The Instigator
Greedav
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Public Nudity Should be Legalized

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 4 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,438 times Debate No: 36921
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Greedav

Pro

First round for acceptance and rules only.

Public- Where others can see someone without explicitly trying to.

Public Nudity- Showing any body part(s) usually covered by a bikini in public for non-sexual reasons.

Public Indecency- Attempting to solicit a sexual response from oneself or another person in public , clothed or unclothed.

As pro, I will defend public nudity while also showing its benefits.
Benshapiro

Con

I accept. Burden of proof is on you to prove why public nudity should change it's current status of being illegal to legalized.
Debate Round No. 1
Greedav

Pro

CONTENTION 1: Nudity is a basic right

It would be absurd to suggest that the government can tell us what we can and cannot do to our bodies. This includes being forced to cover our bodies with cloth. It is just as oppressive as many Middle Eastern countries forcing women to cover their heads, only to a smaller degree. Outlawing public nudity is an attack to our basic human rights.

CONTENTION 2: Public nudity would decrease the rate of sexual violence

If more people were nude in public, much of the "allure" of nudity would be diminished. People would stop seeing nudity as a sexual concept and start seeing it as part of everyday life. As strange as it seems, skimpy outfits are more likely to incite sexual violence than basic nudity, as such outfits draw attention to sexual body parts, while nudity does not.

CONTENTION 3: Nudity is healthy and natural

Clothes constrict blood flow and decrease our range of motion. Furthermore, being nude outdoors is beneficial because it allows our entire bodies to have exposure to the sun, increasing vitamin D production and circadian equilibrium, resulting in reduced stress and heightened mental activity. Humans evolved our relatively hairless state because it decreases the breeding ability of parasites, fungi, and bacteria. Clothes offer a perfect breeding ground for these pathogens.

IN CONCLUSION:

Public nudity is overall a highly beneficial state. It is healthy for mind, body, and society. Public nudity should be highly encouraged in society, but instead, it is criminalized, defying our most basic human rights.
Benshapiro

Con

Rebuttal 1: Nudity is a basic right

"It would be absurd to suggest that the government can tell us what we can and cannot do to our bodies."

1) suggesting that nudity is a basic right is false. Rights are given by social/political interactions in society often referred to as laws. It is unlawful for people to be nude in public and the offenders would be cited for public indecency. Therefore it is not a right nor is it a basic human right in the sense that it is acceptable by society to be nude in public because it is against the law.

In regards to your quote: being nude affects those around you, not just yourself. By saying that the government should not be able to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies is not the full story. We cannot affect others in a harmful way, and believe me, seeing a 50 year old hairy woman that is 300lbs overweight while I'm eating is harmful to my well-being. Therefore nudity affects others and the government has the responsibility of ensuring this does not cause harmful effects on society and as my example shows, it will.

Rebuttal 2: Public nudity would decrease the rate of sexual violence

I need to see a source for your claim that " ... nudity does not [incite sexual violence]." Pornography is used as a sexual stimulant even when nude porn actors aren't touching or behaving in a sexual way. It is logical to assume that the sight of an attractive nude person will increase sexual tension among people in society and cause more sexual violence.

Rebuttal 3: Nudity is healthy and natural

"...being nude outdoors is beneficial because it allows our entire bodies to have exposure to the sun."

Vitamin D is important and it is true that we can absorb vitamin D by the suns rays, but that doesn't mean it would be more beneficial to be nude for this. Girls wearing bikinis and men wearing speedos would get the same amount of sun except for a very small portion of their body that is covered up for this extra absorption. Also, clothes protect against cuts, bugs, and unpleasant sights of nasty people, and girls during their periods (gross).

In addition: Hygiene

Public nudity would mean we would have a bunch of people sitting naked on public transit, movie theater seats, sidewalks, rental cars, ect,. Clothes provide a barrier of contact, so not only are clothed people much less likely to be affected by a potentially disease ridden object that can cut them, they also protect themselves from bacteria and fluids other people leave traces of. Just think of a man who has aids. He has a small sore on his butt and when he sits down his scab falls off and bleeds on the seat. After he gets up and leaves, a new person (nude) will sit in his trace of blood not knowing the seat is contaminated and the diseased blood and enter through the persons rectum or open cuts and spread the disease.

In addition: Accidents

Have you ever bumped into somebody in a crowded area? I think we all have. Have you ever ran into a little kid or has a little kid ever ran into you? Imagine a tall man trying to get through a crowded area and he accidentally bumps a little kid in the face. With his penis. Yeah. That would cause a lot of problems not only for the kid but his parents and probably the person who ran into him as well.

In addition: Child molesters, perverts

There are thousands of child molesters out there. Imagine the creepy sickos looking at naked children and other peoples girlfriends. Yuck. They'd probably be a lot more pedophiles in corners stroking their jiffy at people.

In conclusion:

Nudity is not a right, nudity affects others around you, nudity will increase sexual violence, increase the risks of contracting disease because of contaminated cuts, and lend society to a host of very unpleasant sights of old, stinky, hairy, dirty fat people, be a child molesters/perverts paradise, and live in a much more contaminated world. The end.
Debate Round No. 2
Greedav

Pro

REBUTTAL 1:

Allow me to rephrase my contention as "Nudity should be a basic right". The government should not be able to force us to purchase pieces of cloth and envelop our bodies in them.

In your second paragraph, you mention that "Seeing a 50 year old hairy woman that is 300lbs overweight while [you're] eating is harmful to [your] well-being." This is not a valid reason to outlaw something. If I, for example, am disgusted by anyone who dyes their hair pink, I cannot have it banned. Even if a majority was disgusted by pink hair, it should still remain legal, as outlawing pink hair would violate the first amendment. The same argument goes for public nudity. It should be protected by the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression.

REBUTTAL 2:

I have linked to a source at the bottom of this rebuttal. When nudity becomes an everyday occurrence, it loses its "forbidden fruit" status. It becomes disassociated with sex and associated with daily life.

http://web.archive.org...

REBUTTAL 3:

You completely focus on my statement on the sun, so extend all other arguments.

REBUTTAL 4:

Obviously, private businesses will still maintain the right to enforce a dress code. And there may need to be restrictions on seating, such as an obligatory seat cover for nude people. But all of these are easily addressable problems. Busses can be equipped with disposable seat protectors, movie theaters can require pants.
All in all, however, it is ultimately the individual's choice to go clothed or unclothed. One is more likely to stub his toe wearing sandals. Should we ban those as well?

REBUTTAL 5:

I like that you bring this up. Let us go into your hypothetical scenario.

"Imagine a tall man trying to get through a crowded area and he accidentally bumps a little kid in the face. With his penis."

In today's world, this would be scandalous. That is because we automatically equate nudity with sex. However, in a world where nudity is accepted as a regular part of daily life, it would be brushed off. As long, of course, as the man isn't trying to gain sexual arousal, the incident would be quite inconsequential.
Furthermore, children would become more used to the sight of naked adults. As long as it remains non-sexual, the child would not be harmed by the incident, as he is already used to the sight.

REBUTTAL 6:

As I said in my last rebuttal, children would become used to the sight of naked adults, and vice-versa. It would be very suspicious to see a strange old man ogling at some children, and he would most likely be reported very quickly. Children would also lose much of the shame they have in their bodies. Children who are used to nudity have less inhibitions about it, feel more comfortable in their own skins, and could therefore report inappropriate behavior much easier.

IN CONCLUSION:

Public nudity would create an atmosphere of comfort around nudity, effectively destroying its sexual appeal and "forbidden fruit" factor.
Benshapiro

Con

Response to rebuttal 1:

1) My rebuttal caused you to alter your previous argument of "Nudity is a basic right" to "nudity should be a basic right". Even so, I'll address your new argument.

"Even if a majority was disgusted by pink hair, it should still remain legal, as outlawing pink hair would violate the first amendment. The same argument goes for public nudity."

2) pink hair is not a valid comparison to public nudity. The reason is because nudity has the following consequences which are not shared by pink hair because nudity will cause: increased sexual tension, increased risk of contracting disease, increasing pervert activity, increased hygienic problems, and increased accidents of genitalia touching other people (possibly on faces or in contact with other genitalia) in crowded rooms. Pink hair is also not a fair comparison because using common sense we know that hair color is the only changing factor, not many other factors public nudity has: the sight of weight, pubic hair, vaginal bleeding (period), whether or not the person is aroused, and not sharing the same smells and other characteristics of dirty vaginal or penile areas. This is not even close to being grossed out by someones hair color.

Response to rebuttal 2:

1) the initial act of legalizing public nudity would create a "shock" effect and only a "forbidden fruit" status can be reached over time.
2) there are legal "nudist colonies" and people who want to be in the company of other nudists can live there without affecting anyone else in society.

Rebuttal 3:

You have still completely failed to address my "competely focused statement on the sun" argument at all. In regards to your others:
1) clothes constrict blood flow and decrease our range of motion: Loosely worn clothes or strechy material do not affect either blood flow or our range of motion. Gymnasts wear spandex and bend in all sorts of ways.
2) "clothes offer a perfect breeding ground for [parasites, fungi, and bacteria]. Source? I don't believe that is true. Many clothes are made out of cotton or polyester, materials none of those would thrive in.

Rebuttal 4:

1) again, you are adding additional criteria to satisfy my previous round argument.

So now: "Private businesses still maintain the right to enforce a dress code, ...there may need to be restrictions on seating, ...busses can be equipped with disposable seat protectors, movie theaters can require pants"

"Disposable seat protectors" would cost our public transit system a lot of tax-payer dollars because they'd have to be changed after each person uses it. It would also waste a lot of time for each protector to be thrown away and changed after each stop. Certain business creating different laws and standards would be an enormous complexity for each person in society to know what is acceptable and what is not.

"One is more likely to stub his toe wearing sandals. Should we ban those as well?"

Stubbing your toe is a little bit different from contracting aids or other lethal diseases by risking bodily fluid transfers resulting from no barrier of contact.

Rebuttal 5:

"However, in a world where nudity is accepted as a regular part of daily life, it would be brushed off. As long, of course, as the man isn't trying to gain sexual arousal, the incident would be quite inconsequential.
Furthermore, children would become more used to the sight of naked adults. As long as it remains non-sexual, the child would not be harmed by the incident, as he is already used to the sight."

So you are fine with nude people whacking kids in the face with their penises if it's by accident because they would be accustomed to it. The "forbidden fruit" factor argument doesn't hold because it still takes time to be accustomed to seeing naked people in society, and that would not happen for some time. I rest my case.

Rebuttal 6:

"As I said in my last rebuttal, children would become used to the sight of naked adults, and vice-versa. "

That is wrong on so many levels. You are promoting a law which makes it legal for perverts and scum bags to legally view children naked. What would stop them from staring at little kids? Again, you want a law that makes it OK for children to roam around naked for anybody to see, even perverts.

"Children who are used to nudity have less inhibitions about it, feel more comfortable in their own skins, and could therefore report inappropriate behavior much easier."

I disagree. Many overweight or ugly people try to hide their bodies with sweatshirts or strategically patterned clothing. Some parents would force their children to be naked because some parents are controlling and make their kids do what they want them to do, regardless if the child wants to. If an insecure child is made to walk around naked, they would only feel more shame and be less likely to report sexual harassment.

In conclusion:

1) you have changed or added some of your arguments with additional criteria in response to my arguments, 2) you are promoting a law where children can be legally exposed to perverts 3) a very confusing sub-system of laws following hygienic practices that differ for each business 4) a costly system or trying to maintain hygiene on public transit 5) still an increased risk of contracting diseases such as AIDS because there are no barriers to transfer 6) a "forbidden fruit" appeal will still be in effect for some time after the law initially passes because only time can cause that allure to go away 7) there are already nudist colonies where people can go 8) there is a certain "gross out factor" that can not be compared to other taboo customs of society because of the vivid sights, smells, and health concerns
Debate Round No. 3
Greedav

Pro

REBUTTAL 1:

Firstly, women on their periods should be wearing a tampon in public, simply because of the obvious biohazard.
Everything else you stated in this contention has to do with your subsequent contentions, which I will rebut below.

REBUTTAL 2:

1) Every major change will initially cause a shock factor. This is no reason to refrain from change. When slavery was outlawed, it caused quite a shock. But after the initial shock wears off, we come to a state where we don't bat an eye when we see it.
2) "there [sic] are legal 'nudist colonies' and people who want to be in the company of other nudists can live there without affecting anyone else in society."
This reminds me a lot of segregation. A "separate but equal" kind of doctrine. Needless to say, this is not right. Shall we separate everyone with a different lifestyle? Shall we make seperate "pink-hair colonies" because I am offended and shocked by pink hair?

REBUTTAL 3:

1) Even spandex restricts blood flow and range of motion. Spandex actually restricts blood flow more than other everyday clothes because it is so tight.
It is one thing to allow someone to restrict their blood flow, but entirely different to force someone to. We should never be forced by law to do something that is harmful. That is why I think nudity should be a choice we have as humans.
2) Yes, it is true. Clothes trap our pores, which doesn't allow evaporation of sweat. This creates a constant warm, moist environment, which is ideal for many bacteria and fungi. Even washing clothes will not eliminate these pathogens.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
http://abcnews.go.com...

REBUTTAL 4:

If you are unhappy with my defense, I can provide a second one.

It all boils down to personal choice. No one will be forced to go naked. Each individual will need to weigh the risks and act on what he or she feels is best. My argument is not about forcing people to embrace nudity. It is about allowing the freedom to choose what is best for you.
Also, the chance of contracting HIV from your posted scenario is incredibly small.
If we truly wanted to eliminate the risk of HIV contraction, we would ban unprotected sex between unmarried people and homosexuals, and force everyone to wear a full-body suit. While this may sound preposterous, it is not a far cry from forcing people to wear clothes. It follows the same principles.
In the words of Bemjamin Franklin: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

http://thinkexist.com...

REBUTTAL 5:

The point isn't that being "whacked in the face with a penis" is good, but that it shouldn't be seen as overtly bad and sexual. Children shouldn't inherently see evil in sexual organs, they are a natural part of life, and everyone has them. Telling children that sexual organs are evil and that they should always be covered is a major source of body shame and low self-esteem. Public nudity would strengthen the idea that nobody's perfect and that we should be happy with our bodies.

http://nudistnaturistamerica.org...

REBUTTAL 6:

You take my statement out of context. If there was some old man "stroking his jiffy" at some kids, that would be public indecency, which I do not aim to legalize. If some guy was following a group of children, and is obviously sexually excited, he would be noticed immediately and reported to the police.

Your second paragraph strengthens my point. "Overweight or ugly people" would benefit most from public nudity, as they will easily see the imperfections in other people's bodies, not just their own. They shouldn't have to hide their perfectly acceptable bodies from others in a sense of shame. Hiding their imperfections solves nothing.
Furthermore, forcing someone to cover their body instills more shame. After all, if the government forces them to hide it, it must seem pretty shameful to them.

IN CONCLUSION:

Public nudity is a freedom we should all have. It is not anyone's place to force someone to do something that can spread disease and cause unhealthiness. In addition, it would help improve the body image of many self-conscious people and decrease the feeling of shame surrounding the human body.

Vote Pro.
Benshapiro

Con

REBUTTAL 1:

You haven't provided any contention when I pointed out that your comparison with pink hair is not the same taboo as public nudity.

REBUTTAL 2:

1) the problem with referencing other major social changes in the past, is that you have failed to mention that a "social norm" status can only occur over time, rendering that "forbidden fruit" argument with additional problems. Furthermore, the belief that "every man is created equal" is not a valid comparison to "public nudity should be a right."

2) nudist colonies are segregated because they affect other people in society who don't want to see nude people. Those who want to be in the company of other nudists are comfortable and accepting of being nude and an infinitesimally small percentage of the population lives in these colonies. This very small majority of people who want to live nude in public places should not trump the wants and desires of the general public.

REBUTTAL 3:

1)The argument that clothing restricts blood flow and flexibility is a very poor reason for legalizing public nudity. Loosely worn or stretchy material will not interfere with flexibility or blood flow if that is a concern. Exercising and practicing yoga while wearing shorts or stretchy material will serve to increase blood flow and flexibility far better than just absence of clothing.
2) your first source has literally nothing to do with proving whether or not clothing is a good environment for pathogens. I read the entire page and the information shown is all about "typhus". "Typhus is a bacterial disease spread by lice or fleas." What does this have to do with showing whether or not clothing is a good environment for pathogens? Nada.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov...

Your second source is the only one relevant. However, as the source claims "But a washing-machine is just one of many germ-laden objects that you encounter in a given day. Handrails, ATM's, refrigerator handles, and telephone sets among others."
http://abcnews.go.com...

Just because laundry machines are germy, doesn't mean we should outlaw clothing. Even more disturbing than germ-ridden laundry machines, is the fact that our toothbrushes have a small trace of poop and germs on them. It's been confirmed on Mythbusters. If this small trace of poo'ey germs in contact with our mouth doesn't significantly affect us, then outlawing clothing for reasons these germs might be on our clothes doesn't make any sense.
http://dsc.discovery.com...

REBUTTAL 4:

I never stated that I was unhappy, just pointing out that you are adding additional criteria to satisfy problems that you hadn't addressed.
1) whether or not only a fraction of people decide to be nude doesn't negate my health concerns or costs of providing disposable protectors on public transit or a confusing sub-system of laws that citizens would need to know and abide by for each business.
2) the chances of contracting a disease, no matter how small, is a valid concern. I wouldn't want to sit my naked bum on a bloody toilet seat from someone HIV+ no matter how small the chances of me contracting it are.
3) You argue that being nude in public is a personal freedom. However this does not address the fact you are impeding on the freedom of others who do not want to see other people nude in public. Laws serve the purpose of limiting certain freedoms that are harmful to the well-being of society, and public nudity is currently illegal for that reason.

REBUTTAL 5:

"The point isn't that being "whacked in the face with a penis" is good, but that it shouldn't be seen as overtly bad and sexual. Children shouldn't inherently see evil in sexual organs, they are a natural part of life, and everyone has them."

1) You haven't offered a defense on why this would not happen. My argument wasn't that it was good, but that it would happen given that it is likely we have all bumped into another person sometime during our life and especially children in crowded areas. This is inherently a bad outcome that would not be negated by nudity being a social norm, especially if the children and its parents don't believe in public nudity and are fully clothed and the person that bumps into the child is nude or has a history of child molestation.

2) nobody is saying that children should see evil in their sexual organs, but they should realize that some people use their sexual organs for evil (molestation of a child). The source you cite is "nudistamerica.org" and is clearly biased in favor of their own subjective beliefs. Again, I'll reference my example of how public nudity will not result in heightened self-esteem: "Many overweight or ugly people try to hide their bodies with sweatshirts or strategically patterned clothing. Some parents would force their children to be naked because some parents are controlling and make their kids do what they want them to do, regardless if the child wants to. If an insecure child is made to walk around naked, they would only feel more shame and be less likely to report sexual harassment."

REBUTTAL 6:

"You take my statement out of context. If there was some old man 'stroking his jiffy' at some kids, that would be public indecency, which I do not aim to legalize. If some guy was following a group of children, and is obviously sexually excited, he would be noticed immediately and reported to the police."

You fail to recognize that easy access to naked children will cause increased pervert activity like some old man "stroking his jiffy at some kids." You also failed to address the fact that children, pre-teens, and teenagers who are underage will be able to roam around naked, open to sexual exploitation by observing perverts and scumbags without explicitly obvious sexual exploitation. This argument was not properly addressed. In my last round I said:

"That is wrong on so many levels. You are promoting a law which makes it legal for perverts and scum bags to legally view children naked. What would stop them from staring at little kids? Again, you want a law that makes it OK for children to roam around naked for anybody to see, even perverts."

Again, you want to legalize public nudity for all ages. Toddlers, elementary school kids, pre-teens, and otherwise for all of the general public to see.

IN CONCLUSION:

You did not address 1) the fact that clothes provide a barrier to bodily fluid transferred diseases and 2) have added additional criteria to your arguments (public transit sheet protectors, business deciding their own laws on the subject, ect,.) and have changed criteria "public nudity is a right" to "public nudity should be a right" and 3) I have countered all of your arguments with reasonable and logical evidence. On top of this, the burden of proof is on you to convince why public nudity should have its current illegal status to be changed to legal. All of these evidences show why I should win this debate and why public nudity should not be legalized. I have enjoyed this debate and thank you for making it.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Damn, I came here to change my vote, but I was too late.
Posted by Greedav 3 years ago
Greedav
No, you spelled the abbreviation for "et cetera" incorrectly. It should be "etc", not "ect".
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
Three of those listed are punctuation errors, not spelling errors. The full voting voting criteria is "spelling and grammar." You've had quite a few more structural errors/run-on sentences.

If anything, the first vote should be changed because he claims that I used "no sources" but I did. I've used the Mythbusters source and also some of your own sources to show why they were irrelevant.
Posted by Greedav 3 years ago
Greedav
Also, I have found some mistakes in Con's spelling as well.

"competely [sic] focused statement on the sun"

"Public nudity would mean we would have a bunch of people sitting naked on public transit, movie theater seats, sidewalks, rental cars, ect,. [sic]"

"business deciding their own laws on the subject, ect,. [sic]"

"This is not even close to being grossed out by someones [sic] hair color."

"Loosely worn clothes or strechy [sic] material"

I have only found two spelling errors in my body of work, so I would appreciate if Rajan could change his S&G vote to Pro, or if anything, to Tie.
Posted by Greedav 3 years ago
Greedav
Rajun, could you please point out my spelling mistakes for future reference? Thanks.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
A little more formatting would be very nice (bold the contention titles or something).
Posted by Greedav 3 years ago
Greedav
Just making it clear, I never said we should "outlaw clothing", as my opponent implies.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
GreedavBenshapiroTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's positions lacked depth; Con exposed their flaws, particularly re: nudity as a right.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
GreedavBenshapiroTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed almost entirely with Con's arguments (there was a few points he made I didn't agree with). Public nudity isn't a right - no more than having sex in public is a right. Could you imagine naked men with erections crossing a busy city street? It simply isn't decent. I can go on and on and on with specific examples. No. Humans should wear something to cover themselves in public. Con used Pro's sources to refute the resolution. Alas, the only points I could award to Con were for his convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
GreedavBenshapiroTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Interesting one... But Pro's rebuttal with sentences like " If I, for example, am disgusted by anyone who dyes their hair pink, I cannot have it banned. " was not relevant and lacked the punch. Pro had some spelling mistakes. Sources were used more by Pro but were not relevant while Con's sources were...Conduct... a note, Both of the debaters have used sentences like " YOU have still completely" using you instead of Pro and Con..so conduct is tie...
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
GreedavBenshapiroTied
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: I found Pro's arguments much more compelling and I did not see any sources in Con's (although he didn't really need them, given the nature of his arguments).