The Instigator
Samos
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
AbnerGrimm
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
AbnerGrimm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,055 times Debate No: 33575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

Samos

Pro

I can see no valid arguments against same sex marriages, and believe that it is unjust to refuse to allow them to take place

I am new to this website, but not to debating, so apologies if I don't fully follow the format.
AbnerGrimm

Con

I accept. Thank you Pro for starting this debate and I hope for an interesting exchange.


Resolution: Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries


BOP:

My opponent has the Burden of proof because he has made claim. Pro needs to provide reason why same-sex marriage is a civil right and should be allowed in all countries. Con needs to show that Pros claims are invalid.


Definitions:

Same-sex marriage - is the practice of marriage between two males or two females.

http://dictionary.reference.com......

Civil rights - A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Allowed - to admit; acknowledge; concede.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Should be - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

All countries -

Rounds:

1. Round one is for acceptance

2. Pro presents their argument. Con may present their own argument or they may just rebuttal Pro.

3. Additional arguments and rebuttal

4. Rebuttals only

5. Final rebuttals and conclusion

Rules:

1. No semantics or trolling

2. Round structure must be followed

3. Definitions must be followed


I suggest my opponent decide just what he is arguing and establish it in his opening argument. Civil rights are as defined are American rights and it would a defenseless position for him to take on all countries. Otherwise, I accept and I await my opponent's argument.

Debate Round No. 1
Samos

Pro

My argument is simple, if it is accepted that any marriage is a civil right, and it is accepted that homosexuality is not a choice, then it is discrimination to deny that right to anyone, based on their sexuality, in much the same was that it would be discrimination to deny rights to anyone based on race, religion, colour of skin (yes it's spelt colour), etc. Therefore I believe that any argument against this statement must dispute either that being allowed to marry is a civil right, or that homosexuality is a choice. Based on this I would dispute that the burden of proof is solely mine, as it should be the burden of whomever is making a claim that is not intuitively obvious, (see Russell's Teapot) and thus the burden should be on my opponent just as much.

The notion that sexuality is a choice is a myth, as no direct cause (not a fan of that phrase, makes homosexuality sound like a disease) has been discovered, the simplest way to prove this is by virtue of a thought experiment. If homosexuality is a choice, it is not a choice that anyone would take, being homosexual in any society, no matter how liberal, causes more difficulty in life, due to discrimination, and the inability to do something that is central to most people's lives, having children.

This seems to wrap it all up for me, I'm sure my opponent thinks otherwise.

The floor is yours.
AbnerGrimm

Con

Thank you Pro. Pro never affirms which countries and civil rights we are arguing so I have to use all countries and their civil rights. Pro never affirmed that all marriages are a civil right and that is the topic of our debate, not all countries have same-sex marriage rights because it simply is not a right. Pro never affirms homosexuality is not a choice, he just asserts it. Lets remember the resolution folks, it is:


Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries.


Pro has not affirmed the resolution and that means I am winning because all I must do is show the resolution is not affirmed and I can do that before I present any case. I will present my own case showing that same-sex marriage is not a basic civil right, it is not a right in all countries, and reasons why it should not be a right. Very few countries have recognized same-sex unions as marriages. Matter of fact the record reveals a large range of attitudes towards same-sex unions ranging from praise, to sympathetic toleration, to indifference, to prohibition. http://en.wikipedia.org...


Not a basic civil right


Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival. But same-sex marriage cannot share in that survival. So by definition, marriage is between a man and a woman by our federal government. Marriage is an institution founded on procreating and child rearing couples.

http://www.britannica.com...


Pro argues that same-sex couples should have a civil right to marry and appeals to equal protection and equal treatment rights. But for him to argue equal treatment to all, does nothing to constitute what is considered marriage. If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified.

http://www.cpjustice.org...


Not a right in all countries


In China same-sex marriage is not legally recognized. No country in Asia currently performs or recognizes same-sex marriages. Marriages in Israel are performed under the authority of the religious authorities and the Rabbinate does not permit same-sex marriages. In Africa, homosexuality remains taboo in large parts of the continent. Australia passed the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill in 2004, amending the Marriage Act of 1961 so that it specifically stated marriage was for one man and one woman only. The Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved a Constitutional amendment in 2004 defining marriage as between one man and one woman. http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com... Ohio Law Does Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriages. According to the Ohio Constitution, only a union between one man and one woman is recognized as a valid marriage by the state. https://www.ohiobar.org...


Why it is not right


The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for expressing love and transmitting human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed for marriage. A same-sex marriage contradicts the purposes of marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female. It cannot achieve the natural purpose of sexual union.


http://www.foryourmarriage.org...


Conclusion


If same sex marriage were allowed as basic civil right as Pro suggest, the result would be a significant change in our society. Marriage would no longer be about our commitment to the future: our children. But instead it would be directed towards the adults. My opponent has not shown us any real reason why same-sex marriage is a civil right and should be allowed in all countries.

Debate Round No. 2
Samos

Pro

Alrighty then.

To quote Con, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival", I would argue that the purpose of marriage is not reproduction, marriage is not essential to procreation, and procreation is not essential to marriage. For a start monogamy was not common in human society until as recently as approximately twenty thousand years ago (http://link.springer.com...), and still today about 40% of births in the US were outside of wedlock (http://www.cdc.gov...). Additionally if procreation were the aim of marriage, then those who cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to marry. These simple arguments show that marriage isn't about the survival of man. If that isn't the aim of marriage then the other definition is for marriage to be about a commitment of love to your partner, in this same-sex marriages are just as able to do; therefore as you agree that "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" and it is not about procreation, the only conclusion is that homosexual people should have that right.

The argument that it is not a right in all countries may have exposed a difference of definition of right, obviously it is not in the law of all countries, I would define a civil right as being a right to all humans, not necessarily specific to countries, this was an oversight in the wording of the proposition. If we are going to allow that to be the defining point of the debate, I would claim that it is an argument of semantics, perhaps a better wording would have been "same sex marriage is a basic right and should be allowed in all countries".

The claim that same sex partnerships is not right seems to hinge upon the contention that it is not natural, using the phase "man and woman [are] complementary partners for expressing love and transmitting human life". I contend this point, whilst obviously transmitting human life is clearly not possible for same-sex relationships, they are just as much complementary partners for expressing love. Just because there is no creation of new life doesn't make same sex partnerships unnatural, if we, as humans, only did things based on the simple need for our lineage to survive then the vast majority of human culture wouldn't exist, we'd be a species of eating and procreating. By this definition of natural then marriage itself is an unnatural phenomenon, the most successful way for an animal to spread its DNA is via many sexual partners, not limiting itself to one.

I feel no real need to add to my own arguments as the basis of my argument is simple, that if marriage is a right, then it is the right of all relationships, and if that is true then same sex marriage is just. I feel I have expanded on this and affirmed it enough in my rebuttals of Con's arguments
AbnerGrimm

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round. Pro goes on about marriage not being essential for procreation and vice versa. Pro asserts that marriage should be defined as a commitment of love to your partner without attacking my case.

Not a basic civil right

To understand what type of marriage there actually is we should look at, how it is bodily, sexual, and is it a type that would fulfill procreation. In every society men and women are committed to sharing their lives together, on the bodily, emotional, and in the kind by procreating and rearing children together. There are, of course other relationships similar in some ways to marriage, like same-sex couples. But these relationships are not marriages, and no society should recognize them as marriages. Marriage is that type of that is both a comprehensive unity and a community that would be fulfilled by procreating and rearing children together. Moreover, there is a link between these two aspects of the community; the relationship is fulfilled by, and is not merely incidental to, the procreating and rearing of children. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...

Same sex marriages cannot fulfill all the aspects of what a marriage represents. The communion of a man and a woman as husband and wife establishes a real biological union, they are biologically a single action to carry life. The male and female function in a coordinated way to carry out a biological function of the couple as a unit—mating. "When a man and woman make a commitment to each other to share their lives on all levels of their being, in the type of community that would be fulfilled by cooperatively procreating and rearing children, then the biological unity established and renewed in sexual intercourse is the beginning or embodiment of that community we know as marriage."

Pro mentions that monogamy was not common in human society until 20,000 years ago but this helps my case as it establishes a founding institution for marriage. That founding institute has never included same-sex couples. In fact most marriages until the last few hundred years were arranged and never are marriages arranged between same-sex individuals. Even the method of arranged marriages shows a desire for not only the linking of families but also the rearing of children.

Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and conflating the issue with wedlock, older people that are in marriage not able to have children is just misleading. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories." Gay marriage could potentially lead down a ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. http://prezi.com...

Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. It is important that laws be passed in accordance with the will of the people. Permitting gay marriage will require changing the function of our current legal system.

Not a right in all countries

This contention was dropped. Though Pro says that same-sex marriage should be a universal civil right until he proves this, then this contention applies. We would be forcing our own rights and beliefs onto other nations. Therefore, their civil rights are violated.

Why it is not right

Pro is mistaken in thinking that marriage is solely about love and then changing the institution away from children and focusing on adults. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would explicitly sever the institution’s connection to the two interrelated realities, gender difference and procreation. It can be reasonable to think that homosexuality is just a sexual perversion. Homosexuality is often referred to as sodomy and perverse. There has never been an established benefit for homosexuality. There is absolutely no evidence that suggest that homosexuality is innate. Our biology does not support homosexuality. In fact there is no biological reasons for homosexuality. Matter of fact homosexuals have no more or no less rights than heterosexuals. Civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Same sex couples have the same right to marry as anyone else only they want a choice that is not a civil right. Perversion are sexual acts that are understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed unnatural. Homosexual acts are in disagreement with our natural law.

I have shown the definition of marriage in nations other than the United States and within the United States. Same-sex couples do not have the civil right to marry by these definitions and views on marriage. I have shown the view of marriage as a child rearing relationship. I have briefly shown that homosexual relationships are not a natural design in nature even if objects in nature exhibit homosexual activities. Same-sex couples cannot properly fit the definition of marriage. Pro has offered us little in evidence.

Debate Round No. 3
Samos

Pro

In my opponent's opening points in the previous round he refers to the 'fact' that same-sex couples didn't exist around the dates that I mentioned for the founding of monogamy, unless he has any kind of source for this fact, I request that that statement is retracted for being unfounded. Also, the argument of marriage hasn't always included same-sex marriages, therefore people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to get married, firstly, this point is the entire basis for this debate existing, if same-sex marriages existed, we wouldn't be debating this. Secondly just because something has always happened a certain way doesn't mean it is right, most law systems worldwide were originally based on archaic books that declared what good and evil were (Bible, Qu'ran, etc), and didn't leave any room for discussion. Modern laws are slowly changing towards a more understanding and progressive view of the world, which is why nowadays we have freedom of speech, women's rights, no capital punishment (mostly), contraception, fabric blends, shellfish or football (soccer). Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it is worthy.

Just to clarify, I have never argued in this that marriage hasn't been, and isn't still involved with procreation, my contention is that procreation isn't necessary in a marriage. Webster's dictionary defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law", (btw there is an addendum to include same-sex marriages) nowhere is this definition does it claim that procreation is a necessary part of marriage, I also can find no legal definitions that include procreation, of Con can find a source I would love to see it.

I was entertained by the Matthew D. Staver quote " The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics"

1) Homosexuality has had a history of "longstanding, widespread discrimination" to the same extent as any protected class, sodomy laws have been in place until very recently in many countries, in the US the military was only technically allowed to allow homosexuals in less that two years ago. Not only has there been legal discrimination there is also a long history of institutionalised, internalised and social homophobia throughout the world.

2) Economic disadvantage - I don't know about the laws of the US but in the UK a civil partnership does not have equal economic rights to a marriage.

3) Immutable characteristics, the two major attempts to prove that homosexuality is not immutable were "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?" by Robert Spitzer, and "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer's Report" by Shildo & Schroeder. Spitzer did originally report 'positive results' in sexuality conversion. In 2012 he retracted his own study due to inaccuracies and requested that all "anti-gay" organisations stop using his report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). I couldn't find a source more valid than wikipedia for the Shildo & Schroeder report unfortunately, however their final conclusions were that not only was the therapy unsuccessful, it was harmful to the participants

Con then claims that same-sex marriage isn't the will of the people, again please cite sources or retract.

Next it is claimed that homosexuality is a 'sexual perversion' then follows a lot of claims with no evidence about 'sodomy' and again the claim that it is unnatural, earlier I asked Con to clarify his definition of unnatural. As far as I can tell he is using it to mean 'no biological benefit' just like all art forms, and most scientific research, and a belief in any religion, and love, and marriage.
AbnerGrimm

Con

Thank you Pro. Pro hasn't addressed my arguments properly which is necessary to win this debate. He has simply brushed them off as assertions. Let's remember that Pro made the initial claim. Therefore, he must show that same-sex marriage should be allowed in all countries. My task is to show why it shouldn't, I do not have to prove my point but only disprove Pros. It would help if my argument made sense and was strong. I actually think my argument is strong and I could add more contentions onto my argument.


Now let's take a look at what my opponent said last round and address it. Pro says my point that same-sex couples did not exist at the founding of marriage should be retracted. Well if I had made such a claim I would retract it but I did not make that claim. I said, "it establishes a founding institution for marriage. That founding institute has never included same-sex couples", saying that same-sex marriages were not in the institute of marriage, not that they did not exist. Us having this debate today, combined with the many countries that have already been shown to not allow same-sex marriage should be enough evidence for this point. My opponent agrees, "this point is the entire basis for this debate existing, if same-sex marriages existed, we wouldn't be debating this." Not until the 60's and 70's has same-sex marriage gained ground.


Not a basic civil right


1) A history of longstanding, widespread discrimination


"Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity, it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. When gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination" they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes." http://www.opposingviews.com...


(2) Economic disadvantage


Same-sex couples are not entitled to special treatment. Marriage is not a right to homosexual couples under the law. Therefore, advantages for married couples are not a right for same-sex couples.


(3) Immutable characteristics


Sexual orientation does not meet any of the three objective criteria in the protected civil rights categories. "Sexual orientation" should not be elevated to the category of a protected civil right."

http://www.lc.org...


Why it is not right


Just because same-sex marriage has always been looked negatively on, does not make it wrong, it is wrong because it does not fulfill the relationship of marriage. Pro does not prove his point by any means. He is correct in saying that some laws in the past should have been corrected. But, he has not shown that same-sex marriage is one of them. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Pro says he cannot find a definition with reproduction in it but male and female means procreation. "A rationale must be given for marriage law which explains the restrictions placed on entry and exit, the allocation of resources to marriage, and legal discrimination on the basis of it." http://plato.stanford.edu...


This is the U.S. federal government's definition,"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." http://www.law.cornell.edu...


"Legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring. The universality of marriage is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions it performs, such as procreation, regulation of sexual behaviour, care of children and their education and socialization, regulation of lines of descent."


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


"Marriage -2a combination or mixture of elements: Marry -2join together; combine harmoniously.


http://oxforddictionaries.com...


All of these sources have a formal definition of man and woman. Same-sex couples do not combine harmoniously with nature, they are against nature. To put a male and female together is to symbolize procreation, only a male and female can procreate. Marriage is the procreation and nurture of children; as the only proper place for sexual intimacy; and for the sake of lifelong companionship. Even if they do not procreate, the symbol of procreation is still present through their male and female form. Therefore, any definition putting male and female together exhibits procreation.


Pro appeals to marriage not necessarily needing procreation, so we should allow same-sex marriage. What about people who get married for reasons other that love, like citizenship, money, or social status. This indicates that society regards love as the basis for marrying, not producing children or advantages. This leads into the argument that should force everyone who is childless to take adopted children. My opponent skips this argument because it is outrageous. Therefore, this point is outrageous.


Not a right in all countries


"Con then claims that same-sex marriage isn't the will of the people, again please cite sources or retract."


We can look and see that the majority of the world does not recognize same-sex marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro has problems with me using the term unnatural, I found a definition for him. Unnatural - not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events. http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Who can say that homosexual activity is a normal course of events from male and female design? If nature made male and female, can homosexuality be in accord with nature? Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture. http://www.biblebelievers.com...


Conclusion


What marriage represents is the fundamental relationship for human survival. But, same-sex marriage cannot contribute in that survival. Marriage is between a man and a woman by many governments and making them change policy is human right violations. Marriage is an institution founded on procreating and child rearing couples. Pro needs to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is being discriminated on. The male and female represent procreation and the biological function of mating. Pro tries to pull the institute of marriage away from raising and teaching children in a home with a mother and father. Pro needs to back up his argument. I send back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 4
Samos

Pro

Samos forfeited this round.
AbnerGrimm

Con

All arguments extended. Pro forfeits. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Samos 11 months ago
Samos
My comments? Why?
Posted by AbnerGrimm 11 months ago
AbnerGrimm
Both of your votes have been reported.
Posted by Samos 11 months ago
Samos
Sorry King of Harlem, I'm still here, as I live is Spain I was a little bit asleep
Posted by KingofHarlem 11 months ago
KingofHarlem
Looks like you ran the boy off
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Fruitytree 11 months ago
Fruitytree
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con definitely made strong arguments against Pro, and Pro did not succeed in proving his claim. Con Had also a better conduct , and diverse and reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Chase200mph 11 months ago
Chase200mph
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
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: There is no room for bigots in this century.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 11 months ago
MassiveDump
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
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: CVB The other guy
Vote Placed by Valladarex 11 months ago
Valladarex
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
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: CVB Chase200mph
Vote Placed by yourgodlaysdeadatmyfeet 11 months ago
yourgodlaysdeadatmyfeet
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
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: Cons lack of support
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 11 months ago
1Devilsadvocate
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
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: F.F.
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 11 months ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con for Pro's forfeit. Conduct to Con as well because forfeiting without providing a reason is rude.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 11 months ago
TheHitchslap
SamosAbnerGrimmTied
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: conduct and arguments due to Samos' forfeit