The Instigator
Bob13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The Bible condemns homosexuality.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 929 times Debate No: 80550
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Bob13

Pro

Please accept the debate.
lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Bob13

Pro

The Bible states in several places that homosexuality is immoral.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26–27).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

"Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:8–10).

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).

These are just a few examples of places in the Bible where homosexuality is condemned.
lannan13

Con

I shall begin with my Opening arguments this round then move on to my rebuttals in my next round to make things fair. Since there was no terms provided I reserve the right to post my sources in the comments section. Another term that my opponent must go by via the definition of condemns. This is also due to the fact that my opponent has failed to provide terms and definitions in previous round permitting me to do so now.

Condemn- express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure [1]

This means that in order for me to win the debate I have to either refute all of my opponent's arguments and/or find an instance in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned and thus the Bible cannot condemn homosexuality due to it being okay in that instance.

Genesis

Now before we look at Genesis 2:21-24 and automatically condemn Gay Marriage let's take one more look at it. It states that Eve came from the rib of Adam so that the man shall leave his parents and find women. This doesn't mean that a man has to marry a women, but actually fallows Plato's theory of androgyne. [2] Escentially it is that the man leaves his parents to go out and to look for their other half. Now this means that the person can look for a male or female. It matters not their sexuality as long as it they find their other half. This is a methaor throughout the Bible.

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:21-24

The Bible verse states that Women has come from man and that once the man has come of age he is to look for the rib. This does not mean that a man should go and find another female, but it is to find a missing half of the person. This is obvious as my coming of age interpertation of the verse. Now to further explain the second part of Genesis that I assaulted.

Many people state that men and women are meant to have sex and that anything else would be against God's will, but that is simply not so. Why's that you may ask? Well let's look further in the Book of Genesis and observe Lot and his wife. In Genesis 16 Lot's wife ask's him to find another wife to impregnate as she is barren. In Genesis 25, he marries Hagar and Katurah whom of which the Bible describes her as being concubine. Now what that means is that the person is polygamous, but they have a status lesser than that of a wife. So we can see that God permitted Lot to enter a Polygamous marriage with now 3 wives. The Bible shows here that it cannot be true about what Pro is saying in terms of Furtality as Lot maintains his marriage to his first wife even if she is infertile.

Sodom

Now let's observe Sodom and the acts of Sodomy.

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Genesis 19:5

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." Genesis 19:8

Now one immidately rushes to say, "Ha, there, that condems it," but once again that is incorrect. Sodomy was orginially a sexual act of anal and/or oral sex between two people. This happens between heterosexual couples on an everday basis. it's wasn't until the Mid Evil times that the Christian and Jewish communities used this to attack homosexual couples due to the Pagan acceptance of homosexuality during this time.

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." [Heb. 13:2]

The Bible actually uses Lot's story to show that one must entertain guests and treat them well. That not doing so is a violation. Sodom is actually rementioned in the New Testiment in the Book of Ezekiel.

"Saith the Lord GOD...Behold, this was the iniquity of ... Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good". - Ezekiel 16:48-50

Now look closely and we can see that the abomination is idol worshipping and human sacrafice, not homosexual acts. The society of Sodom was known for its materialistic and uncharitable nature. There is a story in the BIble when a starving man is coated in honey only to be stung to death by bees.

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Now, before you come at me like an evil mob we have to observe one key thing here. In the Biblical times rape was a form of punishment that would occur after the battle. Not just to the women, but the men of the defeated military. This wasn't just to be immoral, but this, as God has permitted, allowed as a form of humiliation of the defeated nation. God was angry with Sodom not because of the fact that the two men wanted rape him, but rather to punish Sodom due to the fact that he was punished for no reason. That's like in the 1800s when blacks were lynched and they never committed a crime. It has the same corrilation. You see many times throughout the Bible that reference Sodom and Gamorrah out of the Hospitality example, NOT homosexuality and rape.

Leviticus

Now this is the greatest part in the BIble that "condems" homosexuality to say that they must be stone to death. (Leviticus 20:13) What people don't know is that during this time there was a great number of Pagans living in the Palestine area. These Pagan Priests were called Kedoshim. What they would do in their practices is cross dress and take on the role of a female. They would even casterate themselves, but where it get's to the highest relivence is during the holy rites they would do anal sex. [3] Leviticu's condeming this practice was not condeming homosexuality, but actually this Pagan religion. It was later misinterperated for the condeming of homosexuality. Leviticus also bans a long list of other things depicted bellow.

Now to clear this up this was a Pagen religion of the Canaanites. Now why is this a huge issue you may ask? Throughout the BIble Canaa is give bad name and it is because of the Israelites invasion of the area which was controlled by the Canaanites. [4] The Canaanites were polytheistic and practiced this religion and the Israelites tried to condemn the religion by outlawing their Priests practices in Leviticus 20:13. My opponent is also incorrect with his interpertation here as he provides no evidence stating that what I claim is flase, but since he didn't you can extend my arguments across the board.

I know that we aren't debating about what was on the chalkboard, but this goes to show you that it's rediculous if you are saying that Gay Marriage is sinful without saying that these other things aren't also against God's will.

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

Ve"et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to"evah hi.

Ve"ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to"evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

Now let's translate to English.

18:22 And as to the masculine, don"t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to"evah.

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to"evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests.

Ruth

A key part of this debate is to go through the Bible and if I can find any instances where homosexuality is not condemned then I can win the debate on that ground.

Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

Sounds like love to me concidering that we also say many things like this at weddings. We can see that when put into the context of the story we can see that when a man died a woman was unable to inheret the land. A woman without a man had no social standing in that time peroid. Ruth felt a great amount of feeling for Naomi where the Bible says, "Ruth Clung to Naomi" (Ruth 1:14). The Hebrew word for Clung is Dabaq. Though this word is also used for other loving instances, but the one place that it actually appears in the Bible outside of Ruth is that of Genesis 2 when Adam met Eve.



Unfortunately I'm out of characters, so I'll pass things back off to my opponent.



Sources
1. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
2. ( http://www.reconnections.net...)
3. (http://www.hebcal.com...)
4. (Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press)
Debate Round No. 2
Bob13

Pro

Genesis

This states that a man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife. You have yet to prove how this refers to a homosexual relationship.

Sodom

Saying that this does not condemn homosexuality does not prove that the Bible does not condemn it. The title of this debate is "the bible condemns homosexuality", so all I have to do is prove that a single passage condemns it. If I can do that, I win.

Leviticus

This section is about a pagan religion and is irrelevant to the debate.

Ruth

This does not mean that Ruth and Naomi were homosexual. They were close friends, and you cannot prove otherwise.

Conclusion

Con will now have to prove that the passages that I mentioned do not condemn homosexuality.

Also, here is the source I used for my previous argument.


I await your response.
lannan13

Con

I was shotgunning the argumentation, but it works all the same.

Genesis

My opponent completely drops the Androgyne argument, please hold it against my opponent as it is a sense of approval of homosexuality as it shows that one must go out and find their better half, not man and wife.

Ruth

My opponent did not refute the argument here what-so-ever, but simply resorted to a simple refusing to acknowledge my argument. This argument will continue to stand until it is properly refuted by my opponent as shown in the pyramid bellow.



For the sake of arguing I will add on to this argument here to continue as to why this is important.

“May the Lord reward your work, and your wages be full from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge” Ruth 2:12

Here we can see in this statement by Boaz when speaking on the relationship between Naomi and Ruth that he outright approves it and shows that he should be rewarded by God. In the last round I have shown that the words spoken between the two mimic and are modern day wedding vows alluring to that of an homosexual relationship.

Due to the condition of the debate I win on that stance alone, but for the sake of the debate I shall continue.

Samuel and David


Here I will prove that David loved Jonathan so much to the point to where if Jonathan then it would be the greatest love story in the Bible according to Theologians.

When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

Here we can see that Jonathan loved David more than his own soul. This is something that is extremely important especially since many Christians beleive that the soul is the most important thing that a person owns that is what goes to Heaven or Hell. So the fact that he loved David as much as his own Soul is key here to so an important relationship between the two with this amount of love.

David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

Here we can see just how intament the relationship got between these two men. Here they kiss and they indeed knew that this would be the last time that they would see eachother as Jonathan would later die in combat. The key part here is that they show that their decendents shall be together showing almost that of a gay marriage between the two.

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”

(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27)

Here we can continue the furthering of the homosexual relationship as it shows the love between the two men surpassed that then a man and a women. Proving that of a homosexual relation.

This is yet another approved example of homosexuality in the Bible any attempt to argue otherwise would be that of arguing that God looked down upon David which was false since God had blessed him and with God being omnipotent we can see that God would've known about the homosexual relationship and would not have gifted David as much as he has.

Romans

Why I'm glad you raised the question on this verse as this refers to a different sexual interaction that ISN"T homosexuality. It is actually that of an orgy. [1] Let's look at key sections of the passage for this.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

If we look at the underlined sections we can see that the sections here point to that of an orgy by showing them leaving their spouses to go do something unnatural for another. Burned in their lust is a key phrase and this is to further my point here to show that this refers to the orgy. [1]

We can see that this was taken out of context by my opponent. Here we can see that this is a speach that Paul is reading to condemn a lifestyle of idoltry and that is when the Jews started to chant "Yes, yes, they are guilty." Then Paul sprung on them Romans 2:1, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Thus we have Romans 3:23, " for all have sinnedand fall short of the glory of God." Meaning that if what Pro is saying is true, then all of us are homosexuals and are thus to burn in hell as such. Though we know that isn't the case.

Corithians

My opponent has misinterperated the Bible, again let's turn to the Hebrew language to retranslate to what it really says. The word used is malakoi which translates to soft. Meaning that Paul was saying that those who are soft will not make it into heaven. We all know that he wasn't talking about the Philsbury Dough boy, so what was he talking about. The Greeks Generally used the term to mean lazy, degenerate, or lacking courage. [2]

Timothy

Here's a fun verse based on Semantics. You must ask yourself here what is a Sodomite? Why it's somone who preforms Sodomy. Now what is Sodomy? Why it's simply the acts of oral or annal sex. Now I don't know about you, but people both straight and homosexual preform these acts. We can see here that due to the exspansiveness of this term that this argument must be thrown out since it is irrelevant to this debate.

Jude

Here's an argument that I escentially refuted when I tackled the Sodom and Gomorrah argument in my last round which my opponent casted the argument asside. Thus he actually drops this argument in the process.



Sources
1. ( "The Deliverance of God." by Douglas Campbell)
2. ( Dale B. Martin, Arsenokoitês and Malakos: Meaning and Consequences (Source: Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture edited by Robert L. Brawley; Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville Kentucky, 1996), page 124. Nissinen also offers “frailty of body or character, illness, sentimentality, or moral weakness” as other possibilities for the meaning of this word in other contexts (page 117).)
Debate Round No. 3
Bob13

Pro

Genesis

I dropped your argument becuase it is about a Platonic theory that has nothing to do with the Bible.

Ruth

Con mentioning Boaz further proves my point on this argument. Ruth loved Boaz as a husband, and since she married him instead of Naomi, that shows that she was not homosexual.

David

The kiss was a sign of friendship, as was the custom back then. Loving each other was also a sign of friendship, and the verse about their love surpassing the love of women was a metaphor meant to illustrate how deep their friendship was. The Bible says that David and Jonathon were close friends, but never depicted anything romantic between the two.

Leviticus

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." This clearly condemns homosexuality. Since the title of this debate is "the Bible condemns homosexuality" I have fulfilled the burden of proof, unless you can somehow prove this verse to mean otherwise.
lannan13

Con

Genesis

My opponent states that it has nothing to do with the Bible, but that is false concidering that this is an interpertation of the Bible and yet my opponent has yet to actually refute this point, again referencing to the pryamid from last round.

All points extended.

Ruth

My opponent brings up an interesting point with Boaz, but let's look at Boaz.

"The neighborhood women gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They called his name Obed.[a] He became Jesse’s father and David’s grandfather."- Ruth 4:17

The interesting thing here was that Naomi didn't have a child, but it was this of Ruth. We can see here that this connection between the two shows the relationship between Ruth and Naomi still exists as this is the child of Naomi despite Ruth having the child. Many times, since homosexuality was taboo, would still be involved in a heterosexual relationship while having their real homosexual relationship on the side. This here is the case.


David

The Bible never outright states that two people directly had sex with eachother. This is actually the closest that it gets to this action. The point that he loves Jonathan more than his own soul and women isn't that they had a great friendship, but it is a sign of homosexuality.

Leviticus

I actually argued this in a previous round and this was my opponent's response.

Leviticus

This section is about a pagan religion and is irrelevant to the debate.

I refuted the exact verse that he brought up in this last round and we can see that he conceded that it had nothing to do with homosexuality. Please hold this against him.

Since my opponent has forgotten about this argument I'll just post it here again for him.

Now this is the greatest part in the BIble that "condems" homosexuality to say that they must be stone to death. (Leviticus 20:13) What people don't know is that during this time there was a great number of Pagans living in the Palestine area. These Pagan Priests were called Kedoshim. What they would do in their practices is cross dress and take on the role of a female. They would even casterate themselves, but where it get's to the highest relivence is during the holy rites they would do anal sex. [1] Leviticu's condeming this practice was not condeming homosexuality, but actually this Pagan religion. It was later misinterperated for the condeming of homosexuality. Leviticus also bans a long list of other things depicted bellow.

Now to clear this up this was a Pagen religion of the Canaanites. Now why is this a huge issue you may ask? Throughout the BIble Canaa is give bad name and it is because of the Israelites invasion of the area which was controlled by the Canaanites. [2] The Canaanites were polytheistic and practiced this religion and the Israelites tried to condemn the religion by outlawing their Priests practices in Leviticus 20:13. My opponent is also incorrect with his interpertation here as he provides no evidence stating that what I claim is flase, but since he didn't you can extend my arguments across the board.

I know that we aren't debating about what was on the chalkboard, but this goes to show you that it's rediculous if you are saying that Gay Marriage is sinful without saying that these other things aren't also against God's will.

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

Ve"et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to"evah hi.

Ve"ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to"evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

Now let's translate to English.

18:22 And as to the masculine, don"t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to"evah.

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to"evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests.

Sources
1. (http://www.hebcal.com...)
2. Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press
Debate Round No. 4
Bob13

Pro

Just to clarify the burden of proof: I must show that a single passage condemns homosexuality. If I can do that, I win.

In your Leviticus argument, you went to the conclusion that it was a religious rite of the priests based on no evidence. Your translation only further proved my point, so I won.
lannan13

Con

Here as we arrive to the last and finial round I will explain to you why I've won the debate.

My opponent wants to "clarify BOP," but remind you that my opponent had fialed to define the terms of the debate, so I did so in Round 2. My opponent didn't respond and since silence is confirmance we can see that he agreed to them. Shall I repost the terms and BOP of the debate, "This means that in order for me to win the debate I have to either refute all of my opponent's arguments and/or find an instance in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned and thus the Bible cannot condemn homosexuality due to it being okay in that instance. "

My opponent has dropped both my Ruth and David arguments and that right there shows approval of homosexuality in the Bible. Which that alone wins me the debate. Now let's continue to his arguments.

My opponent has dropped all, but one of his arguments and that's Leveticus. Mind you that he dropped it in Round 3 stating that it had nothing to do with homosexuality. So that in itself can show that this argument is not valid by his own words. His Round 5 response was that it got to Kedoshim with no evidence, but we can see that mine was from direct Hebrew language, which is the equivilence of Shakespearian English, but we can see that I showed that the religion that was being slandered was Kedoshim. None of these arguments were actually refuted.

Concidereing that I have met both of my win conditions I urge you to vote Con!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Death23 1 year ago
Death23
The leviticus quotes would have been more convincing if the resolution had asserted that the bible condemns male homosexual sex specifically as opposed to homosexuality in general.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tajshar2k// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I think Con wins here. Pro basically dropped all points that were made by Con, except the Leviticus one. Con's points went unrefuted, and they also refuted Pro's points. Pro basically conceded the debate because of that. For that, I have to give the win to COn.

[*Reason for non-removal*] I've already addressed how the RFD is sufficient. Contrary to the reporter, I don't see any signs of the voter plagiarizing another vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tajshar2k// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I think Con wins here. Pro basically dropped all points that were made by Con, except the Leviticus one. Con's points went unrefuted, and they also refuted Pro's points. Pro basically conceded the debate because of that. For that, I have to give the win to COn.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the person who reported this is correct that the vote would have been made better by explaining why the dropped arguments were important, in this case, merely pointing out the drops and explaining that they are responsive to Pro's points is sufficient explanation for an RFD on this debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
lol, you conceded to my evidence in R3.
Posted by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
Con never gave sufficient evidence! That vote should have been removed! I won this debate!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Lexus// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped all of their arguments except for their Leviticus one. But when con shows that their interperetation of the verse is incorrect, they don't refute or attack con's argument; essentially, they concede all of their prior points and then Leviticus as well. Con's Ruth argument is unrefuted, thus it stands at full weight, meaning the Bible is in favor of homosexuality. I give arguments to con because of this.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote actually seems quite complete in its analysis of the debate. The person who reported it doesn't appear to realize that the voter pointed out that Pro did respond to the Leviticus argument, just that he did so insufficiently. It's sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Read Round 2.
Posted by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
Seriously lannan13? You get to decide the burden of proof? The title of the debate is not "the bible depicts homosexuality" like your version of the BoP would suggest. I proved that the bible condemns homosexuality, you have not refuted that, therefore, I win. It doesn't matter that I didn't specify; I just have to prove that the title of the debate is true. How is that not obvious? And your last response to the Leviticus argument had no evidence at all. Unless you refute my original argument WITH EVIDENCE you cannot win.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Thanks.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
I will vote tonight.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Bob13lannan13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con wins here. Pro basically dropped all points that were made by Con, except the Leviticus one. Con's points went unrefuted, and they also refuted Pro's points. Pro basically conceded the debate because of that. For that, I have to give the win to COn.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Bob13lannan13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped all of their arguments except for their Leviticus one. But when con shows that their interperetation of the verse is incorrect, they don't refute or attack con's argument; essentially, they concede all of their prior points and then Leviticus as well. Con's Ruth argument is unrefuted, thus it stands at full weight, meaning the Bible is in favor of homosexuality. I give arguments to con because of this.