The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Sans_the_Ander
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points

The US federal goverment should legalize Same Sex Marriage

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 8 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,847 times Debate No: 21995
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (8)

 

16kadams

Con

Same Sex marriage (SSM): A Married couple recognized by federal law (in this debate)

Rules:
1st round acceptance
no semantics with the title or definitions
8000 characters, except sources can be in comments or in a separate area.
Sans_the_Ander

Pro

Accepted. I thank 16kadams for issuing this debate. I'm also looking forward to my first legit debate on DDO (since my first 3 were all forfeited by my opponents). State your case, por favor.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

As we know I argue we should not legalize SSM.

~Against SSM~

Marriage in the governments eyes is an institution about procreation and child rearing. [1] The goverment gives any economic benefits to these couples and with that it is safe to assume they are interested in something. The interest is to further propagate society through responsible procreation. [1, 2] Without these heterosexual couples society would not exist, and therefore we would have no human race. This is a reason these relationships in the states eyes are indispensable and deserve the special recognition. Relationships like homosexual ones do not deserve this privilege as they can not contribute to society the way heterosexual couples can, and hence do not deserve the privilege of marriage.

The argument to counter this is generally marriage is about love, this argument really can't hold any water. If this was true any relationship that involved love would be regulated. I you said "I love you mom" that would be regulated if that was a state interest. As love isn't a state interest this is never regulated.

Another counter is other people can procreate too (non marital). The problem with this is it ruins the states goal in responsible procreation and leads to other detrimental effects to society. [2] The courts have ruled that procreation is indeed their interest, and it is to propagate society, that's why SSM is banned. [3]

The next counter is comparisons with interracial couples. This comparison is absurd. There is a difference between race and sexual preference. Race is not even related to marriage in the slightest in the state eyes, they can still procreate. Homosexual couples can never enter procreative type unions and therefore do not fulfill the interests of the state.

The goverment wants two couples of heterosexual sexual preferences to create biological children to propagate society in the correct way. [4] This, as stated, will fulfill states interests. A homosexuals anatomy cannot do this, they cannot create children when in intercourse with their preferred couple. As they cannot do this, they should not be allowed to marry.

Conclusion:

The states interests are in fact heterosexuals in procreative type unions attempting to further society. The state confers many economic benefits to these couples, this hints to they have interests in the marital business. These benefits are costly to the governments coffers, so the reason they have incentives is procreation. [1] These procreative couples fulfill states interest therefore deserve recognition. Homosexual couples can never ever create these procreative type unions therefore do not deserve the legal status of marriage. Marriage is defined for this reason, vote con.



[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
[2] "PROTECTING AMERICA’S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
[3] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
[4] "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
Sans_the_Ander

Pro

I apologize for my delayed response.

I am arguing for the legalizing of same sex marriage.


---Marriage Benefits should be available to all couples---

Marriage is a lot more than just a legal status. When a couple gets married, a lot comes with it, including
tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, agency law, and the right to make critical medical decisions. [1]

In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage. [2]
  • visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will
  • benefits for federal employees -- many of which are also offered by private employers -- such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans
  • some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will
  • the ability to create life insurance trusts
  • tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns
  • the ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran's benefits for a spouse
  • discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance
  • immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad
  • visiting rights in jail
(whole list [2])

Denying same-sex couples these rights that come along with marriage is unconstitutional, discrimanatory, and just plain unfair. America is built on the premise of freedom, yet same-sex couples are denied the privileges of marriage that are taken for granted by so many other married couples.

My opponent only talks about procreation as his reason to deny same-sex marriage. But he never addressed this...... Why can't there be BOTH same-sex marriage and regular marriage? Legalizing same-sex marriage will not stop procreation. Heterosexual couples will still get married and still have babies. Procreation will not be harmed by legalizing same-sex marriage, therefore the federal government should not reserve the right of marriage for only straight couples. Everyone deserves the freedom to get married. Vote pro.

1. http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
2. http://people.howstuffworks.com...

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

I thank my opponents response.

Rc1: 1000 benefits

What my opponent said is true, there are many benefits to homosexual marriage. [1] I would not call these benefits rights, but my opponent agree there are many benefits of marriage. The question that all pro gay-marriage advocates now must answer is why should the goverment give them these benefits? As I have stated the states interests are in procreation and homosexual couples can NEVER fulfill this interest. [2] Why is this a problem? Because the state now has no reason to confer these benefits to homosexual couples. It would help everyone if the goverment said no one pays taxes, but it's not in their interests to do this because it is not in their interest to do this. The government makes laws based off of it's interests, as homosexual marriage does not fulfill the interests the question now is why? Why would the goverment give these benefits away?

Rc2: Discrimination

I always enjoy refuting the most common claim made by SSM advocates. The reason is their wrong. My opponent says marriage is a right, ok let's call it a right for the purpose of this debate. OK, marriage is a right. Now, one now may assume with this information that hey its discrimination to not let them marry. This is false. Before we can claim marriage is a form of discrimination we must find what marriage is and what marriage entails. [3] If marriage only entails a man and a woman in holy matrimony no discrimination is occurring. [4] Marriage may be a right, but if same sex "Marriage" doesn't exist no discrimination occurs. [4] If we define marriage as between a man and a woman then say marriage is a right, then marriage in it's nature does not apply to homosexuals, therefore no discrimination occurs as the concept of gay "marriage" doesn't exist, therefore no right is deprived. [4] As marriage entails man and a woman by definition even if marriage is a right it doesn't apply to homosexuals because of that definition.

Rc3: Why can't we?

Before I fully refute what you are saying, I would like to point out your logic here is flawed. One reason we wont have both is as stated it will not fulfill the states interests. Ok now to refute your argument of it will not stop procreation, this is false. Once the Netherlands legalized SSM (10 years later) divorce rates are climbing, fertility rates dropping, and marriage rates declining. [5] Everything I said right there disproves your arguments. In countries that legalize SSM see declines in everything, fertility rates (linked to PROCREATION), marriage rates, and then an increase of divorce. [5] Basically everything you said wouldn't happen happened.

Conclusion:

My secular case against SSM stands unscathed and her case has been shot down, vote con.

[1] http://www.nolo.com...
[2] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
[3] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
[4] "one man, one woman, defending traditional marriage" Tim Hsiao Florida state university.
[5] "HOW IS MARRIAGE DOING IN THE NETHERLANDS?" WIlliam C. Duncan
Sans_the_Ander

Pro

Ok, first I'd like to start out with the fact my opponent addressed me as "her"....... Dude, I'm a guy XD

Anyway, back to the debate.

"The government makes laws based off of it's interests, as homosexual marriage does not fulfill the interests the question now is why? Why would the government give these benefits away?"

Ok, so my opponent is basically saying that gay couples do not deserve the benefits that come along with marriage because they do not meet the state's interests. The state's interests are limited to (in this debate) procreation. I have one conflicting situation to go along with this argument. Why do infertile couples deserve the benefits of marriage? If the state's interests consist of procreation, and in order to deserve the benefits of marriage one must meet the state's interests, why do infertile couples, who just like gay couples cannot procreate, deserve the benefits of marriage? I understand that infertile couples that consist of a man and a woman still have the correct anatomy for procreation. But at the end of the day, they're not procreating. If the state has a very important interest in maintaining procreation, and they feel that marriage and the benefits that come with it should only be reserved for procreating couples, then infertile couples should not deserve the privilege of marriage over gay couples. In the US alone, 6 million women deal with infertility out of the 60 million women in child-bearing years. [1] A new Williams Institute analysis of Census 2010 data shows that there are nearly 650,000 same-sex couples in the U.S. [2] So, just to put this in perspective, let's assume that out of the 6 million women that are infertile, 4 million of them are married. So that would mean 2 million married couples are infertile. This number of infertile married couples would be more than three times greater than the number of potential same-sex marriage couples in the US. Even if you think the assumption above is ridiculous, even if you reduced the number of married infertile women to 3 million (half of the overall 6 million), the number of infertile couples would still be greater than the number of same-sex couples. The point is that a greater number of couples that are unable to procreate are still given the privilege and benefits of marriage over the lesser number of gay couples that cannot procreate. This is a fact - infertile couples can still marry although they fail to procreate. Because this situation exists, denying marriage to same-sex couples becomes DISCRIMINATION.

"If we define marriage as between a man and a woman then say marriage is a right, then marriage in it's nature does not apply to homosexuals, therefore no discrimination occurs as the concept of gay "marriage" doesn't exist, therefore no right is deprived."

Since this whole debate is about the resolution "The US federal government should legalize Same Sex Marriage", we cannot limit the definition of marriage to only being between a man and a women. If we did that, then yes, same-sex marriage would indeed not exist. But if same-sex marriage did not exist, then this debate would be absolutely pointless and would, in a way, not exist. If my opponent is trying to go against same-sex marriage by saying that marriage just doesn't apply at all to homosexuals, then why are we having this debate about same-sex marriage in the first place? Marriage should be defined as being united to a person of the opposite sex OR of the same sex. [3] Now, my opponent says I referred to marriage as a right. Yes, I believe it is a right for one to be able to marry. And because of the point I made in the above paragraph (that infertile couples are able to marry even though they cannot procreate just like gay couples), denying same-sex couples the RIGHT of MARRIAGE is DISCRIMINATION.

"Once the Netherlands legalized SSM (10 years later) divorce rates are climbing, fertility rates dropping, and marriage rates declining. [5] Everything I said right there disproves your arguments. In countries that legalize SSM see declines in everything, fertility rates (linked to PROCREATION), marriage rates, and then an increase of divorce. [5] Basically everything you said wouldn't happen"

I will refute this by saying it is VERY unlikely that what happened in the Netherlands would happen in all countries around the world. There can be so many other factors linked to the decline of fertility rates, marriage rates, and an increase of divorce. There have been a number of explanations for the general decline in fertility rates in much of the world, and the true explanation is almost certainly a combination of different factors. [4] These factors include higher education, economic development, urbanization, contraception, female social roles, government policies, religiosity, tempo effect, and partnership instability. [4] A couple of factors that can lead to a decline in marriage rates include an increase in women's educational attainment and labor force participation, and a rise in cohabitation as an alternative or precursor to marriage. [5] I don't see how divorce rates are affected by allowing same-sex marriage. Reasons for divorce are almost always personal ones between the couple. These reasons may include age when married, stepchildren, money, or drinking and smoking. [6] So to say that legalizing same-sex marriage in a country would lead to the country seeing a decline in fertility rates, a decline in marriage rates, and an increase of divorce rates is preposterous. I have shown that there are MANY other factors that could affect these. All of this happening in the Netherlands after legalizing same-sex marriage is just mere coincidence.

---Conclusion---

My opponent's main argument against same-sex marriage once again involves procreation. Because infertile couples are allowed to marry (and they do not procreate just like same-sex couples), denying same-sex couples the ability to marry becomes a matter of discrimination. Discrimination does not belong in the US. The United States is built on a foundation of freedom and equal rights for all. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry goes against everything the US stands for.

Vote pro.

1 - http://www.americanpregnancy.org...
2 - http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
3 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
5 - http://www.prb.org...
6 - http://www.ehow.com...

Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

Rc1: Why?

My opponents argument is still a misinterpretation of the whole argument. As I have stated the government wants procreative TYPE marriages. As I have stated they want a climate for these couples to be encouraged to procreate, and have responsible procreation. [1] My opponent could have defined other states interests, but decided to just attempt to refute this one. Her only response has been infertile couples. My opponent then cites evidence of 10% of women are infertile. This is a minority, a second refutation other then the state wants the climate for procreation is the majority of heterosexual couples can procreate still and homosexuals never can. [2]

My opponents logic here rests on the fallacy of infertile couples. These infertile couples still create the climate for procreation. The courts recognize these infertile couples exist but still say they fit state interests. [1]

My opponent still has not provided other alternatives. The state is in the marriage business and it is logical to assume they have a reason to be involved in this. Love is not a state interest, as it was they would regulate any relationship with love and they do not [3], and my opponent has not introduced a counter interest. As my opponent has no other alternative, and if he provides a reason last round that's a conduct violation, it is safe to assume the state interests is procreative type unions making a climate for procreation. [1] As Homosexuals can not enter procreative type unions there is no reason to give them these benefits.

My opponent then ends with a infertile/discrimination ending. As the infertile is a misinterpretation of the argument it should be discarded, they can make a climate for this procreation [1], and I will touch on his next arguments on discrimination now.

Rc2: Discrimination

My opponents refutation is based off of we cannot define is as a man and a woman for the purpose of the debate, which is false. In this debate the resolution is we SHOULD legalize SSM. This implies it is not already legal, and actually helps my procreative argument as there is no reason to allow it therefore we no longer have that should aura. But the argument that was brought forth is we cannot define it as a man and a woman. Well the resolution implies that heterosexuals get married homosexuals do not. This means by law, marriage is defined as a man and a woman. The concept of gay marriage does not exist. Even if marriage is a right there is no discrimination as the definition of marriage no longer applies to homosexuals. Before one can assume that banning SSM is discrimination one must first see what marriage is. [4] (basically my point)

Now before we assume it is discrimination I will have to show you what marriage is. By law inmost states marriage is between a man and a woman under law. [5] Marriage is between a man and a woman for procreative TYPE purposes under law. Marriage under federal law only applies to men and women therefore no discrimination occurs.

For it to break the equal protection clause they must be denied UNJUSTLY the right to marriage, as the courts say if there is no just reason to ban it it breaks the equal protection, as long as there is a legitament state interest in banning it then it does not break the equal protection clause. [6] Courts have ruled (federally) that there is a legitament interest not allowing SSM and no right is unjustly being taken away. And the gay "marriage" doesn't exist. [6] Gay "marriage" doesn't exist so no rights are being taken away, and the state has just reasons for banning SSM, therefore no equal protection clause is broken and no discrimination is occurring.

Rc3: Fertility

My opponents arguments lie on the reason they might be other reasons, and this is a credible argument. My opponent does forget the reasons, why are less people being married? After SSM was allowed marriage rates decline in heterosexual couples. [7] It is logical to believe more education and better economies lead to higher marriage rates, scratching out factors as these. [7] Other factors the pro SSM crowd will pull is false as all of their reasons led o stable or higher marriage rates, so these other factors should be crossed out. [7]

Your reasons where just debunked.

Allowing homosexual marriage actually changes social norms and may have an effect, which has been documented. [7] Before gay marriage was allowed fertility and marriage rates where rising, the SAME YEAR it was legalized it began a slow decline and has been constantly downwards ever since. [7] Also the months after legalization the unmarried births began to increase. [7] This data suggests SSM may not be all of the cause, but the immediate effects of this means it DOES have an effect on this. [7] Not fully possibly, but partially. [7]

~Conclusion~

My opponent has actually misinterpreted the procreative argument. Firstly to fit the job description he goverment wanted procreative type unions not procreative effect unions. [1] My opponent misinterprets here, therefore I extend the procreative argument. He has not provided any alternatives to procreation, therefore procreation is more likely then her arguments as he has not provided other reasons. As this maker procreation the states interest there is actually no reason for the state to legalize SSM, therefore they should not legalize SSM. If there is no reason too ten well we should not. Therefore I proved my point in the resolution. His arguments revolve around discrimination and it won't stop people from procreating. T adverse social effects of SSM mean is may have an impact on fertility and marriage rates, [7] although not 100% it accounts for some of the changes. [7] I have thoroughly and systematically refuted and debunked pro's arguments. As the state s no reason to legalize SSM, then they should not as if there is no reason to change the status quo then why do it? With this in closing, I urge a con vote.

My lovely sources:

[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
[2] http://tech.mit.edu...
[3] Michael Brown, "A Queer Thing Happened to America"
[4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] Maggie Gallagher, "Rites, Rights, and social institutions: Why And How Should The Law Support Marriage"
[7] William C. Duncan, "HOW IS MARRIAGE DOING IN THE NETHERLANDS?"
Sans_the_Ander

Pro

Again, thank you 16kadams for this debate.

---Why?---

My opponent states that I have misinterpreted his argument, that the government wants procreative TYPE marriages. The state wants a "climate" for couples to be encouraged to procreate. My opponent states that infertile couples still create a "climate" for procreation. So my opponent has clearly stated that procreation is in the state's interests. According to him, homosexual couples do not deserve the recognition of marriage and the benefits that come along with it because they cannot procreate. I proceeded to bring up infertile couples, and he refutes it by saying that infertile couples still create a "climate" for procreation, so even though they don't procreate, that's ok.

I don't buy the whole "climate" argument. At the end of the day, infertile couples do not procreate. Yet they receieve all of the benefits that heterosexual couples that can actually procreate receive. Can homosexuals procreate? No. Can infertile couples procreate? No. Oh, but infertile couples create a climate for procreation, that's why they deserve the privilege of marriage and the benefits!

How does this "climate" for procreation benefit the government? If the climate for procreation that infertile couples create benefits the government, how much does it benefit the government? Does a climate benefit the government enough to deserve the MANY benefits of marriage that infertile couples receive right now? My opponent has failed to answer these questions, so you must look to my side.

The state's interest is procreation. That's what they're interested in. Not a climate for procreation, but legit procreation. The simple fact is that infertile couples receive the benefits and privilege of marriage when homosexual couples do not. They both do not procreate. Because my opponent fails to address exactly HOW a "climate" for procreation benefits the government, you must look to my argument for discrimination, which I'll touch on a little later.

Another way that he refutes my infertile couples argument is that it is a minority. First I'll mention that the estimated number of infertile couples [1] would actually outnumber same-sex couples in the US. [2] So I'll just point out that infertile couples outnumber same-sex couples. But even though infertile couples are considered a minority among women in child-bearing years, they still exist. The number of them in comparison to other women is irrelevant. The fact is that infertile couples are around, and they still get the benefits and privilege of marriage, even though they still cannot procreate. Once again, I'll talk about discrimination, and I'll get to that now.

---Discrimination---

My opponent disregards discrimination again by saying that the right to marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals right now. My opponent describes marriage as being for procreative purposes under the law. Once again, infertile couples do not fulfill those procreative purposes. Yet they can still get married. My opponent hasn't exactly pointed out how procreative TYPE relationships benefit the government, so we must look to the government's interest as being procreation, not a "climate" for procreation. Infertile couples do not procreate, just like homosexual couples do not procreate. Because infertile couples are still allowed to get married, however, discrimination occurs.

---Fertility---

My opponent attempts to disregard the other factors that could affect fertility rates, marriage rates, and divorce rates. The simple fact is all of these other factors can have an effect. So we cannot rest the blame of this solely on same-sex marriage. My opponent then brings up the Netherlands again, and says that the same year same-sex marriage was legalized, a decrease of fertility rates and marriage rates occured. Once again, this could be PURE COINCIDENCE. But let's just assume that same-sex marriage did cause fertility rates and marriage rates to decrease. Would it be reasonable to assume that this would occur in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY around the world? That's right, it wouldn't. So my opponent's evidence regarding how same-sex marriage would negatively impact marriage rates and fertility rates has to be disregarded.

---Conclusion---

The fact of the matter is, discrimination occurs by allowing infertile couples the right to marry and not allowing homosexual couples to marry when they both do not procreate. The US cannot allow discrimination to occur. That would go against everything the US stands for. Give same-sex couples the ability to marry. Save them from the discrimination they are facing today. Vote Pro!

1 - http://www.americanpregnancy.org......

2 - http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu......

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol contradiction
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
"Also, Pro's sources, while plentiful, were generally unreliable."

So why didn't Con get the sources vote?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol dave your vote says he has bad sources, also how are law documents unreliable (assuming that was a typo)?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
dave, lol. I am not even gonna argue with that, even though I should.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
:O wow
Posted by Sans_the_Ander 5 years ago
Sans_the_Ander
Wow that was too close for the last argument.... 36 seconds.... Darn my lack of internet last night!
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 5 years ago
joshuaXlawyer
They see me trollin they hatin always trying to see me sayin YOU MAD BRO?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
@everyone

I made a scholarly interest in the subject.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
@yep, yep
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I have recently seen many articles on the subject and want to defend my views.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were more convincing, and he had significantly more sources than pro.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: A very close debate. Con was more convincing and won most points, but I will give Pro the point of conduct.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
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: This was a good, respectable debate, but at the end of the day, the PRO seemed to knock down many of the arguments that the CON tried to run, including one asking about correlation and causation. My single vote goes to the PRO.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB Erick
Vote Placed by Erick 5 years ago
Erick
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
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: Pro beats con's whole
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won the argument that SSM is harmful/useless to the gov/people.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was far more convincing. He won the points on fertility, law, and economics. Also, sources go to Con to counter other unfair sources votes.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
16kadamsSans_the_AnderTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: "Procreative type"marriages is newspeak for marriages that ain't gay. Even if allowing only those marriages would somehow foster a procreative environment for procreative effect marriages, this does not outweigh what Con established were the benefits of legalizing SSM, and the harms of not doing so. Also, Pro's sources, while plentiful, were generally unreliable.