The Instigator
burningpuppies101
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Lightkeeper
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

It should be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender.

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 6 votes the winner is...
burningpuppies101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,430 times Debate No: 5509
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (6)

 

burningpuppies101

Pro

Ok, I'm just going to start my debate, and hope you all vote on the arguments, not the debaters of these rounds. Thank you.

Before I state my arguments, I feel compelled to state a little context over which this debate will be held. I'll start by defining the topic using Merriam Webster:
LEGAL:
1: of or relating to law
2 a: deriving authority from or founded on law : de jure b: having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : titular c: established by law ; especially : statutory
3: conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
4: recognized or made effective by a court of law as distinguished from a court of equity
5: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the profession of law or of one of its members
6: created by the constructions of the law

NON-RELIGIOUS: take the following definition and use the opposite
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent , zealous

HOMOSEXUALS:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

MARRY:
1 a: to join in marriage according to law or custom b: to give in marriage c: to take as spouse : wed d: to perform the ceremony of marriage for e: to obtain by marriage
2: to unite in close and usually permanent relation
intransitive verb
1: to take a spouse : wed
2: combine , unite
�€" marry into : to become a member of by marriage

PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER: I'm not going to define this, since I think you all know what I mean.

MARRIAGE:
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

Let us assume that for this debate, we are talking about people in the United States marrying people in the United States.

Contention 1:
Homosexual people are equal in every way except that they prefer to love a person of the same gender. There is nothing inherently wrong in who they love. Why should we be allowed to control them. Homosexuals to not protest heterosexual marriages. Why should we protest theirs?

Contention 2:
Freedom of Expression. When you are marrying someone, you are expressing you love and compassion for them. If you look at the definition of marriage above, only one part of it mentioned people of different genders. However, if you look at the definition, there is a "or." In other words, having 2 people be a different gender is not important.

Contention 3:
Religion has nothing to do with this debate, so don't bring it up. Also, if my opponent is going to try to argue that marriage is a institution of the church, again, look to the definitions.

Contention 4:
Having children should not be a requirement for a marriage. Many couples get married and do not have children, even if it is male-female. Even so, homosexual couples can have children if they so wish. Modern technology is such that you do not have to use traditional ways to have children.

Contention 5:
If the homosexual couples do indeed have children, but cannot marry, what kind of message are you sending the children? If Mommie and Mommie really do love each other, why aren't they married??? You have to see this in the eyes of a child. Do you really think that a child will understand the fact that to government(only a distant thing in their minds) is not letting their parents get married, even though they love each other??? Clearly, there is something wrong with that.

I'll stop here and let my opponent answer the arguments above.
However, I do not want this debate to turn into a debate about the semantics of the topic. You all know what I am talking about. DON'T TURN THIS INTO A SEMANTICS DEBATE.
Lightkeeper

Con

I thank my opponent for an opportunity to argue this subject.

The resolution for me to disprove is as follows:
"It should be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender."

*SCOPE OF THE DEBATE*

Although my opponent has defined the term "legal", I find that the definition is too broad to precisely convey the meaning of my opponent's contention. On the face of it, there are two possible meanings.

1) Customary marriage between non-religious homoesexuals and people of the same gender should not be penalised by law;
2) The law should allow and in fact sanction the existence of a marriage between non-religious homosexuals and people of the same gender.

The differnce between these two contentions is that the former involves the lack prohibition by law of the said marriages while the latter involves a recognition by law of marriages between non-religious homosexuals and persons of the same gender. By extension, the latter proposition would also mean that such individuals could legally get married by a properly authorised civil celebrant operating under the legislation of the State in question.

For the purposes of this debate, I understand that it is the latter (second) contention that my opponent seeks to prove. I have made that conclusion based on the entirety of his argument.

*COUNTER-ARGUMENT*

Having said all of the above, I am opposed to either of the two contentions.

The proposition (in either of the two abovementioned forms) as it stands cannot be sustained as it is unfair, discriminatory and against the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

1. The First Amendment prohibits the State (or the United States) from discriminating on the grounds of religion. Any law allowing "non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender" would in itself be discriminatory on the grounds of religion and therefore would offend against the First Amendment.

An observant critic might at this point argue that the Constitution should or could be amended so as to allow the passage of the law proposed by my opponent. Naturally I would be equally opposed to that course. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in today's society and discrimination against religious homosexuals in favour of non-religious homosexuals would be in breach of that very important, fundamental principle of natural justice.

My opponet's own argument is centred around the premise of equality and fairness. He argues that homosexual people are "equal in every aspect" (Contention 1). Arguably therefore a dfferential legal treatment of homosexuals based on their religious beliefs would be against that very contention. It would have the result that homosexuals are not treated in an equal manner with heterosexuals, since heterosexuals are legally allowed to marry irrespective of their religious beliefs.

2. The proposition cannot be sustained as it proposes the passage of a law that would be unfair and discriminatory in nature as it would discriminate against people who are heterosexual and bisexual. While some might think that a heterosexual person might not have a desire to marry a person of the same gender, their supposed wishes are a matter for their own conscience and should not give rise to legal prohibition/discrimination at law. This goes even further when the argument is extended to bisexual people. Bisexual people are those who are sexually and emotionally attracted to people of both genders. To discriminate against them in favour of homsexuals would be unfair and would constitute a denial of natural justice.

Indeed, such discrimination would fly in the face of my opponent's own contention that homosexuals are "equal in every aspect" (Contention 1). If, as my opponent claims, they are equal in every aspect then any proposition that they deserve better (as opposed to equal) treatment by law than bisexuals and heterosexuals simply could not stand and would contradict the very basis of my opponent's own argument.

For the above reasons I am opposed to any such legislation as that proposed by my opponent's resolution.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
burningpuppies101

Pro

Thanks for the prompt response.

First off, I just want to say that the main example for religious people will be Christians, since they make up most of the USA's population, so they would reflect the religious population the most, since they are the majority.

I'll accept that definition for legal as the second definition you posted.

REBUTTALS:
1. You are making an assumption that at the same time of me saying that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed to marry people of the same gender, I am at the same time saying that religious homo/heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry people of the same gender. I am not. I am merely saying that non-religious homosexuals (one group of people) should be given the right to marry people of the same gender. Whether or not religious homosexuals or heterosexuals should be allowed to marry people of the same gender is a different debate. You have made an incorrect assumption, so in reality, I am not going against the First Amendment. Just because I only want to make this debate about a certain group of people does not mean that I am discriminating against another.

2. Again, look above for my rebuttal.

My Arguments:
My opponent has not refuted any of my above contentions from my first speech, so you can extend them here. Here they are again, rehashed.

1. Homosexual people are the same as heterosexuals, except the want to spend the rest of their life with another person of the same gender.

2. When someone marries another, they are expressing their love. Same for homosexual people. 1st amendment.

3. Well, this was just a clarification really, but you get the point.

4. One might say for the opposition that because homosexual people cannot have children naturally, they shouldn't be allowed to marry, but modern technology has shown that you don't need to conceive in traditional fashion.

5. If a homosexual couple has children, but is not allowed to marry, you could give your child the wrong impression. I child will not understand that even though Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad love each other, they cannot get married. For a child, the ultimate expression of love is through marriage. What message are you sending the kid?

So in the end, my opponent has not given any arguments to show why it should not be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. That is what my opponent has to prove. All he has done is attack my arguments with assumptions.

He has also not refuted any of my arguments.

Thank you
Lightkeeper

Con

My opponent alleges that I have made assumptions about his resolution.

He now appears to be saying that his resolution seeks to advocate on behalf of all people and not merely of non-religious homosexuals.

Let us consider that.
The resolution seeks the legalisation of a certain type of marriage in the USA.
At present such marriages are not uniformly legal in the USA. In fact, they are only legal in 4 states.
Thus the resolution can be restated as "the law should be changed so as to allow non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender in the USA".
It is perfectly clear that by changing the law in the manner proposed by my opponent a discriminatory outcome would result.
If my opponent wanted to resolve "same sex marriages should be legal in the USA" he would have done exactly that.
Let us consider an example.
I resolve "white heterosexual males should pay 50 percent less tax in Spain".
To support that resolution I contend that people pay too much tax and many are struggling as a result.
Would anyone be blamed for challenging the above resolution on the grounds of prejudice? Of course not. Taking my opponent's line I would then argue that I'm really trying to resolve that all people everywhere should pay less tax and since white heterosexual males in Spain are a subset of all people everywhere that resolution necessarily would extend to them. The question immediately arises "why did I not say so in the first place?"

It must be noted that my opponent appears to be a person of high intellect. He is also thorough. He included definitions for nearly every concept in the debate. And yet he claims that when saying that non-religious homosexuals should be able to marry people of the same sex he really meant to say that same sex marriage should be legal for everyone. That simply cannot be sustained.

He now says that I never addressed his argument. To the contrary. I have specifically shown that his argument does not support his resolution. His contention 1 directly contradicts his resolution as presently stated.

Could it be that he is simply unhappy with my constitutional challenge and now seeks to redefine the scope of his resolution?

Indeed, in his 2nd post he has done just that. He has restated his resolution to now say "it should be legal for non-CHRISTIAN homosexuals to marry persons of the same gender". He seeks to justify that on the basis that Christians constitute the majority of religious people in the usa.

It is clear that my opponent is shifting the proverbal goal posts while the ball is already in flight.

My opponent contends that the issues have nothing to do with religion. The question then springs to mind as to why he included religion in his very resolution. And why he subsequently sought to further narrow that down to apply only to Christians.

One last note. My opponent did specifically say that he does not wish to have a semantic argument. I respectfully say that this is not a semantic argument. His resolution was stated clearly. There are no issues with any of the definitions. There is however a very real and substantial difference between his stated resolution and that which he now says he seeks to prove.

Finally I will point out for clarity. I have no obligation to refute any specific contentions put by my opponent. It is enough for me to say that they do not support his resolution and that indeed is what I have done.
Debate Round No. 2
burningpuppies101

Pro

This is the last round of debate, so I want to thank my opponent beforehand for this debate.

Again, let me say what I said again. I am advocating that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed under law to marry people of the same gender. However, I am not advocating that everyone else cannot marry people of the same gender. Again, you are making assumptions.

At present such marriages are not uniformly legal in the USA. In fact, they are only legal in 4 states.
Thus the resolution can be restated as "the law should be changed so as to allow non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender in the USA".
It is perfectly clear that by changing the law in the manner proposed by my opponent a discriminatory outcome would result.
If my opponent wanted to resolve "same sex marriages should be legal in the USA" he would have done exactly that.
Let us consider an example.
I resolve "white heterosexual males should pay 50 percent less tax in Spain".
To support that resolution I contend that people pay too much tax and many are struggling as a result.
Would anyone be blamed for challenging the above resolution on the grounds of prejudice? Of course not. Taking my opponent's line I would then argue that I'm really trying to resolve that all people everywhere should pay less tax and since white heterosexual males in Spain are a subset of all people everywhere that resolution necessarily would extend to them. The question immediately arises "why did I not say so in the first place?">
To answer your question, the reason I limited this debate to be about non-religious homosexuals is because I did not want to debate about all the other groups. This is a debate. We are not passing legislation. Yes, if we were Congress and debating about whether or not to make this a law, then yes, your arguments would apply. However, we are not. We are 2 people on a computer typing about why we think a certain thing should happen. Therefore, because we are not Congress, then your arguments about discrimination do not apply. I hope you understand what I am saying. You are arguing that I am advocating a discriminatory law. However, we are not putting the result of this debate into effect, so even though I only choose to debate about one group of people, I am not discriminating against the other group.

Thank you! You are too.

I am not making that claim. I agree, making that claim would not make sense. I am making the claim that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed to marry people of the same gender. I am not making the claim that all people should be allowed to marry people of the same gender. However, I am also not making the claim that all people should not be allowed to marry people of the same gender except for non-religious homosexuals.

And now I have shown that you are wrong.

Yes, I'll admit it. I did not like the constitutional challenge, but I am not redefining the scope of the resolution.

Ok, you ask about why I asked to limit it to Christians. That is because Christians represent the majority of people in the USA, so it would make a lot of sense to say that when we talk about religious people, we are talking about the majority of people, not the minority. It makes more sense to talk about Christians than it does to talk about Ekantkar. However, this doesn't matter, as you will see soon.

CONCLUSION:
Throughout this entire debate, my opponent has made claim after claim about me not arguing the topic. He claims that I am discriminatory, and upon that claim, makes his whole argument that because of that, he wins. However, first, he has not shown why it should not be legal for non-religious homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. He has not advanced a single argument saying to. As the con, that is his job; to negate the topic. All he has done is make a claim about my arguments that I have proven false. Therefore, I have won this debate. My opponent is not allowed to present any new arguments in this last round, as that would be against the rules of debate, and any arguments that he does put forward, you, the audience, must disregard. Because my opponent has not presented any arguments to forward his case, which is just that everything I say does not argue the topic (which again, I have proven wrong).

Also, my opponent has not refuted any of my points in any meaningful fashion, so I win this debate, since my points have not been refuted and proven wrong, so all of them can be extended to here:
1. Homosexual people are the same as heterosexuals, except the want to spend the rest of their life with another person of the same gender.

2. When someone marries another, they are expressing their love. Same for homosexual people. 1st amendment.

3. Well, this was just a clarification really, but you get the point.

4. One might say for the opposition that because homosexual people cannot have children naturally, they shouldn't be allowed to marry, but modern technology has shown that you don't need to conceive in traditional fashion.

5. If a homosexual couple has children, but is not allowed to marry, you could give your child the wrong impression. I child will not understand that even though Mom and Mom or Dad and Dad love each other, they cannot get married. For a child, the ultimate expression of love is through marriage. What message are you sending the kid?

Thank you
Lightkeeper

Con

Equally, I thank my opponent for the debate.

On the face of it, this debate may appear difficult to follow as much has been said in a fairly convoluted manner (by myself, I might add).

To assist the observer/voter, I will now run a brief chronology of the debate:

1. My opponent makes the resolution and argument in support.
2. I reply in round 1. My response does not address my opponent's contentions on their merit. Rather, I challenge the Resolution itself by alleging that the proposed legal change would be unfair and unconstitutional.
3. My opponent replies (round 2) and confirms that his Resolution is in fact limited to non-religious homosexuals. He further contends that he is not opposed to legal changes that would allow religious homosexuals to marry persons of the same gender. He also attempts to change the Resolution by redefining "non-religious" to mean "non-christian". He again reiterates the contentions in support of his argument and emphasies (quite rightly) that I have not addressed any of them.
4. I reply (round 2). One might say that this is where the proverbial hits the fan. It is at this point that I attack my opponent for allegedly attempting to redefine his Resolution. I contend in round 2 (completely wrongly!) that my opponent now wishes to broaden the scope of his Resolution to now apply to same sex marriage generally. By doing this I effectively waste a round (well, my part of the round anyway).
5. Within 30 minutes of posting my round 2, I realise that I have mistook my opponent's round 2 argument and I post a comment. In that comment I apologise for the mistake and invite my opponent not to bother addressing my argument to the extent to which it is based on a mistaken view of his round 2. This was a concession made by me to assist my opponent and the audience and to save my opponent the work of having to rebutt that which I myself agree was wrong. It was not a withdrawal of what I said. Once said, it cannot be unsaid. It was simply a concession "part of what I said was wrong, you don't need to show it because I concede it".
6. My opponent then makes his own mistake by (for some reason) thinking that I am conceding that I have misunderstood his FIRST round argument. He then asserts (incorrectly) that I am trying to change my argument half way. He further claims that I am not allowed to change my argument. He then asks voters to completely disregard EVERYTHING I have said in the ENTIRE DEBATE.
7. My opponent posts his round 3 argument.

MERIT VERSUS RESOLUTION
My opponent appears to be saying that I have an obligation to attack his resolution based on the merits of his contentions stated in support thereof. I strongly disagree with that. I am entitled to attack his resolution on any grounds I choose. In the end if voters are not satisfied that I have successfully attacked his argument then they will not vote for me.

THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
My contention is, and always has been, that my opponent proposes a change to law to allow non-religious homosexuals to marry persons of the same gender.
I contend that he has not refuted that proposition. In fact, he has supported it in round 3 ("I am advocating that non-religious homosexuals should be allowed under law to marry people of the same gender").
He goes on to say "However, I am not advocating that everyone else cannot marry people of the same gender".

It should then be accepted that he is not setting out to advocate a law prohibiting religious homosexuals from marrying people of the same gender. Nor is he opposed to a braoder law. Indeed, I was never suggesting that my opponent is being intentionally biased. What I was (and am) suggesting, however, is that the resolution as it stands proposes the introduction of legislation that, due to its narrow scope, would by its very nature be unfair and unconsitutional.

He says that he chose to argue for non-religious (now non-christian) homosexuals. He says that the issue of religious (now christian) homosexuals is an issue for another debate.

In effect he is therefore saying "today I will argue that non-christian homosexuals should have the legal right to marry people of the same sex. It has nothing to do with religion but my argument is limited to non-christians. Tomorrow we can argue whether Christian homosexuals should be extended the same rights as non-Christians ones should". The question that comes to mind is WHY. WHY my opponent chooses to make that distinction. Clearly if he believed that religion and law are indeed separate things (as per the First Amendment), his Resolution would not be so narrow as to only apply to non-Christians.

This is tantamount to me saying "Today I will debate that white christian women should have the right to abortion. We can debate Afro-American women's rights to abortion another time. Not that I'm saying that Afro-American women should not have that right".

Peculiar as it is, this is not in itself a reason to reject my opponent's argument. He is entitled to hold views that tend to discriminate on the basis of religion.

He is correct that wer are not Congress. He is correct that we are two people sitting at computers. Does that make a difference? His resolution is about making something legal. It's about making a law. Of course, he can't make that law (althogh, in Australia at least, any citizen can introduce what's known as a Private Bill... however my opponent is apparently a minor and would not be able to in any event). Given that the resolution implicitly but quite clearly states that a law should be made (to at least amend current laws), the entire debate is about the introduction of a law. A law that will allow non-Christian homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. A law that would be unfair and unconstitutional.

One might find it interesting that my opponent's contentions (round 1) do not address the "non-Christian" part of his resolution. Why he chose to propose such narrow a resolution and why he chose not to argue that part of it is a question that remains unanswered. I suspect that he was worried that his opponent might be a fundamental Christian and would argue religion. Of course that would give my opponent an opportunity to run a First Amendment argument. All of this is moot and I may be incorrect in my assumption as to the reasoning behind the mystery.

My final submission is as follows:
Congress or not, discriminatory intentions or not, opposition to a broader law or not, the position remains the same. Pro has resolved to change the law to allow non-Christian homosexuals to marry people of the same gender. That's the beginning of it and that's really where it ends. Such a law as that proposed by my opponent cannot be sustained as it would discriminate against christians, bi-sexuals and heterosexuals. It would be unfair and unconstitutional.

My submission is therefore that you should vote Con.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
padfo0t, only u and i get the joke... just stop.
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
no, I swear, really
Posted by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
heehee
I'm Christian and atheist.
heehee
Posted by phatso86 8 years ago
phatso86
i still dont see why the instigater still tries to defend his logic

maybe if the "non-religious" part was left out, the debate would have been a bit more meaningful
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
You see, even if the comment HAD been posted after your reply, it was clear that my round 2 had that error in it and it wasn't very hard for you to address that. But I do know when I posted the comment and why I posted it. Read it again. I was just trying to say "I got that bit wrong and I apologise and please disregard it because there's no point arguing about something that I admit I got wrong"....
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
With respect, I am not suggesting you are being discriminatory. I have showed that your resolution was unfair and unconstitutional.
As for the timeline, I know when I posted the comment and I know it was before you posted your response. Perhaps you didn't notice it, I don't know. Not that it matters anyway :)
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
i just read my opponents final speech. he continues to argue that I am being discriminatory. I proved that i was not. i supported my narrow topic with good reasoning. my opponent continued to attack me, without justification. y am i losing? also, may i note that my opponent got the timeline wrong. he did not post any of his comments until AFTER i had posted my last argument. my opponent has misstated what actually happened, and therefore the rest of the timeline presented by him should be reconsidered.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
y am i losing? I'm sorry, but I believe that I debated this one well enough that I should be able to at least not be losing by such a large margin... could someone enlighten me?
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
yea, i guess i am contradicting myself.... o well.... lol
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Haha what a contradiction. First you say I'm stopping you because I'm taking my sweet time, then you say you can't start one up because you can't think of a topic.

I have a few topics I will be posting soon. Might challenge you to one of them :)
But we have to finish this thing first because you can (I think) only have one debate with the same person at any one time.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Riddick 8 years ago
Riddick
burningpuppies101LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sdcharger 8 years ago
sdcharger
burningpuppies101LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
burningpuppies101LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
burningpuppies101LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
burningpuppies101LightkeeperTied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
burningpuppies101LightkeeperTied
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