Mieky

this is my last time trying man

Winner: Pro
My Reason is, Pro’s arguments are more aligned with modern ethical principles like having religious parents and the real reason why a parent attempts to change their child's sexual identity. Pro successfully showed that religious beliefs can be justified and keeps the focus on the well-being of the child, which is the central issue in the debate.

This debate was NOT one sided though, the reason I have not voted for Con is that his points were always the same, that if a parent is even trying to change there child sexuality in any way shape or form then there evil and are causing harm to the child. Cons round 2 debate is what sealed the deal for me really. He took all of Pros points and stretched them into something he didnt even say and he did it multiple times. I don't think con gets it but just because a parent wants to change there kids sexual identity doesn't mean that they will physically harm there kid as Con says in multiple of his rebuttals.

Example : Con said "But if your version of “love” means treating your child like a theological crime scene, then that’s not love. That’s emotional conversion therapy with lipstick on it."
All pro said was “Love means wrestling with the truth.” He takes pros points and made it into something it completely was not.

Since she had it first she should win
Butttttt no agreement too be had

to start off I like dogs more than I like cats as a pet.

But I believe that Con's agreement had more importin's than Pro's agreement, pro just mentioned things that you can do with a dog, and he stated that you can't do those things with cats, but most cats aren't really like how he described. like for example he said, "Cats are too hard to understand." when in reality there not. All cats really do are eat, sleep and play with toys. and in Con's agreement he mentions the health benefits of having a cat which is a plus.