The Instigator
SeducedbyPoetry
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Conspicuous_Conservative
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Issues Pertaining to Homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,172 times Debate No: 962
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (11)

 

SeducedbyPoetry

Pro

While it has taken a back seat to the war in Iraq, the issue of why gay marriage is even an issue at all in this country boggles my mind. Now, I've been to many countries in Europe and most of them (Spain and Holland in particular) are far more progressive minded about gay matrimony than America is. Their entire outlook, for the most part, on sexuality in general is healthy and largely tolerant, which is why I love Europe so much.

Some people claim that marriage is rooted exclusively in religion which may be true for some but certainly not for all. I am not advocating forcing all religious houses to perform same sex marriages; they have the right not to if they so choose. But it really saddens me that here we are in nearly 2008 in a so called "all men are created equal" society and gay people are still being treated as second class citizens. Have we not learned from the past about the awful things that can happen when people are prejudiced on the basis of race, religion, sexuality or anything else?

Two consenting adults that love each other shouldn't be kept from marrying because they happen to be of the same gender. If I decide to marry a woman, how exactly is that affecting anybody else? What it boils down to, I believe is fear and an obsession with control. Bottom line is, if you want to damn me to hell for loving another woman, go right on ahead. But when you start using those beliefs to actively prevent me from having marriage rights, then there is certainly a problem.
Conspicuous_Conservative

Con

First of all I would like to thank my opponent SeducedbyPoetry for the opportunity to present my point on this issue that seems to be so inflammatory in this day and age. I would also like to thank all those who will be joining us for this debate and wish them a happy and prosperous New Year.

My opponent started her argument by wondering why the issue of Gay and Lesbian marriage has taken the back seat to the "War on Terrorism". Well that is very simple, whether you support the war effort or you would like to pull the troops home men and women on both sides are dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places across the globe. Frankly gay marriage should not even be an issue. If one takes the time to read my profile I am against gay marriage but I am really neutral when it comes to civil unions. The reason for that stance is because although I am not a bible thumping son of a preacher I still believe that God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim intended marriage to be between a man and a women, but I have no problem making some sort of legal contract giving your life insurance and or your benefits to your life partner.

My opponent is correct when she states that what she does in her own personal life is of no importance to anyone, but I do not know how many times homosexual individuals will introduce themselves as, "Hello I am so and so, and I am gay". I am always annoyed when people introduce themselves as gay because I do not go around promoting my preference for my sexual preference. Imagine me responding to that person by answering, "Nice to meet you so and so my name is Freddy and I like white girls". It is absurd that they feel the need to advertise their sexuality to others because honestly their being gay is no benefit nor is it a detriment to their ability to go to school, work or serve in the military.

Honestly the United States is just as good with Europe or better when it deals with Homosexuality because honestly I feel that when you start portraying people as minority groups or helpless individuals it is a form of reverse racism that shows others that you are weak and inferior and we all know that is not the case. There is only individuals and certain fringe right wing groups that still show prejudice towards gays and Americans of color but honestly you would have to show me some proof of Constitutional Rights being interfered with because I do not see them. Gay marriage should be determined on a state by state basis by vote by the people or the representatives that serve them, because the Constitution grants the states powers for those issues that are not written into the Constitution and I really do not want to see more power granted to the federal government determining what marriage is. When we change constitutional law we must look at it through the eyes of the founding fathers and they would never approve of "Gay MARRIAGE" simply because marriage a ceremony that is religious based in my humble opinion.

Like I stated early I am no bible thumping person so with that said I nor any other person of this world has the right to judge you, that judgement is reserved for God himself. So if anyone is damning you to hell my friend you simply politely recite to them the words of Jesus "he without sin cast the first stone". Once again thank you for the debate and I will await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
SeducedbyPoetry

Pro

Thanks to CC for your timely response. I'd also like to thank you for being so cordial and respectful, despite our differing opinions on this highly divisive issue. Now, since I titled this debate, "Issues Pertaining to Homosexuality", we are free to discuss themes outside of the gay marriage issue, which I fully intend to do in the following rebuttle.

I believe my opponent misunderstood what I'd said in the beginning of my argument. I understand fully and completely why the gay marriage issue has been put on the backburner, so to speak, to the War in Iraq. Most if not all, would agree that the situation in the Middle East is a tragic one; scores of humans are dying every day for what many now consider a questionable and ultimately hopeless cause. The war hits home for me personally; my best friend's brother is currently serving in Iraq. We can only hope for the best.

But that is another issue entirely.

My opponent states that "I still believe that God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim intended marriage to be between a man and a woman". I have heard this position many a time and respect those that want to believe it. But in a country that has separation of church and state, I don't believe that religious belief has a place in creating political legislation that affects peoples' day to day lives. To use Christianity as an example, since I am more familiar with it than say Judaism or Islam, the Bible has many inconsistencies and has been altered so many times over its lengthy existence, which is why I don't take it particularly seriously. For some, it provides a moral code, which is fine for those that see it as such. But what about those of us that are not of any religious affiliation? Why should say, Atheists, be subjected to dogma that supports the existence of an "omnipotent being" that they don't even believe exists?

While I personally believe that something is out there, I distrust organized religion based on the way it has been used over the centuries by so many to deliberately harm others. I need not remind my opponent or those that are reading this debate of the hypocrisy that exists in so many religious institutions. Priests and rabbis will tell their congregations not to do one thing, while they practice it behind closed doors themselves. Disgraced former Evangelical preacher Ted Haggard, who once spoke so adamantly against homosexuality and basically referred to us as hell bound, second class citizens, is a perfect example. Indeed the biblical saying that my opponent quoted at the end of his argument, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is applicable here.

My opponent claims he is neutral to civil unions which more or less offer the same benefits that marriage does, without specifically being called marriage. If we were to toss the "God does not intend gays to marry" argument aside, what other reason is there to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry? Civil unions may be SIMILAR to marriage, but they are NOT in fact marriages, which to myself and many others, reeks of inequality and suggests, yet again, that gays and lesbians are second class citizens- underserved of what heterosexuals can enjoy without impediment.

CC said that he often gets annoyed when people introduce themselves as gay, as if that is the only thing that defines them as human beings. It doesn't quite "annoy me" but I can somewhat understand his stance. My bisexuality is a part of me, but it is not ALL of Spencer. Now as far as "advertising" sexuality, I am not sure if my opponent is referring to general displays of affection between gays and lesbians or more "celebratory declarations" like the gay pride parades? I will wait till he clarifies to offer my two cents on this issue.

As CC already stated, the United States is quite better off than a lot of countries in the way it deals with homosexual rights; but I still do not think it is quite up to par with many of the European countries. Take Spain for example, which I recently visited for three months. Gay marriage and gay adoption were legalized in 2005 and was supported by an overwhelming 66 percent of the population. Despite pressure from opponents both within the country and of course, the ever vocal Catholic Church, the Spanish government continues to refuse to change the law. As the Spanish leader, President Zapatero stated, "There is no damage to marriage or to the family in allowing two people of the same sex to get married. Rather, these citizens now have the ability to organize their lives according to marital and familial norms and demands. There is no threat to the institution of marriage, but precisely the opposite: this law recognizes and values marriage." I have great respect for the way the Spanish government handled this issue and the vast tolerance of the Spaniards themselves.

There are other political big names that have expressed varying opinions about homosexuality, many of them quite radical. President Bush once tried to introduce a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage nationwide, which, thankfully, never came to fruition. Mitt Romney, one of the candidates for president flat out said that he "didn't want gay marriage OR civil unions," on the basis of his religious convictions alone- something that I find to be quite frightening. John Kerry also opposes gay marriage because of his Catholicism, but says the issue ought to be left at the state level. I would personally love to just see gay marriage legalized nationwide; but in the interest of democracy, and because everyone has such different opinions, its' only fair to allow the citizens of each state to decide. However, this could pose some difficulties; in the Bible belt states, where homosexuality is usually frowned upon, marriage for gays in Texas or Alabama would probably never see the light of day. Those that support gay marriage, as the minority in that part of the country, would likely never stand a chance.

In an ideal world, someone's sexuality would not matter in the workplace, at school or while serving in the armed forces. But in all of these institutions lies discrimination as well. Even people that aren't actually gay get taunted and ridiculed because others suspect that they are. Abuse in all its forms takes place at the office, in schools and who could forget the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy" of the American military. While a straight man or woman raves about their wife or husband, a gay, lesbian or bisexual solider must remain silent lest they get ejected. The same is true of the Boy and Girl Scouts of America; which does not permit any of its members to be homosexual. No surprise there- it's a private corporation that can make its own rules and is rooted in religion. But religious or not, what one's sexuality has to do with their ability to be a good scout or scout leader escapes me completely. Having personal "beef" with homosexuality is one thing, but to actually have a law that intentionally prohibits gays from taking part screams discrimination.

It is important that we all remember that this is a very human topic and therefore highly sensitive. Whatever our individual opinions regarding homosexuality, or any other issue, it is essential that we place ourselves in the shoes of those that may have different takes, if only for the sake of "hearing them out." Whether or not actually doing so would change our opinions would really depend on the kind of individual.

I conclude this post with two questions for my opponent. One- Do you have any gay friends that are aware of your position on this issue? And two- If you were in a relationship with another man, and you both decided that you wanted to marry, would you fight to have your marriage acknowledged nationwide, or simply settle for a Civil Union, which would restrict the recognition of your matrimony to the state you married in?
Conspicuous_Conservative

Con

I would like to first apologize for the length of time it has taken to respond to this topic, I am currently traveling and have very limited time to respond to the discussion. I would like to take this time to once again thank all that are viewing or all that will eventually view and once again wish them a happy and safe new year. Lastly I would like to thank my opponent SeducedbyPoetry for her views on this debate. She has brought up a number of topics that are related to gay and lesbian marriage which further broaden our discussion so I will try and organize this rebuttal to make it as clear and concise as possible.

One of the most misunderstood parts of the US Constitution is the first amendment no where in the first amendment to the US Constitution does it say that we have separation of church and state. The statement that is often misread is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So putting the name of God on money, stating his name in the pledge of allegiance are not violations of the first amendment. Throughout this discussion I will restate the role of religion as it pertains to the first amendment.

In regards to the questions my opponent has asked me so that I do not forget. My opponent asked, "Do you have any gay friends that are aware of your position on this issue"? The second question stated, "If you were in a relationship with another man, and you both decided that you wanted to marry, would you fight to have your marriage acknowledged nationwide, or simply settle for a Civil Union, which would restrict the recognition of your matrimony to the state you married in"?

I do have a number of gay and lesbian friends and large number of bisexual friends that I associate and party with. A number of them are only acquaintances and I do not get really political with and or engage myself in communication outside of the party realm. I do have three closer friends two gay males and one a bisexual female that really no my position on being anti gay marriage but indifferent towards civil unions. The guys do not mind because they are young 19 and 22 and both are to immature or not really interested in settling down with a partner. My female friend on the other hand states that she prefers females but out of pressure from parents she will eventually settle down with a male when the time comes for family and marriage.

I am not a big fan of hypothetical questions simply because the situation that you have given me is something contrary to a lot of my principle believes. Although I do not support gay marriage I will never persecute any person for there choice of a life partner, but to answer your question I would support a cause as long as it is legal and vote and wish for the majority of people to align themselves with what I would like. All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are given to the states and I would find the state or country where I could live my lifestyle most freely and respect the decisions of the masses.
Let me also state the misunderstanding of the public displays of affection. I have no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, religions groups assembling in public that is their God given inalienable right found in the first amendment of the US Constitution pertaining to the right of people to assemble. I do not like watching being no matter what race color or sex making out in public that is my problem with public displays of affection.

I have been a little offended by your statements pertaining to the war, I have served a tour of duty in Egypt and I am currently ready to deploy to Afghanistan. I have heard negative statements about the war being a doomed cause and it will never work but when the media is with us we March through the continent but without any facts the media has portrayed this mission as a lost cause. Please check out these sites before you continue to reiterate the same old media talking points of a doomed war.

The following link shows success of the troop surge in Iraq. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

This link shows the fall of the level of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

For the sake of length I will try and cut this down I didn't realize how long it was getting. I saw that you pointed out Bushes unconstitutional attempt to shoot down gay marriage once and for all and Mitt Romney being anti gay and lesbian rights. I agree with you one hundred percent I personally am voting for Fred Thompson but since Debate.org doesn't put him as a choice as Presidential so my second choice is Mitt Romney. Thompson said he would leave gay marriage for states to vote on as it should be. You stated Don't Ask, Don't Tell as being an unethical law past but you never gave credit to the signing president of that unconstitutional law William Jefferson Clinton. You stated that Europe's government is better towards gay marriage but I do not think that governments should have any rule over gay marriage but the people should vote on it and unfortunately American is not ready to hand over the institution of marriage to gays and lesbians.

In conclusion I am not a fan of hyphenating American, I do not call anyone African-American, Asian-American or Gay and lesbian Americans and we are all Americans no one person is better than another. Maybe because you live in a different region of the US you may not see as much equality as me but here in California I see a lot more tolerance for me a Poly-Racial American and I see tolerance towards homosexual people. Remember the Boy Scouts are private organizations and if they want to practice their organization the way they want. Take care and hope to hear from you soon.
Debate Round No. 2
SeducedbyPoetry

Pro

I will be sure to give the links CC provided regarding the war effort a look, but I am not going to comment too much further on that because the war isn't the theme of this debate. The only thing I will say is that although I am not thrilled about how dramatically the violence has escalated in the Middle East or how many young men and women have died, I hold no grudge against or disdain for the American troops or the troops of our allies. As I said, my best friend's brother was recently deployed to Iraq and I hope with all my heart that he will come back alive. I also wish CC the best of luck for when he goes to Afghanistan.

Now let us return to the topic at hand.

When I debate some of those that are against gay marriage, I notice that once you ask them to put their religious convictions aside, they can come up with no other legitimate justification for barring it. In the cases of many, ignorance and just plan meanness prevents people from opening their minds and hearts to those that are different from them. I am not claiming this is the case with my opponent, as I do not know him personally. Unlike those that I have encountered picketing the gay pride parades, CC has at least expressed genuine interest in hearing my side of the issue and for that I am truly appreciative.

As I have said, I am not a big fan of organized religion as I don't believe it encourages open mindedness and interpretation as much as it indoctrinates people. While they have the right to assemble, it really saddens me to see religious people showing up at gay events with signs saying, "Repent, put an end to your sinful lifestyle" as if my sexuality is something I can consciously change like a hairstyle or an outfit. Many credible scientific reports that have come out are showing that a person's sexuality is inalterable; something that is part of their genetic blueprint for their entire lives. People that claim to have "changed" their sexuality, through say, counseling, often find that deep down, they are miserable and unfulfilled. They are living according to how OTHERS think they should live, instead of pursuing what their minds, hearts and souls truly want.

Make no mistake, there are many more people who are gay or lesbian but are forced to keep it under wraps due to societal constraints. I think my opponent offered a perfect and quite telling example when he mentioned his female bisexual friend who stated that, "while she prefers females, she will eventually settle down with a male when the time comes for family and marriage." This is why I feel tolerance is so very important. If people were more understanding and less critical, there would be no need to feel pressured
to HAVE to settle down with the opposite sex. Granted, the girl is a bisexual- so she can go either way. But I hope that regardless of who she ultimately winds up with, she will do it because it is what SHE feels in her heart to be right.

This segways into gay families; a topic I briefly touched on in my last post. A dear friend of mine was raised almost all of her life by her gay father and his boyfriend (Note : I refuse to use the term ‘partner' because they are a loving couple, not a business duo, though some don't seem to mind that terminology). Although some might claim that children from gay families will grow up to be dysfunctional, unproductive and confused, my friend is the complete antithesis. She is a down to earth, intellectual and entirely free thinking individual who knows what she wants out of life. One need not necessarily have a maternal and paternal influence at home in order to thrive in the outside world. What is needed most in ANY kind of family, gay or straight, is love and support.

My opponent said he is not a fan of hypothetical questions because the ones I posed to him do not run concurrently with his personal beliefs. But is that not the purpose of hypothetical questions? To force us, if only for a moment, to step out of that which is comfortable for us and put ourselves in the shoes of others? Perhaps the real reason why my opponent initially hesitated to respond to my questions was because not only do they conflict with his personal convictions, but maybe he'd realize for himself just how unfair banning gays and lesbians from marrying truly is.

America, by its own constitution is NOT meant to "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens or deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law." And what legal precedent is there for barring gay marriages? To use an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment that I found on www.religioustolerance.org, "If same sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgement of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States; a deprivation of liberty and prosperity. Plainly, it is discriminatory and the Fourteenth article clearly states that selective granting of privileges is not allowed in the United States."

I am aware that Bill Clinton enacted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that continues to exist in the military. He also proposed "The Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) in the early nineties. But I am not sure if either of these came about due to a kind of homophobia on Clinton's part, or if they were moves of political tact and strategy. And in regards to the Boy and Girl Scouts, they can enact whatever policies they so choose as a privately run and funded organization- something that both CC and I have acknowledged. Personally, I have no respect for such blatantly exclusive policies in ANY organization, privately maintained or not.

My opponent and I see somewhat eye to eye on the issue of public displays of affection; be they between gay or straight couples. I don't NEED to see two people giving one another a tonsil inspection in front of my face, but when it happens (and it has), I usually ignore it and go on about my business. There are far more important things to get alarmed about.

Thank You to all for reading. Happy New Year to everybody!!!
Conspicuous_Conservative

Con

It is the last round of the debate and I am sad to see it go because I feel that my opponent doesn't understand that I am not making this a religious debate to combat her rights I only feel that religion has to do with the sanctity of marriage.

You stated that I didn't answer your hypothetical question because I was scared that I may realize that I would be gay and instantly be the Martin Luther King Jr. and organize million man marches to make marriages legal. I didn't answer question the way you wanted to hear it. I am strongly against abortion and I would never be a part of the operation but I will not go out to abortion clinics and protest or threaten the women and doctors of the clinics. I am against gay Marriage but I will not go to gay pride demonstrations which are often peaceful and festive and be a party pooper. I hate the fact that I have to pay so many taxes in the state of California but I am not going to organize hateful demonstrations to persuade the minds of people. So if i where gay what would make you think that I would go out there and take to the picket line and try and force my views on other people.

You accuse the Church of being closed minded and not giving people the right to live their lives. I feel as if the gay movement has try to give more power to the government that right now controls much more of our lives then we really need. In the constitution it clearly states that all powers that are not specifically issued to the federal government is left to the states to decide. So I do not want to see an amendment banning gay marriage nor do I want to see an amendment making it legal. The people have voted across the nation and gay marriage has been shot down numerous times. Honestly I feel bad that you are unhappy but whether you believe in religion or not marriage is still defined as between a man or a women if not for God for the continuation of the species.

The United States is a constitutional republic and often the masses get to vote on issues. In the event that Gay marriage because Law I might be happy because for many Gay Americans it seems to be the only issue driving them. We must look past this issue because the fact is I do not see Gays being hung from trees on a regular basis as the African- Americans where during the early years into the civil rights era of American history. I do not see the land of Gays being seized by White Americans like the land that was taking from the early Native Americans and I do not see Gays being barred from the ballot box like women where, frankly gays are not treated like second class citizens many use this plea to gain sympathy, my opponent has put up some good points but she is unable to detach herself emotionally from this issue to look at the best interest of the nation please do not vote for my oppent simply because you support gay marriage and do not vote for me siimply because I oppose it look into your heart and mind and see which truly makes sense for the majority of Americans. Thank you seduced I wish you the best of luck in school, work and love.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Conspicuous_Conservative 9 years ago
Conspicuous_Conservative
Can't really generalize without facts so on the site it appears that the most interesting things are television or sports.
Posted by SeducedbyPoetry 9 years ago
SeducedbyPoetry
Troubling? You mean on this site or in the world in general?
Posted by Conspicuous_Conservative 9 years ago
Conspicuous_Conservative
It is do to the fact that there are much more troubling events going on. Good luck for the remaining debates
Posted by SeducedbyPoetry 9 years ago
SeducedbyPoetry
Folks are quiet about this debate! LOL
Posted by Conspicuous_Conservative 9 years ago
Conspicuous_Conservative
We all must remember this is not the early days of colonialism, and gays are not being oppressed like African-Americans or Native-Americans where. The image of gays being the some poor helpless underclass is one that is only portrayed by the advacates and supporters of gay rights. I feel that by feeling sorry for people in this manner refering to themselves as second class citizens is the most prejudice thing to do, as I stated in the debate I have friends that are gay lesbian and bisexual and my friends do not put themselves down but instead are proud. Thanks for all your involvement in the debate.
Posted by Conspicuous_Conservative 9 years ago
Conspicuous_Conservative
mmadderom has hit the nail on the head I too spoke of the fact that seperation of church and state is simply a popular term that doesn't really exist, It is also true that gay marriage is a very import issue to a minority of people in our system rules laws and regulations are made to protect the greates number of people, so in a world that is becoming so much more politically correct I feel that we must vote for the laws and rules that satisfy a majority.

Now I for no means condone nor do I compare gay relationships to my following example but please think outside the box for a minute why even in a consenting relationship are 18 year old males unable to have meaniful relationships with girls they love that are under aged, if they too are in love is it our right to be in the way of their relationship. Emotion can be a good thing in an argument because it shows you care and provides a spark of inspiration for the masses but one must remove there self from there emotions at times to come to the most logical conclusion. I am not an advacate nor am I going to through an endorsement for gay marriage but if it is law in any state I will except and support the decision of the vote and that is the attitude that should be supported nationwide
Posted by SeducedbyPoetry 9 years ago
SeducedbyPoetry
Why is the government supporting it so important to me? For the same reason it might be important to anybody else!

I want full and legal recognition not just in the state I marry my girlfriend, but nationwide. It is something I feel compelled to fight for and who knows, maybe one day the majority of the people will realize that my marrying a woman, or a man marrying a man, will have NO impact whatsoever on heterosexual marriages. Heterosexuals will still go right on marrying and divorcing- business as usual.

Gays have been and always will be the minority- and therefore will never pose any threat or impediment to future generations. Frankly, I don't see mankind dying out anytime soon with all the children we have in the world.

The Church may have claimed to have invented marriage, but in fact, people were conducting marriage ceremonies LONG before the Christian God came into play. The ancient Romans and Greeks for example, who were largely pagan, obviously did not use the Christian God in their ceremonies. So while marriage might hold significance of a religious sort for some people (in this case, a Christian one)it does not for others and shouldn't have to be. I believe personally, that marriage owes its invention first and foremost to human beings more so than anything else.

I never got a chance to thank my opponent for his debate. There are clearly some issues on which we will never agree, but that is fine. Thanks to all for viewing and commenting.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"I have heard this position many a time and respect those that want to believe it. But in a country that has separation of church"

Stop there. We do NOT have separation of church and state. What we have is the establishment clause which states Congress shall not establish any religion. It was and is to protect the freedom of practicing your religion, it was NOT to keep religion away from Government.

Before stating my position on Gay marriage I have a question why the Government supporting it is so important to you? Marriage itself is a decidedly religious ceremony. The Church INVENTED marriage, the Governments only recognize it. So why is it so important?
Posted by SeducedbyPoetry 9 years ago
SeducedbyPoetry
Hey Brian

LOL! My mother owns a travel agency and that is the kind of salary she makes :)
Posted by BrianFranklin 9 years ago
BrianFranklin
SeducedbyPoetry, do you really make $100,001 to $150,000 salary?

It's hard to believe...I am just curious what do you do as a 20-yr old girl?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SeducedbyPoetry 9 years ago
SeducedbyPoetry
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BrianFranklin 9 years ago
BrianFranklin
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bella214 9 years ago
bella214
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Raisor 9 years ago
Raisor
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
SeducedbyPoetryConspicuous_ConservativeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03