The Instigator
destttt_b
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 3 votes the winner is...
destttt_b
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,545 times Debate No: 21434
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (76)
Votes (3)

 

destttt_b

Pro

I am looking for someone to give me a reasonable explanation(s) why a same-sex couple should not be allowed to participate in the beauty, sacredness, and holiness that marriage is. For the 1st round I am asking for acceptance, 2nd-4th round going deeper into the argument, and the 5th round should be the final conclusion. This is my first debate so I'm not quite sure what to expect. Also, absolutely NO copying and pasting. If you are going to speak on your opinion, let it be YOUR own. I have a lot to say so I look forward to this debate :)

First off, my name is Destinee Bayona. I'm an 18 year old freshman attending William Paterson University in New Jersey and Public Relations chairperson for CHOSEN: The Gender & Sexuality Alliance, formerly known as CHOSEN: Gay-Straight Alliance at my college. I am a bisexual - I did not choose this sexuality, nor was I born with it. Over time I noticed I had an interest in the same sex, I struggled with it but I decided this is who I was. Though it was difficult, I learned to accept myself and others did as well.

I am also Puerto Rican and Italian, but have been judged and ridiculed for being partially Hispanic. I am considered a minority for this already, and I feel as though I am a double-minority since I am a member of the L.G.B.T. community. Members of this community are judged for their sexual preference, ridiculed, bullied, and some have even been murdered or committed suicide. Anti-gay supporters are of all different races, not just Caucasian. So tell me why is it that minorities are still attacking minorities - have we not overcome this yet?

Being from New Jersey, I have seen and heard a lot about this with the recent death of Tyler Clementi, a gay freshman student who was attending Rutgers University and committed suicide because his roommate, Dharun Ravi, humiliated him by setting him up; Clementi was unknowingly recorded by a webcam having sex with another man and Ravi posted the video on Twitter. Tyler Clementi was so devastated by this action that he committed suicide by jumping to his death from the George Washington Bridge on September 22, 2010. Recently, at Montclair State University also in New Jersey, towards the end of January into the beginning of this month, the university has dealt with a threat against the LGBT community. Someone wrote inside one of the women's bathroom that all gays will die on February 7th - and this was not the first time an incident occurred there. I have also seen my state's governor, Chris Christie, flat out discriminate and object gays' rights to marry. My club, CHOSEN, sent in letters with the help of Garden State Equality to the New Jersey Legislature before voting was about to begin. Even though the votes could even override Christie's veto, he still would not accept this under any circumstance. It's this type of discrimination and hate that makes the world we live in today such a scary place.

Now someone explain to me what makes it okay for this to happen?
KeytarHero

Con

As a fellow Italian, I would like to thank Destinee for issuing this debate, and welcome her to DDO. This is a pretty controversial debate to start off with, but I'm not complaining as I believe my first debate here was on abortion.

So this is my round for acceptance.

Since Destinee introduced herself, I guess I'll do the same. My name is Clinton and I am a professional musician in California. I've attended six years of college as a music major but haven't finished. Truth be told I'm kind of impatient and I feel that I learn more by application than sitting in a classroom, though I may someday return to finish out my degree.

Apologetics and theology are major hobbies of mine, although I do occasionally preach at churches so they come in handy now more than they used to. Science and philosophy are also hobbies of mine, though some aspects of science interest me more than others.

I understand that Destinee is bisexual and I hope that my arguments are not offensive to her or anyone else reading this. I want to assure the readers that I do not hate homosexuals/bisexuals/any others in that increasingly cumbersome acronym. Although I don't think they should be able to marry, I believe that they should be able to enjoy the freedoms that we all enjoy as humans. However, marriage is not guaranteed in the Constitution and I haven't yet seen any arguments for legalizing gay marriage that can't also be used for legalizing other forms of (what is considered to be) perverse sexuality, such as incest, polygamy, etc.

Also, I deplore violence against homosexuals. I think it's shameful the way they are treated and tormented. It was despicable when Westboro Baptist Church picketing the dead gay soldier's funeral, and it's horrible that they end up committing suicide over it.
I see that Destinee indicates she was not born be bisexual. I haven't heard anyone say that since it's commonly believed that we are born with our sexuality.

So once again, I don't think it's okay for homosexuals to be tormented based on their sexuality. I will argue that they should not be allowed to marry, however, which is not, actually, discriminatory. But I will say more on that in my opening argument next round.

I look forward to debating this lovely young lady. Let's have a clean fight, no hitting below the belt.

Just as a reminder as instigator, Destinee bears the burden of proof as to why gay marriage should be legalized, and I will, in return, give her reasonable explanations as to why it should not.
Debate Round No. 1
destttt_b

Pro

Thank you Clinton for accepting this debate. I am glad you are against the bullying, discrimination, and violence that takes place towards those in this community, nor do you hold hatred for any of them.

However, you did mention that you feel homosexuals should be able to enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of the human race. Though the Constitution, doesn't flat out allow gays, lesbians, or bisexuals to marry, it does mention that we are all created equal and have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Therefore, that should imply that members of the L.G.B.T. community who are in love and wish to marry should be able to experience this freedom and furthermore lead on to their right to the pursuit of happiness. Also, since the Constitution states that we are all equals, shouldn't ALL of us be treated the same in this case? Adding on, and not to be rude, but believing that homosexuals should not marry DOES sound like a discriminatory statement. It's like if someone back in the early 1900's said that women should be able to enjoy the same freedoms as men, but they should still not be allowed the right to vote - it's contradicting.

As for perverse sexuality such as incest and polygamy, they are considered universal, or almost universal, taboos. But over the years, many have become more accepting of members of the gay community, and honestly, why should it make such a difference or an impact on others that a couple is married - why should sexuality be a part of that? If two people are truly in love, they should have every right in the world to officially call their partner their husband or wife. Why is it okay for people like Kim Kardashian to make a mockery off the sacredness that marriage consists of, but yet people who have been fighting others and the system, have been ridiculed, and even risked or lost their lives to not be allowed to partake in this ceremony because of sexual preference? They MORE than deserve this. Plus, do you really remember articles of the couples married or engaged you glance over reading the newspaper? I doubt it, so what huge impact can it make on outside parties? The point is for those two people to be the ones impacted and in a positive way.

Many use the story of what happened in Sodom as a reason to discriminate homosexuals. But it wasn't just homosexuals encountering in sex - it was rape. I believe that when learning this story, many interpreted the wrong message. Because of this story, some even feel that homosexuals are cruel, likely to rape, and evil.

In Isaiah 64:6 it states that "we are all infected and impure with sin". Many people with strong religious beliefs forget that God did not create us as perfect. He forgives us for our sins but wants us to do the best we can as His children to be loving, morally good people. Many people commit worse sins than homosexuality, but they still have the right to marry. What if other sinners weren't allowed to marry? Would that be just or unfair?
KeytarHero

Con

And thank you, Destinee, for issuing this challenge.

Marriage is not a human right

Human rights are the rights every individual has to be able to survive. We need homes, we need food, we need water, we need clothes, etc. to survive. One does not need to be married to survive. Marriage can not be considered a fundamental human right since it is not necessary for survival.

Destinee has actually confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which is the document which indicates we are all created equal with the three unalienable Rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We set our laws based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution does not guarantee marriage for anybody.

Denying marriage is not discriminatory

If gay marriage were to be legalized, then it would be discriminatory against family members who want to marry, people who want to marry multiple partners, people who want to marry animals, etc. Discrimination happens when a thing is universal but not allowed to a certain group of people. However, the only marriage that is legal in the United States (except in a few states) is one man to one woman. It is not discriminatory not to allow one extra group of people to marry.

Other sexualities

Homosexuality was once taboo and in fact, was once considered a mental instability. Now it is accepted. How long until pedophilia is accepted as normal and natural? In fact, if you make the argument that homosexuals are between two consenting adults, then why shouldn't close family members be allowed to marry or why shouldn't people be allowed to marry multiple partners?

I am also against marriage being made a mockery of. I believe that marriage should be a sacred institution but it's hard to defend that when so many Christian couples are divorcing. All I can say is that what other Christians do is irrelevant to my beliefs. What I do with my beliefs is the only litmus test for whether or not I take them seriously.

Reproduction

A reason that homoseuxal marriages should be discouraged is because homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally. The family structure is in place so that a family can be raised. A couple must reproduce at least two children to replace them when they die and keep the population stagnant (obviously they need more children to help society grow).

Religious Aspect

Since Destinee is Catholic, I will add a religious aspect to the argument. It is true that Sodom and Gomorrah, alone, do not speak against homosexuality, per se (they were just wicked cities overall). However, in the Book of Leviticus, homosexuality is considered an abomination. What other sins are considered abominations in the Old Testament and suddenly allowed in the New Testament? Additionally, all sexual sins are wrong and deserving of punishment because they go against God's plan for marriage, one man and one woman, with sex happening once a couple is married (Genesis 2-3).
Debate Round No. 2
destttt_b

Pro

You say marriage is not a human right, nor necessary for survival, however having good friends and family, children, and an education, etc. is also not needed for survival. So do we not deserve these things anyway? Having good friends and family, children, and an education, etc plays a part in our pursuit of happiness. So, since these things are not a human right, does that mean we do not deserve to have or experience them in our lives? Overall happiness is beneficial to ourselves, our lives, as well as the contributions we make to others and their lives.

You mention again that denying marriage is not discriminatory. Yet, you say that if gay marriage were legalized that it would discriminate against those who want to marry more than one person, animals, and so on. Therefore, denying those types of marriage should be considered discriminatory, too. I believe that the main reason so many are against marrying multiple partners is because adultery is a sin in the Bible. I for one am 100% against cheating on a significant other. However, many of these people follow a different religion, therefore, they should have the right to partake in polygamy if they believe in it. Yes, I see I've mixed up the Constitution with The Declaration of Independence, but, I know freedom of religion is part of the first amendment in the Constitution, plus, these marriages are between consenting adults. So, why is this denied? I believe it's because this is still considered a universal taboo. But, it is not up to me, nor should it be for anyone else, to judge or keep people from practicing their beliefs. Bestiality is a universal taboo, which I have previously mentioned as well. Though I still believe this is kind of odd, I do not believe it's up to me to judge or discriminate people for their beliefs. Maybe someday laws will be passed allowing these marriages to take place. But, as I mentioned before, the topic of this debate is marriage equality for the L.G.B.T community, so I'd like to stick to this topic.

I am aware that homosexuality used to be considered taboo and a mental disorder. But pedophilia is a completely different story. With pedophilia, an adult uses his/her authority or power as an adult figure to take advantage of an innocent child. I myself was raped at 17 and sexually harassed by adults long before that. Therefore, I KNOW from experience that there is a huge difference between pedophilia being accepted and gays' rights to marriage.

As for reproduction, I disagree with your argument. There are many, including members of my family, who suffer from infertility. Just because they cannot produce children should not mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Plus, studies show that many gay couples adopt children without parents. They are taking these children out of a horrible situation and helping turn their lives around. Gays are completely capable of being parents whether their children are their own or not. Plus, they can always use egg/sperm donors.
KeytarHero

Con

You are born into a family. Needing a family does not mean someone should be able to marry whomever they want. Education, for the most part, is a luxury, not a right. Yes, the government will pay for kids to go to school until they're 17 or 18, but then to go to college you're on your own. Either you pay for it yourself or try to apply for grants or loans, or scholarships.

I don't know that I think so many people care whether or not adultery is a sin in the Bible, or anything else. We live in a country that separates church from the state, as evidenced by the fact that while adultery is looked on as immoral, it is not illegal. Homosexuality is not a religious issue. It is simply a moral issue. We can see that sexuality is a moral issue based on the fact that most forms of marriage are illegal. Freedom of religion does not apply here.

I can appreciate that Destinee is consistent in her beliefs of marriage. However, there are no arguments for homosexuality that could not be used to support other forms of sexuality so they are, indeed, relevant to this discussion. I don't believe it's wrong to tell someone else that they should not, or can not, indulge in an immoral behavior. Our government believes this, otherwise everything would be legal. As marriage is a moral issue, we have a right to make a decision about what forms of marriage or sexuality are okay, and which are not, but if we are going to allow other forms of sexuality in our country then we must also allow other forms of sexuality for the same reasons.

I am very sorry for what you went through, Destinee. No one should ever have to go through such a traumatic experience. However, not all forms of pedophilia involve a girl being taken advantage of. For example, if a 19 year old boy has sex with a 16 year old girl, despite only being four years apart it would still be considered statutory rape. Additionally, kids go through sex education in elementary school, so obviously they're being prepared in case they engage in sexual behavior in the future. If a teenage girl can make the choice to have sex with a boy her own age, she could also make the conscious decision to have sex with an older man without coercion.

Regarding infertility: An infertile heterosexual couple would still be able to marry because heterosexual couplings are legal. They are in a relationship which, under normal circumstances, they would be able to produce children. However, with homosexual couples, they cannot naturally reproduce. A couple must produce two children to replace them when they die. In IVF, they would have to produce four children, two for each of them. Also, adopting would not solve this problem. Homosexual coupling should be discouraged because we need couples to produce children.
Debate Round No. 3
destttt_b

Pro

Not everyone is born into a family, many who don't receive that privilege are not born into the best ones. So, these children deserve to have parents who love them regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight. When I talked about education, I said that it was not a human right nor necessary for survival but those who wish to have it deserve to have a chance to receive it.

I understand adultery is not as "bad" a sin in the Bible to people. But, according to it, it's still considered a sin. Plus, what if adultery were illegal? What makes cheating on a significant other alright yet people of the same sex who want to be together is such a bad thing? What makes one sin worse than another sin and who can say they're good enough to choose which sins deserve more condemnation than others? Also, I feel Homosexuality is a very religious issue, before it even became a moral one. Also, since you mentioned polygamy and Mormons believe in having multiple partners, I believe freedom of religion does apply here.

Adding on, you mentioned how Leviticus states homosexuality is a sin before. "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). So does that mean they should be put to death? Yes, I also realize that this involves sexual matters. However, real marriages are about more than just sex, they are about love and it should not be limited because of the gender we're "supposed" to be with. I also found that apparently, when the Old Testament was written, God had promised the Messiah who would be the Savior, the Deliverer of people from the judgment of God. If homosexuality was to break out, it would threaten the Messiah's arrival and make God's Word invalid (essentially making Him a liar), which could not be. So He provided the harshness of the law to guard people from their own sins, others' sins, and find a way for the Messiah to come and die on the cross for our sins.

As for pedophilia, I still think it's outrageous to compare this being allowed someday to gay marriage being allowed. You keep mentioning if gay marriage is allowed then everything will be allowed, I still disagree with that. Gay marriage is something people have been fighting to receive for years because they want to to happily and legally call their partner their husband or wife. I mentioned before, the L.G.B.T. community is treated as and feels like minorities, therefore feeling discriminated by society and even more with not being allowed to marry.

You also mention that an infertile heterosexual couple can still marry because it's legal, yet you make it seem like the whole point of marriage is conceiving children. The main point of marriage is being able to spend the rest of your life with who you love,despite whether or not one can conceive. Plus, as I said previously, straight or not, one can always go to a sperm/egg donor.
KeytarHero

Con

I would agree that everyone deserves to be born into a loving family. However, that says nothing about why gay marriage should be allowed. Education benefits everyone. People go to college so they can become better productive members of society. The only people gay marriage benefits are homosexuals, and there is no compelling reason to legalize it.

Actually, all sexual sins are bad in the Bible. All sexual sins go against God's plan for the family. Homosexuality is no better or worse than any others, neither is adultery any better or worse than any others. Homosexuality is not a religious issue because atheists, as well as Christians, or members of other religions can be homosexual, and there are those who are trying to push acceptance of homosexuality in the Christian church. Additionally, this is not a Christian nation, or a nation that supports one religion over another. So adultery being a sin in the Bible does not mean it would be illegal in our country. Freedom of religion means freedom to believe but not necessarily to practice. Muslims who are sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda would not be legally able to kill Americans. Polygamy is illegal in the United States so even though it's acceptable in Mormonism, it is not legal here in America.

I really think Destinee is overstating matters here. The Messiah would arrive no matter what sins were going on. Homosexuality was not unique in Old Testament times. There were likely other cultures practicing it which is why it had to be mentioned and shown how immoral it was to God. Homosexuality did not threaten the arrival of the Messiah. God said the Messiah would arrive and He would, and nothing could threaten that.

Actually, I never claimed that making gay marriage legal would automatically cause all other forms of marriage to be legal. I merely stated that to be consistent, you would have to accept other forms of sexuality because no argument to support homosexuality is unique; they could all be used to support other forms of sexuality.

The main purpose of marriage is procreation. You can show your undying love for another person without marrying them. In fact, a high number of marriages end in divorce so obviously there are many marriages which are not done for love. This is why the government has benefits for married couples, as an incentive to marry and conceive children. As I have mentioned twice before, a couple needs to conceive two children (one for each spouse) in order to keep our population static (more if we want to ensure the population will grow).
Debate Round No. 4
destttt_b

Pro

Clinton mentions he is against violence acts on gays and they should be allowed our same freedoms, except marriage. If gay marriage were legalized, these cruel people might finally come to realize gays are human too, simply just with a different sexual preference, and learn to accept them in our society. The Equal Opportunity act ensures that jobs can get into trouble, whose applications state, or should state, that they are not allowed to discriminate applicants on factors such as: race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, age, and so on. Besides not being of legal age to marry, these rules should apply elsewhere, too.

As mentioned in my previous arguments, the LGBT community is considered a minority like people of color. These groups struggled to and continue to struggle to be accepted into society but for the most part have the same rights as others. Before they did, they encountered almost the same unfair and discriminatory treatment as gays - people of color nor interracial couples weren't always allowed to marry. In response, you'll probably say that marrying people of color is not illegal, and gay marriage is. I am aware of this - the point is it used to be, but people overcame their ignorance and learned to accept them as equals.

I feel the point of marriage is stated in the vows: "to have and to hold, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to 'love' and to cherish, 'till death do us part". Marriage about becoming one, spending the rest of your life with who you love, helping each other emotionally, physically, financially, etc. Today, so many of people do not take marriage seriously and do end up in divorce, but that's ONE type of love, gay marriage has not been proven to end in divorce yet since it's prohibited in so many areas. Also, just because marriage can end in divorce didn't mean it was because it wasn't originally based on love, necessarily. Plus, I feel the argument of the purpose being reproduction is becoming redundant. It's like saying a heterosexual couple shouldn't marry because they can't have children. Adoption centers and sperm/egg donors are around for a reason.

Gay marriage benefits these children desperate for a home, and can benefit us all in a way. If this would stop being seen as "abnormal" and slowly but surely become accepted, bullying, discrimination, harassment might hopefully disappear not only with this community, but in general. We NEED to erase the hate!

I believe that part of the reason this is not allowed, too, is we are constantly afraid of change. However, if it wasn't for all the changes made and discrimination we've overcome, our country wouldn't be what it is today. We are all sinners in a sense. So who are we to judge others? But all they want to do is love, be loved, and have the right to take that love to the next level like everyone else. In conclusion, I believe I've made plenty of compelling arguments to support why gay marriage should be legalized.
KeytarHero

Con

I would like to, once again, thank Destinee for issuing this challenge. I will respond to a few points in her closing argument and then briefly close.

I am opposed to violence against homosexuals and nothing I have said in my arguments would indicate that I support it. Stealing is wrong. I am opposed to violence against poor people but I also believe it to be immoral for someone to steal to feed their family (there are ways for poor people to get food legally). Legalizing gay marriage will not bring to an end people who disprove of homosexuality. Slavery is no longer legal but racism is still alive and well in our country. People disprove of homosexuality for religious reasons and this would not change if gay marriage were made legal.

There is a difference between homosexuals and belonging to a race of people. Sexuality is a moral issue, which is why some forms of it are legal and some are not. However, it is not immoral to belong to a race. Hitler and the Nazis did horrible atrocities, but it is not immoral to be German. Interracial couples should be allowed to marry because they can reproduce and propagate the species. Marriage is necessary to encourage the production of children to replace the humans dying off.

Yes, marriage can be an expression of love but you don't need it to express your love to your partner. You can be together for life without needing to officially get married.

To conclude, I have shown why there are no compelling reasons to legalize gay marriage. Just the opposite; marriage should be encourage to produce offspring to replace the people dying off. Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally and therefore, homosexual couplings (or at least marriage) should be discouraged.

Additionally, I have shown that marriage is not a human right and I don't feel this has been adequately answered in this debate. It is not guaranteed in the Constitution and it is certainly not a requirement to survive.

Finally, to be fair if gay marriage were legalized, you would also have to legalize other forms of marriage, such as polygamy and incest. Yet there is no one parading around and trying to get those forms of marriage legalized, even though the same arguments for homosexuality can be made for those forms of sexuality.

I thank you for reading and again, I thank Destinee for her thoughtful arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
76 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by destttt_b 4 years ago
destttt_b
Thank you Miss Goodness :) I'll email you and let you know who I am so you know it's me.
Posted by destttt_b 4 years ago
destttt_b
LOL oh please. If the American Psychiatric Association chose to ignore the medical research that was documented it's obviously not relevant nor important, so you just made yourself look stupid. And, the part about a child needing both a mother and a father is BS. Do you know how many marriages end up being failures? - over 50%. They "try" to stay together for the kids but in the end all their fighting and the stuff that goes on between the two affects the children in a negative way. Single parents may not always be able to spoil their kids but I know from experience that many times children greatly appreciate that ONE parent they have and understand why the other parent couldn't be in the picture. My mother has been both my mother and father my whole life and I'm doing great; I'm a freshman at a state university MAJORING in Psychology, with a 3.7 GPA and active in clubs and activities, in a healthy relationship of my own, and my social life is just fine. So don't give me that two parents crap. Adding on, if you know so much about psychology, you would know that 121 million people worldwide suffer from depression, with 18 million alone in the U.S., according to the World Health Organization. Depression, nor mental disorders, are limited to race, gender, age, sexual preference, etc; Also, since you mentioned suicides, did you know they happen once every 40 seconds? That's 90 per hour and they aren't limited to race, gender, age or sexual preference either. Plus, just because "homophobia" was supposedly accepted in those cultures (that you don't mention), doesn't mean they haven't experienced the cruelty of being a member of the L.G.B.T. community from society or even their own families or self-identity issues which many in this community do. So take your bogus research and ignorance somewhere else because you're not making yourself look good here.
Posted by saraandersson123 4 years ago
saraandersson123
The [American Psychiatric Association] has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors. This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine...Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teenagers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships. It is important to note that 'homophobia' is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted. Another recent study has shown that a high percentage, 32%, of males with SSA have been abused by other males with SSA."

http://homosexualbisexualtransgender.blogspot.com......
Posted by destttt_b 4 years ago
destttt_b
Are you kidding me? I'm sorry but your blog is completely ignorant, discriminatory, and judgemental. God doesn't like that... and neither do I. The person I was debating against has respect for the L.G.B.T. community and we had a peaceful debate just with different points of view. So don't try to start something on here.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
Yeah, unfortunately there's more I wanted to say but I was limited to 3,000 characters. Those characters get used up quickly. lol
Posted by destttt_b 4 years ago
destttt_b
I know, but this is for my college Philosophy class and my professor asked us to do 5 rounds for our debate.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I appreciate it when debates go just three rounds (or four rounds, if round one is just challenge and acceptance).

Reading and analyzing and articulating my RFD took me over an hour. It's work. You can cut down that work, so people are more willing to read and vote, by shortening your debates.

Generally, anything over three rounds is muddy repetition anyway.

Only the best, the most lucid and organized debaters should need or be able to profitably exploit five rounds.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
=== continued ===

Con said,
4. The slippery-slope argument: If we legalize gay marriage, we'll have have to (or not have to, depending on which of Con's posts we consult) legalize bad things like polygamy and child rape.

This was Pro's finest moment. She pointed out that we can judge these cases on their own merits. If polygamy is good, then we ought to allow it. If child rape is bad, then we should forbid it regardless of what we do about gay marriage.

Advantage: draw. (Again, destroying an opponent's argument without turning it against them only brings you back to neutral.)

Conclusion: I think Pro makes a strong point about ending the hatred and persecution of gays. Recognizing gay marriage is a significant step in that direction. Against that is Con's claim that we can increase population by failing to recognize gay marriages. This seems to me a weaker point.

So the net advantage lies with Pro.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
=== continued ===

Con said:
3. Marriage is not a right. There is no compelling reason to legalize gay marriage.

At first this struck me as a dog-in-the-manger kind of argument. If a big kid won't let a little kid drink from a public water fountain, and his excuse is, "You have no right to drink from this particular fountain, and I have no compelling reason to allow you to drink from it," what do we think of the big kid?

But, again, this is my point, not Pro's point, so we must ignore it.

And, anyway, Con presumably regarded this as a supplementary argument. That is, Con thinks he has a good reason to herd gays into hateful heterosexual marriages, so the earth won't depopulate. Given this important motive for opposing gay marriage, we wouldn't want to allow it unless there were an even more important reason to do so. A compelling reason, like a right to gay marriage, would suffice, but in the absence of such, Con thinks his argument stands.

Not a dog-in-the-manger argument after all.

Pro's reasons for allowing gay marriage: Erase the hatred for gays encouraged by government discrimination against them. Allow gays the pursuit of happiness.

That's a good point. Why should the government continue shirting on some of its citizens?

It seems to me that this vastly outweighs the squirrely argument that we should fight underpopulation by redirecting gays into perverse relationships with straights.

So, happiness for gays, and overcoming prejudice and hatred, these seem to me a compelling reason, even if we grant (which I think we must, since I don't believe Pro challenged this) that there is no right to marriage.

Advantage: Pro.

=== continued ===
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
destttt_bKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
destttt_bKeytarHeroTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con shot himself a little in the foot when he compared being homosexual to being a pedophile, but when he used the reproduction argument for why gay marriage shouldnt be legal, Pro brought up the case about infertile heterosexual people being able to marry, and the con couldnt adequetly explain why an infertile heterosexual couple should get rights homosexual couples should not have even though both are infertile. arguments to pro but, thats about all...
Vote Placed by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
destttt_bKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate would have been so much better with more sources. I agree with Pro on this issue but I am dissapointed in the weak arguments. Pro has not refuted Con's agruments at all and kind of went around them in circles. Con could have used sources too. But I disagree when Con said that only homosexuals benefit from gay marraige. Proof? What about the economy? This was a speculation debate. Use sources and be more organized next time Pro