The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Apollo.11
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points

The United states goevrment shoudl legalize SSM

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,567 times Debate No: 21720
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (6)

 

16kadams

Con

"Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity."
http://en.wikipedia.org......

rules:

first round acceptance/definitions
8000 characters
no semantics with the title
no ad hom
Apollo.11

Pro

Let us accept that marriage is not a Christian insitution, and any argument based on religion or moral objectivism is henceforth invalid, as it has no place in a discussion about legality in a secular government.

By legalize, we mean recongize at the state and federal level, as well as grant all privelages as are granted to straight couples.

Also, it is my opponent arguing for non-recognition, thus it is he who has the burden of proof. I needn't make a case for SSM as it is his duty to make a case against it.

Finally, no new arguments in the third and fourth rounds as these should be allocated for rebuttals/defenses.

I thank my opponent in advance for a lively debate.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

My opponent claims I have the BOP. I would actually disagree as on balance he is the one arguing for the change in status quo. But as we both differ on this I say the BOP is even.

~My case~

P1: The states interest in marriage is procreation
P2: Homosexuals cannot procreate
C: Therefore the state has no reason to legalize it.

P1: The states interest in marriage is procreation

Firstly, the institution of marriage is one about procreation and child rearing. [1] Marriages goal is to create an climate for the continuation for society, aka procreation. This is why the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. Homosexual couples will never be able to create or have a relationship type relating to procreation. Procreation and child rearing are essential to making society move on, and if one of those is missing there is a problem. Only can a man and a woman create children, and or have a procreative type relationship. Marriage between two unrelated heterosexual people is likely to result in children. [2] Married couples get many benefits, [2, 3] and the state well then must have an interest in the marriage business. As said above the interest is procreation.

P2: Homosexuals cannot procreate

The anatomy of a homosexual relationship doesn't come close to this. They can neither produce children nor have a relationship of this type. As the heterosexual couples have the ability to further society the state ought to give them recognition over homosexual ones. Couples that do not revolve around a procreation type core, in the states eyes, is useless as they cannot advance society in the way the goverment wants them too. As the state only recognizes you if you have this type of relationship they will define marriage as in a man and a woman. Allowing SSM would get rid of the heterosexual... whats the word[s]... special recognition.

C: The state has no reason to legalize it

As I have proven the states interest is creating an environment with procreative type marriages and ones that further link marriage to procreative type unions. The state has no GOOD reason to legalize Same sex marriage, as same sex couples cannot even fit into the procreative type union.

~second argument~

P1: Making kids is a benefit to society
P2: Allowing gay marriage undermines the benefit and recognition they deserve
C: Allowing SSM will deprive people of the recognition they deserve

P1: Making kids is a benefit to society

Natural selection is a process where the weaker and less producing species in competition die, survival of the fittest. [4] These heterosexual relationships create children which help further society. Without these couples the human race would die off due to lack of reproduction. These couples actually further the human race, as without them we would die. This relates to above as well. The point is without these couples we would not exist, therefore these couples benefit us as they keep our existence, and keep us from losing natural selection, as reproduction is necessary.

P2: Allowing gay marriage undermines the benefit and recognition they deserve

Them refers to heterosexual couples. As heterosexual couples have a social value, they deserve recognition. [5] Now the question is how it denies them recognition. Them having marriage is a special benefit society gives them, and the reason heterosexuals get it above their homosexual peers is because of procreation. They get the benefit for their reproductive ability.

C: Allowing these relationships denies what they deserve

Allowing gay marriage in a way is saying the thing you do for us; furthering the human race, is no longer important. This undermines these relationships and what they deserve. Heterosexuals continue the human race, it is wrong to deny them the recognition by saying marriage no longer recognizes you or benefits you for your great aid to society.

Sources:

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF)
2. http://tech.mit.edu...
3. http://www.nolo.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...

Apollo.11

Pro

I thank Con for posting his flawed argument.

REFUTATIONS:

1. The states interest in marriage is procreation.
This is an absurd claim. If the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate.

2. Homosexuals cannot procreate.

procreation (n): the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process [1]

A. Fertility.
This is clearly false. Homosexuals are free to procreate. What scientific evidence is there to point to homosexuals' inability to procreate. Gays are not sterile. Gay males can easily procreate with females. The fact that they may or may not choose to (just as straight couples may not have kids) is irrelevant. Such an argument would be hypocritical.

B. Artificial insemination, surrogates, sperm donors, etc..
Gays often do not have children through others. The fact that these forms are not with each other is irrelevant for two reasons:
i. Heterosexuals use these methods as well.
ii. They are in concordance with the definition of procreation (see above). Participation of both sides in the biological process is not necessary.
In 2000, it was estimated that 326,000 households were gay/lesbian's with children. [2]

3. The state has no reason to legalize it
The logic behind this conclusion is flawed, thus invalidating the conclusion itself.

4. Heterosexuality's exclusivity of aid to progression of the species
"These heterosexual relationships create children which help further society. Without these couples the human race would die off due to lack of reproduction. These couples actually further the human race, as without them we would die.... The point is without these couples we would not exist, therefore these couples benefit us as they keep our existence, and keep us from losing natural selection, as reproduction is necessary."
As was shown above, homosexuals contribute to successive generations of the population as well. Without having a gay person as a host or sperm donor, many individuals of our species would not exist. Heterosexuality is neither exclusive in its contribution to the population, nor does it always contribute at all (heterosexuals do not ALWAYS have children).

5. Allowing gay marriage undermines the benefit and recognition they deserve
"As heterosexual couples have a social value, they deserve recognition."
Using your above logic, homosexuals have the exact same value to society.
"the reason heterosexuals get it above their homosexual peers is because of procreation."
This claim, which is the basis of Con's ENTIRE ARGUMENT, is unsubstantiated and has been proven false. Thus, his entire logical syllogism is inherently flawed.
"They get the benefit for their reproductive ability."
Again, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate.

6. Allowing these relationships denies what they deserve
"Allowing gay marriage in a way is saying the thing you do for us; furthering the human race, is no longer important."
Yet gays actually help further the species while a large portion of the heterosexual population does not. Again, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate.

IN FACT, 300,000-500,000 children had homosexual BIOLOGICAL parents in 1976. [3]

Despite the fact that I do not have the BOP, Con has stubbornly insisted I post an argument.

ARGUMENT:
1. There is no reason to withhold certain rights from a certain group of people over other for no reason other than their sexuality.

2. State's interest.
P1: The states interest in marriage is procreation [4]
P2: Homosexuals can procreate
C: Therefore the state has reason to legalize it.

You may notice this is Con's argument. I have proven P2 true, thus, using Con's logic, homosexual marriage should be legal. Con used this very argument, thus he by default accepts P1 as true.

Again, all is legal until illegalized. Con has not made a case for why it should be illegal (remain illegal). It is HE who has the BOP, but I posted arguments regardless.

CONCLUSION:

Con's arguments have been thoroughly refuted. He also cannot post more arguments as, as per acceptance guidelines, there will not be new arguments past round 2. His arguments are based on one primary claim: homosexuals cannot reproduce. This has been proven false. Vote for the stronger refutations.

SOURCES:

1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
2. http://www.frc.org...
3. http://adoption.about.com...
4. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF)
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

~Refutations~

R1: Infertile couples

My opponent actually has misinterpreted the argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union. Further more as I stated the goverment has argued that they want to create an environment for procreation, and procreative TYPE unions. [1] [2]

R2: Gays and procreation

My opponent conceded essentially by defining procreation as production of offspring. Homosexual couples can never produce offspring. [3] [1] Further more yes, lesbian couples (and even male ones) can artificially inseminate. But this has no bearing on states interest as a fully lesbian relationship cannot create children. [4]

"One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbians sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce." [4]

R3: Artificial techniques

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

R3: The state has no reason to allow it

The BOP for the pro gay advocates is to find reasons why the goverment should allow it. The states interest is in procreation to create a environment to propagate procreation to further society, and make sure wee keep going. [1] [4]

R4: The aid of heterosexuals

My opponent claims they propagate society through sperm donation techniques. The state doesn't care as I have stated as naturally they cannot create children, also for this argument to be valid you have to show the majority of them CAN create children, the majority of gay couples simply adopt, and that is not a state interest.

R5: Deserve

Homosexuals do not create children. You cannot prove the point the majority of gays do not procreate and or sperm bank their way to children, rather adopt, which is not a state interest. [4]

Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. [...] To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding." [5]

Therefore gays do not deserve marriage.

R6: Denies

I cannot read that as you have no spacing and it is so sloppy lol. But my opponents argument seems to point towards the biological stat. First, that is 1976, second, many gays start straight then convert to gay (well come out, and vice versa). [6] [7] The point is they likely converted over too, that has to be taken into account. Still, the majority of gays still do not have children (5.5 million gay non married houses). [8] So the majority of the time they do not fulfill the interest even according to your stat, and almost all heterosexual couples have kids or at least ALMOST ALWAYS have the chance to make them. [4]

~His argument~

He is still pushing the same old procreation thing. Well instead of a full out refutation, his argument is false.

“A family is not an association of independent people; it is a human commitment designed to make possible the rearing of moral and healthy children. Governments care — or ought to care — about families for this reason, and scarcely for any other.” [9]

Gay couples cannot form procreative type unions, ever, never have this ability, and will never, ever, be able to fulfill the states interest in marriage. [10]

"The anatomy of a homosexual relationship doesn't come close to this. They can neither produce children nor have a relationship of this type. As the heterosexual couples have the ability to further society the state ought to give them recognition over homosexual ones. Couples that do not revolve around a procreation type core, in the states eyes, is useless as they cannot advance society in the way the goverment wants them too. As the state only recognizes you if you have this type of relationship they will define marriage as in a man and a woman." [11]

---> Conclusion.

The law currently states marriage is between one man and one woman, therefore my opponent has the BOP as he is arguing a change in the law. I have proven the state has no interest whatsoever in legalizing gay marriage, and he has not proved it is in the states interest, therefore I urge a CON vote.



[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF)
[2] Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, 881 (Vt. 1999)
[3] Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, 1043
[4] http://tech.mit.edu...
[5] Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003
[6] http://www.cnn.com...
[7] http://www.wnd.com...
[8] http://www.avert.org...
[9] Jonathan Rauch, as found in Andrew Sullivan, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con+
[10] http://www.debate.org...
[11] http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com...
Apollo.11

Pro

Apollo.11 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

Vote CON

extend arguments
Apollo.11

Pro

PLEASE READ: I apologize for missing the posting deadline! This, fortunately, is not a problem. This merely means it will be a 3 round debate. There is no grounds upon which to penalize me in the voting period.



I thank Con for his argument.




R1: Infertile couples

--"The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off."

My opponent is clearly mistaken as to what my argument was. This is exactly what I was rebutting.

As I stated previously

procreation (n): the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process. [1]

Procreation does not necessitate the participation of both individuals in a relationship. Gay marriage is very much a procreative type relationship as both members are able to procreate (theoretically).

Again, this also ignores the fact that not all heterosexual couples are able to procreate.

--"I stated the goverment has argued that they want to create an environment for procreation, and procreative TYPE unions."

The evidence Con cites to justify this assertion is Baker v. Vermont case. This is not evidence as "legalize" was defined as "recognize at the state and federal level."

Con has not then provided ANY justification for this assertion.



R2: Gays and procreation

--"Homosexual couples can never produce offspring."

This is blatantly, unequivocally, utterly, and completely false.

As earlier:

procreation (n): the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process [1]

A. Fertility.

This is clearly false. Homosexuals are free to procreate. What scientific evidence is there to point to homosexuals' inability to procreate. Gays are not sterile. Gay males can easily procreate with females. The fact that they may or may not choose to (just as straight couples may not have kids) is irrelevant. Such an argument would be hypocritical.

B. Artificial insemination, surrogates, sperm donors, etc..

Gays often do not have children through others. The fact that these forms are not with each other is irrelevant for two reasons:

i. Heterosexuals use these methods as well.

ii. They are in concordance with the definition of procreation (see above). Participation of both sides in the biological process is not necessary.

In 2000, it was estimated that 326,000 households were gay/lesbian's with children. [2]



R3: Artificial techniques

Refuted above.




R3: The state has no reason to allow it

--"The states interest is in procreation to create a environment to propagate procreation to further society"

Once again, Con ignored the fact that many heterosexuals CANNOT "PROPAGATE PROCREATION TO FURTHER SOCIETY."

Con claims that the State's interest is "to create a environment to propagate procreation to further society."

Yet he has ignored the contention that many heterosexuals (infertile, unwilling, etc.) do not fit this criterion, thus, under Con's logic, voiding their marriage rights.

Again, if the state's interest in marriage is procreation, and thus is denying homosexuals the right to marry upon that grounds, all couples that cannot/do not/will not procreate should not be granted the right to marry. This means sterile couples should not also be married. Those who cannot financially support children should be denied the right to marry. Couples who do not wish to have children should not have the right to marry. There is no logical reason to prevent homosexuals, above and independent of all other groups, to not have the right to marry. And all of this is under the false assumption that gays cannot procreate.

IN FACT, 300,000-500,000 children had homosexual BIOLOGICAL parents in 1976. [3]




R4: The aid of heterosexuals

--"The state doesn't care"

Refuted above.

--"naturally they cannot create children"

Refuted above.

--"for this argument to be valid you have to show the majority of them CAN create children"

Unjustified assertion. Why? You have not shown this to be true for heterosexuals.




R5: Deserve

--"Homosexuals do not create children."

Refuted above.

--"You cannot prove the point the majority of gays do not procreate and or sperm bank their way to children, rather adopt, which is not a state interest."

Refuted above.

--"Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation."

Irrelevant. This has no bearing on government recognition of the practice. Historically, slavery was widely accepted, as well. This notion is also argumentum ad populum.

--"To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples"

This is absurd! There was no logical basis for the male-female defition to begin with. And Con has not defended this definition, nor even mentioned it until now.



R6: Denies

--"I cannot read that as you have no spacing"

The fact that my opponent is incapable of reading seven lines of text is both sad and irrelevant.

--"many gays start straight then convert to gay"

This is ABSURD! The time-again refuted argument that homosexuality is a choice is not valid. Thousands of species have shown homosexuality. Studies have clearly shown a genetic correlation. NO STUDY has ever shown that homosexuality to be environmental (outside the womb). Science has shown it to be the result of hormonal differences which are extant FROM BIRTH. [2]

--"Still, the majority of gays still do not have children (5.5 million gay non married houses)."

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't know where to begin.

1) Con is comparing facts from studies conducted 30 years apart.

2) Non-married does not mean childless. In fact, considering gay marriage is only legal in a hanful of states, it is logical to assume the majority of gays are not married. That is the point of this debate.

Regardless, Con has not shown how this is relevant.




Dropped Arguments:

1. The State's interest in marriage is not procreation.

2. Heterosexuals are in concordance with the definition of procreation.

3. If the State's interest in marriage is procreation, many heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry while many homosexuals should.

4. There is no reason to withhold certain rights from a certain group of people over other for no reason other than their sexuality.

5. Homosexuals have a value to society.

6. Homosexuals contribute to successive generations of the population as well. Without having a gay person as a host or sperm donor, many individuals of our species would not exist.





Conlcusion

Con has not presented any credible arguments as to why it should be illegal. His entire argument rested on two claims:
1) Homosexuals cannot procreate.
2) The State's interest in marriage is procreation.
The former was THOUROUGHLY disproven while Con provided ONE piece of evidence supporting the second. This was a VERMONT court case r
uling. The accepance round clearly stated that "legalize" meant recognition at the FEDERAL level, thus, his one and only piece of evidence was irrelevant.

In addition to this, he failed to even address SIX of my arguments.
VOTE PRO.



Sources:

1. http://oxforddictionaries.com......

2.

3. http://adoption.about.com......
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I usually do only conduct in those situations scan my voting records.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
Also, in my debate against Santorum2012, she FOFEITED the second round, yet you DID NOT give me the conduct point.

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

There is no precedence for this.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
You can't justify an FF...
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
The entire practice of giving conduct points if one side forfeits has no precedence in cases where the round forfeited did not result in the the forfeiture of the debate. The last round(s) must have been forfeited for me to lose conduct points.

That didn't happen.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
I did not forfeit the debate, nor did I concede.

It was merely a 3 round debate. The last round was not forfieted or conceded.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
FF round 3= conduct to me
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
@16kadams.

It is not.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
What?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
posting arguments last round like that is a conduct violation XD
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
UGG! I missed the deadline on this one, too!
No matter. I guess it will be a 3 round debate!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
16kadamsApollo.11Tied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling goes to Pro, but the FF, Con gets convincing arguements due to the FF, Wikipeadi isn't a source so Pro gets the points there.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
16kadamsApollo.11Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G obviously go to Pro as do arguments. Con's claims that the state has a compelling interest in procreation was successfully turned by the Pro to demonstrate that this argument could also be applied to heterosexual couples. So, arguments go to Pro. Note to Con: Next time you use sources, make sure that all of the links can be accessed. Also, please try not to use forums and debate.org as sources.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
16kadamsApollo.11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: The Burden of proof is not dependent on a change in the status quo. By virtue of instigation, Con has the BoP in the debate. Pro defeated the argument for procreation by establishing its irrelevancy to the government. Pro is correct in saying that such an argument would deny marriage to heterosexual couples that do not intend on having the children. Since this was the only argument Con offered, he effectually failed his BoP. Con makes several spelling errors. However, Pro loses conduct for FF.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
16kadamsApollo.11Tied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and Con had better arguments, sources, etc. Spelling goes to Pro all the way.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
16kadamsApollo.11Tied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: 16k misspelled the debate, and the pros arguments were more convincing to me, especially the point about infertile heterosexual couples being able to marry while homosexuals couldn't either even though the point of marriage was allegedly to procreate according to the con. pro did FF a round though and con did have a crap ton of sources....
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
16kadamsApollo.11Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that the governments interest is in responsible procreation to further society, homosexuals can't do that, therefore con wins. Pro had the BOP and didn't fulfill it.