The Instigator
Smil3_4Fun
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Marriage is a Civil Right.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/23/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,739 times Debate No: 8397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

Smil3_4Fun

Con

This is what I really meant to say. : )

In order to determine whether anything rises to the level of a civil right, you have to start by looking how a civil right is defined and who decides whether it meets that definition. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines a civil right as, "one that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." Black's Law Dictionary further states that civil rights confer protections that apply equally to everyone.

In a free society, the will of the people determine whether something is a civil right and government enforces the protections. In all other societies, its ruler makes and enforces these decisions. Regardless if you live in California, Iowa, or Iran, the civil rights you have in that place are ones that derive from your inherent dignity and apply equally to everyone. Nowhere in the world can these things be said about marriage. Therefore it cannot be a civil right.

There are three fundamental reasons why marriage is not a civil right;

1)Every society throughout the world believes in the right to a spiritual or religious marriage, but not all believe in government-sanctioned marriage; and even fewer societies believe that government-sanctioned marriage applies to all of its citizens.
2)Historically, civil marriage evolved as a way to insure that men could produce offspring. While this was a right conferred upon men, it was hardly civil.
3)Societies confer certain rights to their citizens that do not necessarily rise to civil rights.

First, communities define marriage in different ways. In some parts of the world, marriages can only be performed by spiritual or religious leaders. Some cultures do not place age restrictions, others, such as here in the U.S. allow children to marry with parental consent. And even within cultures, people cannot agree upon whether two consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry – that is to say, if those two people happen to share the same gender. As I stated earlier, civil rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person. The right to remain free from bodily harm, for example, is universally cited as an example of this notion. In other words, it's one that we can all agree upon. Just because some people want marriage to be a civil right doesn't mean that it is one. If that were true, not having to work during the Super Bowl would be a civil right too.

Secondly, marriage as an institution did not derive from anything inherent to our being. It started as a way to insure that men would be able to produce offspring. In some societies this still occurs. In Afghanistan, for example, women are still routinely forced into arranged marriages and required to produce offspring for their husbands or else they face criminal penalties. For these women, marriage is a mandated civil service, not a right. And while this may seem horrible to us, the truth is that there may be someone in this room who will one day be forced into a marriage. The right to remain free from slavery may be something we take for granted, but a forced marriage is no different.

Finally, there is a difference between rights that citizens have and civil rights. Our right to a free education is one such example. In our country, kids have the opportunity to go from kindergarten to high school without having to pay. This is a right that our society gives to its children, but no one is arguing that this is a civil right, inherent to our dignity as a human person. Marriage is viewed upon in the same way. You see judge, in order for something to be considered a civil right; everyone has to agree that it is, marriage is not yet agreed upon by everyone, so marriage is not a civil right. Thank you.
sherlockmethod

Pro

I thank my opponent for offering this debate as civil rights are great subjects to examine.

1) The pro position states, "In order to determine whether anything rises to the level of a civil right, you have to start by looking how a civil right is defined and who decides whether it meets that definition."
I agree we must define a civil right before we can debate whether marriage is a civil right; however, the partial definition my opponent provides does not give a full account.

1A) I do not have free access to Black's Law Dictionary as my copy is loaned out at the moment, and I cannot get to the law library within the next three days due to work. I ask my opponent to put the full definition forward. If the space limit is an issue, please put the full definition in the comments for this debate.

1B) My opponent cites the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Found here: http://www.hrweb.org... and posits the covenant defines a civil right as, "one that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person."
The closest wording I found to this direct quote is in the Preamble. The covenant is large, but I did not find this exact quote so I will go from the closest possible from this document:

"Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,"

Legal documents must be designed to give people headaches and this one is no different. A careful reading shows the document conveys:
We agree that recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of humans, derived from inherent dignity, is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. A definition is not directly provided but many rights are listed, and civil rights are included in this listing.

The document further conveys these separate rights: civil, political, economic, social and cultural, but never provides a definition for any of the terms. (see preamble) It does list a litany of rights but does not describe which is civil or otherwise. The document appears to consider all the rights listed as derived from the inherent dignity of the human person and, marriage is listed specifically:
Article 23
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

According to my opponent's source the right to marry is derived from the inherent dignity of the human person. If this quality is the only one needed for a right to be a civil right, then the pro position cannot stand.

2) My opponent lists three points as to why marriage is not a civil right. I will address them in order along with her explanations.
2A) My opponent does not list source material for any of the contentions in this point, but I do agree that marriage is defined differently throughout the world, but this in no way prevents marriage from being a civil right, this simply means that marriage is not universally defined. My opponent appears to further the definition of a civil right to mean a universally agreed upon right, but I can find nothing to support such a restrictive definition to a civil right. My opponent offers the right to remain free of bodily harm as a universally agreed upon right, but this is not true as female genital mutilation is bodily harm and is sanctioned in many countries and by religious leaders. I can think of no right that is universally accepted across all cultures and creeds, so according to my opponent's reasoning, the absence of universal acceptance means no civil rights exist, marriage notwithstanding. I cannot accept this restrictive definition.

2B)My opponent gives examples of civil rights violations, but violating a civil right does not remove its status as a civil right. The document my opponent cited does agree marriage is inherently derived and specifically addresses forced marriage as a violation of the inherently derived right to marry. My opponent's source contradicts this contention.

3B) Agreed, some rights are not civil rights per se, but if the right unjustly discriminates against some citizens then we have a civil rights violation. Violating a civil right does not remove the right from the status as a civil right.

Conclusion:
A civil right must be a right against unjust discrimination by a ruling body, or a body claiming authority. The right to vote is a Constitutional right. The inability of the government to arbitrarily deny the Constitutional right to vote based on race, sex, creed, etc is a civil right. The UN document further conveys the right to marry in the above mentioned covenant provided by my opponent. At this point, I conclude marriage, as defined by a ruling body without arbitrary distinctions, is a civil right.
Debate Round No. 1
Smil3_4Fun

Con

I first want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and posting a well-thought out speech. However, due to the lack of research there are several reasons why my opponent's rebuttals cannot stand. I will go in order to what my opponent said.

First of all, this is not a policy debate, Black's Law Dictionary is the most commonly used law dictionary around, and for my opponent to question the source is, there is no other word, disgraceful. No, I am not one of those debaters who bends the facts just to fit my side. And my proof are my legitimate sources which my opponent has not read carefully enough to understand.

Now, my opponent critiqued me on my United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights source, saying that the source is too broad for just one definition. However, Pro side, don't bend the wording, the exact wording that was in this source, and I listed in my first speech, was "one that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." This is proof enough that marriage cannot be a CIVIL right because around the world, also defined as the topic, cannot practice marriage as a civil right.

Let me just make one thing very clear. My opponent mentions the word right, as in marriage is a right. Especially directed at 2A. I agree, marriage is a right, but it's just not a civil right. You see, like stated above, it can rise to the rank of civil right, but only when the MAJORITY of the people confer. Marriage is widely disagreed upon today, especially that of Gay Marriage. If marriage was a civil right, than everyone, regardless of race, age, or sex, would be able to marry. California today has voted through Proposition 8, which denies any two people of the same sex to marry.

When my opponent says that marriage is a civil right regardless, they simply say that it's okay to call something a civil right, even when it discriminates others.

Their point about 2B), like I said before. Marriage throughout history has never been considered civil, and as I stated above in my speech, it is possible to have a right, without having a civil right. That is exactly what marriage is. A right, just NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.

What my opponent needs to do in order to win this debate is prove why it's a civil right, not a right. If they are unable to prove the civility of the right, I automatically win, why? Because they are proving all of my side. And this is what my opponent has done so far.

Now, before we continue this debate I want to clean up this whole misconception of my legitimate source.

The Pro side stated:

Article 23
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equally of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

Once again, this stated marriage as a right, not once does it even state the word civil. My source does not contradict itself. Thank you. Also, because it stated "No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses..." This simply cannot mean it's a civil around the world. Because there are many types of marriage around the world and throughout history, and they cannot all be considered civil by everyone.

Example:

Imperial China- arranged, social class, polygamy (more than one wife)

Christianity- monogamy (one man, one woman)

India- Henogamy (only the eldest son marries), Child marriage (A practice in which the parents of two small children (even infants) arrange a future marriage.)

Africa- Female Husband Marriage (in which daughters have been raised as males in order to ensure the continuity of the family and take a wife.)

France- Posthumous Marriage (a living person marrying a dead person)

Taiwan- Shim-pua Marriage (a poor family would sell a daughter into a wealthy family)

Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be universally excepted, it just needs to have the majority of the people confer that it is indeed a civil right.

Conclusion:

My opponents lack of any source, besides criticizing my own, shows how little they have actually studied this topic, and how they cannot refute my sources and points in the appropriate way. They shouldn't say their bad, my opponent should say their wrong. But because my sources are irrefutably accurate, there is no way to say that their wrong. Once again, my opponent needs to prove with reasoning and legitimate sources with evidence why marriage is a civil right, not a right.

So far all my opponent has done is try and prove my sources bad, and why it's a right. This is not enough to win my opponent the debate.

For these reasons, marriage is irrefutably not a civil right. Thank you!
sherlockmethod

Pro

I read my opponent's R2 argument and I still maintain the pro position.

1) I am very familiar with Blacks Law Dictionary. I own a copy, but as I stated, I simply don't have it available. I do not doubt the validity of the dictionary and agree it is well accepted and was one of the texts I used most frequently in my first year of law school. I merely asked my opponent to put the full definition forward, so I could see it - nothing more. I am in no way criticizing the source, I just want to see the full definition. My request is not unreasonable as my opponent listed the source. My opponent, after offering no links to sources claims I did not understand her sources. I must point out that I found the full document my opponent listed, she did not provide it, and she still has not provided a full definition from Black's Law ( I don‘t need a link, I will trust you, but you did not list the full definition). How do I misunderstand a source that my opponent refuses to provide in full?

2) My opponent claims I critiqued her source as one too broad for one definition. I did nothing of the sort. I READ the source in its entirety and simplified the preamble into a more manageable sentence. I had to diagram that sentence twice to make sure I captured the full content. I showed my opponent used only a small portion of the preamble and further showed the full text conveyed that marriage is a right that "derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." I will explain in the most simple terms I can use after I deal with my opponent's rebuttal.

3) My opponent lists the different definitions of marriage in different countries, but this was not necessary as I stipulated that marriage does not have a universal definition. Sorry to repeat myself, but I will state, again, I understand this point and do not rebut it.

4) I will be as clear as possible. My opponent proffered the definition of a civil right as "one that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." I did not offer this definition, my opponent did and she is the instigator. The document she uses as a reference is fine with me, her quote-mining of the preamble is not. The document is titled: "The United Nations INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS" The document provides a list of rights. We have to agree that the document is listing civil and political rights as the title states very clearly. Any right listed must fit into one of three categories:
1) A civil right
2) A political right
3) Both a civil and political right

Now, marriage is specifically listed in Article 23. Since marriage is listed then we can conclude from my opponent's source of authority that marriage must fit into one of three categories:
1)A civil right
2)A political right
3)Both a civil and political right
My opponent's only hope in her final round is to show marriage is ONLY a political right as the other two refute her position, I wish her luck.

Lastly, all the rights listed in the document are described as ones "that [derive] from the inherent dignity of the human person." as made very clear in the preamble and shown in my R1 argument. My opponent stated twice that a civil right is one "that derives from the inherent dignity of the human person". Marriage is listed in the document; therefore, marriage is a civil right under the authority of the legitimate resource my opponent provided and further accepted by my opponent's definition. I never questioned the legitimacy of the source, just my opponent's use of it. The source does not contradict itself; it contradicts my opponent's position. I see no need to provide a further source as the one my opponent provided, when read in full, supports my position.

5) My opponent states, "What my opponent needs to do in order to win this debate is prove why it's a civil right, not a right. If they are unable to prove the civility of the right, I automatically win, why? Because they are proving all of my side. And this is what my opponent has done so far."
This statement is very important for several reasons. First, a full reading of the source my opponent provided shows marriage to be a civil right as my opponent chose to define it. Second, and most importantly, my opponent says I must prove the civility of the right. I never claimed civil rights must maintain civility. This statement is a logic fallacy. My opponent is mixing and matching definitions. I need only show marriage is a civil right, not a right demonstrating civility.
Civility is defined as a polite act or expression. http://mw1.m-w.com...
I need not show marriage is a polite act or expression (my wife just punched me), only that it "derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." a definition provided by my opponent, and my opponent's legitimate source has done that for me.
The Con position cannot hold as the position's only basis for support favors Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Smil3_4Fun

Con

Thank you for your reply. I am pleased that my opponent has accepted the definition that a civil right "derives from the inherent dignity of the human person." I am just as pleased that my opponent has stipulated to the the fact that marriage is defined differently, according to culture, race, gender, and in some parts of the world (including ours) from neighbor to neighbor.

Since all humans are created equal (regardless of whether everyone in the world holds certain truths to be self-evident), a civil right defined as one derives from inherent human dignity must apply EQUALLY to all humans. To say otherwise would be to deny that humans are created equal, and no one wants to take on that debate.

The simple fact - and one that we've conclusively established in this debate - is that the fact that marriage is defined differently means it does not and cannot derive from an inherent human right. In fact, the very fact that marriage has to be defined AT ALL makes it little more than a product of human imagination. My opponent has offered no evidence to show that humans are genetically or biologically driven to marry (as opposed to a biological drive to mate, which is not the subject of this debate), nor has he offered any evidence that the formal joining of two individuals somehow derives from our right to exist.

My opponent attempted to corner me in his last rebuttal by demanding that I define marriage as a civil or political right. I do not need to do this to win this debate. What I have done in this debate is show that not only is marriage not a civil right, it's not even a legal right, a protected right, or a free choice in many parts of the world (again, see USA, your next door neighbor, etc.).

My opponent's painstaking attempt to parse words in two of the credible sources I cited amounts to little more than an exercise in semantics and very much misses the larger point. For example, my opponent attempted to support his side by going through great pains to show that the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mentions marriage. As such, my opponent argues that therefore marriage must be recognized as either a civil right, a political right, or both. If this debate were about whether the authors of this document - or the U.N. as a whole - believed marriage was a civil right, then he would be on the road to building a potentially winnable case. That case would fail, of course, because of the very lack of definition that my opponent conceded long ago. His argument completely fails in this debate, of course, because we are arguing about whether marriage is a civil right, not how a particular document relates marriage to its accepted definition of a civil right. In other words, it sems clear to me that the authors of this particular document simply came to the same conclusion that I have here: while it would be nice if marriage were a civil right, a "right" that applies to some but not all can hardly be defined as a right at all.

The rules of this debate do not stiplulate that we must confine the debate to my sources, (which by the way, remain credible). To prove his case, my opponent must cite and produce compelling evidence to prove his point, which he has failed to do. So because my opponent has failed to prove why marriage is a civil right, and has just been nitpicking on my sources this entire time, all my arguements still stand, and his failure to produce any in the first place must be acknowledged when judging this round. There is really nothing more to say about this topic, with that said, I'm once again very pleased with this debate and would like to debate sherlockmethod in future rounds.

Thank you for giving your time to debate me on whether or not marriage is a civil right. It was a fun debate, and that's what it's supposed to be.

So, for all of these reasons and more, marriage is simply not a civil right.
sherlockmethod

Pro

I have read my opponent's case in full and I still maintain the Pro position. To sum up my case as I will not present new arguments since my opponent cannot respond:

1)My opponent, the instigator, presented a definition for civil rights. I accepted the definition.

2)My opponent's definition matched, to a letter, the definition of civil and political rights in a UN Covenant she referred to as legitimate on numerous occasions in her argument and one she proffered in the opening round. I agree the source is legitimate, I never contended otherwise; I did contend she misapplied the source.

3)The UN Covenant, by virtue of the preamble, enumerated many civil and political rights as ones that "[derive] from the inherent dignity of the human person" – marriage is listed as one of those rights.

4)We have an agreed upon, authoritative source supporting an agreed upon definition posited by my opponent. The Con position cannot stand as her definition and source, both adopted by Pro, rebut her position.

5)My opponent transposed a civil right with the civility of a right. I addressed this and no rebuttal was offered. This transposition was fallacious.

R3 contentions from Con:
1)My opponent is pleased that I agree marriage is not universally defined. I stipulated this point in the first round. My opponent does not address my further point in R1: "My opponent appears to further the definition of a civil right to mean a universally agreed upon right, but I can find nothing to support such a restrictive definition to a civil right." (Pro R1, 2A) Con presented a positive assertion, was challenged, and never defended the statement. She had the opportunity to do so. Proving a negative is difficult and I can only say, in the absence of any source material showing otherwise, that my study of civil rights has not once provided a basis for this restriction or used this restriction in any capacity. I still do not accept this point as further defining a civil right, and my opponent never supported it.

2)My opponent states, "In fact, the very fact that marriage has to be defined AT ALL makes it little more than a product of human imagination. My opponent has offered no evidence to show that humans are genetically or biologically driven to marry." After reviewing the resolution and the agreed upon definition, I see no need to offer genetic or biological evidence for marriage and would not offer the evidence in order to define any other civil right. Again, I can find no evidence to support the proposition that a right must have a genetic or biological origin to be considered a civil right, and my opponent offered none. In addition, the need for definition of any object, idea, right, etc does not place the defined occurrence in the realm of human imagination; this statement is unsupported and does not apply to this debate.

3)If my opponent contends a right must be universally agreed upon in order to be a civil right, she provided no evidence to support the contention and our agreed upon definition does not support this contention either.

4)My opponent did not want to be forced into a decision pertaining to marriage as a civil or political right and described my argument as semantically driven. I made a joke about how legislation and covenants are written and took steps to clarify the document. My opponent took these steps as criticisms. I must say that once a source and definition is agreed upon, the ENTIRITY of the source document is vital – legislation more so than others. My opponent's contention cannot stand as she presented, and we agreed upon, the source; she cannot divorce herself from it in the final round.

Who had better conduct?

1) Pro made a typo which con recognized and did not use as a contention. She saw it was a typo and continued with the debate - definite plus for Con.

2) Con started R2 with this statement, "due to the lack of research there are several reasons why my opponent's rebuttals cannot stand." When I evaluate the debates on this site, I look for statements like these and, unless sound, I count them as a negative. My distaste for such comments is due to their use when debating young adults. I do not do this when debating young people. My opponent has no idea what I have researched in my academic career. I saw nothing in my opening round suggesting I am not familiar with civil rights or quasi-legislative documents. I find statements like this presumptuous. I have used a similar statement one time during a debate with Sadolite, who insisted on ranting the whole time, all the while ignoring presented material helping with his misunderstanding.

3) Con reworded my argument in R2 claiming I was, "saying that the source is too broad for just one definition. However, Pro side, don't bend the wording." A review of my argument will show I did not ever say or imply this contention. Also, I did not bend any words; I took great care when dissecting the UN Covenant and did a very thorough job of it. I generally quote my opponent, not reword their arguments to suit me. I count these as negatives in my evaluations.

4)Other than these minor points, Conduct was pretty even.

Spelling and Grammar.

Nothing stands out – even.

Convincing arguments.

I stated my argument as clear as possible, and can add nothing more here. Voters will decide.

Sources:
The Pro position must win this one. Pro accepted Con's one source and both agreed on the definition. Pro had no need to add more as this one source was accepted and considered accurate by both sides. Con made a point to show that Pro presented no sources; however, Pro accurately applied and interpreted the one source better than the Con position and that one source was the basis for Con's position.

The only poor aspect of this debate was Con's complete refusal to put forward the full definition from Black's Law Dictionary. I still do not understand this reluctance on Con's part. My request was not unreasonable. I even offered for the definition to be presented in the comments so as to not take up space. Two requests went unheeded, yet con still wrote of her two sources. Maybe Con can explain this in the comments as I am at a loss. This refusal alone should grant Pro the source advantage. I have never failed to accommodate reasonable requests from my opponents.

Overall this was a good debate and I will debate with this opponent again. I enjoyed the topic.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Refer_Madness 7 years ago
Refer_Madness
Ruperttheg is full of sh*t.
Stop votebombing people just because you want to increase your friend's score
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Nice debate, for the most part.

I initially desire to "vote bomb" Con, as the same has CLEARLY been done to Pro, but since I have more respect for this site and participants, I will instead RFD with cause.

Conduct: PRO
Okay, PRO asks for definitions and CON doesn't give them. Also, things like "I thank my opponent for offering this debate as civil rights are great subjects to examine." and "To sum up my case as I will not present new arguments since my opponent cannot respond" make him stand out.

Spelling and Grammar: PRO
Since this almost always results in a tie, I judge Spelling and Grammar as organization. This was better for PRO as it made flowing MUCH easier, however both debaters did in fact give thorough organization.

Arguments: PRO
PRO had better clash, more direct argumentation, and just upheld his position MUCH better than CON. This is why my ballot would have gone to the Affirmative.

Sources: TIE
You guys both had ample and acceptable sources.

Again, good debate, great job.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Thanks for looking at this one. I think Con has several friends on the site as I cannot see how anyone can award conduct after she refused to provide a full source when requested. I think once others see this one, the score will change.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Rights are a decidedly uncivil thing.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
CON didn't argue this very well.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Marriage is NOT a Civil Right, it is a religious institution.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I see no reason why PRO would be losing here.
Posted by Ruperttheg 7 years ago
Ruperttheg
Oh, sorry. My bad. I voted con on this debate mainly because:
1. I thought con's conduct was better. ie, no criticizing sources or limiting of the rebuttal (civil/political right)
2. After the debate was over, I agreed with con more than I did with the proposition. I thought that pro could have done better if they had brought up their own source, but the main source that I saw in play during the debate was brought up by Con. So that was a definite plus for them. I would suggest that everyone bring forth their own sources in future debates.
3. Finally, I didn't care for the summation given by Pro at the end. It was almost as if you were deliberating whom the winner of the debate was instead of refuting their points.

Overall it was a very close debate, but I thought I had to give the win to con.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Kleptin explained why he did not vote, and I thank him. I still have not seen a RFD from the two votes listed. I do not vote on my debates. Please RFD so I can evaluate the position for future debates. Thank you voters for reading the debate as it is long.
Posted by Smil3_4Fun 7 years ago
Smil3_4Fun
Oh about Black Law's dictionary, I'm extremely sorry for not posting the full definition. I couldn't find the copy around the house, and found it nowhere online. Once again, I'm sorry. I really enjoyed this debate and look forward to debating you again!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Refer_Madness 7 years ago
Refer_Madness
Smil3_4FunsherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Smil3_4FunsherlockmethodTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Smil3_4FunsherlockmethodTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by SlamminSam212 7 years ago
SlamminSam212
Smil3_4FunsherlockmethodTied
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 RacH3ll3 7 years ago
RacH3ll3
Smil3_4FunsherlockmethodTied
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 Ruperttheg 7 years ago
Ruperttheg
Smil3_4FunsherlockmethodTied
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 Smil3_4Fun 7 years ago
Smil3_4Fun
Smil3_4FunsherlockmethodTied
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