The Instigator
rjayx8
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sashil
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Section 377 of Indian Penal Code should be abolished

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 1 vote the winner is...
Sashil
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,523 times Debate No: 55811
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

rjayx8

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal & Closing Statements
Sashil

Con

I accept this debate.
Will wait for Pro to submit his BOP.

Looking forward to having a good debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
rjayx8

Pro

*Disclaimer
-Regardless of who instigates the debate, none of the contenders can decide who has the BoP in most cases. BoP is on the person who makes a claim. In this case, Con in the comments section has made a pretty clear, strong, and positive claim that homosexuality is “against the order of nature”, therefore my point is: The BoP can be and is on Con as well. However, while I am not obligated to, I am also willing to share the BoP.

Section 377: Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section.[1][2]

The ambit of Section 377, which was devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual sex extends to any sexual union involving penile insertion. Thus, even consensual heterosexual acts such as fellatio and anal penetration may be punishable under this law.

Sources
[1] "Sodomy Laws Around the World". 2007-04-24. [Retrieved 1/6/14]
[2] "Indian Penal Code". District Court Allahabad. [Retrieved 1/6/14]

Just take a minute to re-read the law. Life imprisonment or imprisonment for up-to 10 years for being a homosexual, something that is not UNNATURAL and not a crime at all, in fact it is as NATURAL as being a heterosexual.

My argument will be concise. Featuring 5 points –
1. Tackling the unnatural claim
2. 377 no place for a liberal country
3. Society’s tolerance
4. Religious dilemma
5. Conclusion

Who is my opponent or the homosapien species to decide what is natural or what is unnatural?

Homosexuality is not a defect, disease or disorder, it is natural and not only does it exists in human beings, ‘but there are more than 20 species, other than humans, that are known to exhibit homosexual behaviour’. [3]
Something that is naturally found even in animals since time immemorial is being termed as unnatural in a so called liberal 21st century.

Also how is heterosexual fellatio and anal intercourse unnatural? Talking to the conservatives who like to quote scriptures to criticize homosexuality, if you see the Konark scriptures and temples around India, they show heterosexual and homosexual figures and sculptures carved in temples and these temples are listed as National Heritage sites, even in our history these things existed, how they can suddenly be viewed with such hostility is strange.
And coming back to BoP, I am afraid all of it now lies on Con.

Source [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think all those who support 377’s existence only wear a tag of liberalism but deep down they are conservatives, using tradition to cage and make a forward thinking society prisoner.

With the BJP coming in power I am afraid the RSS obligation would stop them from repealing 377. However, Mr. Modi who is the youth’s champion and credits his victory to the 12 crore first time voters should also realize that out of these 12 crore, most support the abolition of 377.

I also believe that 377 is a farce, there has not been a single arrest from the 20 years, it’s just being used as a deterrent, but my question is why? Why do they need to create a social taboo regarding homosexuals, why are they making a major section of the society live in denial and agony? Why can’t they live a life like everyone else?

We take pride in ourselves and in our Constitution, believing that in India, each and every citizen has equal rights. Part III of our Constitution guarantees us these Fundamental Rights, regardless of caste, creed, sex, class etc. So why then is a particular section of society proscribed from these privileges?

Are consenting LGBT individuals having sex – criminals? Is every homosexual naturally defected? Is it a phenotypic or a genotypic condition?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which India has ratified, grants all human beings the Right to marriage and to start a family. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees us Right to Equality. So are LGBT citizens not human beings? And if they are, are they inferior to the heterosexual citizens of India?

Talking about religion and spirituality, I would like to limit myself to just one paragraph.

Pope Francis, the Holy Father of all the Catholics on the plant said, “If a person is gay, and seeks the lord who am I to judge him?”

Even a stern and staunch institution like the Catholic church has accepted homosexuality, why can’t the Indian judiciary, why can’t the Indian legislators?

To all the homosexuals, I would just say, ‘be yourself’, if you don’t come out openly and try to blend in or hide your sexual orientation, that is unnatural.

Sources
Indian Constitution
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Sashil

Con

Resolution: Section 377 of Indian Penal Code should be abolished

Primarily, the first thing I wish to clarify and convey to my
learned adversary and voters is that if I show and provide enough reasons
for the law to sustain and remain undisturbed, in compliance with the
resolution I will win this debate.

`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.


I have divided my fundamental dissensions into four different sections

for the purpose of clarity.

Will cause turmoil in the country

To start with, I would like to bring to light the fact that India is in
reality not a secular country, with different parties, religious cults
and communities following different religions and beliefs,taking a move
to abolish the law ,in a conservative society as which thrives in India,
will culminate in unnecessary riots and rampage. Also with the ruling
party BJP and large sections of religious groups against the abolishment
of this law we are in a scenario where the price is too much to pay and
the reward insubstantial(about which I will be discussing in the
upcoming sections).Abolishment of such a law might have had an effect in
maybe other more secular countries but in India there are hardly any
practical purpose that can be attained on abolishment of this law given
the cost that the country would be needed to suffer.

`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.



Neutrality of the law


The law was declared in the year 1861 but I challenge my learned
adversary to give an account of a homosexual couple living in peace and
equality in the society of India before the time of the implementation of
the law, I'm afraid my opponent will find this really hard if not
impossible, cause law or no law the mentality of the community will be
ever the same. Of course a possible argument that my opponent can come up
would be the instillation of awareness on the topic of homosexuality and
homosexual needs but that would be going away from the domain of this
debate since as I earlier mentioned the resolution is only on whether
Section 377 of Indian Penal Code be abolished or not. And coming to
effects of the law, since its establishment it has made few to no
conviction thus negating any claims on it effecting the overall equality
of homosexuals,thus abolishing such a law will just be a futile effort on
bringing equality to homosexuals in India and the trouble that would have
been taken to do so would be tremendous. And now I put a question to my
opponent to answer, will abolishment of such a law according to your
argument lead them, to quote your own words, "live a life like everyone
else"? Maybe legally Yes, but the scenario will remain as ever it was
after the abolishment as before.

`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.




The Long time period and strain that would be involved



Abolishing such a law will require a lot of time/effort and with other
more important and pressing issues that overrun the current Indian
society such as
overpopulation,poverty,corruption,education,terrorism,.etc to address
with, running after abolishing a law which has significantly no damage or
impact on the society(given the few to no reported conviction on the
grounds of this law) is just a futile waste of time and energy.

`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.




More harm than good


Abolishment of this law will also mean other natural sexual abnormalities
such as pedophilia,zoophilia,.etc are very much as legal as
homosexuality. Well who can argue otherwise? Section 377 of Indian penal
code is as such a law which covers an even larger area and abolishing of
which will provoke and promote other inhumane activities as stated
before.

`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.`~.



Conclusion:

The argument provided by my adversary to abolish section 377 is only
theoretically sound, in reality it has hardly any practical applications
on a country like India. Thus making this senseless move to abolish the
said law would only tarnish the already feeble unity and harmony in the
country.

And that would be all.Looking forward to my opponents response :).
Debate Round No. 2
rjayx8

Pro

Judges please note: This round is for a rebuttal and a closing statement.

Alright, so, I would be rebutting Con's argument paragraph by paragraph and putting most of my remarks, comments, rebuttals in brackets.


'Primarily, the first thing I wish to clarify and convey to my learned adversary and voters is that if I show and provide enough reasons for the law to sustain and remain undisturbed, in compliance with the resolution I will win this debate.'

Well, let me begin my argument by saying to con, that the question of winning or not winning this debate is not for us to decide, I would advise him to leave that to the judges.

‘I have divided my fundamental dissensions into four different sections for the purpose of clarity.’

(I see.)

'Will cause turmoil in the country

To start with, I would like to bring to light the fact that India is in reality not a secular country, with different parties, religious cults and communities following different religions and beliefs, taking a move to abolish the law, in a conservative society as which thrives in India, will culminate in unnecessary riots and rampage. '

(Con claims India is not a secular country, I would like to know how, and that abolition of 377 would cause unrest, again how?)

Also with the ruling party BJP and large sections of religious groups against the abolishment of this law we are in a scenario where the price is too much to pay and the reward insubstantial about which I will be discussing in the upcoming sections.

(What is the price? The reward is that we finally legally make way for a liberal society, where we can co-exist in harmony, where being a homosexual wouldn't be viewed as criminal, where you would not be jailed for life for fellatio, or for having anal intercourse, where you get to live in a community where you don't have to hide, I believe that reward, and you would agree, is not so insubstantial at all.)

Abolishment of such a law might have had an effect in maybe other more secular countries (for example?) but in India there are hardly any practical purpose that can be attained on abolishment of this law given the cost that the country would be needed to suffer.

(Con claims there is no purpose of abolishing the restrictive law and that India would have to pay a cost if we do, but does not again specify the cost or price like he had said above.)

Neutrality of the law

The law was declared in the year 1861 (thank you for mentioning that, exactly we are still being haunted by the colonial nostalgia, their laws still dominate our society, isn't it time that we kick the colonial mindset we've been carrying for so long, this archaic ancient law deserves to abolished) but I challenge my learned adversary to give an account of a homosexual couple living in peace and equality in the society of India before the time of the implementation of the law, I'm afraid my opponent will find this really hard if not impossible, cause law or no law the mentality of the community will be ever the same.

(Wrong, I will come up with an argument that homosexuality has always existed in society, law or no law, it will continue to exist and has to be accommodated not condemned or criminalized and the mentality of the society, is that a reason that we can’t grant homosexuals the rights they deserve?)

(Isn’t it obvious that if we remove 377, it would be moving in a path, setting the tone for the acceptance of LGBTs. First we have to remove the legal barrier, only then can we come up with suggestions and proposals of instilling awareness that my opponent proposes in the paragraph below.)

'Of course a possible argument that my opponent can come up would be the instillation of awareness on the topic of homosexuality and homosexual needs but that would be going away from the domain of this debate since as I earlier mentioned the resolution is only on whether Section 377 of Indian Penal Code be abolished or not. And coming to effects of the law, since its establishment it has made few to no conviction thus negating any claims on it effecting the overall equality of homosexuals, thus abolishing such a law will just be a futile effort on bringing equality to homosexuals in India and the trouble that would have been taken to do so would be tremendous.'

(Yet again he talks about trouble, what trouble, please be a little specific sir? Ambiguity won’t win you debates, specificity will)

And now I put a question to my opponent to answer, will abolishment of such a law according to your argument lead them, to quote your own words, "live a life like everyone else"?

(Is it a rhetorical question? If it is a yes or no question then yes, but I believe Con deserves a good answer.)

(Yes, they would be able to live a life like everyone else, because they would not be criminals anymore; they would be as much of a citizen as you and I are, constitutionally, legally, enjoying the freedom and rights that we do, living a life of respect and dignity, not one of agony and denial)

Maybe legally Yes, but the scenario will remain as ever it was after the abolishment as before.
(I’m afraid you’re mistaken and I’ve already stated why.)


'The Long time period and strain that would be involved Abolishing such a law will require a lot of time/effort and with other more important and pressing issues that overrun the current Indian society such as overpopulation, poverty,corruption,education,terrorism,.etc (just like the judiciary of India, Con wants to delay, stall this topic, my question is simple, how do you deal with homoseuxals then? Want to gas them all like Hitler did?) to address with, running after abolishing a law which has significantly no damage or impact on the society, (homosexuals are being affected, so what if the majority is not homosexual, there still is a number that is homosexual and in a democracy, it is a basic principle - that we accomodate minorities, don't discard them, first you claim India is not secular then you say 377 is not doing any harm, later you would argue India is not a democracy, please weigh your statements before making them on public forum such as this) given the few to no reported conviction on the grounds of this law, is just a futile waste of time and energy.'

'More harm than good

Abolishment of this law will also mean other natural sexual abnormalities such as pedophilia,zoophilia,.etc are very much as legal as homosexuality. (Why can't we first scrap the whole section 377 first which covers very natural occurences as crimes)Well who can argue otherwise? Section 377 of Indian penal code is as such a law which covers an even larger area and abolishing of which will provoke and promote other inhumane activities as stated before.'

'Conclusion:

The argument provided by my adversary to abolish section 377 is only theoretically sound, in reality it has hardly any practical applications on a country like India. (I am not suggesting any Rocket Science, my logic is simple, that 377 has to be abolished, how is that senseless, and I ask for the fourth time how would it shatter the harmony in the country?)Thus making this senseless move to abolish the said law would only tarnish the already feeble unity and harmony in the country.

And that would be all. Looking forward to my opponents response :).'

(Well, considering that the law stays, doesn’t get abolished, what do you think Con, wouldn’t the homosexual section cause, to put it in your style, ‘trouble’? Wouldn’t they fight for their rights?)

(I believe they would, and I would still argue for them, because an unjust law is no law at all.)

Before resting my case, Con avoided several question I posed to him like are consenting LGBT individuals having sex – criminals? Is every homosexual naturally defected? Even Catholic church has accepted homosexuality, why can’t the Indian judiciary? How do we accommodate homosexuals? I hope he will anser them.)

(That is all, it’s been a pleasure debating with you Sashil. Looking forward to your rebuttal.)
Sashil

Con

Well, let me begin my argument by saying to con, that the question of 
winning......I would advise him to leave that to the judges

I was just elaborating on what my goal as CON for this resolution would be there, of course winning as PRO stated will be for the judges to decide.



These are the rebuttals to the arguments that PRO presented in round 2:


I also believe that 377 is a farce, there has not been a single arrest from the 20 years,
The first statement made by PRO is an argument to itself. He himself
admits that 377 is a farce and has not made a single arrest, so then why
bother abolishing a law that has, not the slightest effect on the
homosexual community?
It’s just being used as a deterrent,

Where is the proof? PRO makes a high claim here but has not taken any effort to prove it.

Why do they need to create a social taboo regarding homosexuals, why are they making a major section of the society live in denial and agony? Why can’t they live a life like everyone else?

The law has nothing to do with all of these. In fact most of the
country's population are ignorant of such law even existing. PRO here too doesn’t provide any proof for his claim that homosexuals are living in denial and agony because of this law, as a matter of fact this argument also
counters his previous argument in which he himself has mentioned section 377 being a farce.

Are consenting LGBT individuals having sex – criminals? Is every homosexual naturally defected?

Section 377 is only confined to papers, no practical action has been taken against LGBTs in actuality because of this law. And I believe that
the answer to PRO's second question is itself a topic to be debated upon but is irrelevant to the current topic in question.
Talking about religion and spirituality, I would like to limit myself to 
just one paragraph.Pope Francis, the Holy Father of all the Catholics on the plant said, “Ifa person is gay, and seeks the lord who am I to judge him?”Even a stern and staunch institution like the Catholic church has
accepted homosexuality, why can’t the Indian judiciary, why can’t the
Indian legislators?
Large communities and Major religious leaders are against the abolishment in India. It is fallacious to presume that the opinion of Pope Francis 
would be shared by religious leaders in India. If Indian judiciary makes a move to abolish section 377 it will only result in large scale ruination
in the country(about which I will explain and reinforce in my counter rebuttals).

Counter Rebuttals

Con claims India is not a secular country, I would like to know how,
India in reality privileges Hinduism over other religions and religious communities to argue further would be to deviate away from the resolution
of this debate.But I have sources that give arguments and proofs on my claim which I
submit below:
source 1: http://is.gd...

source 2: http://is.gd...
and that abolition of 377 would cause unrest, again how?

Easy, Indian society though modernizing, have traditions and beliefs firmly following old Indian cultures. Most of these view homosexuality as

against their scriptures and practices.

[1]The 11 December 2013 judgment of the Supreme Court, upholding Section 377, was met with support from religious leaders. The main petitioner in
the plea was an astrologer, Suresh Kumar Koushal, and other petitioners were religious organizations like All India Muslim Personal Law Board,
Trust God Missionaries, Krantikari Manuwadi Morcha, Apostolic Churches Alliance, and Utkal Christian Council.[1]

[1]Usually divisive and almost always seen tearing down each other’s religious beliefs, leaders across sections came forward in decrying
homosexuality and expressing their solidarity with the judgment." The article added that Baba Ramdev India's well-known yoga guru, after
advising that journalists interviewing him not to turn homosexual, stated he could cure homosexuality through yoga and called it a bad addiction.[1]

[1]The Vishwa Hindu Parishad's vice-president Om Prakash Singhal said,"This is a right decision, we welcome it. Homosexuality is against Indian

culture, against nature and against science. We are regressing, going back to when we were almost like animals. The SC had protected our
culture." Singhal further dismissed HIV/AIDS concerns within the LGBTcommunity saying, "It is understood that when you try to suppress one
anomaly, there will be a break-out of a few more."[1]


You see these are the beliefs that run through the veins of the current community in India and trying to abolish 377 will without any doubt cause unrest.


(Also with the ruling party BJP and large sections of religious groups against the abolishment of this law we are in a scenario where the price 
is too much to pay and the reward insubstantial about which I will be discussing in the upcoming sections.)
What is the price?

The price is what I've mentioned above, riots and rampages in the country leading to total unrest and turmoil.




Con claims there is no purpose of abolishing the restrictive law and that India would have to pay a cost if we do, but does not again specify the 
cost or price like he had said above.
The cost has been explained above and I state it again unrest and turmoil in the country.(hereafter i will skip similar questions as such due to word limit)



thank you for mentioning that, exactly we are still being haunted by the colonial nostalgia, their laws still dominate our society, isn't it time that we kick the colonial mindset we've been carrying for so long 

Sure, but how? abolishing a law that hasn’t even made any conviction till now won't even be worth the attempt to reach the goal that PRO has mentioned above.



Wrong, I will come up with an argument that homosexuality has always existed in society, law or no law, 

I would like to direct the readers attention these words.PRO says that homosexuality will exist irrelevant of whether there is a law or not,exactly my point, so why abolish something that doesn't even concern

homosexuality in the slightest.

it will continue to exist and has to
be accommodated not condemned or criminalized and the mentality of the society, is that a reason that we can’t grant homosexuals the rights they

deserve?

Answering PRO's question, NO, it is not, mentality of the society is in fact the reason why abolishing 377 won't change anything, the law has nothing to do with the way homosexuals are viewed and treated.





Yes, they would be able to live a life like everyone else, because they 
would not be criminals anymore;
Were they criminals before? The reality is NO. Section 377 has made no convictions up till now. It is in fact the views of the society that has
actually made homosexuals in India shy away from living a life totally exposed to the public in the country.






Well, considering that the law stays, doesn’t get abolished, what do you think Con, wouldn’t the homosexual section cause, to put it in your 
style, ‘trouble’?

No they won't, unquestionably NOT in this regard, because why would they, when it hasn’t bothered them or hasn’t been used against them in any way in the

slightest.









how is that senseless


It is senseless for the following reasons
i)The law has nothing to do with the way homosexuals are viewed and treated in the country and has made no convictions or affected homosexuals in any way whatsoever.
ii)Trying to abolish it will cause instability in the country, about which I have already elaborated above











Final Conclusion:

Though PRO's has made good arguments on the given resolution it is deeply flawed in one facet.Yes LGBTs deserve to be treated equally by the society but abolishing a law that never has been used or
put to action against them in any way will not even be a long shot to achieve this goal but instead, will only culminate in the wreckage of the delicate political and religious solidity of the country that exists now and a lot of effort gone in vain, without any reward.
Indeed the lives of the LGBTs are important but abolishing the supposed section 377 is NOT the answer.









Sources:
[1]: http://is.gd...
 
 
 






Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sashil 3 years ago
Sashil
@9 Heyy that wasn't very nice -_-
Its not my fault that all my opponents somehow turned out to be newbies O:) .I just accept debates that I find engaging and more to my taste.
And I have a feeling that this debate http://www.debate.org... which I created just now is going to give me a hard challenge.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
this is pretty much Sashil's only non-noob-snipe....
Posted by Sashil 3 years ago
Sashil
@Themba Thank you for your time and judgement
@rjayx8 To be honest I literally had no idea about section 377 before finding this debate and I still don't have a strong personal stand on either side. And political party would be BJP.
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
=Read from top to bottom=

Framework For Burden Of Proof

Since both of you agreed to leave BoP to the intrepretation of judges, here is my framework

The resolution states that article 377 should be abolished. The proposal is to eradicate the article to ensure equality. The current status quo however, is still upholding the article as part of the indian penal code. Pro wishes to change the status quo so the BOP solely lies on him. He has to provide a primae facie case to win this debate & to provide reasons why the status quo should be changed. Con's primary objective bears the burden of denouncing Pro's argument, that is to defend the Article, its relevancies in the scope of both social and legal perspectives.

I'm voting based on the scope of the Article 377 and its relevancies as what was dictated by the resolution, anything outside are automatically discarded.

Here are the reasons why.
=Read from top to bottom=
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
The social stigma of homosexuality Part 1/3

Pro advocates that homosexuality should be accepted as part of society. He adds that the constitution guarantees equality, as such gays should be equal and that the article serves as one clear evidence of inequality. Con's argument is that it has its uses from a legal perspective, but from a social perspective, it would cause turmoil. However, Con did not elaborate beyond the turmoil point. He stops immediately after the 'it causes suffering' mentality. The weakness is seen in every point of his contention, in both neutrality of the law and the 'more harm than good' point.

I am forced to judge the argument from majority whereby conservatives would be extremely unsatisfied if the article is abolished. Whereas, from pro's case, I had to take this solely from a 'legal perspective'. Con wins this category if he were to elaborate beyond 'turmoil', by providing reasons how it might lead to such a situation, but in this case he didn't. Pro would have lost as he stuck by the legal perspective, ignoring any public opinion. Both of you failed to uphold your own respective premises, so I can't vote based on assumptions from either side.

The category for homosexuality is tied, as such conclusions are made on next rounds.
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
Show me the how Part 2/3

Previously, as said by Pro, you should show how. This is a both a disadvantage and an advantage. The disadvantage of this is that if your opponent manage to answer them with sufficient evidence, you lose. Its similar to that of a trial, if the witness manage to hold his expertise, his study is considered objective by the court as the cross examiner failed to refute it successfully. In the context of this debate, Con wins this category.

He showed a general claim on how india failes to uphold secular values(though he did not elaborate) and how scriptures and religious scholars fervently support the article thereby endorsing 3 premises that were tied here previously:

a) That public satisfaction would rely on religion ( the premise of conservative point have been successfully elaborated)
b) That the constitution isn't secular, but endorses positive discrimination(hence nullifying Pro's R1 BOP case)
c) That Legal issues in this case are irrelevant as social stigmas exert far more influence over the legal field

I'd only buy if the legal perspective were to be taken MORE seriously than social perspective. Thus, Pro's contention on constitution, the effects of the article and homosexuality have been defeated because the social perspective exerts more influence. Even if the article is abolished, it would do no special favors as homosexuality are considered generally immoral by the public.
Posted by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
Conclusion Part 3/3

Pro argues primarily based on theories without considering the opinions of india on homosexuality. Con's case was a more realistic approach and a more practical one, his failure to elaborate his reasons on why he thinks so almost sets his case as unsubstantiative, but Con managed to do so in the last round. Pro's last round was just a cross examination of which Con managed to answer them enough to discredit the resolution. The last round was the final decider of the debate. It was very very close, I was confused on how I should judge this. Moreover, face assessment wise, it was a tie. Only when I look into each contention of both Pro and Con did I realise the winner of this debate

Thanks for the debate. It was a good one. No regrets.
Posted by rjayx8 3 years ago
rjayx8
@ragnar no problem. @sashil regardless of the debate what is ur personal stand on 377 and what pol party do u support?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
While a blank slate is the goal, I don't know enough base facts about India to judge this one.
Posted by rjayx8 3 years ago
rjayx8
Sure. I hope we can debate in the future on many other interesting issues. Cheers.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 3 years ago
Themba
rjayx8SashilTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD Comments.