The Instigator
AdamKG
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
zoinks
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is Homosexuality Morally, Logically And Biologically Wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
AdamKG
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,379 times Debate No: 57166
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

AdamKG

Con

This debate is based on the opinion argument found at: http://www.debate.org... in zoink’s argument under the comment section.


Homosexuality is Logically and Morally Sound:

For something to be morally wrong it would require that something about the conduct that is actually counterproductive for society. Reproduction is hardly an issue in society so that can’t be reasonably included. Homosexuality is also a genetic and biological condition as I will explain later so to brand it as immoral is not logically sound. “Homosexuality is immoral because it is genetically and biologically unacceptable” is not a logically sound argument as it is blatantly unreasonable. You cannot make that argument while also being reasonable.


Homosexuality is Natural:


There are studies that have proven there is a genetic component in homosexuality that is passed from the mother. It is a rare occurrence, but has been observed to exist among other mammals that live in groups such as apes and herd animals. The apparent evolutionary reason for homosexual members is to tend to other members in the group. Since homosexuals will not reproduce making their own offspring they are available to the other members who may be crippled or abandoned. There are, essentially, continuously available caretakers in the group. This works toward the overall well-being of the species making it a proper explanation according to theories of evolution. Evolution does whatever is necessary to contribute to the survival of its species and has proven to be very resourceful so this makes perfect sense. [1, 2, 3]

The homosexual gene is rare and occurs slightly more frequently in families with a history of homosexual births. Heterosexuality will always be far more common than homosexuals of both genders. About 20% of the world population is estimated to have or have had a sexual attraction toward the same sex. Keep in mind that does not necessarily suggest that a person is homosexual. There are many who identify as bisexual, especially among females. [3, 4]

It has been confirmed the United States medical community and the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is not a mental disorder as it is apparently natural. Homosexuality occurs in nature and has been recorded in human history for millennia. There is nothing to suggest that it is unnatural in any way. [5]


Sources:

- http://www.psychologytoday.com... [1]

- http://www.psychologytoday.com... [2]

- http://www.exposingtruth.com... [3]

- http://www.smithsonianmag.com... [4]

zoinks

Pro

Homosexuality Is A Choice, and people are free to disagree with choices, hence it CAN be wrong

I contend homosexuality is no different than many other behaviors humans often exhibit. Many behaviors are the product of a person's desires which are part genetics and part psychological - without either component, the behavior often doesn't occur because the desire isn't there.

Psychological "triggers" - often a traumatic event, such as abuse - can cause a person's psychological profile (and even brain chemistry) to change, causing beahvioral changes.

One such beahvior which is thought to work this way is sociopathy, or a lack of empathy or feeling for others. In fact, several researchers have found that a combination of gentics and psychological factors such as those I mention here are present in many sociopaths. [1]

Addcitive behavior is another set which is thought to be caused by a combination of factors, including both biology and environment as well as psychological. [2]

As for homosexuality, while many people contend the jury is still out or even argue in favor of it being entirely due to biology, scientific research indicates it is a combination of both biology and psychological factors, as I have suggested.

Many people believe change can occur because sexuality is a choice, and the conclusion of a very well-balanced article on homosexuality admits sexuality is a choice and change can occur if it is desired. [3] Even a liberal news site ran the same article despite the fact it doesn't line up with the site's usual drivel about homosexuality being entirely biological and unchangable. [4]

In fact, it has been well-established that at least some homosexuals not only desire to change their sexual orientation, but have successfully done so. A 2011 study of Christian gays who wanted to change their sexual orientation found that 23% of the subjects reported a successful "conversion" to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while an additional 30% reported stable behavioral chastity with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation. [5]

Furthermore, if sexuality were entirely biological, it would be logic to see it never change over the course of people's lives. If it changes, then it obviously isn't unchangeable. Yet what we see is often the opposite.

A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels.[6]

Other studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is not fixed in all individuals, but can change over time, especially in women. [7]

Some scientists even question whether or not biology is a factor AT ALL. When one scientist thought he'd found a genetic marker for homosexuality, his conclusions were proven wrong by at least two other scientists. [8]

In fact, there are a number of factors which scientific studies have linked to an increased propensity to choose homosexuality, including a 2006 and a 2010 study showing having homosexual parents increases the liklihood of homosexuality. [9] [10] The conlcusion was overwhelming, which was summed up with one statement:

"In total, 262 children raised by homosexual parents were included in the analysis. The results showed that 16-57% of such children adopted a homosexual lifestyle. The results were even more striking in daughters of lesbian mothers, 33% to 57% of whom became lesbians themselves. Since homosexuals makeup only ~5% of the population, it is clear that parenting does influence sexual orientation."

Another study I already mentioned concluded by saying "The fact that sexual orientation is not constant for many individuals, but can change over time suggests that at least part of sexual orientation is actually sexual preference."[5]

If you can choose your sexuality, then it it something peopel can disagree with or believe is "wrong".

Sources:

[1]http://www.psychologytoday.com...

[2]http://www.drugabuse.gov...

[3]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

[5]http://www.tandfonline.com...

[6]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[7]http://link.springer.com...

[8]http://www.sciencemag.org...

[9]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[10]http://journals.cambridge.org...
Debate Round No. 1
AdamKG

Con

I would like to thank zoinks for accepting this debate challenge and I look forward to our debate.


Rebuttals:


“Many people believe change can occur because sexuality is a choice, and the conclusion of a very well-balanced article on homosexuality admits sexuality is a choice and change can occur if it is desired.”


Your source was an interesting article, I will admit, but it was written in the form of an opinion. Your source is an opinion guest blog which is not supported by the Scientific American as it states at the top of the page in fine print. Therefore, it lacks the credibility the Scientific American which practically disowns it because it is not their material. It is true that was based on some scientific evidence but it was mostly an article about ethics rather than what is the case scientifically. The article also gave no conclusion to the argument and simply states that homosexuality should be allowed in society which is an opinion that actually counters your stance.


In some ways your source contradicts your statement and position. Your source quotes:


“PET and MRI studies performed in 2008 have shown that the two halves of the brain are more symmetrical in homosexual men and heterosexual women than in heterosexual men and homosexual women. These studies have also revealed that connections in the amygdalas of gay men resemble those of straight women; in gay women, connections in the amygdala resemble those of straight men. The amygdala has many receptors for sex hormones and is associated with the processing of emotions.”


This means that homosexuals do have a differing brain anatomy meaning that they are born with a clear preference to the same sex. It would be very unhealthy, and possibly damaging, to force a change on something that is biologically intended to do something else.


This article also suggests that homosexuality is morally acceptable in the quote “I believe that people have the right to engage in any behavior that they choose, as long as their actions do not harm others, and I believe that gay sex and gay relationships do not cause harm to anyone.” The author approves of homosexuality as moral. This is in opposition to your stance as pro in this debate.


Source: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...


“In fact, it has been well-established that at least some homosexuals not only desire to change their sexual orientation, but have successfully done so. A 2011 study of Christian gays who wanted to change their sexual orientation found that 23% of the subjects reported a successful "conversion" to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while an additional 30% reported stable behavioral chastity with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation.”


A renowned counseling psychologist from Seattle and member of the American Psychological Association, Douglas C. Haldeman, points out many issues with conversion therapy. One, the APA has discredited conversion therapy since the 1970’s because of their unethical methodology and potential mental harm it has proven to cause to patients. Conversion therapists target homosexuals who are actively abused (essentially bullied) into entering themselves into the therapy. These therapies occur among social groups who do not accept homosexuality into their culture and are socially rejected for it forcing them into the therapy. The people entered into these therapies are convinced by their peers that they have a problem that has to be fixed when it is actually the society that has the problem of not accepting them for who they are. Forcing a “fix” on something that has a significant biological factor causing them to be who they are is bound to cause psychological trauma. Patients who are “successfully fixed” are often psychologically traumatized.


Conversion therapy is based on what is largely recognized as “poor science” that is incomplete and not viable in mainstream science in any way which is why it is considered unethical to practice. A 23% success rate is actually miniscule for any real type of therapy. A viable counseling therapy should have a majority number be successful. It is also common practice for conversion therapy groups to include patients who are not exclusively homosexual which skews results. In many cases the majority of the patients who were successfully converted were not exclusively homosexual. In the cases where large numbers of the patients were successful it was later found that all of them were actually bisexual which is impossible to truly conclude a real success.


One case study in 1980 actually resulted in the counselor admitting that it doesn’t work. He noted that the “conversion” was really just an adaptation on part of the homosexual patient, not a metamorphosis like conversion therapies claim to do. The patients still have their inborn homosexual feelings, but merely adapt to what society taught them which is obviously unhealthy. Even when “converted” patients later have heterosexual relationships they still exhibit occasional homosexual outlets which may include an additional same-sex partner or pornography.


Source: http://drdoughaldeman.com...


“A 5-year study of lesbians found that over a quarter of these women relinquished their lesbian/bisexual identities during this period: half reclaimed heterosexual identities and half gave up all identity labels.[6]


Other studies have confirmed that sexual orientation is not fixed in all individuals, but can change over time, especially in women.”


That is unsurprising. Women are naturally more sexually flexible. This is likely due to the need to work together to raise children in early human evolution. Males would be gone or unavailable to help raise children due to the lack of a family culture at the time. This is seen among other mammals including apes.


A Boise State University study shows that most women are actively bisexual and that it actually increases with age. Women who are younger may seem exclusively attracted to women but later it may change. This sexual fluidity women often identify themselves with answers your statement. It is not that the women's sexuality is changing, it actually constantly bisexual and they just personally change their identity with it. Bisexuality at this quantity is unique to women as it is not as common among men. It is natural bisexuality and I have known friends who have had this same experience so I personally comply with it.


Source: http://www.united-academics.org...


“Some scientists even question whether or not biology is a factor AT ALL. When one scientist thought he'd found a genetic marker for homosexuality, his conclusions were proven wrong by at least two other scientists.”


I ask that you post a different source for this statement because you need a subscription to view it. I also greatly question the credibility of the study that apparently proves well-established science wrong. The gay gene was found in 1993 with absolute conclusive certainty and its existence has never been disproven.


Recently, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago last February it was confirmed that “Sexual Orientation has nothing to do with choice.” according to Michael Baily, one of the researchers at Northwestern University that carried the research. According to the study genes play a larger role than previously thought. A region on the X chromosome called Xq28 that controls sexuality. An additional stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 was found to be different as well that controls social behavior. That is evidence of extensive genetic predisposition.


Source: http://www.ibtimes.com...


“In fact, there are a number of factors which scientific studies have linked to an increased propensity to choose homosexuality, including a 2006 and a 2010 study showing having homosexual parents increases the liklihood of homosexuality.”


This is unsurprising. Most of the data involved females which we have already established to be prone to bisexuality or simply fluid sexuality. That is a natural occurrence. The results with males were not significantly high in my opinion. Due to this fact I see this as insignificant.


“Another study I already mentioned concluded by saying "The fact that sexual orientation is not constant for many individuals, but can change over time suggests that at least part of sexual orientation is actually sexual preference."”


I have already refuted that source and argument with Douglas C. Haldeman’s research. I do not deem that statement as credible because it is based on poor science. I also do not agree with his logic. By coming to the conclusion that sexuality is merely choice preference just because it appears fluid with some people completely ignores bisexuality (which most of his patients probably are). It has already been established that most women are fluid in their sexuality as they age. That statement only applies to bisexuals which makes sense because most if not all of his patients probably are. However, for those who are exclusively homosexual this does not apply and it is not a choice.


Morality Question:


You have replied to the biological and logical question in the resolution but I do not see anything about morality. The resolution is “Is Homosexuality Morally, Logically And Biologically Wrong?” By not addressing the morality question you are failing to fulfill a third of the resolution.

zoinks

Pro

I would like to thank AdamKG for the debate. I don't expect to "win" in the traditional sense because I realize my position is in the minority, but I hope those who read will keep an open mind rather than simply voting for Adam because he is in the majority position.

Responses:

The article I posted was a well-rounded opinion piece about homosexuality which specifically admitted homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation can and should be allowed to do so.

The fact that the author actually approves of homosexuality despite the admission sexuality is a choice only stregthens my argument.

You put forth several paragraphs discussing how "conversion therapy" isn't viable, including a statement that "A 23% success rate is actually miniscule for any real type of therapy."

However, my argument is merely that sexuality is a choice. If ANYONE chooses their sexuality, my argument is affirmed. I don't even need 23 percent. I need one person, period, who says they switched from one form of sexuality to another by choice. Compared to just one person, 23 percent is astonishingly high to demonstrate the point I'm making.

We're not talking about women who are actively bisexual. We're talking about individuals - many who are women - who actively CHANGE their sexual orientation BY CHOICE. An argument that they're all bisexual doesn't work, because the numbers are too high. Beyond that, the people involved don't classify themselves as bisexual and don't take actions to indicate they are, such as going back and forth between partners of both genders.

You say "The gay gene was found in 1993 with absolute conclusive certainty and its existence has never been disproven."

That is the exact study I was referencing when I said it was proven wrong by at least two other studies. A 1999 study completely refutes the entire "gay gene" idea, with several other researchers in support of it. [1]

Much of the criticism of the 1993 Hamer study comes from the fact that it has not been replicated, with supporters of the gay agenda claiming that is only because it is difficult to do - a very weak excuse in the scientific community, yet people (such as yourself) continue to assume Hamer's study was valid in and of itself, which is not how science works. If it can't be replicated, it's not scientifically viable.

Another set of researchers determined that environmental factors were largely responsible for sexuality, and completely dismissed Hamer's findings. [2]


You said "Most of the data involved females which we have already established to be prone to bisexuality or simply fluid sexuality. That is a natural occurrence. The results with males were not significantly high in my opinion. Due to this fact I see this as insignificant."

Once again, if ANYONE - male or female - is "fluid sexually," then have proven my point that sexuality is a choice. To dismiss this is to effectively say "I'm dismissing your entire argument because you're right".

My whole point was to show that people CAN choose their sexuality, not that everyone actively does so. If you CAN choose your sexuality, then that proves my point, because people can disagree with choices.


YOu say "I have already refuted that source and argument with Douglas C. Haldeman’s research."

No, you didn't. You argued against the methodology but ignored the results, which clearly showed that some of the subjects DID choose to change their sexuality. That is all that matters for my point - that sexuality is a choice.

Again: I only wanted to show sexuality is a choice, and the study clearly exhibits that it is - regardless of who disputes the methodology,23 percent of individuals chose to change their sexuality, proving my point. I only needed to see one single individual choose to change their sexuality for my premise to be right.


You say "I do not deem that statement as credible because it is based on poor science."

The sciencie is actually rather irrelevant, but the study does give it some credibility, so I threw it in there as a source anyway. I'll repeat my earlier mantra: I only need evidence of a single person who wilingly chooses to and successfully changes their sexuality to show that it is a choice. I have found evidence of far more than that.

You say "That statement only applies to bisexuals which makes sense because most if not all of his patients probably are."

Are you therefore contending that every single person who chooses their sexuality MUST be bisexual? That's a very weak defense in which you simply label everyone as bisexual to fit your argument when in fact many of those involved in the studies don't label themselves as such at all.

Also, in that case, the percentage of people who are bisexual is FAR higher than most mainstream scientists believe - even those on the side of sexuality not being a choice.

You say "By not addressing the morality question you are failing to fulfill a third of the resolution."

Morality is up to each individual to determine. I don't believe there can be a logical argument from that position as a result of it being so subjective.




[1]http://web.archive.org...


[2]http://fathersforlife.org...


Debate Round No. 2
AdamKG

Con

Rebuttals:



“The article I posted was a well-rounded opinion piece about homosexuality which specifically admitted homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation can and should be allowed to do so.”


It only mentioned the possibility and according to Dr. Haldeman that only applies to those who are not exclusively homosexual. Additionally, that article was written in 2012 by a nonscientist (basically just a guest reporter who decided to write a blog on the website). Earlier this year in 2014 a study came from Northwestern University in Illinois suggesting more contributing factors coming from genetics to sexuality giving more evidence to the no-choice theories.


“The fact that the author actually approves of homosexuality despite the admission sexuality is a choice only stregthens my argument.”


I do not actually see how it does. Also, this is only your opinion and the article doesn’t really support this statement.


“However, my argument is merely that sexuality is a choice. If ANYONE chooses their sexuality, my argument is affirmed. I don't even need 23 percent. I need one person, period, who says they switched from one form of sexuality to another by choice. Compared to just one person, 23 percent is astonishingly high to demonstrate the point I'm making.”


Higher numbers of success correlates with more credibility. The fact that the success rate is so low suggests that the therapy is based on poor science and, therefore, not viable. That is why the APA discredits it. All that proves is that 23% of the subjects were not exclusively homosexual according to Dr. Haldeman’s observations of many other similar cases. That appears constistent in virtually every case. Those who were exclusively homosexual very rarely are converted and when they are it is just a mere adaptation like the case from 1980 noted. Conversion therapy does not appear to accomplish anything credible.


“That is the exact study I was referencing when I said it was proven wrong by at least two other studies. A 1999 study completely refutes the entire "gay gene" idea, with several other researchers in support of it.”


Your source does not support your argument. The study you seem to be referencing in the article was the study done at the University of Western Ontario and Stanford Medical School. Their conclusion was that their study did not exclude Hamer’s findings nor did not entirely replicate it. You need to read more closely before drawing a drastic conclusion. Your source states: “The result of the new study - by George Rice, George Ebers and Carol Anderson at the University of Western Ontario and Neil Risch at Stanford Medical School in California - doesn't mean the first study was incorrect.” and “Sanders has also tried to replicate the findings of Hamer, although his results have not appeared in a scientific journal. He said his study was more in the middle - it didn't replicate Hamer's findings, but it didn't exclude the possibility...” That is not a complete refuting as you claim. It is basically inconclusive. The article also ends by saying that more studies need to be done. Additionally, this article was written in 1999 so its science is old.


“Another set of researchers determined that environmental factors were largely responsible for sexuality, and completely dismissed Hamer's findings.”


That source is FULL of bias propaganda! I ask voters to look through his source. For one, the study was done by the FRC (Family Research Council) which is a far right conservative private organization that is openly pro-marriage (opposite sex only) and pro-family (traditional only). The FRC is not an accredited research institution like a university because all of its “research” is just propaganda. How is that credible? Every source I have used is based on research done by accredited universities. I will not further waste my word count on this.


“Once again, if ANYONE - male or female - is "fluid sexually," then have proven my point that sexuality is a choice. To dismiss this is to effectively say "I'm dismissing your entire argument because you're right".”


That is false. My argument is that there are significant numbers of people out there who are exclusively homosexual. Bisexuality is irrelevant here. Fluid sexuality is apparent among about 60% of women to at least a minor extent according to Boise State University findings, but not all of them. There are those who are exclusively homosexual. Your argument is also illogical. To suggest that everyone must have fluid sexuality just because a few people show the ability to do so is ridiculous. That is like having a test for a new drug on only one or two people to test side-effects and then coming to the conclusion that it will be constant from person to person universally.


“No, you didn't. You argued against the methodology but ignored the results, which clearly showed that some of the subjects DID choose to change their sexuality. That is all that matters for my point - that sexuality is a choice.”


Please reread my argument. I did clearly mention and argue the results. I said, “A 23% success rate is actually miniscule for any real type of therapy.” Also, results are absolutely moot if the methodology is bad science or practice. Why would I lend any credence to a study or project if the methodology is largely, or even completely, discredited by the mainstream science community including directly related groups such as the American Psychological Association? That makes no logical sense.


“The sciencie is actually rather irrelevant, but the study does give it some credibility, so I threw it in there as a source anyway.”


That sentence contradicts itself. If the science is worthless then how is it credible and why would you even give it as a source?


“Morality is up to each individual to determine. I don't believe there can be a logical argument from that position as a result of it being so subjective.”


So you are not even going to give your opinion? That is part of the resolution that you agreed to by accepting this debate. Therefore, you must address it or fail to fulfil part of the debate. I addressed it in a rather simple logical argument so I do not see how you cannot address it effectively as well.


Conclusion:


My conclusion basically stands similar to my opening argument. Homosexuality is a natural part of the human species and occurs among animals that live in close-knit groups. There is ample scientific evidence to support this argument as I have presented in my former arguments. The mainstream scientific community consistently brings forward more evidence for this argument as it is researched further confirming this position.


The idea that homosexuality is a choice and has no place in humanity is born of early, uneducated civilization that could not understand its place in nature. This is primitive thinking that has no place in modern society. The fact that it is becoming better understood and accepted as natural as we progress forward means it is the ultimate future that it will be accepted as a natural occurrence in biology. Those who will not accept this are stuck in the past and obsolete views of reality.

zoinks

Pro

zoinks forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Zoinks, I need your help
Do you mind voting me for prssident by bolding my name in the following thread please.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by phiLockeraptor 2 years ago
phiLockeraptor
I honestly don't understand how you can even frame a debate about homosexuality under "logic".

Sexual desires are no more logical than the will to eat, or even stay alive. It's grounded in instinct.

Hell, even if it's a choice, is the choice of your favorite color based in logic? Absolutely not. It's personal preference, pure and simple.

"Biologically wrong." The only way something can be "biologically wrong" is if it doesn't exist in the biosphere. Common knowledge tells us that this is not the case with homosexuality.

"Morally wrong". I'll admit that this is at least a legitimate framework, but the conclusion is flawed.

Homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't lead to reproduction? Say goodbye to post-menopausal sex.
Hell, let's just require that all straight couples have children in exchange for marriage. It's only moral, right?

I can't vote on this debate yet, but even the framing of the question itself tips in favor of Con.
Posted by PinValentine 3 years ago
PinValentine
Obviously AdamKG gets the third round. Zoinks obviously didn't post his rebuttles because he didn't even have a paper leg to stand on.
Posted by PinValentine 3 years ago
PinValentine
For the same exact reasons; Round two goes to AdamKG
Posted by PinValentine 3 years ago
PinValentine
First round Goes to Con.
Posted by PinValentine 3 years ago
PinValentine
No where in any of Zoinks's sources does it say that Homosexuals make up only -5% of the population. Gave no reference for that statement. He made that one up on the spot. -5% would indicate no homosexuals at all. They make up 20% of the population.

I again cannot take source five as the Pro gave for his ending argument because it is religiously biased.

He gave no sources saying any thing about sexuality being a choice. They can change, but no indication was given on weather or not it is voluntary.

I like how Pro claimed that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, He even compared it to those conditions shared by Sociopaths, and to addictive behavior but he gave not one reference even mentioning psychological conditions and homosexuality. This is another fact he made up. His first round fell apart.
Posted by PinValentine 3 years ago
PinValentine
Zoinks said that homosexuality is a choice and can be changed. He used source three to support that. I invite any one to go read that article. He proved himself wrong with his own reference. It said nothing in it about homosexuality being a psychological condition, or about it being a choice. In fact it said that it isn't a choice.

I won't accept Zoinks's source number five because it is about gay men changing their orientation out of religious reasons. That does not count as religion can cause people to do things weather its right or not. Religion also causes people to lie to themselves, a lot. Reference Five is ignore-able.

Reference six is also unacceptable on the Pro side. It is common for young women, especially teenage girls, to claim bisexuality or homosexuality, but not for sexuality purposes. They do it for acceptance more often than not. By being bisexual it is easier for teenagers to be accepted and loved by more people. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sources 6 and 7 also do not say anything about choice. They say that sexual orientation was changed. There is no indication given that the individuals involved chose to change their sexual identity.

I cannot even look at eight, as I am not a member of that website, and I am not signing up just see your evidence. Half of the sources pro gave are from sites where you have to sign up, or purchase the articles to read the full stories. That is dodging. I do not think he wants us to see the full articles. So far the other sources were full of brown stuff.

There was no scientific data given in sources 9 and 10 on the Pro side. Just a bunch of probably made up percentages. In fact 10 was extremely biased towards what Pro is trying to say instead of and unbiased study.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
AdamKGzoinksTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- round forfeit. Arguments go to con, who wrote a very convincing, logically sound argument, while pro's arguments were weakened by weak reasoning and sources of dubious reliability.