The Instigator
Im_always_right
Pro (for)
Winning
65 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

There should be no laws in regards to gay marrige.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,403 times Debate No: 4593
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (23)

 

Im_always_right

Pro

There is no reason why gay/lesbian people should not be legally allowed to marry.
If they didn't get married they would still be doing things together. Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices.
There should also be no laws based on religeon.
Just because gay people choose to be married does not mean you must be gay therefor it will not affect you at all.
How do you stand against me, ignoring my bad grammer.
CiRrO

Con

Ok, first I will define some key terms.

Gay Marriage: The legal marriage between homosexual couples.
=================================================================================
I'll attack my opponents case then move to defend/create my own.

"There is no reason why gay/lesbian people should not be legally allowed to marry".

My Response: Refer to my contentions.

"If they didn't get married they would still be doing things together. Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices."

My Response:Ok, so in my opponents first sentence he is essentially making marriage one big orgy. He is in essence saying: yay, now that were married let's do some very gay and pleasurable things together. Essentially, they don't need to be married, and my opponent makes that clear. That only negates the resolution even further. Also, having a written agreement won't allow safer practices. My opponent makes people seem like sex machines, so STD's will be spread either way. Now my opponent will say that they will remain faithful to each other. Lol, cheating isn't against the law, it happens all the time. Gay Marriage will not make safer sex practices. Even if their married they probably have STD's from other partners before the marriage. According to the Health Department and the Surgeon General: "Gay Marriage would only be an incentive for more unsafe sex practices because 'marriage' is seen as protection." As a side note, Civil Unions are written commitments to your partner, and these are allowed.

"There should also be no laws based on religion."

My Response: Yes, I agree with this, however this is very narrow-minded. The US government is based off of Judeo-Christian philosophy because the founders of our country were Protestant, with a few Catholics thrown in. E.g. Thou Shalt not kill an innocent (Murder). This is an idea rooted in religion, and its a law. Another example: Social Programs sponsored by the government. This is not a law per say but the government funds social programs. Social Programs have their roots in Christian hospitals after the fall of the Roman Empire (Hospitals were places for poor people to find shelter, food, etc). However, looking at Gay Marriage; it is more a cultural idea rather then religious. Marriage between a man and women is a deep Western idea. Not to mention an idea embraced all over the world, like Asia and Africa.

"Just because gay people choose to be married does not mean you must be gay therefor it will not affect you at all."

My Response: This is such a narrow minded view. That's like saying you know your friend's husband is cheating on your friend, but you don't say anything because it doesn't affect you. It's still wrong, and should not be condoned.
============================================================================
My own case:

Contention I: Gay Marriage undermines the very nature of family.

The reason for marriage is to be able to create a natural family. I.e. a mom, a dad, and children. The reason for marriage is to bring children into the world and society. When this fundamental formula is taken out, then the family as a whole is threatened. According to the Economist, in Scandinavia, the legalization of gay marriage has led 50% of all children to be born out of wedlock. Also, in the US, Social Scientists have discovered a link between criminal behavior and gay couples. (TIME Magazine). "Kids that have grown up in single gendered families have a greater criminal tendency then kids growing up in a regular family because of the polarization these kids receive in school, etc." Essentially, the kids are affected even more. So, Gay Marriage leads to the destruction of a "family" while hurting the children in the process. Therefore, the government has an obligation to the preservation of the family and the future kids of America. Thus, a law defining marriage between a man and women is necessary.

Contention II: Gay Marriage will lead to a Slippery Slope.

The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
Im_always_right

Pro

Okay I will attack my opponent then defend myself:

"My Response:Ok, so in my opponents first sentence he is essentially making marriage one big orgy. He is in essence saying: yay, now that were married let's do some very gay and pleasurable things together."

I do not see how you get "gay orgy" out of them being allowed to marry.

"My opponent makes people seem like sex machines, so STD's will be spread either way. Now my opponent will say that they will remain faithful to each other. Lol, cheating isn't against the law, it happens all the time. Gay Marriage will not make safer sex practices. Even if their married they probably have STD's from other partners before the marriage.According to the Health Department and the Surgeon General: "Gay Marriage would only be an incentive for more unsafe sex practices because 'marriage' is seen as protection." As a side note, Civil Unions are written commitments to your partner, and these are allowed."

How did I make people seem like "sex machines", besides aren't Catholics, the ones with large families?
I don't recall saying they would stay faithful, but wouldn't there be more faith to somebody your married to?
I never said marriage would create safer practices, but there would be less partners.
I never said marriage is protection.

"My Response: Yes, I agree with this, however this is very narrow-minded. The US government is based off of Judeo-Christian philosophy because the founders of our country were Protestant, with a few Catholics thrown in. E.g. Thou Shalt not kill an innocent (Murder). This is an idea rooted in religion, and its a law. Another example: Social Programs sponsored by the government. This is not a law per say but the government funds social programs. Social Programs have their roots in Christian hospitals after the fall of the Roman Empire (Hospitals were places for poor people to find shelter, food, etc). However, looking at Gay Marriage; it is more a cultural idea rather then religious. Marriage between a man and women is a deep Western idea. Not to mention an idea embraced all over the world, like Asia and Africa."

The first amendment to the US constitution says:
"The state shall make no laws in regards to religion."

"My Response: This is such a narrow minded view. That's like saying you know your friend's husband is cheating on your friend, but you don't say anything because it doesn't affect you. It's still wrong, and should not be condoned."

It's not the same. Cheating is NOT the same as being married.
How is it wrong at ALL for homos to be married?
I understand religious views, however, their religion may not say anything about homosexual relationships.
I also do not understand how I am being narrow minded when I am open and fighting for ways that are not my own.

_______________________________________________________________

"The reason for marriage is to be able to create a natural family. I.e. a mom, a dad, and children. The reason for marriage is to bring children into the world and society. When this fundamental formula is taken out, then the family as a whole is threatened. According to the Economist, in Scandinavia, the legalization of gay marriage has led 50% of all children to be born out of wedlock. Also, in the US, Social Scientists have discovered a link between criminal behavior and gay couples. (TIME Magazine). "Kids that have grown up in single gendered families have a greater criminal tendency then kids growing up in a regular family because of the polarization these kids receive in school, etc." Essentially, the kids are affected even more. So, Gay Marriage leads to the destruction of a "family" while hurting the children in the process. Therefore, the government has an obligation to the preservation of the family and the future kids of America. Thus, a law defining marriage between a man and women is necessary.

Contention II: Gay Marriage will lead to a Slippery Slope.

The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed."

We are discussion for laws of marriages, not the families.
I am very sorry if I worded it so you couldn't understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, for my attack.

According to you being open to a way other than mine is narrow minded, is that correct?

If married people will cheat anyway regardless of sexuality, why let anyone get married?

Also I would like to add the only reason I put anything in about STD's spreading is because my father is a homophobic, and used that against me in verbal debates.
CiRrO

Con

"How did I make people seem like "sex machines", besides aren't Catholics, the ones with large families?
I don't recall saying they would stay faithful, but wouldn't there be more faith to somebody your married to?
I never said marriage would create safer practices, but there would be less partners.
I never said marriage is protection."

My Response: Well, according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response.

The first amendment to the US constitution says:
"The state shall make no laws in regards to religion."

My Response: Lol, your being ignorant of the constitution. It means no state religion would be made. However, you miss my point. I said that it has it's basis in religion. Like, no killing. Also, you have not addressed my cultural point as well.

"It's not the same. Cheating is NOT the same as being married.
How is it wrong at ALL for homos to be married?
I understand religious views, however, their religion may not say anything about homosexual relationships.
I also do not understand how I am being narrow minded when I am open and fighting for ways that are not my own."

My Response: Again, you miss my point totally. You said in your first round that it was ok because it doesn't affect you. My idea of cheating refutes that idea that it doesn't effect. Your argument is really ignorant if you base it off of if it affects people or not.

"We are discussion for laws of marriages, not the families.
I am very sorry if I worded it so you couldn't understand it."

My Response: This was my opponents only attack on my contentions. You worded it fine. But apparently you didn't get my point. Marriage effects family, i.e. my first contentions. My 2nd contention deals with the slippery slope effect of gay marriage. Both points have gone un-refuted. Extend them for the remaining round.

*Important, read thoroughly my points and contentions, because they
definitely turn the round in my favor.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
Im_always_right

Pro

How did I make people seem like "sex machines", besides aren't Catholics, the ones with large families?
I don't recall saying they would stay faithful, but wouldn't there be more faith to somebody your married to?
I never said marriage would create safer practices, but there would be less partners.
I never said marriage is protection."

My Response: Well, according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response.

The first amendment to the US constitution says:
"The state shall make no laws in regards to religion."

My Response: Lol, your being ignorant of the constitution. It means no state religion would be made. However, you miss my point. I said that it has it's basis in religion. Like, no killing. Also, you have not addressed my cultural point as well.

"It's not the same. Cheating is NOT the same as being married.
How is it wrong at ALL for homos to be married?
I understand religious views, however, their religion may not say anything about homosexual relationships.
I also do not understand how I am being narrow minded when I am open and fighting for ways that are not my own."

My Response: Again, you miss my point totally. You said in your first round that it was ok because it doesn't affect you. My idea of cheating refutes that idea that it doesn't effect. Your argument is really ignorant if you base it off of if it affects people or not.

"We are discussion for laws of marriages, not the families.
I am very sorry if I worded it so you couldn't understand it."

My Response: This was my opponents only attack on my contentions. You worded it fine. But apparently you didn't get my point. Marriage effects family, i.e. my first contentions. My 2nd contention deals with the slippery slope effect of gay marriage. Both points have gone un-refuted. Extend them for the remaining round.

*Important, read thoroughly my points and contentions, because they
definitely turn the round in my favor.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

"according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response."

Well it looks like what you're saying is "Well, people will never do anything before marriage. If we keep homosexuals from marrying, they will marry someone from the opposite sex. Thus creating a normal family."

I never said marriage would be protection from STD's, I think we all know STD's will still spread, however do you not see how it slows how much the STD's spread?

No, I was not contradicting myself with what I was meaning this is what I probably should have said:
When people are married, it makes it harder for cheating to take place, thus creating an obstacle for the spreading of STD's. I then tried to let you know I did not mean that marriage is protection against STD's.

My Response: Lol, your being ignorant of the constitution. It means no state religion would be made. However, you miss my point. I said that it has it's basis in religion. Like, no killing. Also, you have not addressed my cultural point as well.
________________________________________________________

I am confused, are you saying that we are so barbaric that we would never think that without religion to guide us we would never figure out it is bad to kill each other?
Or are you saying that laws that keep somebody from forcing others to participating in their religion are bad?

"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." You can see this on this website:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Or are you saying that Judeo-Christian beliefs are the only ones that have a standard of life preservation?
My Response: Again, you miss my point totally. You said in your first round that it was ok because it doesn't affect you. My idea of cheating refutes that idea that it doesn't effect. Your argument is really ignorant if you base it off of if it affects people or not.

What I was meaning to say in the first round was
"I don't understand why there are so many homophobics out there when all they have to do is mind there own business and not care how other people live there lives as long as it doesn't affect them at all. Whenever homos get together and kill all cops or rob liquor stores, just because they are homosexual, and married, I will listen and probably join in on banning gay marriages.
When nobody is being affected EXEPT the people participating in the event, then it doesn't need stopped.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The above website shows the very principle; I had tried to make clear in my earlier statements.

My Response: This was my opponents only attack on my contentions. You worded it fine. But apparently you didn't get my point. Marriage effects family, i.e. my first contentions. My 2nd contention deals with the slippery slope effect of gay marriage. Both points have gone un-refuted. Extend them for the remaining round.

While some people think that the purpose of a marriage is to have a family, others go into a marriage knowing they are sterile.
So to have a family is not the only reason for marriage.

"according to you, with or without marriage, they will still do they same things. I.e. have sex and w/e else gay couples do. Correction, Muslims are the ones with large families. Also, I tried to make the point that marriage won't be protection from STD's. "Allowing them to marry, would just allow them written commitment to each other allowing safer practices, meaning less STD's to spread using the logic, that gay/lesbians spread STD's quicker than strait people due to unsafe practices." Indeed, you said it would create safer practices. So, you are contradicting your above response."

Yes, before marriage they will have sex. I never tried to say that marriage is protection from STD's so I am sorry if I mislead my opponent or anybody else.
When I said the text my opponent quoted from me I was meaning that there would be less cheating, thus stunting the travel rate of STD's.

Thank you one and all for reading our debate, and voting for who you think has the better point, and made the best argument.
CiRrO

Con

Ok, my opponent has not provided any good reason why gay marriage should be legal. I'll go through my oppoents points as presented in her opening argument.

1) Marriage Allows safer sex practices cause there is a written commitment.

Response A: This is a generalization and not backed up by any facts.
Response B: Marriage doesn't make safer sex practices.
Response C: Civil Unions can provide the same protection.

2) There should be no laws in the basis of religion.

Response A: The US was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy.
Response B: Heterosexual marriage is more CULTURAL then religious.

3) It's a choice for a gay to be married.

Response A: I could choose to be violent, but that doesn't make it right.
Response B: They also have the right to choose to marry a member of the opposite gender.
===============================================================================

My opponent has failed to adequately attack my contentions, thus they stand:

Contention I: Gay Marriage undermines the very nature of family.

The reason for marriage is to be able to create a natural family. I.e. a mom, a dad, and children. The reason for marriage is to bring children into the world and society. When this fundamental formula is taken out, then the family as a whole is threatened. According to the Economist, in Scandinavia, the legalization of gay marriage has led 50% of all children to be born out of wedlock. Also, in the US, Social Scientists have discovered a link between criminal behavior and gay couples. (TIME Magazine). "Kids that have grown up in single gendered families have a greater criminal tendency then kids growing up in a regular family because of the polarization these kids receive in school, etc." Essentially, the kids are affected even more. So, Gay Marriage leads to the destruction of a "family" while hurting the children in the process. Therefore, the government has an obligation to the preservation of the family and the future kids of America. Thus, a law defining marriage between a man and women is necessary.

Contention II: Gay Marriage will lead to a Slippery Slope.

The introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man, one-woman unions.

In Utah, polygamist Tom Green, who claims five wives, is citing Lawrence v. Texas as the legal authority for his appeal. This past January, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? Lawrence v. Texas.

The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society"-as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Do you see how the game is played? Despite 5,000 years of history, the burden now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy. The ACLU went on to say that the nuclear family "may not be necessarily the best model." Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia warned of this likelihood in his statement for the minority in the Lawrence case.10 It took less than six months for his prediction to become reality.

Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people.

After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have done their wretched work, the family will consist of little more than someone's interpretation of "rights."

Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men and one woman can marry. Or five and two, or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against those of us who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between relatives, or marriage between adults and children? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to "civil rights" will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.

Thank you, I urge a negation
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
LOL, I am just saying...IDK I was tired when I said it...but shouldn't a debate try to be persuasive, and get people to think the way you do.

The problem I have with this site is most people don't read the debate, they probably just vote however they think.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
I didn't want to change your view. That wasn't the goal at all. If you did change your view, then cool, but w/e. Cya around "I'm Always Right"
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
What's wrong with giving them the benefits they get if the goverenment acknowlages they are married, just as strait people.... ciRrO, the votes may say you win, but you have not changed my veiw at all....
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
LOL, ok, prove that my stats are wrong. Back yourself up before attack another person, especially their integrity. Seeing as on your profile you are gay, bias is blinding you. Just so you know, I have nothing against homosexuality, just the right of them to marry. If you claim I'm so wrong, challenge me. I'll be waiting.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Wow. CirCo is SO wrong. If I even began at how wrong he was it would take up more than this comment box. Gay marriage does not attack the family! And your statistics do not make any sense and are lies! God! I'm challenging you to a debate on this. You are just too wrong. And btw PRO has my vote.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Very good debate "I am always right". I look forward to another possible debate, either with your or your mother.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Oops sorry mom forgot to log out again.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I never said it should be legal, I just said there should be no laws in regards to gay marrige. So it shouldn't be legal or illegal. like sharpening a pencil on the 2nd Tuesday of May, it is ridiculous someone would fight that it should be illegal, but nowhere will you find where it gives you that right. it should be the same deal.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
I haven't posted yett because my mom Xera has an argument similar to mine she's working on. She doesn't want to make it look like she coppied off of me, though. It may take a while since she is busy right now.

:(
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
In order:

It's okay

Yes I am Im always right

and, no but my mom Xera does
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Pupjr11 7 years ago
Pupjr11
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by blaize 8 years ago
blaize
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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:14 
Vote Placed by jesus_lovesu 8 years ago
jesus_lovesu
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Littleweasle 8 years ago
Littleweasle
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by silveracer 8 years ago
silveracer
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 8 years ago
DylanAsdale
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Kals 8 years ago
Kals
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by I_am_Einstein 8 years ago
I_am_Einstein
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberty 8 years ago
liberty
Im_always_rightCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30