution asks us to do what is desirable. I wish there were a vaccine for stupidity too, but a reduction in the number of homosexuals would reduce conflict in society.

B) Homosexuals are more likely to suffer from psychological problems

Again, the causes are many and not well understood. The fact is simply that homosexuals have higher rates of psychological problems (14). Social rejection, mentioned above, is a cause for increased homosexual suicide rates (15).

Contention 3: A vaccine would be desirable

A) From behind the veil of ignorance, there is reason to prefer heterosexuality

From the original position, no one would choose a life of disease and ostracism. Heterosexuality is not always glamorous (16) but escapes many of the problems faced by homosexuals.

B) Having a choice is nice

The resolution asks me to say that having a vaccine, not a mandatory heterosexual eugenic program, would be desirable. People should be able to choose between hetero and homosexual lifestyles. A vaccine is an incremental step towards mastery of the human condition.

In closing, its past my bedtime. I remind all readers that we are not trying to engage in gay-bashing. This is a serious attempt to discuss the resolution. If anything, I am prejudiced against heterosexual norms. Seriously so lame (17).

(1) http://www.cdc.gov...
(2) http://sexuality.about.com...
(3) http://www.soc.ucsb.edu...
(4) http://sexualhealth.healthcommunities.com...
(5) http://www.lifesitenews.com...
(6) http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...
(7) http://www.youngwomenshealth.org...
(8) http://ije.oxfordjournals.org...
(9) http://findarticles.com...
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(11) http://wilkenk.wonecks.net...
(12) http://i260.photobucket.com...
(13) http://www.gallup.com...
(14) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(15) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
(16) http://www.seriouslyimportantinformation.com...
(17) http://en.wikipedia.org...
larztheloser

Con

OK ... here goes!

I have 13 substantive contentions. Like my opponent, I would like to remind readers that this is about working out what is good for homosexuals, not about whether homosexuals are good, so please put aside any prejudices you might have.

First, I contend that any medication has risks and benefits associated with it. In the past, pills which affected sexuality, no matter how successful, have always carried side-effects. Genetic treatment for homosexuality leads to "high blood pressure, plus changes in glucose metabolism, brain structure and brain function, leading to memory problems" because of changes in associated genes. [1] It is largely for this reason, coupled with the lack of evidence of any negative issues associated with same-sex relationships, that "No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and virtually all of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public" [2]

Second, I contend that homosexuals who feel like their relationships are not working, and wish they were not homosexual for this reason, already have sufficient support available to them. Excellent international organizations, such as Evergreen International, already provide sufficient support services to this group [3]. Many millions of others have turned to religious organizations and found support there. Paul Gebhard suggests this may affect about 35% of the population, whom you want to medicate [4]. I rather support them having this choice.

Third, a recent study [5] found the risk of drug abuse and suicide actually doubled after people who used to be gay became straight. I do not understand why this would not be true for people at any stage in development, given that we're dealing with genes here, which remain constant throughout life.

Fourth, the remaining 2% of the people are gay and proud. By drugging people into what society perceives is "OK", you marginalize and delegitimize this group. This cannot be a good thing for this population either.

Fifth, you deny children the right to associate with the group mentioned in point 4 above. It is not moral to play God over something so fundamental to a person's character.

Sixth, many religious groups do not believe in this sort of medication (Christians, Muslims etc) because they believe it to be a choice [6]. Therefore this sort of drug would not go down very well with cultures where these beliefs are widespread, undermining your plan because unless most parents adopt it, there will be no real change to society and no real benefit to homosexual children either.

Seventh, there is some suggestion that sexuality might be a fluid thing [7]. This would suggest that your "treatment" would affect the normal sexual development of EVERYONE, gay and non-gay, which I do not think most people would find desirable. This is consistent with the views of Sigmund Freud [10].

Eighth, just because you cure homosexual relations does not mean you create heterosexual ones [8]. This would indicate, and I quote from my source, that you are depriving people from their ability to respond to others sexually. Depriving people of anything is bad enough.

Ninth, it is unethical because it purports to be a "cure" for something commonly deemed not to be an illness, providing a misleading representation of homosexuality as something that needs to be "cured" when in fact by even your standards it is only undesirable [9].

Tenth, it is unethical because it reinforces commonly held prejudices against homosexuality that are baseless and unfounded [9]. Unless my opponent demonstrates why these claims are legitimate, it is ethically illegitimate to support this motion.

Eleventh, by legitimizing a parent's right to choose their child's sexual orientation, you also legitimize their right to create babies with not only designer bodies but designer minds. Hey, some parents might want it. Is that the sort of society we want to live in? Taken with a long-term view, we will likely become more obedient, because that's what parents want in children. Which makes every single human being more vulnerable to exploitation. Which is bad.

Twelfth, some of the greatest people in history have been homosexual. If it were not for this influence, one can only speculate whether their minds would have taken the human society to where it is now [10]. Think Plato.

Finally, Richard Dawkin's "gay uncle" theory might also have some merit [11]. If true, then that means homosexuality is important to human survival, and eradicating it might have dire consequences for our civilization. It also explains why mothers of homosexual children have more kids [12].

My case is simple - there is no good cause to eliminate something that is so good for society as a whole. It is grounded in the principles of choice, tolerance and freedom.

I can't wait to rebut my opponent's case and await his questioning. For now, I too must rest my weary head. Till next time!

[1] http://unitedwestandky.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.evergreeninternational.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] Shidlo, Ariel; Schroeder, Michael (2002). "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers' Report". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33 (3): 249–259. cited in http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[7] see analogy at http://www.angelfire.com...
[8] http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...
[9] http://www.sexualwholeness.com... (second part)
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] www.youtube.com/watch? v=MHDCAllQgS0 (without the space, I didn't want it to embed the video)
[12] http://answers.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Sieben

Pro

Thanks for the prompt response! I'm in two other debates and I daresay this will be finished first.

Questions

1) In your contention 1, you seem to mention that ~35% of the population is homosexual. Why do you prefer the Kinsey reports over the "Modern Survey Results" section below?

2) Can you explain your contention 4 more?

3) Can you explain your contention 5 more?

4) Your contention 6. Some people are wrong about homosexuality being a choice. So what?

5) In your contention 7, you assert sexuality is a continuum and there's gray area. Can we agree that the resolution applies to people who predominately prefer same sex relationships?

6) In your contention 9, don't you agree its a good idea to try and treat undesirable conditions?

7) Your contention 11. Why do you think this one incremental step is a slippery slope?

8) Your contention 11. Don't you think parents should have the option to cure pre-natal diseases?

9) Your contention 13. How is the "gay uncle" roll of homosexuals essential, particularly in the increasing prevalence of stay at home dads? (1)

10) Would you equally prefer having gay or straight children, even though homosexuals have lower life expectancy and worse quality of life indicators?

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm pleased there are a handful of people interested in this topic.
larztheloser

Con

I only have three questions, which address all your points:

1)Why should parents have the right to choose as opposed to the children, on something so fundamental to the child's character?

2)What is the bigger danger, being gay or having an important part of who you are suppressed?

3)RE your claims about metrics ie level of disease etc, given the fact that the homosexual population is much smaller than the general and that other lifestyle factors not directly related to homosexuality (ie smoking) are relatively prevalent in this group [1], why do you think homosexuality is the correct cause for all these things, especially when confronted with my point #3?

I am now going to answer your questions. I notice that while I am at a disadvantage in this round, I am advantaged again in the last round so you do not need to take off words. (-:

1)The Kinsey reports are verified by multiple researchers, and although slight inaccuracies were discovered and corrected for, the figure is now generally accepted. Your modern results are surveys, not indications about who actually has the sexual feelings. Anyone who has done statistics at primary school will know survey-format and question effects have created a non-sampling bias (who wants to admit to having had a homosexual experience to his/her partner?) Now is also a good time to ask you to respond to contention #2 and #3.

2)Say we start vaccinating all the kids. That is a paradigm shift away from the present gay culture in the long run (even if there are still lots of gay kids around). So what is likely to happen to those who are already gay? Their numbers will start to dwindle by a few percentage points, and eventually the same groups will be ostracized and delegitimized by society in a way never seen before. This is bad for them, and I think that they deserve better treatment. While not an issue directly caused by your proposition, it is an unintended side-effect that has the potential to instill much more misery.

3)Again, assume the vaccination program is in place. Children who would otherwise associate with "gay" people are forced into becoming like the masses. I claim this is immoral because these children should have the right to associate with whatever group they choose, not the ones society deems convenient. By removing all inhibitions to being part of another group, this would be like "vaccinating" all national socialists to become democrats. In the long run, again, you will only stifle society with your plan. Hope these extra explanations make it clear to you.

4)These cultures are not likely to accept the vaccination. I contend that the vast majority of people make up one of these religions or cultures and therefore the vast majority of gay kids will not be vaccinated. So there will be no benefit, no matter what other benefits you claim, to the vast majority of gay kids. This argument I don't see as being fundamental to my case, but the point is that your "benefit" will continue to create lots of gay kids in exactly those households least tolerant of homosexuals in a society where homosexuality is becoming less legitimate anyway.

5)"Predominately prefer" is a very broad term, and is not objectively measurable. Your pre-natal cure would have to set a very exact number on how homosexual you have to be. I doubt you will find even two doctors who would agree on such a thing. Does that clarify what I meant?

6)Even if homosexuality is an undesirable condition, which I do not for a moment concede, "curing" it portrays it to society as if it were a malady of sorts. This is unethical because it sends the wrong message to people, which doctors are not allowed to do. The only way to avoid this dilemma is not to cure them at all. By the way, I would also like a response to contentions 8 and 10, in particular number 8 because I like that one! (-:

7)I think this is a slippery slope because geneticists are desperately looking for an excuse, any excuse, to allow them to expand their research into new fields. Now that they are able to, under your plan, they would be more likely to market still-more designed babies to consumers. When they do so, they are legitimized to carry out still further research. Can you see the slippery slope now?

8)Parents should have the option to cure pre-natal diseases, except that homosexuality is not a disease. This is not actually my view by the way, but the most favorable response I can possibly give you. It does not help your argument in any way. Please also respond to contention #12.

9)Do not assume that we are talking exclusively about males here. The theory applies to both uncles and aunts. An increase in the amount of influence one gender exerts has no impact on the theory, which simply explains why women with more children are more likely to have exactly one homosexual.

10)To be honest, I do not care. I am happy for my children to choose who they want to be. I would love them whether they turn out homo or heterosexual. I believe I could educate them well enough so that they can live a life as fulfilling as everybody else if they turn out gay. And I feel sorry for your children who will be forced to be little robots, carrying out their masters wishes even in their bedrooms.

[1] http://www.conservapedia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Sieben

Pro

Answers to questions:
1) Because the child can't choose himself before he is born. The parents have the child's best interests in mind most of the time. You support vaccines to cure birth defects, so presumably we can just argue homosexual dysfunction.

2) I don't know. It depends.

3) Your third point will be addressed. Some causes for the prevalence of diseases comes from the mechanics of homosexual sex. Many psychological issues can stem from social intolerance. Drug use probably comes from the lowered life expectancy. Who cares if you get lung cancer at 60 when you die at 40 from AIDS? Its depressing but homosexuality is very highly correlated with these disadvantages.

Given that this is my last round, I'll have to economize! First some comments on neg's answers to my q's.

1) The plethora of other reports generate significantly different results... I understand the methodological differences. I would claim this is a moot point because if 30% of men are homosexual, 15% of everyone is homosexual. Still a minority group, so many of my arguments depending on this fact are still valid.

2) I don't think short term impact warrants much consideration. I'd rather improve people's lives for the next 1000 years than worry about one generation.

3) The vaccination is not about conformity, it is about functionality. The same logic that leads us to support a vaccination against serious birth defects leads me to support a vaccination against homosexuality.

4) I think your answer is largely speculative. Regardless, as long as some people use the vaccine they are improving their children's lives.

5) Its up to scientists to discover the causes and extent of homosexuality. I would argue that even the ultimate grey case - bisexuals - could benefit from the vaccine since they also have exposure to the many dangers I've been mentioning.

6) I disagree, but this is another short term consideration that I can ignore as above.

7) I think the slippery slope depends more on the accessibility of the science rather than the motives. There is already a market for genetically engineered babies.

8) But it is a disadvantage. "Disease" is just rhetoric. I care about functionality.

9) Your answer still doesn't explain why society needs gay uncles.

10) I would love my children unconditionally too. But I would still choose to vaccinate against deformity, mental illness, and homosexuality. I don't want my children to die before I do.

>>> Addressing the Neg Case:

C1) Side effects of real life medication doesn't matter. We agreed to treat the vaccine as medical magic.

C2) The existence of homosexual support groups only proves how difficult it is to be homosexual

C3) Side effect. See arguments above in C1).

C4) I don't really care if I temporarily marginalize a small segment of society. Debates like this might help to convince homosexuals that a vaccine is an act of love and compassion rather than bigotry and homophobia.

C5) People and children can still hang out with gays

C6) This is another transitional point. I don't care what religious nuts think. Anyway, the existence of a vaccine is more likely to convince them that homosexuality IS actually genetic.

C7) Covered when addressing bi-sexuality in the questions section above.

C8) Ah this is an interesting point. The resolution does not specify that the vaccine will make people straight. I still advocate the development of a vaccine because is an incremental step towards heterosexuality. There are many sex-drive treatments, and they will continue to get better in the future.

C9) You should still fix undesirable things.

C10) That depends how the vaccine is pitched. I'm not advocating the vaccine out of homophobia.

C11) I don't think designer babies are a bad idea. I claimed before that I think parents are more likely to choose traits to make their children successful rather than robotic. Regardless, my assumed burden is to "cure bad things" rather than "create more good things".

C12) And a lot of real smart people have been straight. I dont know if homosexuality is related to the greatness of thinkers.

C13) I claimed above that "gay uncles" are anachronistic. Stay at home dads fill their shoes.

>>> Buffering Aff Case

C1)

A) Anal sex really is dangerous! Heterosexual intercourse is much safer. Therefore, being homosexual is a physical disadvantage.

B) Intercourse with other homosexuals is more likely to result in disease. Disease is a disadvantage.

C) Homosexuals have a lower overall quality of life. Causes aside, I'd rather not be in this demographic.

D) "Given that you meet a person, your chances are significantly higher that you can have a serious romantic relationship with them if you are heterosexual."

C2)

A) Rather than wait for the masses to become tolerant, a vaccine might dissolve the conflict much more quickly.

B) Choices are nice! Admittedly, a vaccine would not allow individuals to make their own choices. The parents are the decision makers. But parents usually have their child's best interest at heart, and doctors can help inform their decision with pamphlets of this debate!

Thanks for giving me your time larz. I've enjoyed it.
larztheloser

Con

I strongly support correcting things that have serious harms to people, because that is the role of medicine. Let us examine the "serious harms" that my opponent alledges are directly caused by homosexuality:

1)They are a minority. OK, so what? There are plenty of minorities in the world that we respect and do not try to vaccinate. This argument is just plain illogical.
2)He says that those who do not want to be homosexual have nowhere to turn to. That is not true. They have plenty of support groups, as I have shown.
3)Just because anal sex is worse does not mean it is very unsafe. If somebody chooses to engage in it, let them. If somebody chooses to kill themselves with cigarettes, let them! If that results in disease, then I am glad their stupidity is out of our gene pool.
4)I dispute how this "quality of life" is measured. I think it is purely because of the marginalization of the group. As I have said, education is the answer, vaccination is a failure. In any event, this is not a serious harm of homosexuality.
5)Vaccination is faster than education. I agree with my opponent on this one. But vaccination is so fast it is dangerous. And it can never be undone.
6)Homosexuals never find true love. lol. I don't think I know one "single" gay person.

These points show that there are no concrete serious harms my opponent can think up. His case has failed.

In this debate, I then went further than I had to and discussed possible other disadvantages to his hypothetical treatment. All of them are still standing at the end of the debate. Here is why:

1)By his own admission, he is not going to make kids straight. He is simply depriving them of sexual expression.
2)He is taking away the choices of the children and putting them into the hands of adults. By his own admission, he is simply hoping for parents to make the right decision. But how can they, given that they do not know what their child would have wanted? I certainly would not want my parents deciding what is good and bad for me!
3)He admits in response to my third question that the problem is not homosexuality but social intolerance. This is true, but the way to fix that problem is not to give people the option to be non-homosexual, because that just fuels the intolerance. Under his plan, homosexuals will still exist, just be even more marginalised. Then he goes on to demonstrate his own intolerance – "I don't really care if I temporarily marginalize a small segment of society".
4)He ignores short-term impacts of his plan, again by his own admission. He is oblivious to the fact that short-term impacts can have long-term consequences.
5)The vaccine encourages conformity. His only response is that it has a functional benefit too, but he never tells us what that is. Except that I infer he is talking about the idea that homosexuality is a malady, which need I remind you, is false. He also says that it depends on how we pitch the treatment. No it does not.
6)He ignores the religious and cultural groups that make up the majority of the population, saying that their beliefs that are written and constant are "merely speculative." Not good enough.
7)He ignores the lack of a scientific consensus on the level of homosexuality required for qualification. He puts the onus back on the scientists, who cannot agree. My point is that they never will.
8)He ignores my moral concerns about Genetically Engineered babies, pointing only to the profit they generate. That, by the way, is beside the point.
9)He shows his ignorance of the gay uncle theory. Gay uncles or aunts are required to care for children. Whatever one of the parents stays at home, their role is not diminished.
10)He says side effects do not ever accrue in medication. Lol.
11)He thinks it is OK to delegitimize the gay population, then goes on to say that people will still hang out with gays. Yeah right.
12)He thinks homosexuality is not related to intelligence. In fact, the best research says that it is [1].

In summary, let us give homosexuals the rights, the freedoms and the choices they, like everyone else, deserves. I thank my opponent both for the debate and for ignoring the fact that gays are people too. Let your vote show him that this is the case, because the motion has fallen.

[1] http://www.springerlink.com...
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 6 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
oh right, so what your debate boils down to is whether homosexuality is bad for a society. I don't see any evidence for that.
Posted by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
I was arguing from the perspective of society as a whole.
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 6 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
If developed, a pre-natal cure for homosexuality would be desirable" Desirable for who? The would-be-homosexual? The parents of the would-be-homosexual? Or for people who think that homosexuality is 'wrong'?
Posted by Yurlene 7 years ago
Yurlene
If you are referring to the recent "breakthrough" according to one doctor, it is supposed to only affect women which I don't. See the probability of such science. The human Psyche is vast and most is still incomprehensible still. There is a movie about this I think its called "straight pill." Interesting movie Bout the hidden social implications of such sanctions
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
Sieben
Indeed this could have been a much more interesting debate. I wish a lot of points theLwerd identified had been brought up.
Posted by larztheloser 7 years ago
larztheloser
Freeman - I agree. That's why I said that we'd be sending the wrong message with the use of the word "cure" and that's bad because it's immoral. See my point #9.

Yvette - got any suggestions? Please?

InquireTruth - yeah, I saw that and cited another version of that story for my point about side effects.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"If developed, a pre-natal cure for homosexuality would be desirable"

The word "cure" implies that homosexuality is a disease.
Posted by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
....You both did a crappy job with your arguments.
Posted by Yvette 7 years ago
Yvette
We should use genetic science to cure religious beliefs pre-natally. ;)
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by michaelmalachi 7 years ago
michaelmalachi
SiebenlarztheloserTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Lamza61 7 years ago
Lamza61
SiebenlarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 7 years ago
LiquidLiquid
SiebenlarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Vote Placed by Gonzo 7 years ago
Gonzo
SiebenlarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Esuric 7 years ago
Esuric
SiebenlarztheloserTied
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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
SiebenlarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by innomen 7 years ago
innomen
SiebenlarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
SiebenlarztheloserTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheAtheistAllegiance 7 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
SiebenlarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by GriffinGonzales 7 years ago
GriffinGonzales
SiebenlarztheloserTied
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