The Instigator
SegBeg
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
missbailey8
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
missbailey8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 972 times Debate No: 92064
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (2)

 

SegBeg

Pro

The first round is for you to introduce yourself. I will be arguing that gay "marriage" is not really marriage at all. It is impossible for two men or two women to be married. Marriage is only possible between one man and one woman.

Hope somebody accepts

ps. avoid forefeiting this debate as much as you can please.

Thank you!!!
missbailey8

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
SegBeg

Pro

Great. You're the fastest one to accept my one of my debates.

First of all I would like to inform you that I do not hate gays. Gays are just as human as straights and deserve the same rights as straights, but I draw the line at marriage. This is not because I hate gays, but I just don't regard a gay union as a marriage. For decades, centuries, milennia, marriage has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Only recently has a gay union been considered a valid marriage.

I am a Christian and because of that, I believe God created marriage- not man. Man maything they created marriage but since the beginning it has always been a creation of God, but since man thinks they created it that they have the right to redefine it. Well they don't. Only God has the ability to redefine marriage which he will never will.

Now just in case you're not religious and before you shout "boo! you can't bring religion into this. that's invalid!," I will give you some secular reason why gay marriage is not really marriage at all.

Scientific studies have constantly discovered that men and women are designed to complement each other. They are designed to relate to one another and their bodies are perfect for each other. Only heterosexual couples can procreate on their own (well at least most heterosexual couples- unless you're infertile of course). However homosexual couples cannot. Even if a heterosexual couple is infertile, they still have the possibility of conceiving. It may be highly unlikley but highly unlikley is not the same as impossibe. However, a homosexual couple will never EVER be able to proecreate without help from a third party and even then, they need someone of the OPPOSITE sex to help them. Also, I see in a lot of same sex couples that there is always one that acts more masculine and the other more feminine. This just goes to show that in a marriage, a husband and wife complement one another. Two men or two women CANNOT compete with this.

Anyway. I wish you good luck in this round!
missbailey8

Con

Here are my opening statements.

I. It's Not A Choice
II. Equality
III. Separation of Church and State
IV. Adoption Increase
V. What Is Marriage?
VI. Economic Benefit

Here we go!

I. It's Not A Choice

I'll start with the actual science and statistics, then I'll talk about the "choice" of being gay with hypothetical situations and questions.

"Biological gender is set in the first trimester of pregnancy; psychological gender is set in the second, when the child in the womb is exposed to varying levels of testosterone. It"s not a mutation; it"s very much like the genetic regions that determine whether you will have black or brown hair, whether you"ll be tall or short, have dark or light skin, have broad or narrow hips" in other words, it is part of the normal range of normal human sexuality. And across all societies, the percentage of people who are gay remains about the same, at between 5-8% (although there is a difference between the incidence for men and women)." [1]

If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on.

Now for the hypothetical situations and questions. Say you were a man in love with women. Most other people in the world are gay or lesbian. You can't help it. You can't choose to love another man the same way. Just like you can't pick your race, you can't just pick and choose your sexuality.

I'm actually a gay woman and if I could, I'd most definitely decide to be straight. But why is that? The prejudice and discrimination against LGBT+ people is unbelievable!

"Nearly a fifth of students are physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.

"About two-thirds of LGBT students reported having ever been sexually harassed (e.g., sexual remarks made, being touched inappropriately) in school in the past year."

"The average GPA for students who were frequently physically harassed because of their sexual orientation was half a grade lower than that of other students." [2]

Would someone really want to be embarrassed, condemned, and harassed due to their sexuality?

II. Equality

The Declaration of Independence states that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3] So why don't we grant these unalienable rights? For this part, I'll focus on liberty.

Liberty- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [4]

Should gay couples be barred from marriage? If they are then that's oppression by authority on one's way of life and behavior. Straight couples are allowed to marry freely, so what makes people think that gay couples should be treated as lesser and unable to marry in some parts of the world?

III. Separation of Church and State

A common argument of religious people against gay marriage is that it's a sin and The Bible condemns it, so it shouldn't be permitted. But we have the separation of church and state, which is where religious beliefs can't define the government.

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [5]

Yes, this amendment prohibits the restriction of religion, but it's also for separation of church and state.

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the 'separation of church and state.' Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of 'blue laws' is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion." [6]

So why did the U.S. prohibit gay marriage in all 50 states up until summer of 2015? It's unconstitutional to do this, as we have separation of church and state.

IV. Adoption Increase

"In 2009, 69,947 children had parental rights terminated by the courts, yet only 57,466 were adopted... Last year, 29,741 children turned 18 and left the foster care system without being adopted... Nearly 40 percent of American adults, or 81.5 million people, have considered adopting a child, according to the National Adoption Attitudes Survey. If just one in 500 of these adults adopted, every waiting child in foster care would have a permanent family." [7]

With the rapid increase of gay marriages, don't you think that more children could find a loving family to care for them? Studies show that same-sex parents have no effects or even positive effects on the child's well-being. [8, 9, 10] A child needs love and if they're able to be given love from capable parents then they should adopt children.

V. What Is Marriage?

Marriage - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. [11]

We simply could stop it there, as the definition does, in fact, include same-sex couples, but I'll analyze this some more. Let's look at the definition used by Psychology Today.

"Marriage is the process by which two people maketheir relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joiningof two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death..." [12]

Again, this doesn't exclude homosexual couples. But is a marriage between a straight couple and a gay couple any different? Only in minor ways, but not when it comes down to the two definitions provided. But how so?

"Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partnerslargely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Same-sex and heterosexual couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, loyalty and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research also shows that lesbian and gay couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples." [13] In fact, same-sex couples are usually in very stable relationships, as they're less likely to divorce. [14] Then why, with the vast similarities between straight and gay couples, is gay marriage still illegal in many parts of the world?

VI. Economic Benefit

It's already been proven that weddings help the economy due to the expenses such as entertainment, catering, attire, etc. Would gay marriages help the economy?

"The newly expanded marriage rights provide a tremendous economic opportunity for the $51 billion wedding industry, which currently employs over 800,000 people nationwide. Excluding increases in federal tax revenue or transfer payments, gay marriage in all 50 states has the potential to add $2.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy, according to a NerdWallet analysis." [15]

"The states will perhaps see $47.7 million in tax revenue as well, along with anywhere from 2,069-6,210 jobs created as a result of same-sex marriages, according to the Williams Institute." [16]

In short, ever since gay marriage has been legal nationwide, the economy has seen a giant boost, making for more tax revenue and thousands of jobs being made. I repeat, all of this is from the legalization of same-sex marriage in the states alone. Can you imagine what would happen if it was on a larger scale with the rest of the world joining?

Conclusion

In the end, you can't bar gay couples the chance to get married, as it wasn't their choice, it's oppression based on their sexuality, and the separation of church and state is undeniable. (It's in our very Constitution, after all!) The recent year of increased gay marriages can provide a boost for adopting children and the economy.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

Citations

[1]http://www.health24.com.........
[2]http://www.pflagnyc.org.........
[3]http://www.archives.gov.........
[4]http://www.google.com.........
[5]https://www.law.cornell.edu......
[6]https://www.law.cornell.edu......
[7]https://davethomasfoundation.org.........
[8]http://www.sciencedirect.com.........
[9]http://www.medicaldaily.com.........
[10]http://www.medicaldaily.com.........
[11]https://www.google.com...
[12]https://www.psychologytoday.com...
[13]http://www.apa.org...
[14]http://www.advocate.com...
[15]https://www.nerdwallet.com...
[16]http://www.ibtimes.com...
Debate Round No. 2
SegBeg

Pro

Thank you for you argument. Your points are very valid.

"Biological gender is set in the first trimester of pregnancy; psychological gender is set in the second,"

I don't buy into this "psychological gender" thing. Sure a male person could have female characteristics or a female person have male characteristics and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, BUT just because they feel they are something else does not mean they are. A person can think they are a dog but does that make you a dog. the mind can be decieving. Just because you think you are male/female does not mean you are.

"If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on."

The reason why the amount of homosexuals is roughly the same is due to the fact that still many homosexuals remain in the closet afraid to come out because they are afraid of their parents disowning them or being looked down upon by soceity (ps. I am not condoning people crude behaviour towards homosexuals).
Homosexuality is not predetermined because there are many ex-gays who now live heterosexual lives. However, you cannot change your eye colour, hair colour or gender. You may be able to get contact lenses, dye your hair or become transgender but no matter what you do, your genetics can never change. Your blue eye contact lenses will not replace your natural brown eyes, you blonde hair dye will not replace your natural brown hair and you getting a few more hormones injected into yourself will not get rid of your XX or XY chromosomes. However, with homosexuality, how come their offspring never become homosexual themselves? How come they always come from straight parents? This comes to prove homosexuality is a choice rather than a predetermined factor. And also, Christians as well as other religious people and God would not condemn homosexuals if homosexuality were actually hereditary.

"Now for the hypothetical situations and questions. Say you were a man in love with women. Most other people in the world are gay or lesbian. You can't help it. You can't choose to love another man the same way. Just like you can't pick your race, you can't just pick and choose your sexuality."

If most other people in the world were gay, this would spark a huge problem. We would have an ageing population and then very soon after the human race would crumble away. The phrase "I can't help myself," is what everyone uses when they do something bad. Let's say the adulterer says to their spouse, "oh I just couldn't help myself," does that make it acceptable? Most people would say no. Only you are in control of your emotions and you can't let them get the best of you.
And I always see homosexuals trying to use the race card when it comes to justifying their lifestyle. Yes you can't pick your race, but like I said above, if homosexuality were hereditary, Christians, the Bible and God would not condemn those who were. It would make no logical sense because God loves everybody regardless of their sexual orientation.

"I'm actually a gay woman and if I could, I'd most definitely decide to be straight."

You can choose to be straight. No one is stopping you. You just choose not to because you accept the fact that this is who you are. I garuntee if you spend time with the Lord in prayer, he will help you.

"But why is that? The prejudice and discrimination against LGBT+ people is unbelievable!"

I agree. I hate it when people dicriminate against homosexuals- especially Christians because that is not the attitude they should be having. As Christians we are supposed to love others, whether we agree with their lifestyle or not. But you've got to remember, no all Christians who disagree with homosexuality are being discriminatory. Discrimination os the unfair treatment of someone in favour of another that can be based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation as well as other factors. If you simply disagree with homosexuality, there is no discrimination nor prejudice in that, just like if you simply disagree with abortion does not mean you're discriminating. It all depend on how you carry out your beliefs.

"Nearly a fifth of students are physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.

"About two-thirds of LGBT students reported having ever been sexually harassed (e.g., sexual remarks made, being touched inappropriately) in school in the past year."

"The average GPA for students who were frequently physically harassed because of their sexual orientation was half a grade lower than that of other students." [2]

"Would someone really want to be embarrassed, condemned, and harassed due to their sexuality?"

Of course not. These cases are unbelievable and should no be tolerated, but pro-gays and gays think they are the ony ones affected by this. Chrststians can be discriminated against as well:

1.) "Gay' activists kill cash sources for Christian charities. Internet-based campaigns scare away corporate donors with 'hate group' charge
  1. http://www.wnd.com...;

2.) "Police are searching for the culprits who threw concrete bricks through the door and windows of a Christian facility in Illinois as it prepared for a banquet for a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda . . . LaBarbera notes that a left-wing website with a letter from a group of homosexuals taking credit for the attack warns that more will follow if the host site for the banquet does not disassociate from its featured speaker, Scott Lively, and AFTAH.
  1. http://www.onenewsnow.com...;
  1. "Homosexual activists are pressuring PayPal to not handle donations made to groups that promote traditional values . . . Founder Peter LaBarbera [of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality] refers to it as "homofascism in action," as it asks people to stop financially supporting Christian groups, which the homosexual activists refer to as "hate groups."
    1. http://www.onenewsnow.com...
  2. "PayPal officially states that its users "may not use the PayPal service for activities that [ . . . ] promote hate, violence, racial intolerance" but PayPal has become a favorite payment service for anti-LGBT extremists all over the world. PayPal must act immediately to shut down their accounts and ban all sites that promote anti-LGBT hate.
    1. http://allout.org...;

But people seem to ignore discrimination Christians face.

"The Declaration of Independence states that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3] So why don't we grant these unalienable rights? For this part, I'll focus on liberty."

Note that the Declaration of Independence- a secular decleration uses the term, "Creator" and even in a capital C, I have a feeling this might be God as only He is called the Creator. And you're right. Everyone deserves liberty- even homosexuals, but liberty does not mean giving people something they simply cannot have.


"Should gay couples be barred from marriage? If they are then that's oppression by authority on one's way of life and behavior. Straight couples are allowed to marry freely, so what makes people think that gay couples should be treated as lesser and unable to marry in some parts of the world?"

Gay couples can have Civil Partnerships (though I also don't agree with them) or a domestic union, whatever you want to call it, but those are not the sme as a marriage. Marriage is about more than just signing a contract, living together and loving each other. The real defintion of marriage is bout bring each other closer to God, raising children in an Godly environment as well as dwelling with each other and loving one another unconditionally for life.

"Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the 'separation of church and state.' Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of 'blue laws' is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion." [6]

"So why did the U.S. prohibit gay marriage in all 50 states up until summer of 2015? It's unconstitutional to do this, as we have separation of church and state."

You don't have to be religious to oppose gay marriage. There are lots of secular people who disagree with gay marriage. The government could have barred in in a state because of this.


"Marriage - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. [11]"

"We simply could stop it there, as the definition does, in fact, include same-sex couples,"

Yes but note it says, "in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex." This comes to show that even though humanity has redefined the defintion of marriage, it has been and will always be primarily thought of as between one MAN and one WOMAN. And besides, just because the government thinks they can redefine marriage does not mean they actually can. I don't buy into that. GOD created marriage, not man. We have NO authority to redefine it. No matter what the Crown Court or Supreme Court says, the REAL definition of marriage will always be between a man and a woman.


I wish I could cover your other arguments but I am running out of characters. So for my conclusion. I don't believe ther is such thing as gay marriage because that is not the way it has always been. Marriage before recently was always seen as a union between an man and a woman.

















missbailey8

Con

Thank you for your rebuttals! Here are my rebuttals of my opponent's arguments.

First, my opponent says that homosexuals deserve the same rights as straight people, but that they draw the line at marriage. My opponent contradicts themself in one sentence. As I explained in my arguments, liberty is an unalienable right, like The Declaration of Independence states. [1] In fact, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy explained it like this when gay marriage was finally legalized in the U.S:

"The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet in some instances each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. In any particular case one Clause may be thought to capture the essence of the right in a more accurate and comprehensive way, even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right." [2]

Liberty - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. [3]

Under The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution gay marriage is a right, yet my opponent says that they disagree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Next, my opponent says that marriage was created by God and that only He can change the definition.

"God created marriage? What god would that be? It wouldn't’t take more than five minutes to research the history of marriage, which goes back to prerecorded history. Evidence indicates that as long as 20,000 years ago the concept of monogamy, a precursor to formal marriage, was formed.

"The ancient Hebrews did not have a religious ceremony to bond couples; it was strictly a secular/societal/tribal convention for continuity of the tribal unit. So too was marriage among the American Indians, early Egyptians, ancient Greeks and Romans. Indeed virtually every ancient, pre-Jewish/Christian society had some form of marriage…all of which was a contract for societal, financial, or political reasons." [4]

But doesn't The Bible say that the world is only 6,000 years old? [5] Well, there's evidence to go against that too, according to famous scientist Bill Nye.

"It’s just unreasonable. How can you have all these things we observe in nature and then conclude that the Earth is somehow 6,000 years old? Billions of people in the world are devoutly religious, and they’re apparently enriched by the communities that they belong to through their religions. But the Earth is not 6,000 years old. And there’s a deep irony that [creationists] exploit or take advantage of all that science brings them – Facebook, cellphones, the food system that we have here in the United States, which is extraordinarily safe – but then promote the idea that the way we came to have all this is somehow wrong." [6]

Nye has talked about this on multiple occasions, like in a YouTube video for Big Think [7] and in his book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creationism. [8]

With this evidence in mind, then we can conclude that God didn't create marriage.

For their last argument, my opponent says that studies have concluded that men and women complement each other and that they're designed to relate to each other. Unfortunately, my opponent failed to cite any source for this claim, making this a bare assertion. Despite this, I'll but to refute it anyway.

So because gay couples "don't complement each other" they shouldn't be allowed to marry? In my eyes that makes literally no sense. Not everyone is built the same way, nor does every person act to their "gender roles".

To continue, my opponent states that even though a couple may be infertile, there's still a chance of having a child. This is contradictory.

Infertile - (of a person, animal, or plant) unable to reproduce. [9]

Let me repeat; if you're infertile, you have no chance of having a child. It's impossible. It's exactly the same way for a gay couple.

To continue, my opponent then says that in a same-sex relationship, they usually see one person as being the "man" and the other person as the "woman". Again, this is sterotyping a man as being dominant and a woman as submissie when it could very well be the opposite. Gender roles aren't black and white.

"I can’t count the times I’ve been asked this question when people want to know about my sexual life. Really, what they should be asking is, 'Who takes control?' They’re confusing sex (our biological label) with sexual behavior because clearly, in a sexual relationship between two women, there is no man." [10]

With an estimated 1,000,000 same-sex couples in the U.S alone, [11] not every single one of them is part of a sterotypical "man-woman" scenario. Again, I remember my opponent saying "I see in a lot of same sex couples that there is always one that acts more masculine and the other more feminine."

Let's picture it this way: a lot of woman I've met wear dresses, so that obviously means that all women wear dresses too, right? No! This is just a generalization of what hypothetical me thinks women are like.

Though I'm unable to do a defense of the length of this debate, I'd like to point out that my opponent dropped my arguments on separation of church and state, adoption increase, and economic benefit. Keep that in mind when voting either Pro or Con. Thank you for the debate.

Citations
[1]http://www.archives.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
All pro had to do was cite the dictionary
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
"I stand by my my faith and no one I repeat NO ONE can tear it down!"

Err... you okay there?
Posted by SegBeg 1 year ago
SegBeg
No matter how many people vote for con, agree with her or if I win or lose, I stand by my beliefs and no amount of votes for Con can ever change that. So if you think it can, you tried with the wrong person. She may have given more logical points but that is only because she has got more proof that others will agree with, religious beliefs you will declare invalid. I don't care that she has won, I stand by my my faith and no one I repeat NO ONE can tear it down!
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
While Pro did provide sources, they were not at all related to the argument (they were about discrimination against Christians, which wasn't related), whereas Cons sources were related to the argument. Hence, Con, gets the point for sources.

Con points out how there is a separation of church and state and thus any religious arguments are void. They also point out how the declaration of independence demands equality for all, including homosexuals ability to marry. While Pro does respond to this, she only responds via a claim with no basis, which is that homosexuals can never have marriage, which is easily refuted by Con's already given definitions on what marriage is now. She also goes off on a tangent, talking about discrimination against Christians, which isn't related to the debate. She talks about "the real definition of marriage" but never backs up her point. She says that God created marriage, despite the fact that she hasn't even proven that God exists. She then talks about how marriage was, until recently, only between a man and a woman. She ignores the fact that in the last one hundred years, marriage has already changed drastically, as 100 years ago, marriage could not be interracial, but now it is. Con shows how religious arguments are not well founded due to the Bible being full of plot holes (such as the age of the Earth). Con then points out how Pro doesn't seem to know the definition of the word "infertile" (something which doesn't surprise me) and therefore her point on marriage being about procreation is refuted. Con also noted how Pro ignored some of the arguments the former gave. Hence, Con easily refutes Pro's arguments, which are mainly just bare assertions anyway, and Con gets the point for arguments.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
"I hate it when people dicriminate against homosexuals"

You're the one saying they lack emotional depth.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
Perhaps she should learn that she's on the internet.
And what makes one a bigot and what infertile means.

She doesn't seem to know.
Posted by missbailey8 1 year ago
missbailey8
Go to his account and press "block this person". It's under his profile pic.
Posted by SegBeg 1 year ago
SegBeg
how do I do that?
Posted by missbailey8 1 year ago
missbailey8
You know, you could block him if you really wanted to.
Posted by SegBeg 1 year ago
SegBeg
Heiro

Just leave, okay. Missbailey8 is right. We are messing up the debate. Just leave and don't talk to me EVER again!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by H501 1 year ago
H501
SegBegmissbailey8Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used absolutely no sources, and was wrong from the start.
Vote Placed by Heirio 1 year ago
Heirio
SegBegmissbailey8Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.