The Instigator
Christopheratheist
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
Fatihah
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points

Quran Ethics: Homosexuality.

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  
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: 12/28/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,847 times Debate No: 14170
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

Christopheratheist

Con

First of all I wish to thank Fatihah for accepting this debate, I will be contesting this ethic, whilst Fatihah will be defending that Homosexuality is wrong. It is Important to remember this debate is NOT about the authenticity of the Quran, Nor is it about if the Quran is or is not the word of god. Although my opponent may if they so wish use these statements against me, and I may refute them.

Round 1 - Initial Argument (No rebuttals in First round)
Round 2 - Rebuttal of each Previous argument.
Round 3 - (Extension of Arguments, and Rebuttals to claims in the second round.)
Round 4 - Conclusion (No new Arguments, Only Rebuttals and building of the previous Arguments?)

Con Argument: -

Point One.

First let me give some verses referring to Homosexuality so that the readers may know why my opponent affirms the position it is wrong.

"We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Qur'an 7:80-81

"What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk." Qur'an 26:165.

These two verses coming from the book the Holy Quran believed by many to have been written by God himself.

First let me address the fact that we know Homosexuality to be part of animalistic nature My evidence for this is in the following and I will quote some of these in my argument.[1]

Q - "The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates."

Now if you consider the fact that we are a Primate [2] then it is natural to follow the path of logic that follows, let me lay it out for you.

1. If Humans are Primates.
2. If Primates are prone to Homosexual Activities by nature.
3. Then Humans are prone to Homosexual Activities.

Whats more Islam states that all animals have no free-will and are under the influence of Allah at all times [3] then they would not indulge in that which Allah has forbidden.

Point 2.

It may be argued by my opposition that the Gay community is somewhat damageing to a society and infact can harm the society more than it can contribute to it, I would like to point out that Homosexuals have a higher Education rate, a higher Job rate, Better general health overall, They are cleaner. All this evidence comes from the ONS. I will also give a spread out. [4]

If this is the case then we can only assume that Homosexuals actually contribute more to society than Hetrosexuals. If my opponent can prove me wrong on this I apologise.

This is the remainder of my argument for the time being, I will add as procedure allows and also refute the argument as procedure allows.

With this I pass to my Oponent and with them luck.

[1] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[2] - http://anthro.palomar.edu...
[3] - (Quran 22:18)
[4] - http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Fatihah

Pro

As Salaamu Alaikum, to my respected opponent and audience.

Concerning homosexuality, it is quite odd to ask for proof of something which is obvious, concerning whether homosexuality is wrong. While many religious people claim that it is wrong simply because God says so, even I would agree that such an argument is not sufficient. For God should be able to give a logical reason as to why something is wrong as well. So what makes homosexuality wrong? Well, the answer is not religious at all. However, in islam, the qur'an does help to guide us to the understanding. As my opponent has already quoted from the qur'an , it is wrong because it is based on lust, not love. We read the following:

"You approach men with lust instead of women. Nay, you are a people who exceeds all bounds"(ch.7:81).

Here we see that the qur'an states that the act of same sex is lust, thus it is condemned. For any sexual activity which is based on lust and not love is wrong. Not because God or religion says so, but because it is, as it involves the idea of using someone sexually. This is why fornication and adultery are strongly condemned. When I refer to lust, I'm referring to the act of using someone sexually for their own pleasure. For example, if I hug a woman to comfort her, this is an act of love, which is o.k. But if I hug a woman, not with the intent to comfort her, but to fulfill my personal crave for affection, then this is absolutely wrong. For I am using her emotionally to satisfy myself. This is the most heinous of acts. To use a person is already a harsh thing to do. But to use someone on an intimate level is a disgrace. This we already should know. Think about it. Ask yourself why a woman feels so devastated and dramatized when she is raped or cheated on. It is because she was used sexually. For sex is the most intimate of embraces. So to be used for something which is so intimate to someone will naturally be devastating to them. This is why sex based on lust is highly condemned and wrong in islam, for sex based on lust is the idea of using someone to fulfill your own sexual desires, which is the same root action possessed by rapists and pedophiles. And it is this which is why homosexuality is wrong, for it is based on lust, not love.

However, a homosexual will defend themself and state that homosexuality is based on love, not lust. Thus the question is, is such a claim true? Let's analyze.

Homosexuals themselves state that they are able to love the same sex sexually, but not the opposite. By doing so, they are also acknowledging that there is a difference in the sexual nature of attraction between men and women. Yet, if you were to ask a homosexual what is that difference, even they wouldn't be able to answer. Nor will my opponent. So what is the difference? Let's further analyze.

Love is a feeling of appreciation. A feeling of appreciation you get for being the caregiver and protector to someone, or for being cared for and protected by someone. For example, why does a child love their parent? It is because of the feeling of appreciation they get because the parent cares and provides and protects the child. Yet, why does the parent love the child? The newborn child does not care or provide anything. No. A parents love to their newborn is due to the feeling of appreciation they get for caring and providing and protectiong someone.

But since we are talking about loving someone sexually and we know that love comes from a feeling of appreciation for being the caregiver and protector or the one being cared for or protected, then that means that loving someone SEXUALLY either comes from one's feeling of appreciation to care and protect someone or to show appreciation for being cared for and protected by someone. For the convenience of this debate, we will call:

"Loving someone sexually which derives from one's feeling of appreciation to caregive and protect" as form A.

"Loving someone sexually which derives from showing feelings of appreciation for being cared for and protected" as form B.

Now let us remember what homosexuals themselves say. Remember, not even homosexuals themselves can tell you specifically what is in their nature which makes them allegedly love the same sex sexually but not the opposite. However, such a claim means that they themselves are acknowledging that male and female sexual attraction is different. Yet since we know that loving someone sexually derives in only two forms as explained above, then that again means that homosexuals acknowledge that either gender can only have one or the other form. Thus the question is which form belongs to which gender? Again, the answer is obvious.

Form A must obviously be the sexual nature of attraction of men, not women, because Form A derives from the nature of a protector and in comparison to women, man's nature is in more accordance to being a protector than woman's. For men are physically bigger and stronger and less sensitive, making them more inclined to engage in physical combat when there is danger than women. This means that a woman's nature to love someone sexually derives from Form B. Since a man's desire to love someone sexually derives from his desire to be the caregiver and protector of someone, then that means that he can only love another woman sexually, not a man, for there is nothing in a man's nature which makes another man love him sexually. Why? Well what makes a person want to protect someone naturally? It's someone who is sensitive, delicate, weaker, smaller, pretty, adorable,etc. Think of why we see a kitten and want to love and care for it, pet it, etc. It is because of its adorable and cuddly appearance which makes us naturally want to love and care for the kitten. For by nature, someone which is adorable and sensitive draws out one's desire to love and protect them. This is a natural reaction. This is why we feel the natural need to love and protect a child, because of their adorable appearance and sensitive nature. However, a man's appearance is not cute and cuddly. His voice is not soft and light. Thus a man can not possibly love another man sexually, especially in preference over a woman. For a man does not posses the physical appearance necessary to draw another man to love him sexually. And since a woman's desire to love someone sexually comes from protection, then it's not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually. Why? Well what makes one see someone as a protector naturally? It's size, aggression, bigger, stronger, muscle, deeper voice box, etc. However, a woman's body does not resemble power and strength. These are attributes of men, not women. A woman's body is soft and curvy, with no muscle build. Thus it is not possible for a woman to love another woman sexually, especially in preference over men. For a woman does not posses the physical build or appearance necessary to draw another woman to love her sexually.

In conclusion, we see that, in accordance to nature itself, it is not humanly possible for the same sex to love each other sexually. Surely, they can love each other. Surely, they can engage in sexual activities. But these sexual activities do not come from love, but from lust, as demonstrated. As such, homosexuality is wrong, because it is based on lust, which is the idea of using one sexually to fulfill ones own sexual desires. This kind of mindstate is horrific, as it is the same mindstate of rapists and pedophiles. Using someone is already wrong. But to use someone sexually is one of the most terrible things someone can do. This is what sex based on lust is, which is wrong. And since homosexuality is based on lust, it is wrong as well.

Now if my opponent believes that I am wrong , then he would have to answer the question which homosexuals themselves can not answer, which is to identify what specifically is the difference in man and women's nature, which makes homosexuals love the same sex sexually, but not
Debate Round No. 1
Christopheratheist

Con

As I came to read my opponents post I became somewhat distressed at the strength of the argument however after some real term consideration I have found that it is weak at a few of its fundamental points, the cornerstones if you like these include his types of love, Form A Form B, and who they apply to, also his point about homosexuals only being that way due to Lust and that they can not be in a loving relationship.

Refutation One – Homosexuals can Love

First off, Homosexuals campaign for Marriage[1] so that they, like heterosexuals can have a partnership by law and spend life together with one another, and take the same vows a Heterosexual would. Let me explain what a marriage is, and I am sure my opponent will agree on this point. [2]

•"the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"

Not only this, but a marriage usually pertains to the couple promising to remain faithful, to keep financial matter together and to help each other through times of difficulty and hardship. My opponent can not deny that a Marriage is an act of love and thus when Homosexuals marry; they do not do so out of an act of "Lust" Otherwise they would marry more than one partner…. That raises perhaps Islam suggests that any man is acting upon Lust, as Islam permits four wives.[3] Again if my opponent concedes this point that even heterosexual men can follow Lust, then he again concedes his argument as he is admitting that it is not just a trait found in Homosexuals.

Furthermore new science has found that Homosexual male brain structure has a makeup that is near on equal to that of a heterosexual female, and a homosexual female that of a heterosexual male,[4] this whilst not only furthering my original evidence, refutes the claim of Homosexuals not being able to love, they just love in an opposite way.

Point 2 – Forms of Love

My opponent claims that a women can not be caring or protective in the same way a man is, and thus a man can not love her as a protector, and he also claims that a female can not love the male as a cuddly cute thing that can protect him. This is utterly absurd and I will show you why. First off let me show you a few pictures : -

1.http://www.ironmagazine.com...

This women scares the absolute hell out of me, and I can see that she would be better at protecting me than I would myself, So if like in my previous point, This women within a lesbian brain molecular structure would appear attractive to her, as she offers the very thing my opponent would have you believe she can not.

2.http://www.30sleeps.com...

This guy however does not fit my Opponents description of the protector, in fact his physical makeup makes him fit the Form B love than Form A, so my opponents Type of love is also flawed.
The thing that determines the makeup and the emotional/psychological attributes are the Hormones Estrogens and Testosterone. One is being a large part of each gender, one making the growth of breasts and the curves, whilst the other masculine voice and muscles ect. Now when these are in a state of unbalance the chemical structure and brain structure is changed dramatically. Take Eunuchs for example, they have their tentacles removed and by doing so damage their Testosterone levels making Estrogens the dominant Hormone. It is clear cut that when a man becomes a Eunuch over a period of time he becomes more effeminate and takes on Gay tendencies, now my Opponent can not say these are acts of Lust as the Eunuch is in fact unable to perform any acts of Lust, he instead attribute a love for a man who can protect him.

I can not go any further into my discussion as this round disallows any new claims. So without further ado I pass to my Opponent.

To Win my opponent must -

A- prove my science is incorrect.
B- Refute that Gays can not Love.
C- Give us evidence that Homosexuals are bad to society.
D- Explain The Quran verse given, and how that does not point to Lust.

[1] - http://equallove.org.uk...
[2] - http://www.google.co.uk...
[3] – Surah 4:3 of Pickthall translation – "And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four;"
[4] - http://current.com...
Fatihah

Pro

Dear audience,

Though I respect my opponent's civilized approach and humble manner as he presents his argument, his rebuttal however happens to be....a complete, entire strawman. Let's analyze.

As I stated in my opening argument, homosexuality is wrong because sex between the same sex is based on lust, not love, and sex based on lust is wrong. For sex based on lust is the idea of using another sexually to please your own sexual desires. To use someone is already wrong, but to use someone sexually is the most heinous of acts, because sex is the most intimate of embraces. To use someone for what is most intimate to them like sex causes heavy devastation and leaves one severely dramatized. That is why those who are raped and molested feel the way they do. This is why sex based on lust is wrong and since homosexuality is based on lust, it is wrong as well. Thus my opponent would have to prove that homosexual sex is not based on lust but love, to disprove my claim. So what does he do?

He begins by saying:

"My opponent can not deny that a Marriage is an act of love and thus when Homosexuals marry; they do not do so out of an act of "Lust".

What exactly is my opponent talking about? This is a strawman. For I have never stated that homosexuals do not marry out of love, nor have I said that they can not love. In fact, I concluded my argument by saying that the same sex can in fact love each other. So his whole rebuttal is a strawman and not relevant, thus disproving nothing. For I specifically stated throughout my argument that the same sex can not love each other sexually, not that they can not love each other, as my opponent says. Again I repeat, homosexuality is wrong because sex is based on lust, not love, and sex based on lust is wrong. Yet the whole beginning of my opponent's argument is not even a refutation of my argument, thus proving nothing. He has to prove in fact that sexual activity between the same sex is not based on lust, but love, to prove my argument wrong. Instead, he aimed to prove that homosexuals can love each other, which is a strawman. And as any reasonable person can see, a strawman argument is used due to the fact that the actual argument presented can't be disproven. Thus my opponent is already acknowledging that my argument is flawless, and proven to be true. Since he hasn't even addressed my argument, he has not proven anything.

He then says:

"Furthermore new science has found that Homosexual male brain structure has a makeup that is near on equal to that of a heterosexual female, and a homosexual female that of a heterosexual male,[4] this whilst not only furthering my original evidence, refutes the claim of Homosexuals not being able to love, they just love in an opposite way".

Does this disprove that homosexual sex is based on lust? Not at all. What does the brain of a homosexual matching a heterosexual have to do with proof that homosexual sex is based on love? Nothing. Brain structure does not prove that someone is having sex out of love. This is an absurd argument. Brain structure and love are not synonymous, so they can't mean the same thing as love, nor relate or be the cause of love.Once again, this is a flawed argument which proves nothing.

He then says:

"My opponent claims that a women can not be caring or protective in the same way a man is, and thus a man can not love her as a protector, and he also claims that a female can not love the male as a cuddly cute
thing that can protect him. This is utterly absurd and I will show you why. First off let me show you a few pictures : -"

Another strawman from my opponent. For at no time have I stated that a man can not love a woman as a protector, nor can he quote otherwise. Nor have I stated that a female can not love a male as a cuddly cute thing that can protect him, nor can he quote otherwise. Thus my opponent again has stooped to using a strawman, which one clearly does when the argument they're faced with can't be refuted. As I explained in my first statement, love comes in two forms, form A and form B as explained in my opening statement. Notice, that nothing of his rebuttal disagrees that love comes in these two forms. As explained, love is:

"either the feeling of appreciation you get for being the caregiver and protector of someone" form A.

or

" the feeling of appreciation you get for being cared for and protected by someone." form B.

The examples given was the relationship between parent and child. Whereas the parent would feel "form A." towards their newborn while the newborn will fill "form B."

Again, we notice above that my opponent doesn't contest this nor disagrees either. Thus far, he is actually agreeing to my argument, not disproving it.

I go on to demonstrate that since this is the nature of love, that sex out of love has to derive from this nature, form A or form B.

I remind my opponent that the claim of homosexuality itself acknowledges that men and women have different sexual natures of attraction, because the claim to sexually attract to the same sex but not the opposite means that there is something which is DIFFERENT in the sexual nature of the opposite sex which makes one choose the same sex. To this we also notice, my opponent never contested. Again showing that he must be in agreeance. So since the desire to love someone sexually only comes in two forms and homosexuals themselves acknowledge that both genders have a DIFFERENT sexual nature, then that means each form can not go to the same gender, but either or. The question remains as to which form belongs to which gender.

I go on to demonstrate that since the nature of love in form A clearly derives from the concept of being the protector, then form A must be the nature of males, for in comparison to women, men would be considered protectors, because men are physically stronger and less sensitive, making them more inclined to fight when there is danger. Now pay attention. For this is where my opponent tries to twist the words of my argument.

After demonstrating that the sexual nature of males derives from the concept of a protector, that sexual acts between two males can not come from love, for the natural appearance of a male does not draw someone to protect them. What makes one protect someone naturally? It's sensitivity, weaker, smaller,adorable, pretty,. Since there is nothing adorable or sensitive about the appearance or nature of a Man, it is not possible for another man to love another man sexually, especially over a woman, for there is nothing in the appearance of a man which draws another man to love him sexually. These are attributes of women. This is what I stated. But what does my opponent do. He states that I said:

"a women can not be caring or protective in the same way a man is".

What? No where is there such a statement above. A complete strawman. A complete twist of words. I never mentioned such a statement, as anyone can see. I never stated women can not be caring or protective in the same way a man is. This is a complete fabrication. So I'm asking the audience, why? Why would someone twist the words or refute a statement which was never stated? The reason is obvious. It's clear that my opponent can't refute my argument. It's an act of desperation. In fact, he's never shown disagreement to my whole argument this whole time, but rather used a strawman argument and refuted that whole argument. The only logical reason for doing so is because he himself agrees to my argument and can't find fault in it, which is why he has obviously taken the approach to not refute my arguments, but to refute a strawman's argument. Dear audience, my opponent has admittedly failed. The evidence is clear.

I have unfortunately ran out of character space to further disprove my opponent and his claims. Yet I've presented enough to show that my argument remains valid. His has failed. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Christopheratheist

Con

Christopheratheist forfeited this round.
Fatihah

Pro

Dear audience,

As demonstrated, the proof is clear that homosexuality is based on lust, not love, as I have demonstrated in my opening post. My opponent even acknowledges this fact, as he has forfeited the debate.

Before concluding, I wish to address the claims that there are homosexual animals, thus homosexuality is natural. To answer the charge, homosexuality is natural, for lust is natural. So I don't question it's nature. But since it's based on lust, it is wrong.

But we can not claim that animals are in fact homosexuals. For in humans, a homosexual, according to homosexuals themselves, is one who only sexually attracts to the same sex, not the opposite. So though there may be animals engaging in sexual behavior with the same sex, this is not proof of homosexuality, for the animal does not reject the opposite sex, nor is their any scientific evidence that any animal does.

Secondly, let's look at this claim that homosexual animals exist because of same sex sexual behavior in animals. Do you know what this sexual behavior is? It's two animals of the same sex humping each other. Is this supposed to be proof of homosexual animals? Of course not. A dog will hump your leg when it's aroused. Does that mean the dog is a legosexual? This shows that just because animals of the same sex are humping each other does not prove that there are homosexual animals.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as scientific evidence of homosexuality in animals, for the claim itself contradicts science. In science, to know the nature of a species, you study and analyze the nature of animals within that species. For example, when knowing the nature of a lion, no scientist has gone out and studied every single lion on the planet to know its nature. No. The scientists just studies a family of lions and from there conclude the nature of all lions. In short, the nature is the same for all lions, not just some. So to state that there is such a thing as homosexual and heterosexual animals in the same species contradicts science, for animals of the same species has the same nature according to science. Thus there is no scientific evidence of homosexual animals, as explained in the reasons above.

In conclusion, I have shown that homosexuality is based on lust, not love, and my argument in my opening statement is in exact accordance to nature, thus further confirming that it is fact. Lust is the idea of using someone sexually to please your own personal crave for affection. And to use someone on an intimate level just to fulfill your own desires is clearly wrong, which is why sex based on lust is wrong. And since homosexuality is based on lust, it is wrong as well.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Fatihah 4 years ago
Fatihah
To the contrary, your inability to demonstrate any fault in my argument supports evidence to the contrary. Thus your reasoning for hating religion clearly stems from your own fallacies.
Posted by owen99999 5 years ago
owen99999
Wow Fatihah you are so wrong it's people like you that make me hate religion. Awful.
Posted by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
If my argument is doubtful, then you should be able to find fault in each you haven't. The definition of wrong does not have to be agreed upon either, especially if you yourself has no definition of what wrong is that discredits my argument of why homosexuality is wrong. Thus it's clear that your vote is bias, and bias votes are never credible.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Credit to both sides for having a civil debate or a hot topic.

The debate did not have a clear agreed-upon definition of "wrong." Con pressed the ideas of "wrong" meaning either "abnormal" or "harmful to society." Pro pressed "wrong" as "contrary to accepted moral concepts."

Con's argument that homosexuality is genetically determined is correct, but that doesn't speak to the issue. My poor eyesight is genetic, but thereby neither right nor wrong. Pro's argument that homosexuals "lust" rather than "love" is not proved. I don't think there is a clear distinction between heterosexual "lust" and "love" either. In the extreme, "lust" is unwise, but if it is by consent, why is it "wrong?" Pro's argument is built on doubtful premises.

Con pressed "harm to society" as the test for "wrong." That's a reasonable measure, and Pro did not provide convincing evidence in rebuttal. If there is no harm, then it's not wrong.

Arguments to Con. Con's forfeit gives conduct to Pro.
Posted by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
Indeed. It will be an interesting debate.
Posted by Christopheratheist 6 years ago
Christopheratheist
Good luck Fatihah may we have a good debate, Lets keep this civil and in the interest of the readers, and ourselves.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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:51 
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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: Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Stumbled upon this debate, quite obviously very late, but conduct to Pro for Con's forfeit and S&G equal. Arguments and sources to Con, Pro relied extensively on individual perception of "lust" and chose to classify sexual acts by homosexuals as "lust" and not "love". Pro's "evidence" resided in his continuous repetition, which was almost entirely undeterred by the actual evidence Con was providing. Despite Con's last round forfeiture, Pro's arguments were far too weak to merit a victory.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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 gr33k_fr33k5 4 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
ChristopheratheistFatihahTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31