The Instigator
migmag
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
33days11hours32minutes38seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 625 times Debate No: 93635
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (2)

 

migmag

Pro

if you don't give the LGBT community equality, how can society ever be trusted to not discriminate against them?
harrytruman

Con

Equality? Discrimination? What do you think this is? A civil rights issue? No- when Sandra Bland got murdered that was a civil rights issue, a bunch of nasty perverts having to deal with how society isn't very fond of sexual perversion- that's not a civil right's issue.
Debate Round No. 1
migmag

Pro

Do you even know what discrimination is? Current in THIRTY states, you can be FIRED from your employment and EVICTED from your apartment JUST for being LGBT, wake up
harrytruman

Con

First of all, there is no source for this, second of all, if an employer decides to fire a pedophile because he is a peophile, that's his choice.
Debate Round No. 2
migmag

Pro

it's NOT MY job to EDUCATE you on FACTS. Look it up, there is NO PROTECTION for LGBT from being FIRED or EVICTED in THIRTY states. And NO it is ILLEGAL and NOT right for employers to FIRE people without JUST cause
harrytruman

Con

Excuse me? You made the claim, you have to cite it, it's not my job to support your arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
migmag

Pro

Finish high school, then finish college, then we'll talk. It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE that you CAN be FIRED in MANY states JUST for being LGBT. If you don't know that, you don't belong in here. Based on your PREVIOUS comment you think it SHOULD be LEGAL for employers to FIRE and housing to EVICT the LGBT community simply for being LGBT. And since that's the case, you are a BIGOT and not worth dialogue.
harrytruman

Con

You challenged me to this debate, so don't tell me you won't debate me, and claiming this to be common knowledge doesn't prove anything, you get sued for 100,000$ just for not serving these guys. Bigot? Gay [people are not a race you moron, and if I was an employer, and one of my employees was a pedophile, I would fire him.
Debate Round No. 4
migmag

Pro

So you're a homophobic bigot, end of story, thanks for admitting it, and thanks for admitting that you think it's ok to be homophobic and hateful toward innocent groups like LGBT
harrytruman

Con

Hate? No- hating people is banned in Judaism - it isn't a religion of hate it's a religion of moral codes, which lead me to hate certain lifestyles.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BenJWasson// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a lot of personal attacks on the intelligence of Con (i.e. bigot), so conduct automatically goes to Con. Con had better grammar, mostly to due to capitalization. Con had much more convincing arguments - he argued that people should be able to do what they want, and when the debate got to the point where Pro started to say that he didn't have to cite his own sources, Con explained the importance of citing sources and made convincing arguments as to why Pro was wrong. So before and after the debate turned into a source attack debate Con was making better arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. A lack of capitalization alone is not reason enough to award this point; only in instances where one side's arguments are difficult to understand as a result of how they are written can this be awarded.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: LaL36// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really said hardly anything about gay marriage. They were talking about LGBT having jobs. Pro keeps insisting everything he is saying is basic facts and anyone who disagrees is a homophobe. This is absurd of course but even if true, the debate had nothing to do with it. Pro made no case so arguments to con. Conduct to Con because in short pro is a d*ck. He referenced con's age as an argument, called him homphobic with no basis and a bigot as well. This makes someone a jackass. So conduct to con. Neither side used sources for more reliable. But would give sources points to con because Pro was the one who really said statements that required sources and treated his judgement as common knowledge. Con didn't say anything that really required sources. I'll leave it as is though.

[*Reason for removal*] While conduct is sufficiently explained, arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess arguments made by both sides, and while the voter does so for Pro, he does not for Con. Perhaps the voter is using BoP as a basis for awarding points, but even that requires an assessment of what the BoP is, who has it, and why.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: SegBeg// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Conduct, S&G, Arguments) Reasons for voting decision: Pro referred to Con as a "homophobic bigot" which destroys their good conduct. Pro flat out refused to provide any sources for their claim that LGBT's can be sacked for their sexual orientation which probably indicates that they are making this claim up. Spelling and grammar for Con just slightly due to Pro's spelling errors, "Current in THIRTY states" and "there is NO PROTECTION for LGBT from being FIRED" But this was a close feat by Con. Neither used any sources so that leaves it a tie. Overall, I vote Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both sides, and not just based on the lack of sources on a single side. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. This point may only be awarded if the voter explains how one side's points were substantially more difficult to read and understand, which appears not to be the case here.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DeuceKaboose// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: migmag please just stop. you are embarrassing liberals everywhere

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a condemnation of one of the debaters.
************************************************************************
Posted by ILikePie5 4 months ago
ILikePie5
And it's wrong for you to be wasting the time of people
Posted by migmag 4 months ago
migmag
GAY MARRIAGE WON, you CANT be AGAINST Gay Marriage and NOT be a HOMOPHOBE. over SIXTY percent of Americans think Gay Marriage SHOULD be LEGAL! WHO CARES who "won" the debate WHAT MATTERS is RIGHT and WRONG, and it's WRONG to DISCRIMINATE
Posted by ILikePie5 4 months ago
ILikePie5
If you knew how to have an adult conversation, you wouldn't be yelling by using caps
Posted by Midnight1131 4 months ago
Midnight1131
*Uses caps lock and ad hominems and talks mostly about feelings and being nice*

*Tells everyone else to learn to have an adult conversation*

10/10 Logic.
Posted by harrytruman 4 months ago
harrytruman
This isn't a civil rights issue
Posted by migmag 4 months ago
migmag
YOU people in here NEED to learn to be NICE people. This is a discussion about RIGHT and WRONG! It's WRONG to FIRE someone because they are LGBT and it is WRONG to EVICT someone from their housing because they are LGBT!!!
Harry Truman,
Grow up and have an ADULT conversation. You know EXACTLY what I'm referring to regarding EVICTION! We are NOT talking about people who OWN their homes, we are talking about those who RENT. They CAN be EVICTED SIMPLY for being LGBT, BASIC FACT.
CST
JUST because there MAY be ONE poll that shows 30% doesn't mean anything! Equally there ARE/HAVE BEEN polls showing as many as 95% of LGBT that vote DEMOCRAT. What MATTERS is what is their BEST INTEREST. Republicans HATE LGBT and pass legislation that DISCRIMINATES against them.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 months ago
republicofdhar
migmagharrytrumanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Could have been debated a lot better on both sides. I advise the debaters to read debates by experienced debaters and then trying again.
Vote Placed by evanjfarrar 4 months ago
evanjfarrar
migmagharrytrumanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a fight, not a debate. Both of you should be ashamed for letting this devolve into senseless bickering. No points for anyone.