The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Resolved: Gay marriage would weaken the insitutuion of marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 14 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,177 times Debate No: 20057
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (14)

 

16kadams

Pro

The BOP is on you to prove n and me to prove yes. This is hypothetical so We need to share it. Also weakening is defined as making it invalid, a joke etc. No semantics with the title.

C1: Gays cheat on each other more.

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. [1]

Second, and even more importantly, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among females). They are wrong because "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met. [2]

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. [3]

Studies to date suggest that only a tiny fraction of homosexual unions will be both monogamous and of twenty years duration or more (probably less than 5%). [4]

C2: gays are more violent towards each other.

In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior.[1]

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse [1]

These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders. [1]

Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage. [3]

The National Violence against Women Survey, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. [3]

C3: Gays have a higher risk of suicide

Homosexual and lesbian relationships experience a far greater rate of mental health problems compared to married couples. [3]

A twins study that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders. [3]

So the extra abuse obviously would cause mental problems.

C4: Gay partner commitment is lower.

Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" or "monogamous" typically means something radically different than in heterosexual marriage. [3]

A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous." According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different...forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals." [3]

The Handbook of Family Diversity reported a study in which "many self-described 'monogamous' couples reported an average of three to five partners in the past year. Blasband and Peplau (1985) observed a similar pattern." [3]

yeah how will you be committed if you are cheating on him/her?

C5: increases wed lock berths (babies from unmarried couples) increase with gay marriage legalization.

A series of articles in 2004 by Stanley Kurtz, a Harvard-trained social anthropologist and fellow at the Hoover Institution, show that the introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births. [4]

Stanley Kurtz has shown that in Sweden and Norway from 1990 to 2000—that is, in the period roughly coinciding with the introduction of same-sex registered partnerships (now almost de facto "gay marriage")—out-of-wedlock births have increased roughly 10%. [4]

C6: gays have higher divorce rates

Moreover, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples, male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female homosexual couples 3 times more likely. [4]

C7: Religion

I know that people hate me for always dragging this into these debates, but although the church has little to do with marriage they can actually request to abstain from laws, as the catholic tried in the gay adoption laws. (England)

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. [5]

C8: since marriage has benefits why not let same sex people have it?

Heterosexual marriage has these benefits, and it is what the scientific studies have looked at. There is no data showing similar benefits for same-sex couples. We don't know whether same-sex couples would enjoy any of these benefits, and there are reasons to think they would not. This is a subject we will deal with more in Part IV of this special report. For now we are looking at the benefits and public impact of heterosexual marriage. [6]

I await your response's

sources:
http://www.conservapedia.com... [1]
http://www.robgagnon.net... [2]
http://www.frc.org... [3]
http://www.robgagnon.net... [4]
http://www2.irna.com... [5]
http://www.catholic.com... [6]
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Re: C1 - Gays Cheat On Each Other More

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that being married will specifically make gays want to seek extra-marital partners. Pro must either justify this contention or drop it all-together.

While studies suggest gay couples have higher rates of promiscuity, we must consider several things. First, not all surveys are reliable considering people lie, and married people have an incentive to lie and undermine their cheating. Second, Pro is comparing the statistics of non-married couples to married couples. This is problematic because marriages are "more serious" commitments. In order for this contention to have merit, Pro should compare the statistics of non-married heterosexuals to non-married homosexuals (in which case the numbers would look very different). Finally, Pro's statistics may not be accurate. His source suggests that just 25% of married heterosexuals cheat. Meanwhile, other studies show that it can be up to 60% of couples and in fact are likely higher given high divorce rates [1].

Pro says that there are a "high number of break-ups" among lesbians. First of all, this is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand and I can easily cite statistics that show heterosexuals experience just as many break-ups. Second, lesbians are stereotyped to stay in long-lasting and monogamous relationships, so again Pro must either cite his facts or drop this contention.

Pro continues, "[Gay marriages] are wrong because 'gay marriage' is a contradiction in terms." The definitions, terms and parameters surrounding marriage have evolved throughout history. Marriage today has completely different connotations than it has in the past. Currently, the United States government and the Church define marriage to be between a man and a woman. However the Constitution could easily be rewritten to eliminate those specifications, and Pro's contention would lose all merit. The fact is that gay marriage IS recognized by some States and some Churches, therefore is not always a contradiction in terms (so this point is negated). Furthermore this argument in no way explains how this so-called contradiction would weaken the institution of marriage, so it's a moot point anyway.

I've already explained why Pro's statistics regarding the longevity of a homosexual couple's relationship and/or how many sexual partner's they've had each year are irrelevant, or rather not analogous. However more importantly, there is no right or wrong way for a couple to behave sexually; that is up to the individual couples to decide for themselves. Some couples are swingers and both partners enjoy extra-marital affairs openly. Some couples frequently participate in threesomes. Some couples are polygamous and/or polyamorous. Consider Mormons who are heterosexuals and experience marriage, often with multiple wives. All of these various heterosexal lifestyles have apparently not crushed the entire social structure of marriage. Instead, these people are given the right to enjoy and experience their relationships to whatever extent they deem appropriate for themselves.

Pro has given us no reason whatsoever to assume that even if or just because homosexual couples might cheat more often, that it would undermine or alter the significance of marriage in general. If that were true, then why hasn't their infidelity affected heterosexual couples' fidelity already? After all, homosexual couples experience relationships just as their heterosexual counterparts do. It would be more realistic to recognize that people's behavior as individuals does not and probably will not affect the behavior of other people.

Pro must prove that the behavior of people within gay relationships will affect how other people behave in their marriages. Then he must prove that monogamy is of paramount importance to marriage in general. If he is able to do this, we'll continue from there...

Re: C2 - Gays Are More Violent Toward Each Other

Due to character space limits, for now I will once again repeat that Pro must prove how this weakens the institution of marriage and will affect marriage in general. I contend that violence is dangerous and unacceptable with or without the legal recognition of marriage and is therefore irrelevant.

Re: C3 - Gays Have A Higher Suicide Rate

This is perhaps Pro's weakest contention. First, gays tend to kill themselves thanks in part to the unwarranted backlash they experience from the bigots in society who torture, bully and abuse them, or make them feel awkward, unloved or demented for absolutely no justifiable reason. If people stopped harassing gays for something as frivolous and insignificant as their sexual orientation, the world would be a better place in which people didn't feel the need to kill themselves because they were tortured and upset about their own identity.

Second, I once again fail to see what this has to do with hurting the concept marriage. Instead this is just another appeal to emotion in which Pro (or the Conservative's he mimicking like a parrot from his sources) attempt to depict gays as mentally unstable.

Re: C4 - Gay Commitment Is Lower

We've already addressed all of these points.

Re: C5 - Out of Wedlock Baby Increase

This argument is hilarious and non-sensical. How does same-sex registered partnerships relate to a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births?! Gay couples cannot naturally conceive children, and this statistic has to do with people who have babies OUT of wedlock - not within wedlock! Therefore, an increase in same-sex marriage would mean (if gays had anything at all to do with this statistic) that more babies would be conceived WITHIN wedlock. Honestly this argument is ridiculous. Pro needs to explain how this is relevant to the topic at hand, rather than just copy and paste some absurd argument which does absolutely nothing to support his case.

Re: C6 - Gays Have Higher Divorce Rates

Before I respond to this, I want to see the proof. Pro's source includes a broken link which means I cannot verify this.

Re: C7 - Religion

Irrelevant (see Closing Points).

Re: C8 - There Is No Benefit to Same-Sex Marriage

I think that's Pro's point...? I invite Pro to detail the benefits of marriage, and then I will explain exactly how and why homosexuals can experience the same benefits. Pro says we "don't know" if gays can enjoy the same benefits, yet has not included one reasonable explanation as to how or why they wouldn't be able to. I will detail why the benefits of marriage for everyone can still be enjoyed even if gay people are given the legal right to marry.

== Sources and Closing Points ==

Pro essentially copied and pasted his arguments from other sources, pretty much word-for-word (I invite everyone to click on his 4th source, specifically). Pro's main source is Conservapedia, a pro-conservative Wiki that intentionally and specifically endorses a Conservative POV, rather than try and be complete and thorough with their facts and analysis. Pro also relies on The Family Research Council to make his case, which is a conservative, right-wing Christian group and lobbying organization which again advocates a specific perspective using a lot of propaganda.

All of Pro's sources should be taken with a grain of salt. Most are backed by religious sentiments, though religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. We know this because two consenting adults (heterosexuals, in most states) can get married even if they are Atheist, Pagan or any other religion, and the Church has absolutely no say. Therefore, the Church's ideals cannot be used to speak against marriage in general. Pro's sources are biased and misleading.

Thus far Pro has not established what marriage is supposed to be and its alleged benefits, or how gay marriage would negatively impact the institution. Instead he just includes (many unproven) anti-gay statistics. He has not met his burden.

Sources: http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

"It makes no sense whatsoever to say that being married will specifically make gays want to seek extra-marital partners."

Here's clarification:
1. the dutch study, where gay mariage is legal may I add, proved that gays cheat on eachother more when married than heterosexual people. That weakens the definintion of mariage as th epoint of mariage is to be monogomas.

"While studies suggest gay couples have higher rates of promiscuity, we must consider several things. First, not all surveys are reliable considering people lie, and married people have an incentive to lie and undermine their cheating. "

What is the point of lying when your spose never needto know. Also if that is true then the gays would lie too, and if they did they would have lower rates. Also oce again, what is the point of lying if the people won't even tell?

"Finally, Pro's statistics may not be accurate. His source suggests that just 25% of married heterosexuals cheat. Meanwhile, other studies show that it can be up to 60% of couples and in fact are likely higher given high divorce rates"

This is false because all divorce's don't mean they broke up because of cheating. That argument is a fallacy. Also your numbers are false:

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce [1]

So first marriages have a 50% divorce rate. But other studies have different numbers:

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73% [1]

So your argument is false and only shows that ouple break up, but your studies are based of of sdtraight marriages, not gay ad straight together.


"Due to character space limits, for now I will once again repeat that Pro must prove how this weakens the institution of marriage and will affect marriage in general."

quite simple actually. When married if you get beaten it may end in divorce and marriage isn't about beatings in civilised countries. Beating your huband in this case is not a good thing in the name of marriage.

"This is perhaps Pro's weakest contention. First, gays tend to kill themselves thanks in part to the unwarranted backlash they experience from the bigots in society who torture, bully and abuse them, or make them feel awkward, unloved or demented for absolutely no justifiable reason."

I was expecting this argument, they have high suicide rates now and people are more open to them than ever. I don't hat or dislike them, I just want to spread facts.

Also it is well known that gays have higher substance abuse, and that leads to higher suicide rates:

Alcoholism and suicide often go hand in hand. Alcoholics are prodded to suicidal behavior and even people who don't normally drink will often ingest alcohol shortly before killing themselves. [2]


In 2008 only 1617 ate crimes occured.

58.6 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias. [3]


Also suicide rates are linked to socialpolitical areas, not hate speech and abuse:

CHICAGO -- Suicide attempts by gay teens – and even straight kids – are more common in politically conservative areas where schools don't have programs supporting gay rights, a study involving nearly 32,000 high school students found.[4]

So it's not really hate hurting them but being ignored. And much of America is liberal so in that case they should have better suicide rates, and this affects straight men too. SO your argument here to is a fallacy. You try to like correlation, but it has not been proven causation.

"depict gays as mentally unstable. "

I like gays (not in that way) and there nice people. But those are just the facts.


"We've already addressed all of these points."

Not really you haven't when I add on to my arguments I will add more on though. =)

"This argument is hilarious and non-sensical. How does same-sex registered partnerships relate to a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births?!"

I my source was working it would be easier to understand. Hut this PHD proves that it does that because allowing gay marriage changes the social outlook.


"Before I respond to this, I want to see the proof."

Already did, but will do it again. (so it works).


"Irrelevant"

Agreed I was gonna edit it out but then you accepted.


"I think that's Pro's point...? I invite Pro to detail the benefits of marriage, and then I will explain exactly how and why homosexuals can experience the same benefits."

I will show evidence later, but you haven't provided prof at all for your side.

"Pro's main source is Conservapedia"

Don't let one mal source ruin the debate. It wasn't my main one either as when I used it I used other sources to back it up.

"The Family Research Council to make his case, which is a conservative, right-wing Christian group"


really? last time I checked it had sources within it's sources. And the sources it had where totally good and credible.

"specific perspective using a lot of propaganda."

I do not see how facts are propaganda.

C1: gays cheat on each other more:

I am low on spacse so these add ons will be short.

A federally-funded study by San Francisco State University that followed 556 local male couples for three years found that half “have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners,” [5]

The study, to be completed this month by the State University’s Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, is even leading “some experts” to the conclusion that “boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution,” the newspaper reports. [5]

saying that this needs to be stopped to fix the institution.


C2: gays are more violent to each other.
I am using a LIBERAL source here.

Domestic abuse occurs in approximately 30 to 40% of GLBT relationships, which is the same percentage of violence that occurs in straight relationships. It is a myth that same-sex couples don't batter each other, or if they do; they are just "fighting" or it is "mutual abuse". [6]

Domestic abuse is always about power and control. One partner intentionally gains more and more power over his/ her partner. Tactics can include physical, emotional or verbal abuse, isolation, threats, intimidation, minimizing, denying, blaming, coercion, financial abuse, or using children or pets to control your behavior. [6]3

why is it purple!


C3: Gays have a higher risk of suicide

"The conclusion can be drawn from all the quoted studies that homosexual and bisexual adolescents are exposed to a higher suicide risk than heterosexual men and women," the study's author Christian Leu told swissinfo.ch in an email interview. [7]

and this source says that it is because of bullying, which is false. (the people saying that are more biased than my sources)


Have no more room to add on.

Conclusion:

allowing gay marriage would weaken the insitution of marriage d although the BOP is shared you have offered no evidence. Also you have no contentions proving how it would benefit society, so you are not fulfilling your BOP as I have stated in the first round. All you have done successfully is criticize one of my sources. You need a case (like C1, C2) before you fit the BOP. I hopw you do this next round so that you fit the BOP and then we can continue. I await your response.






sources:
http://www.healthyplace.com... [2]
http://gaylife.about.com... [3]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4]
http://www.newsmax.com... [5]
http://www.rainbowdomesticviolence.itgo.com... [6]
http://www.swissinfo.ch... [7]
Danielle

Con

C1 - A) Pro begins, "The dutch study... proved that gays cheat on eachother more when married than heterosexual people." First, the Dutch Study is not what Pro used to cite this fact in the last round. Instead it was Conservapedia which I've already attacked as a blatantly biased source, that is completely scoffed and laughed at by scholars and intellectuals for its overall lack of credibility. Unlike Wikipedia, it is far less factual.

Moreover, Conservapedia cites IT'S source for the phrase, "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" (which is what Pro is trying to prove) by citing 'Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005.' I Google'd that source and all that came up were links to Conservapedia. One cannot validate the other. In addition to the fact that Pro should be penalized for utilizing terrible sources, keep in mind that there is no way to verify this proposed statistic. Pro must either prove this figure to be accurate or drop this contention.

Finally on this point, Pro is wrong as the Dutch study specifically notes a difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages. In the last round, I explained that the two should not be considered synonomous; Pro dropped this contention.

C1 - B) Pro continues, "That [cheating] weakens the definintion of mariage as the point of mariage is to be monogomas." This ignores all of my arguments from the last round explaining that the concept of marriage changes and evolves over time as a society, and most definitely between individuals. Pro ignores my point that Mormons for instance are polygamous. Everybody's values, wants and needs differ. Extend all of those arguments; this point from Pro has already been negated.

C1 - C) Pro says not all divorce's result from cheating and I agree. That was never the overall point. However Pro cannot say that my numbers are "wrong" as I could just as easily say HIS numbers are wrong. Statistics are not perfectly accurate. Pro insists in R1 that only 25% of married heterosexuals cheat. I gave a source indicating that the figure was much likely higher. As yet another source, according to the Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, approximately 50 percent married women and 60 percent of married men will have an extramarital affair at some time in their marriage [2]. That figure is MUCH higher than Pro suggests, indicating that heterosexuals are not necessarily the little pillars of fidelity that Pro assumes.

C1 - D) Pro dropped the contention that lesbians are known to cheat. My proposition that lesbians are known to stay in long-lasting, monogamous relations goes undisputed. Considering lesbians want to get married, it would seem lesbians therefore strengthen the so-called "point" of marriage (monogamy) and therefore this completely negates Pro's case [3].

C1 - E) Pro dropped my contention that the concept of marriage has changed and evolved throughout history.

C1 - F) Pro dropped my point that there is not necessarily a contradiction in terms.

C1 - G) Pro dropped my point that there is no right or wrong way for a couple to behave sexually; that is up to the individual couples to decide for themselves, and that individual's choices within heterosexual marriages have so far not ruined marriage for everybody as Pro suggests allowing gay marriage would do. Therefore, my contention that it would be more realistic to recognize that people's behavior as individuals does not and probably will not affect the behavior of other people is valid.

C1 - H) Pro must prove that the behavior of people within gay relationships will affect how other people behave in their marriages. Then he must prove that monogamy is of paramount importance to marriage in general. If he is able to do this, we'll continue from there... (PRO DIDN'T RESPOND).


C2) Pro said people who are beaten will more likely seek divorce, and divorce does not strengthen marriage. The fact is that divorce rates are already high amongst heterosexuals, and violence among gays is not likely to affect straight people's relationships.

C3) Pro proved my point by pointing out how many hate crime acts were committed against gay males. He also suggests that gays abuse drugs at higher rates than heterosexuals. That goes along with the fact that they get a lot of abuse and backlash from society, so I think this is an obvious correlation. It is completely untrue that "most" of America is liberal insofar as acceptring gays. Half of America is against gay marriage and therefore outright expresses bigotry against the gay community. Additionally, in a court of law it would be recognized that this image of gays as mentally unstable drug addicts is merely meant to depict gay people in an unfavorable light so as to make homosexuals seem like degenerates. This is abusive and fallacious. It does not discredit the institution of marriage in any way whatsoever. Pro is manipulating facts and figures, but best of all, doesn't even realize he is HELPING MY CASE!

For instance, Pro proves that MOST hate crimes are against gays (over 56 percent). Thanks Pro! Pro also cites a Huffington Post article that says gay teens are more likely to commit suicide in politically Consrervative areas where they experience backlash from the religious Right and have NO support groups. Again, thanks Pro! Pro keeps providing source after source proving my point that gays are singled out and experience hate, therefore compelling them to want to commit suicide more and suffer more mental and emotional trauma. Once again, this does not strengthen his case against gay marriage in any way whatsoever. In fact, it supports my case further. If gays were given equal rights and treatment in society, there would be LESS backlash against them and they would be more accepted. We know this because racism has radically decreased once segregation was abolished.

C4) Yep, extend all of my arguments about gay commitment. I singled out the ones Pro dropped.

C5) Pro says some doctor proves that gay marriage increases out of wedlock births because allowing gay marriage changes the social outlook. First of all, plenty of people have divorced parents who are not married, so this is irrelevant. Second, Pro's source never proved that at all. Instead, it suggests that these births increased by 10% in the 10 year period between 1990 and 2000. However, out of wedlock births have increased EVERYWHERE even in placed where gay marriage wasn't legalized [4]. Therefore, the link between the two has not been proven whatsoever.

C6) Regarding gays having higher divorce rates, I said I wanted to see the proof. Pro said he included the proof but doesn't link it specifically. Remember, he is supposed to prove that MARRIED gays have higher divorced rates than married homosexuals - not just that gays in relationships tend to break up more. That is obvious and would prove nothing as I've already explained in the last round.

C7) Pro completely dropped his contention on religion; again, it's not relevant.

C8) I invited Pro to detail the benefits of marriage, and said I will explain exactly how and why homosexuals can experience the same benefits. He writes, "I will show evidence later, but you haven't provided prof at all for your side." Obviously I can't respond to this until Pro answers.

== Sources and Conclusion ==

Due to character limits, I'll let my sources argue why Conservapedia is a JOKE of a legitimate source [5], and the FRC (Pro's other source) is specifically recognized as a HATE GROUP [6]. I'll explain further in the next round.

My conclusion is the same: Pro has not established what marriage is supposed to be and its alleged benefits, or how gay marriage would negatively impact the institution. Instead he just includes (many unproven) anti-gay statistics. He has not met his burden.

Sources: http://www.debate.org...



Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

you still aren't fufuling the bop as you have not proved otherwise how allowing it would strengthen the insitution of marriage or keep it the same.

" First, the Dutch Study is not what Pro used to cite this fact in the last round. Instead it was Conservapedia which I've already attacked as a blatantly biased source, that is completely scoffed and laughed at by scholars and intellectuals for its overall lack of credibility. "

Seems you dislike one mal source so I will show another:

A federally-funded study by San Francisco State University that followed 556 local male couples for three years found that half “have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners,” according to The New York Times. [1]


btw I just proved it and 1 mal source shouldn't ruin this. Your only viable argument is that conservapedia is a bad source.

"Finally on this point, Pro is wrong as the Dutch study specifically notes a difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages. In the last round, I explained that the two should not be considered synonomous"

That's my point because since their not the same then the insitution would change and or weaken dramatically. i can't answer every single point as of the space limit.

"This ignores all of my arguments from the last round explaining that the concept of marriage changes and evolves over time as a society, and most definitely between individuals. "

Yes but last time I checked marriage is supposed to be monogomas, not cheating. lol.


the social institution under which a man and womanestablish their decision to live as husband and wife bylegal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


The point is to have 1 partner and this hasn't evolved any other way in modern societys.


" Statistics are not perfectly accurate. "

Statistics are the most accurite thing we have offerd lol.

"That figure is MUCH higher than Pro suggests"

I showed that in my source from a different study. My numbers are more universally adopted though. ANd I know heterosexuals cheat on eachother, just sadley homosexals do it more. I wish it wasn't that way.

"My proposition that lesbians are known to stay in long-lasting, monogamous relations goes undisputed. "


I can't negate every singel thing each round. But you have ignred a lot of my arguments which I iwll not name as I would rather them be conceded. and btw they do cheat alot according to a lesbian blog. To save space I will not spew its info but let it sit at the bottom for those who don't belive.

And how do they stay in long lasting monogomus relationships if you just said they cheat on eachother? You contradicted yourself.


"Pro dropped my contention that the concept of marriage has changed and evolved throughout history."

Not really I explained it in a different area. The concept changes but not recently. We are arguing recent marriage and in that context it would weaken it, that was implied. When marriage changes to you are suposed to cheat on your husband/wife then I'll owe you.

"Pro dropped my point that there is not necessarily a contradiction in terms."

What? I am tired right now so explain this...lol.

"Pro dropped my point that there is no right or wrong way for a couple to behave sexually"
FAlse when in marriage your supposed to be monogomus.

"Then he must prove that monogamy is of paramount importance to marriage in general. "

It is universally accepted that marriages should be monogomous. That's why people divorce when being cheated upon. I proved it above as well multiple times, behind the red herring of my 1 mal source.

"The fact is that divorce rates are already high amongst heterosexuals"

Thats the point why compound the issue with more divorces.
Also yes violence among gays won't affect straight people but if gays where allowed to marry then it would compound their dovorce rates into the overall number. It's not that hard to understand.

I am tired of quoting SO i will just hint at what you where saying.

Now you have to prove that hate crimes create problems as I will prove next round that self-esteem doesn't exist, therefore making your point null and void.

Also I am agains tgay marriage and I do not express hate towards gays as I do not mind them existing. You just made it sound like I am a hater..I am not a hater I just disagree.

Also it does hurt is as drugs = impaired thoughts wich lead to other things, cheating, suicide, mental disorders, debts as they get addicted, jail etc. It may not hurt in your mind but sirelly it won't help.

Cool no support groups...lol. You say I am helping you but i disproved your hate crime argument and also if that affects gays why does it not affect straights. Its an argument that false as if it affects them then it should affects straights. Straights don't have higher suicide rates because there are no support groups. So that argument is falty.

Huh? I didn't drop your arguments I clearly refuted them (or at least I tried I am not good at this). And I did prove this as my source in the first round (sorry the link broke) proved this.

ALso sorry for a side track I will disporve your girls don't cheat thing:

married fidelity amone women is BOUT 80% SO 20% CHEAT vs male 75.5% [3]
SO girls cheat less but not by much.

sorry another sidetrack another reason for the suicide could be the abuse from the partners.

ok ill try the PHD link again:

Moreover, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples, male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female homosexual couples 3 times more likely. As time passes and it becomes possible to inquire about same-sex registered partnerships of more than one-to-seven-years’ duration, we should see even larger differences between heterosexual and homosexual unions. [4]

Yes I droped religeon I was going to edit it out before you accepted but you accepted to fast so sorry it wasn't supposed to be there.

I am not saying that gays do not get the same benifits I am saying that it is not proven that they do or dont. If you find proof they do then you win.

I have nothing left to refute So I still have 1,600 cheracters so I'll add on to my case.

Lets add on to the violence as I have only used conservapedia for that and wish to have a valid case:



according to this site gays are twice as likely to sustain abuses from their partners. [5]

comitment level:

Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter. [6]





conclusion:

allowing gay marriage would not help the insitution of marriage. I am tired and my computer is freaking out so if my reponse is bad say so in the comments.

--out of room--



sources:
http://www.newsmax.com...;[1]
http://lesbiansanddating.blogspot.com...;[2]

social organization of sexuality [3]
http://robgagnon.net...;[4]
http://www.statcan.gc.ca...;[5]
http://www.frc.org...;[6]
Danielle

Con

Happy New Year!

I literally have just 4 minutes to post an argument, so I will respond to all of my opponent's contentions in the final round. However I will say this -- Pro is wrong in saying that I have "not met my burden." I have explained repeatedly throughout the debate that allowing gay marriage will likely NOT affect other people's (heterosexual) marriages. Further, I have repeatedly explained that Pro has not established what marriage is supposed to be and its alleged benefits, or how gay marriage would negatively impact the institution. Meanwhile, I've contended that marriage means different things to different people, and individuals and couples have their own ideas and expectations about what the union is supposed to mean. Therefore legally recognizing gay marriage and giving those in gay partnerships more rights would strengthen the union - not inhibit it.


Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

happy new years to you.

um...ok I'll refute what it there.

"gay marriage will likely NOT affect other people's (heterosexual) marriages."

It will not but if allowed it would affect the overall definition as they would be counted in the divorce statistics and domestic violence statistics etc. So will it affect heterosexual marriage? No. Will it affect overall marriage through statistics and higher divorce rates? yes.

"negatively impact the institution."

It will because my contentions go against the meaning of marriage, a monogamous that is supposed to last a long time and it's meaning is to bear children.

"Therefore legally recognizing gay marriage and giving those in gay partnerships more rights would strengthen the union "

So higher divorce rates, lower commitment, multiple partners, yeah that's gonna strengthen it. *sarcasm*

um...now what? lol I am gonna add on to everything then I have nothing better to do.

C1: Gays cheat on each other more

I am sorry if my case sounds anti-gay but these are the facts :(

Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners." [1]

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners. [2]

In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners." [3]

Yeah that is a WTF moment.

Point proven.

C2: gays are more violent towards each other.

the risk of domestic violence in a male-male homosexual relationship is still at least 18 times greater. [4]

"Emotional abuse was reported by 83%" of its participants." [5]

"11% of women in homosexual relationships and 23% of men in homosexual relationships report being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by an intimate partner". [6]

C3: Higher risk of suicide.

"For a number of years, researchers have known that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. In one sense, this statistic is incredibly shocking...This means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth." [7]

36.5 % of GLB youth grades 9-12 have attempted suicide. [8]

Gay and lesbian youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual young people. [8]

yeah we pretty much agree that they are more likely to commit suicide.

C4: lower commitment

In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years:
Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. [10]

C5: increase in wed lock births
Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. [11]

Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. [11]

there's an answer to how it affects marriage.

C6 higher divorce rates among gays

In a 2005 study it was found that 60 % of all opposite-sex marriages in the US ended in divorce in the first decade and 80 % in the first 20 years. [9]

from a pro-gay site.

I do not feel like continuing.

==conclusion==

it would weaken the definition of marriage as it would raise all of the stats above. urge you to vote pro .

sources:

M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985) [1]

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309 [2]

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," [3]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org... [4]

http://www.springerlink.com... [5]

http://www.ptsd.va.gov... [6]

Ciara Thomas, a writer for the website HealthyPlace.com [7]

http://www.youthprideri.org... [8]

http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com... [9]

E. O. Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1994 ): 216. [10]

http://www.fachurch.org... [11]
Danielle

Con

Note that my opponent has continuously strayed from the format I have set up with numbered and lettered points. This makes it easier to respond to each contention. In structuring my round like this, I can make it obvious to the audience which points Pro has dropped and/or conceded.

C1 - A) Pro's source again compares homosexual relationships to MARRIAGES. They are not synonomous. I've explained why repeatedly.

C1 - B) Pro says "Last I checked, marriage is supposed to be monomous." This fails to address my point that the concept of marriage changes and evolves over time as a society, and most definitely between individuals.

C1 - C) Pro conceded (ignored) the fact that his statistics were flawed, and that heterosexuals cheat a great deal of times in their marriages. He also has failed to explain why gay people cheating on each other would mean heterosexual couples would likely start cheating on each other, inhibiting the concept of marriage... or that marriage requires monogamy to begin with (again, he ignored my points about polyamorous and/or polygamous relationships).

C1 - D) Pro never answered my point. He said I contradicted myself which is blatantly not true. I gave a source proving that lesbians are statistically likely to stay in long-lasting and monogamous relationships, thereby strengthening Pro's proposition of what marriage ought to be (and they are gay).

C1 - E) Pro hasn't explained why the "recent" propositions of marriage (though widely disputed, abused and ignored) ought to be strictly enforced. If the concept of marriage changes and evolves over time - which he admits - then why not continue to evolve? Pro never answered.

C1 - F) Pro dropped the point that there is no contradiction in terms between marriage and gay marriage.

C1 - G) Pro dropped my point that there is no right or wrong way for a couple to behave sexually. He repeats that monogamy is the right way; I've already negated that standard as being necessary for everyone.

C1 - H) I said that Pro must prove that the behavior of people within gay relationships will affect how other people behave in their marriages. He completely failed to address this point throughout the debate. I then said he must explain why monogamy should be mandatory. Pro wrote, "It is universally accepted that marriages should be monogomous." That is entirely false. See: Mormons and polygamous marriage; polyamorous relationships; etc. He failed to provide an explanation.

C2) Pro says, "if gays where allowed to marry then it would compound their dovorce rates into the overall number. It's not that hard to understand." Pro hasn't made the correlation as to how a higher divorce rate weakens the institution of marriage in general. Obviously with a 60% heterosexual divorce rate, we still acknowledge that marriages can be meaningful even if/though many couples divorce.

C3) Pro said he would prove that self-esteem "doesn't exist" which he absolutely did not attempt to prove (for obvious reasons... i.e., he's ridiculously wrong). He proved my case with his own links and sources that the backlash from society is what makes gay people commit suicide at a higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts, and ignored my contention that treating gays equally - starting by recognizing gay marriage - would probably greatly reduce that figure. He said "Straights don't have support groups yet don't commit suicide, so that point is faulty." Uh, quite obviously "straights" don't need support groups because they are the majority, standard and are not singled out, abused, harassed and even killed for their sexuality like gay people are. They don't need support groups. Pro's logic is completely off.

C4) Pro dropped my points (I don't have enough time to type them all out again, unfortunately). Please extend.

C5) I'll just copy and paste my point since Pro never refuted it. Pro says some doctor proves that gay marriage increases out of wedlock births because allowing gay marriage changes the social outlook. First of all, plenty of people have divorced parents who are not married, so this is irrelevant. Second, Pro's source never proved that at all. Instead, it suggests that these births increased by 10% in the 10 year period between 1990 and 2000. However, out of wedlock births have increased EVERYWHERE even in placed where gay marriage wasn't legalized. Therefore, the link between the two has not been proven whatsoever... Now Pro says

C6) Extend my point about divorce rates not necessarily affecting the validity or meaning of marriage. This is evidenced by the fact that divorce is legal and therefore a viable option. Most heterosexuals get divorced already.

C7) Pro completely dropped his contention on religion and rightfully so.

C8) I invited Pro to detail the benefits of marriage, and said I will explain exactly how and why homosexuals can experience the same benefits. He never specified anything thus we should assume he acknowledges that gay couples can experience the same benefits as straight people from marriage. There is nothing inherent about one's sexuality that would prevent them from receiving the same benefits from being in a special union: happiness, commitment, stability, love, more resources, etc.

== Sources and Conclusion ==

I've proven that most of Pro's sources were bogus and biased. He sourced a legitimate anti-gay hate group. After bashing Conservapedia and the FRC, he sourced a church which is completely biased and non-credible (http://www.fachurch.org...), and other religious and anti-gay groups...

My conclusion is the same: Pro has not established what marriage is supposed to be and its alleged benefits, or how gay marriage would negatively impact the institution. Instead he just includes anti-gay statistics in an attempt to depict gays as delinquents and unstable. He has not met his burden.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Lol @ these RFDs
Posted by LYDIANA 2 years ago
LYDIANA
I had my long distance relationship for almost 4 years now, Our relationship was okay and good, but for some reasons I couldn't understand My ex boyfriend broke up with me for almost 3 weeks now, and it me sad, frustrated, devastated having mix emotions to face the reality that he doesn't want to work it out anymore, I dint know what else to do until i search and bumped into this testimonies regarding Love spell and i read some of those who had the same problem i had and until i found Dr. Lawrence who can cast spells to bring your partner back at first i was hesitant to do so but eventually i tried his power to cast spell bring back your partner back because of his kind hearted, generosity He did Help me and i am so happy to have contacted him :drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail. com
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
still probably lost but hey the difference is smaller!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
D@*nit I am ok with losing but wtf russian.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
@raisor

lol best RFD ever. Also what is a hot button topic?
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Pro's arguments are riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, how anyone could NOT vote Con on S/G is beyond me.

The issue of what counts as weakening marriage becomes a further issue in the final round:
"So will it affect heterosexual marriage? No. Will it affect overall marriage through statistics and higher divorce rates? yes."
WHY Pro WHY? Why would you concede that it will not affect heterosexual marriage? Even if it is true dont just give it up! Make her work for it a little!

This is just a side comment but the out of wedlock births in Scandinavia are totally unrelated to the legalization of gay marriage. The understanding of marriage, partnership, and how to raise children is significantly different from the U.S. understanding. Long committed relationships (e.g. 20+ years and lifelong) between unmarried couples is very widespread, a word even exists to describe a couple that is not married but considers themselves to be committed life partners- note I am talking about heterosexuals here. This cultural difference/evolution accounts for the rising out of wedlock births.

I am tempted to vote on sources because Pro had some pretty terrible ones and also a lot of dead links, but Con also had some less than stellar sources and also had problems linking to her sources. Additionally, Pro did rely on some legitimate sources late in the debate. I will leave the issue a tie.

I think overall Pro's arguments were pretty bad. The only really convincing point was on the topic of domestic abuse- he provided a lot of statistics and Con really didnt do much to refute them. That being said, the abuse argument is conceded by Pro to not have a spillover effect into hetero marriage, so I have a hard time viewing this as a significant weakening of marriage. It does weaken it a little bit, but in the overall picture I just dont think its enough to win the round.

Vote Con on S/G and Arguments.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Stream of consciousness RFD:

Danielle you practically concede Pro's points on infidelity and out of wedlock births. If you check his sources you will see that these are from self published and not peer-reviewed sources with no documentation on where these stats are coming from. Just call him out on this, almost all his arguments are unwarranted assertions but you should at least explain why his sources are garbage. Looks like you do this more in R2 but I think its better to do this right away.

I have to agree pretty strongly with Pro that increased domestic abuse represents a weakening of the institution of marriage, even if violence is universally bad.

Pro when explaining why extra-marital relations weaken marriage you probably shouldnt quote a source that says that precisely this acceptance of multiple partners might "point the way to the SURVIVAL of the institution."

Similarly, Pro, when trying to show higher rates of domestic abuse it doesnt make sense to cite a study which says the rates are "the same percentage of violence that occurs in straight relationships."

Overall Pro suffers from not maintaining a clear standard for what constitutes "weakening" marriage. This becomes an issue over extra-marital affairs, where there are many people in the US who live in open relationships but also many people who think marriage must imply sexual exclusivity. This is an issue which cant just be asserted but has to be supported by argument- I think Pro doesnt support his positions he just states it as obvious, while Con actually develops the case that multiple partners isnt equatable to weakened marriage.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
This is why you dont debate hot button topic on DDO.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
either way your gonna win...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I agree with that but I am saying what he told me
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
16kadamsDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: A great debate. Close. Pro used better sources. Conduct to Danielle since people are complaining this debate was subject to a series of vote bombs.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote-bomb allkid
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
16kadamsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won because he proved that gays have worse marriages
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
16kadamsDanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism=loss of conduct Spelling and grammar to Con b/c pro had many mistakes Pro's arguments were much less convincing and con tore them apart.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
16kadamsDanielleTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm countering RussianFish99's RFD which is barely an exposition.....I am sorry to those who who have wanted me to actually have read the debate but the activities of a troll/idiot are now spurring me to re-adopt my role as the crusader.:)
Vote Placed by RussianFish99 5 years ago
RussianFish99
16kadamsDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
16kadamsDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
16kadamsDanielleTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Votebomb. Jeez people are annoying!
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
16kadamsDanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: For plagiarism and Pro not writing his own arguments, conduct goes to Con. For misspellings and crippled sentences that made Pro hard to read, S&G goes to Con. Because Pro's claims didn't tend to support his resolution, and because Con diligently refuted them anyway, Persuasion goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
16kadamsDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.