The Instigator
YaHey
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points
The Contender
JasperFrancisShickadance
Con (against)
Losing
56 Points

Legalize Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 22 votes the winner is...
YaHey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,299 times Debate No: 58635
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (54)
Votes (22)

 

YaHey

Pro

I have seen that you take opposition to gay marriage, and I would like to challenge you on that. The first round is for accepting.

Thanks, and I can't wait to debate you.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

I accept, by taking the position of being against gay marriage, and look forward to the opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
YaHey

Pro

While my strong point in this debate is most likely to my rebuttals, I can also offer reasoning as to why gay people should be allowed to be married.

Let me first say that marriage is not a right owned by any religion, because any (straight) person of any religion, or even a person with no religion, is allowed to be married. Marriage is also not for children. This is proven in the fact that people that cannot have children and people that do not want children are still permitted to marry.

Gay couples help with abandoned children. Gay couples are not able to have a child through each other, and so must turn to another source for a child. "Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents. An estimated 65,500 adopted American children are living with a lesbian or gay parent."
http://www.pbs.org...

An argument could and has been made that children in gay homes suffer from that, but it simply isn't true. ""Consistently, over the past three decades, researchers have found that the daughters and sons of same-sex parents are psychologically well-adjusted. And now our new data demonstrate that 17-year-olds raised from birth by lesbian mothers are as happy as their peers," said lead author Loes van Gelderen, MSc, University of Amsterdam."
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

Even if gay couples are bad for children, it isn't very important to the discussion of whether or not they can get married. Most states already allow gay couples to adopt. "Currently Florida is the only state that bans adoption by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Some states, such as Mississippi, allow a man or woman to adopt alone but will not allow second-parent adoption by a same gender partner. The state of Utah prevents any unmarried couples from adopting."
http://www.pbs.org...
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Marriage man not be owned by religions' morals, but the minority of people should not own the definition of marriage, either. In other words, when a certain amount of people decided same genders should be able to marry because of "love," that doesn't mean the whole country (America) should take on the culture of gay marriage and be forced to believe it's moral because it's what marriage is.

Due to your statement and out of respect for others opinions, I will try to not let religion get in the way of my arguments. But before I carry through with that statement, I'd like to say that I believe God, who is our Creator, specifically and strongly says in his Word that marriage is only for man and woman. This is the only way for reproduction and it is balanced for the kids of different genders.

"Gay couples help with abandoned children." I will give ten reasons why same-sex couples aren't good for abandoned children. [1]

1. Children hunger for their biological parents. Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: "Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.

2. Children need fathers. What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.

3. Children need mothers. Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence.

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate. A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems.

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

10. Women and marriage domesticate men. Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home. [1]

"17 year old daughters of lesbians are happy as their peers"? This is a matter of opinion and should not even be an argument because 'happy' does not explain their childhood growing up with two parents of the same gender.

Again, the definition of marriage would be changed to go from 'pro-reproduction marriage' to 'hey, if you love him/her, marry him/her!'

Thank you, and I conclude my round.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 2
YaHey

Pro

"Marriage man not be owned by religions' morals, but the minority of people should not own the definition of marriage, either." There is a large difference between owning a definition and being included in it. One example that comes to mind, and I know it is one often used, is slavery. Did African Americans "own" the definition of being a person when slavery was outlawed? I think we can all agree that is an unfair statement.

"In other words, when a certain amount of people decided same genders should be able to marry because of "love," that doesn't mean the whole country (America) should take on the culture of gay marriage and be forced to believe it's moral because it's what marriage is." Actually, a majority of people in America are in favor of the legalization of gay marriage. It seems the minority (albeit a close one) is controlling the definition.
http://www.gallup.com...;

In response to point one: What it sounds like is that this also happens for single parents and adopted kids, yet no one is advocating that single mothers can't raise their kid, and that couples can't adopt. Also, gay and lesbian couples aren't the only partners to use IVF. Men and women that are infertile can use IVF to have children of their own.

In response to point two: I would like to use this opportunity to point out something important. You admit later on in your response that the effects of homosexual couples on children is still a gray area, yet you are making a lot of definitive statements. Another thing, there isn't a single source (in the article she is getting these from) that isn't at least 10 years old. If this is such a gray area, are these sources still even credible?

"The 2013 teen birth rate indicates a decline of ten percent from 2012 when the birth rate was 29.4 per 1,000." Obviously teen birth problems aren't a huge problem, and can be lowered still by actually educating kids.
http://www.hhs.gov...

In response to point three: Another reoccuring thing in this response is a sort of defense of gender roles. A male can be just as supportive emotionally as a mother. Sure, a mother can help with the understanding of going through puberty, but any health class (if they are actually doing a good job) can teach what is happening.

In response to point four: If the area is one that we don't have a full grasp on, how can you make such diffinitive statements against it?

In response to point five: What you are excluding from that section is this: "Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy...". Again, the evidence isn't clear yet you are free to draw up conclusions. Besides, I dislike the use of the word "disorder", like masculine women or effeminate men are "wrong." Gender is completely separate from sex. Sex is the physical anatomy you were born with, either male or female. However, gender is whatever group you feel most comfortable in, and there are a lot to name. In Indonesia, there are five genders, so obviously the world isn't so unanimous on the Western concept of genders and their roles in society.
http://www.myhusbandbetty.com...

In response to point six: This looks to be a sort of slippery slope argument. "If we let the gay men marry, then everyone will be having sex even if they are married, and the world will burn and everyone will die." Notice, in the article, that lesbian women in civil unions also value sexual fidelity in marriage.

In response to point seven: I thought I demonstrated that marriage isn't to have kids. People that do not want or can not have children are still allowed to get married. Oh, and here is a little fact for you. "Last month's news that the majority of births to American women under 30 now occur outside of marriage..."
http://www.slate.com...

In response to point 8: What is not included in you statement: "It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage...". Or, to put it in layman's terms: "If we let gay people marry, then everyone will just be having sex left and right with no concern for the children. Then the nuclear bombs will have to be detonated to stop everyone from having sex and the world will end."

In response to point 9: These sources are from 2002 and 2004, ten years ago. One family can hardly live of minimum wage. What do you think will happen when we take that to one parent living off minimum wage. And what about men with physical disabilities? From the article: "For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income." I really don't believe that, and here is why. No one is forcing women to work. For a long time, women couldn't work even when they wanted to. Something changed that thinking, and I don't think it was the guys doing it.

In response to point 10: What I see here is that you only talk about how MARRIAGE does this to men, not how it is marriage to women. And for those of you that haven't looked at the article, this is what is missing: "...it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does."

"Again, the definition of marriage would be changed to go from 'pro-reproduction marriage' to 'hey, if you love him/her, marry him/her!'" I am sorry to disappoint you, but that seems to already be the definition.

mar·riage noun \G2;mer-ij, G2;ma-rij\

: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other
http://www.merriam-webster.com...;

Thank you, and I conclude my round.

JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

As an intro to this next round, please realize that gay marriage is already legalized in 19+ states, some bans of same-sex marriage currently getting appealed and overturned, mainly because of the minority persuading the government to think 'love is love' and 'gay marriage isn't a choice,' or whatever you say. But the title is still a bit misleading, as we aren't arguing whether we should legalize gay marriage: that is out of our control. We are arguing the morals, pros and cons, and reasons for same sex marriage, thus a title like 'Gay Marriage is Fine' with my opponent still as pro, would be better like it!

"Did African Americans "own" the definition of being a person when slavery was outlawed?" No, and you're right: this is an unfair statement. But it is an irrelevant issue in this matter, because the definition of a 'person' is different than the definition of 'marriage' (thus they cannot be compared). A noun is a person, place, thing, or idea, as you hopefully know. Both words are and are defined as nouns. But a 'person' is a concrete noun [2], and marriage is, in this context, an abstract noun or an idea [3]. Saying African Americans aren't real humans is much different (and more harsh) than not letting two people of the same gender marry (changing the definition of marriage).

"Actually, a majority of people in America are in favor of the legalization of gay marriage. It seems the minority (albeit a close one) is controlling the definition." Actually, I'm talking about the amount of people who are really "gay." The people who are in favor are mostly liberals and democrats; they are the majority of the country. But taken from a reliable website with legit statistics, gay people are only 1.7% of all the adults in America! [4]

"What it sounds like is that this also happens for single parents and adopted kids, yet no one is advocating that single mothers can't raise their kid, and that couples can't adopt." I am also opposed to single parenting (and divorcing, for that matter) but a wife/husband usually has no other choice because their spouse might have run off away from him/her. Single parents have to raise their kid(s); their only other option is to put the kids up for adoption or a boarding school. Homosexuals adopt kids because they can't perform reproduction themselves! Of course kids who were adopted hunger for their biological parents, because they abandoned them probably when they didn't have enough money to take care of the child. But it's different for kids adopted in to homosexual families because they wonder who their biological parents were while at the same time are brought up differently than a lot of kids with same genders as their only house influence. [5]

"...there isn't a single source (in the article she is getting these from) that isn't at least 10 years old. If this is such a gray area, are these sources still even credible?" You know the effects are STILL a gray area. If you can argue that they are not without me being able to refute them, than please tell. Then you can say that statement again.
"Obviously teen birth problems aren't a huge problem." The study that I gave, in that website, is about the fact that the teens are MORE LIKELY to have pregnancies (proven).

On the topic of 'children need mothers': "Another reoccuring thing in this response is a sort of defense of gender roles." Yes, I agree! That is precisely the/my main reason for why same-sex marriage is bad. Children with homosexual "parents" don't have a role from each gender. Unless you are arguing that each gender is no better, worse, or different.

On the topic of 'children with homosexual parents outcome': "Again, the evidence isn't clear yet you are free to draw up conclusions." My statements aren't conclusions; they are simply based on the evidence we HAVE.

I did not say "the world would burn and everyone will die" if gay mean marry. Here, instead, I put out the fact that sex will be underestimated and it will happen more often, within more people (heterosexual, homosexual, or whether married or not).

"Last month's news that the majority of births to American women under 30 now occur outside of marriage..." What does that have to do with anything? Marriage is for love, you say. I thought I demonstrated that marriage isn't only about love (it depends what kind of love). I love my best friend but I'm not going to marry. And (fortunately) the web's definition of marriage still says "...between one man and one woman..." [2]

What my opponent said about homosexual marriage will undercut paternal requirements is, in a way, correct. It's just that he/she put in a crazy sentence to make me sound stupid in ("In response to point 8").

"No one is forcing women to work. For a long time, women couldn't work even when they wanted to. Something changed that thinking, and I don't think it was the guys doing it." While I am arguing the fact that two genders present different roles (as I have mentioned many times before), I also refute the fact that women might want to work. Your argument/situation might be that a lesbian couple are going to work it out so that one works (manly, like a 'dad') and the other is a bit more--feminine and girly--unlike the sporty OTHER mom. Another situation you might throw out there is that both "moms" have a job while the kids just go to school. I'm just going to remind you that we can't compare nowadays' gay rights with slavery and/or the rights of women. It's culture. And the modern culture teaches that women are capable of work. I agree that it took awhile but most women in the "old days" just went with the flow. Perhaps they were angry (and obviously desperate) about their rights when their husband had physical disabilities. But...let's get back on topic!

It is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way heterosexual marriage does. This is just the truth, yet my opponent is pointing out that it's not for sure even though we both agree that no study can be FOR SURE FOR SURE!

..."'hey, if you love him/her, marry him/her!' I am sorry to disappoint you, but that seems to already be the definition." Then my opponent goes on to give the definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster. To prove my point, please notice how the word 'love' isn't even on there It says RELATIONSHIP instead of LOVE. And, according to that SAME website, the word 'relationship' doesn't have the word 'love' in the definition either. I'm not saying love isn't used in a relationship. [6] I'm only proving my point: how culture is changing. From my perspective, change in this way isn't a good thing.

Thank-you for a finely competed round here, and I bid you well for the final.

SOURCES
[1] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
[2] http://www.google.com...
[3] http://fos.iloveindia.com...
[4] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
YaHey

Pro

In defense of my slavery analogy: I'm not sure you understand what my analogy really was. I didn't realize I needed to have an exact analogy for marriage. You see, the principle is the same, a minority told the majority how to define a person. Yes, it is difficult to compare the treatment of gays to the treatment of slaves from slavery onward, but the principle is the same.

In defense of my saying the majority is in favor: One, I don't see how politic opinion matters here. While we are on this topic of majority and minority, can I bring up the fourteenth amendment, which states that all citizens are equal under the law? That was put in place to protect minorities from the majority, and claiming that the white, middle class, straight, Christian, and overly privileged middle class is being bossed around is a terrible argument. I mean, let's ignore all the hate crimes made against gay people over the years, let us all shed a tear for you, for can being brutalized be compared to having to change your way of thinking and having to accept someone?

In defense of my gray area statement: You seem to be confused again. I was wondering how you can used outdated sources to bring up such clear answers on an topic that seems to still be up for debate?

In defense of the gender role statement: I think half your response could be changed if you actually understood what I was trying to say. I am saying gender roles are wrong and create a sexist society.

In defense of the second gray area statement: You are, indeed, drawing conclusions on outdated and unclear sources. Or, should I say, you copied and pasted conclusions from outdated and unclear sources WE HAVE.

In defense of my exaggeration: It was an exaggeration. I don't see how having sex more often could be considered an objectively bad thing. If an act is consensual and safe, where is the downside? You may find sex outside of marriage an immoral thing to do, but then again I don't remember coming to you to make my moral decisions for me.

In defense of the average birth age of mother's statement: It matters because you stated marriage is for children, yet mother's are having more and more children at an appropriate age outside of marriage. Perhaps marriage isn't so crucial.

In response to my second exaggeration: Exaggerations are useful and entertaining, if not completely respectful. (Oh, and I didn't say that to make you seem stupid, but your argument to seem stupid.)

In response to the second gender role statement: Again, I am posing that this idea of gender roles, where one has to be the manly figure and one has to be the feminine is outdated and sexist. It's like when straight people ask "Oh, who's the guy?" You wanna know who? NEITHER. Um, you go on to say that I can't compare the gay rights movement to the women's rights movements and the civil rights movement in the 60s because it's culture? Not sure how to respond to that but to say that you're wrong. Whether or not it is culture, it is an oppressed group of people fighting for the right to be, you know, not oppressed?

In response to the husband taming/gray area statement three: Yes, we agree no study can be for sure (YET) but here you are making conclusions on unfinished data! To put it in perspective, you are looking at an early draft of the "Creation of Adam" painting. You are looking at the hands of God and Adam touch, and you are trying to make conclusions of just the hands, when really, if you'd give Michelangelo so time to finish, you'd see that the full picture.

In response to the definition statement: Again we see a fatal miscommunication/misunderstanding. I was stating that it isn't a procreative relationship, which you have both yet to prove and yet to refute my refutations. If we used your definition, marriage would be "Pump out a baby nine months or see those benefits... DISAPPEAR!" Since, you know, marriage is purely a procreative relationship, a philosophy that is outdated and unsupportive with both a lack of creativity and lack of understanding of human history. You don't want culture to change, you don't want to see the evolution of our species, to see us realizing the mistakes we make against our own people. To see our ignorance and mishandling of issues for what they were, mistakes. You'd like us to go back a few hundred thousand years ago, when our species really did need numbers to survive and we didn't have a serious overpopulation risk approaching. If you are going to cling to bronze age beliefs, please call them what they are: neanderthalic in nature.

Thanks for the round. I await your response.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Your slavery analogy could be defined in two ways, but from your perspective I'm not sure what it proved. The minority influencing the majority? If so, it does not work--and I think anybody could figure out why.

As we have been conversing about majority/minority and the fourteenth amendment, I will rebut this statement: "That--" (the 14th amendment) "--was put in place to protect minorities from the majority, and claiming that the white, middle class, straight, Christian, and overly privileged middle class is being bossed around is a terrible argument." Whatever the argument, it is true that the lesser people in America (minority) are "gay" while the majority are just people being convinced that being gay is something you are born with and can't help but be, therefore most think we must make gay marriage, which is usually morally wrong and change it into the likes of civil rights. Why? Because love is love and we can't stop it. There can be no rebuttal for that statement which most pro-gay people argue. (Admit it, you are one of those people that believes 'love is love and we can't stop it.'

"I mean, let's ignore all the hate crimes made against gay people over the years, let us all shed a tear for you, for can being brutalized be compared to having to change your way of thinking and having to accept someone?" We are not talking about physical and psychological hurt, no matter whether towards "gay people" or 'straight.' We are talking about how the minority is getting the power to change our culture (and define our words) TREMENDOUSLY, and whether this is a good or bad thing or if it is right or wrong. My opinion is that it is wrong to let the minority do that and when we DO let the minority change our culture, it will be for the worst (bad). What I've been doing this whole time is trying to convince others that it is wrong (by giving logical points and reasons). That's what I'll keep doing.

"I think half your response could be changed if you actually understood what I was trying to say. I am saying gender roles are wrong and create a sexist society." I don't see how or why you think I didn't know that. But I AM saying that gender roles are right and each parent needs to be a different sex BECAUSE of their different roles that contribute to a family.

"I don't see how having sex more often could be considered an objectively bad thing." I'm not going to go too in depth about the cons of 'sex more often,' but first, know that I wasn't saying that sex more often is bad, rather about how sex between ANYBODY at ANYTIME is bad. Sex outside of marriage is immoral and you don't have to go to me to understand that, that's because...
- there are more broken families (i.e. single parents, young and unmarried moms)
- there are more kids up for adoptions
- there are more abortions of "unwanted" kids
You don't need sources for these. If you had a rebuttal for any point, I'd be giddy to hear and debunk it.

Marriage was, traditionally, most likely for reproduction. Besides gay marriage there are plenty of other reasons why modern people think marriage is not for kids: such as the fact that society thinks the world is "over-populating."

"Again, I am posing that this idea of gender roles, where one has to be the manly figure and one has to be the feminine is outdated and sexist." But there is nothing wrong with it. And I have given many reasons why the idea of no gender roles in a family is bad and wrong. Outdated doesn't mean it's wrong.

Haven't I mentioned that my goal is not to devalue or oppress "gays"?! Instead I tell them my reasons why their lifestyle is probably wrong...but alas, people wrongly accuse me for tormenting gays.

"You are looking at the hands of God and Adam touch, and you are trying to make conclusions of just the hands...if you'd give Michelangelo so time to finish, you'd see that the full picture." I don't know what to say to that. You did not give one way I've drawn conclusions too quickly, so I really CAN'T say anything else.

Gay marriage definitely isn't a procreative relationship, I agree. But a relationship usually leads to marriage, and marriage is typically procreation. Although, here are a few things I found stunning and you might want to know:
1. 39% of cohabitating couples who have a child break up within 5 years. Nearly 40 percent of cohabiting twenty-something parents who had a baby between 2000 and 2005 split up by the time their child was five; that"s three times higher than the rate for twenty-something parents who were married when they had a child. [1] There are many people who, of the same-sex, live together without marrying and have a child. This is barely and vaguely an issue concerning gay marriage, but I'd just like to point it out as it is the last round I can say anything. This does concern the issue of marriage and procreation, though, and that is something we have been debating along with gay marriage.

2. Marriage used to be associated and thought of as a 'cornerstone,' and now it has changed to be more of a 'capstone.' From multiple surveys we've found that marriage is something you do after you have all their other ducks in a row, rather than a foundation for launching into adulthood and parenthood. Ninety-one percent of young adults believe that they must be completely financially independent to be ready for marriage, and over 90 percent of them believe they should finish their education before taking the big step. Fifty-one percent also believe that their career should be underway first. In fact, almost half say that it is 'very important' to work full-time for a year or two prior to getting married. [1]

3. The average age for childbearing is now younger than the average age for marriage. By age 25, 44% of women will have had a baby, while only 38% will be married. This means that culture has changed a whole lot over the past years that gay marriage has started to be legalized.

4. One of our most startling findings is that today's young people of all education levels are entering their first coresidential relationship at about the same age as in the past; its just that now they are far more likely to be "living together" than married. [1] One of the main reasons is because of the different types of marriage we have in our modern culture. There's ways to get married secretly, heterosexual marriage, or same-sex marriage. According to surveys, gay cohabitating "couples" are also more likely to be in poorer health than heterosexuals who live together. [2]

"You'd like us to go back a few hundred thousand years ago, when our species really did need numbers to survive and we didn't have a serious overpopulation risk approaching." This is bringing up yet ANOTHER assumption: that the world is 'over-populating.' Did you know that if everybody in the world only took the food, money, and resources that only they needed and distributed the rest among the poorer, everyone would have more than enough shelter, food, and money? It is always funny to hear people say, "oh, because the earth and it's resources aren't big enough, abortion is fine" like my opponent thinks.

"If you are going to cling to bronze age beliefs, please call them what they are: neanderthalic in nature." I'm sorry. But it is not only annoying when people call Christianity a 'bronze age belief,' but also WRONG. It is a different topic but I will say why it is wrong. If anything, it is Iron Age. This is Genetic Fallacy; clearly epistemology is not your strong point: the belief that some things value now is equivalent to its origin, displacing it from context. [3]

Overall, this has been a well-fought debate. Each of us displayed knowledge, I made myself clear that gay marriage is not the best for society, is morally wrong, etc. so vote Con!

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.lifesitenews.com...
[3] http://jerome23.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 4
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
OK now I see, no RFD is required so people can vote as they wish without giving reason. In the future though I recommend the instigator require an RFD and set ELO requirements in order to give more credible votes to a debate.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
And this debate is a perfect example of why the settings should be set so everyone has to provide an RFD.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
A votebomb is a vote without a valid RFD. Counter-votebombs are votes that basically counter votebombs and give the same number of points to the opposition.
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
airmax1227
Because of the settings chosen by the debate instigator, specifically that no RFD is required, it is impossible for me to properly moderate the votes on this debate. As it is, nearly all of the votes on this debate would fail to qualify as a proper vote (a vote with a proper RFD explaining every point it awards) that on any other recent debate would be deleted.

If the debaters would like to contact me to come up with a fair solution to this, they are welcome to contact me at any time. Otherwise, as I said, this debate allows for votes with no RFDs, which inevitably leads to the poor votes we see here. Unfortunately, because of that, there is little I can do to moderate these votes that would be fair to both debaters.

Airmax1227
Debate.org Moderator
Posted by RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial 2 years ago
RoyalistTeaPartyOfficial
*****I withdraw my vote, I will no longer be voting as it just causes to much drama.*****
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Pro won this debate. Pro had cogent and rational arguments, based on empirical evidence, that was in accordance with the majority of the academic literature. A lot of con's objections stemmed from a misunderstanding of the point. Also con's studies represent a perspective that is the minority in the literature. There was most likely a biased methodology in extrapolating such results. If I could vote, I would vote pro. Sorry I can't vote due to technical difficulties, but good show YaHey:)
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
I mistakingly put the RFD at no. If all voters could please provide their RFD that would be great.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Excuse my ignorance :) but what are 'counter-votebombs'?
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
They're counter-votebombs. While it's not recommended, they are needed to eliminate biased voting. It is best to just report the vote though if you have any concerns.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
I'd like for all voters to actually vote for who they thought won, not just as a counter offensive.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Let's tie it up
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro successfully refuted all of Con's points, and con spent most of his time just blankly stating things without backing them up or properly responding to Pro at all. Con used horrible sources that carried an inherent christian bias on the matter, diminishing my ability to take his argument seriously. Con's performance was not debate-like, but mores using DDO as a platform to voice his opinion whilst not really offering any support or convincing material for his side of the debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not believe pro filled their burden, but I felt Con's arguments were just a little bit away from a win. Pro insulted Con's religious beliefs, so con wins conduct.
Vote Placed by Deathmonkey7 2 years ago
Deathmonkey7
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con's points all help him ultimately win; they are much too strong, especially the arguments about isolating marriage, going away from the norm, and finally the uselessness of marrying. It does not matter that gays "should be allowed to love each other and express their feelings", as pro suggests, it's just that con made an excellent point that which many people (including homos) live a good love life without having to marry.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had beautifully articulated arguments. He provided credible and dated sources. Con's arguments represent the minority of the scientific literature. Con had minimally effective arguments, but they were refuted by pro and they were not rational. Deprivation of rights is never a good thing,. except when the oppressed is causing harm and homosexuals are not causing problems, quite the contrary. Via pro's argument
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 2 years ago
LDPOFODebATeR0328
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that Pro exaggerated, quite often. Additionally, Neg had better arguments in general.
Vote Placed by Aircraftfreak1 2 years ago
Aircraftfreak1
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro exaggerated way too much and con had better arguments
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
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 Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
YaHeyJasperFrancisShickadanceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used ridiculously outdated methods of argument against gay marriage. Pro gets reliable sources because con referenced Family Research Center, a completely unreliable source due to blatant homophobia. "Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects." I've taken this quote from their website (http://www.frc.org/homosexuality).