The Instigator
Finalfan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Gay Marriage anyone?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 35150
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Finalfan

Pro

I had so much fun with the last debate I though I would see if I could get someone else who can convince me that gay people should not be allowed to marry. I am not gay myself so this is not personal. I just want to see what all of the fuss is about.. I will warn you "evidence" for either side in this debate usually come from bias sources.. meaning that if you look for evidence against gay marriage there is plenty out there to find. However if you want to support the gays right to marry, you will find a plethora of evidence to convince you. So this debate will not be traditional (like all of my debates) I wouldn't be surprised if this does not get accepted but I'm willing to battle anyone who does!
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Okay. I shall debate you. I assume that the first round is for acceptance.

I ask that you please present your case in a readable, coherent manner. Number your arguments, provide titles to your arguments. Do not mesh multiple points into one. Give an introduction and conclusion to each post. Do not present too many arguments because in that case I might use up all my characters in just responding and not have enough characters to present my own case.


Over to you.
Debate Round No. 1
Finalfan

Pro

Finalfan forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Come on dude. Don't give up that easily. I believe in you. I will give you one more chance before I present my own case against gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 2
Finalfan

Pro

Finalfan forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Okay, you asked for it.

Before I present my argument(s) against the legalization of gay marriage, I must clarify some confusion surrounding the issue. I have come to see that most of the "arguments" for or against gay marriage do not even understand the issue itself. They begin from false assumptions about the debate itself. These have to be cleared up before we begin debating.

[1] Individuals and Relationships
First we must understand that gay people do have the right to get married. There is no law preventing gay people from getting married. A gay man can get married to a woman. A gay woman can get married to a man. A gay man can even marry a gay woman. There is no law banning homosexual people from getting married. There is no law banning homosexuality or banning people from being homosexuals. There is no law banning homosexuals from being in relationships. The law is only against gay marriage. The law is the same for everybody. It is illegal for a gay man to marry another man and it is illegal for a straight man to marry another man. Sexual preference is irrelevant. It would be legal for a gay man to marry a gay woman and illegal for a straight man to marry another straight man. When gay marriage supporters say that gay people deserve the right to get married, they are fundamentally misunderstanding the issue and overstating the burden of gay marriage opponents.

[2] Relationships and Marriage
Next, we must understand that in banning gay marriage, we are banning a very specific kind of relationship, not all relationships in general between same sex people. It is not against the law for two same sex people to be in a relationship. It is not against the law for two same sex people to love each other, to be committed to each other, to die for each other. All of this is perfectly legal as it should be. But when we talk about marriage, we are talking about publicly recognized union involving specific rules. The acts performed within marriage are private, but

[3] Consequences and Principles
We also must understand that when considering what ought to or ought not to be the case, we have to contemplate principles (values, morals) not just consequences or effects. Some particular action may have very positive effects or a lack of negative effects and yet be a very undignified action, or vice versa. For example, most of us have the moral intuition that necrophilia is wrong. Despite the fact that it has no negative consequences for the dead person and may provide happiness for the person doing it, most of us would say that it shows disrespect for the deceased and lowers oneself as well. It is unprincipled. We need to understand the difference between economic harm, harm in terms of consequences and effects, and non-economic harm, harm in terms of principles and integrity.

[4] Equality and Fairness
Finally we must understand that treating people unequally does not entail treating people unfairly, just as treating people equally does not entail treating people fairly. I quote the "principle of equality" from Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. "It is unjust to treat people differently in ways that deny to some of them significant social benefits unless we can show that there is a difference between them that is relevant to the differential treatment." [1] In other words, sometimes treating people equally is just, sometimes unjust. It depends on relevant differences between the two things in question. For example, if one convicted criminal steals a watch and another kills ten people, we would certainly not give them equal punishment. That would be absurd and unfair. There are relevant differences between the two, justifying unequal treatment.

This country was founded on the idea that we are created equally (no one is sub-human or super-human) and that we deserve equal opportunity. It was not founded on the idea that we are all equal in every aspect of our lives (some of us are better looking than others, more intelligent, more talented, more determined, and our circumstances and contexts differ too) or that we deserve to always be treated equally at all times (we do not treat criminals equally if they have committed unequal crimes).

So to wrap up this introduction, the debate over gay marriage has nothing to do with whether or not gay people can get married, (they can). It has nothing to do with whether or not gay people they can have loving and committed relationships (they can). It cannot be based solely on consequences but must include a consideration of principles as well, and it must understand the principle of equality. Only with these considerations under out belt can the cases for and against gay marriage commence.

The Argument

[1] Imbalance
The reason why we should grant heterosexual couples the right to marry but not homosexual couples is because there are differences between the two couples that are relevant to marriage. Homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to certain aspects relevant to marriage, so why should they receive equal treatment in regards to marriage?

Here is a run-down of the list:

[1.1] Biological Imbalance
In a heterosexual relationship, the man"s body provides sperm and the woman"s body provides eggs and when these come together they can produce offspring. Heterosexual relationships can bring offspring into existence. Homosexual ones cannot. Heterosexual relationships can ensure the survival of the human race. Homosexual ones cannot.

If you gave homosexuals their own country (a country where only gay people lived), in a century it would be empty because there would be no way to procreate. Homosexual relationships depend on heterosexual relationships for their very existence.

[1.2] Genital Imbalance
The genitals in a heterosexual relationship fit together like a hand and a glove, like a key and a lock. They complement each other. There is balance. Not so with homosexual relationships. You cannot fit a penis into another penis. You cannot fit a vagina into another vagina, just as you cannot a key into another key or a lock into another lock. Homosexual couples could resort to anal sex, but that is both unsanitary, unhealthy, and at odds with how the body works (the anus is an exit).

[1.3] Holistic Bodily Imbalance
Men"s and women"s bodies as wholes also complement each other. Men bodies, in being larger, more muscular and rugged and women"s bodies in being softer, suppler, smaller, and suppler, complement each other and balance each other out. There is symmetry in heterosexual unions, but not so in homosexual couples. Either the maleness or the femaleness is missing.

[1.4] Spiritual Imbalance
The same principle behind physical maleness and femaleness applies to men and women"s minds as well. Men, in having a more rugged personality, are complementary to the tender personalities of women. Homosexual relationships lack either of these, or only have both because one member in the gay relationship or both of the members is trying to play both roles, the role of the woman and the man, not being a full man or a full woman.

[1.5] Imbalance For the Children
If a same sex couple adopts, the imbalanced sexual relationship between two same sex people also deprives the child of balance. Every child deserves a right to a mother and a father. I"m sure gay couples can raise kids fine, but that is beside the point. Again, its not just about the consequences, but the principle. I have a friend who grew up without a dad. He is just as successful as anyone who has both a mother and a father, but he has made it clear to me that he has been missing something for most of his life that he deserves. He was deprived of a father. That is not fair. To equate that kind of imbalance for the child with traditional marriages is illogical. Gay marriage is in principle wrong.

[could not fit conclusion, no more characters, but you get the idea, sources in comments]
Debate Round No. 3
Finalfan

Pro

I want to point out a very important observation. People are afraid! The unknown realm of homosexuality is beyond our control! It is unknown to us because we are heterosexuals. I invite you to experience the same empathy and compassion that I imagine you would give me. I just got married. My wedding was joyous and helped fortify the bonds of our families. When I proposed to my wife I was not thinking about the government or "society" I was doing it because of love (duh) and also to be recognized as family! I empathize for homosexuals that do not have the same opportunities to perform a right of passage that can help to reduce the fear and ignorance that might harm the relationship of everyone involved! I can imagine that gays do not have a lot of support from relatives. The last thing we need is the government enabling this behavior!

1.Not a bureaucratic robot
If a gay man marries a women it is an abomination of marriage because it defeats the purpose of marriage. Two people who have the love and commitment that I'm sure many homosexuals have can provide the same benefits that heterosexual couples and then some (adoption! I think gay people should have more right to get married than immigrants that wed to get a green card! (Not saying immigrants should not marry) Homosexual marriage would not exploit wedding vows to the same degree! I say that if you want to see there marriage as "sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken" that's your business, but standing in their way.. for shame! I am impressed in your ability to "lawyer" the situation from an objective perspective. But marriage is based on emotional and personal rituals that trump politics in this culture! There are many things that happen in the name of religion that I would love to change. But because of the personal nature of the topic, It will continue with impunity. Which proves that its not about "right or wrong" Only about who is making the rules!

2.No argument to respond to!
It is clear that you want to ban gay marriage without any reason!

3.Homosexuality = necrophilia, beastiatlity, pedophilia
I threw up in my mouth a little.. anyways I see where you are going with this but your misunderstanding homosexuality completely. It does not have anymore consequences than heterosexuality except for the environment that they live in. Any problems that I have ever heard as an argument stems from the hostility towards the minority. The real problem is the people who think they can control everything. Al that I am saying is that you have over stepped your jurisdiction. Again I invite you to experience empathy and understanding for homosexuals. Not disgust or fear!

4. Heterosexuals > Homosexuals
Different? Yes... Better? No... Different enough to be harmful? Absolutely not! The differences between the two is the fundamental premise for this debate! It is these differences that cause this conflict to begin with. What you are left with is one social group is bull dogging the lives of another, essentially depriving them of their freedom!

I'm running out of space and time so I will make this brief!

1.1 Procreation!!!
This argument would make sense if everyone was gay. Then I would be afraid of extinction. The concept of the "gay island" only proves a society does in fact need procreators, however homosexuals getting married is not even a variable in that argument. I would argue that they have an even greater purpose. Adoption!! This planet is bursting at the seams. Not only with the exponential population growth but also with the orphaned and impoverished children that are already born today. So in a sense. Homosexuals are more important for the survival of our species!

1.2 Yucky!!!
Why did you even bring that up? Does not support your case!

1.3 I see a pattern.
The aesthetics of the human body should hold no weight in the decision to ban gay marriage! Again Why did you even bring that up?

1.4 sissy boy and the butch!
A lot of homosexual couples follow the same archetype I can go further with this but not without being offensive!

1.5 Gays make bad parents
I'm not going to make you provide evidence for this because it is exhausting to argue this claim. I know for a fact that homosexual couples are a very important asset BECAUSE they provide love and a good home to many children even as we speak. I will say that banning gay marriage is a bane in the relationship of the gay family system. Letting them marry would help support a healthy tolerance for the gay community allowing the to become better parents.. and in fact better people!

I would not be surprised if you detest my debate style. But in a topic like gay marriage.. Opinion reigns supreme! Facts just do not support your claims! It is homophobia (irrational fear of homosexuality not hatred of gays) That fuels this malicious campaign. You might think that is a copout since I don't know you. But if you believe the nonsense you provided as "evidence" then it has become perfectly clear that you are afraid! Don't you just want to punch me in the throat!!
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Pro has disappointingly decided to not address any of my arguments and simply rely on rhetorical talking points in his post. I will explain everything that he did wrong.

[1] Individuals and Relationships
Pro ignores my argument that support for gay marriage is usually based on a misunderstanding of the issue itself. Many gay marriage supporters, including Pro himself, say that gay people should have the right to get married. Of course, they do have the right to get married. This is not about an individual"s right to marry, which is protected by the constitution. It is about a couple"s right to marry, which is not always protected by the constitution. Pro does not address any of this and instead provides an incoherent wall of text containing vague unconnected ideas.

[2] Relationships and Marriage
Pro ignores my argument that opposition to gay marriage does not entail opposition to gay people loving each other and hence the exceedingly common remark that gay couples should be allowed to marry because it is wrong to prevent people from loving each other is rediculous. He just asserts that I oppose gay marriage for no reason. He gives no argument for this.

[3] Consequences and Principles
Pro ignores my argument that just because something is not harmful in consequence does not mean it is not harmful in principle. He just says that I should have empathy towards gay people, but I do empathize with them. I know that they did not choose to be gay and have faced hardships because of that, but that is no reason to support gay marriage. Pro has not addressed what I said and has given no support for his assertion that my argument is based on fear and disgust.

[4] Equality and Fairness
Pro ignores my argument that unequal treatment does not entail discrimination. His title "heterosexuals > homosexuals" is a mischaracterization of my position, which is about the couple, not the individuals or their sexual orientation, see [1] Individuals and Relationships. He again makes a rhetorical assertion that I am "bull=dogging" a group of people. Unless he has an argument for this, it is no good, and my argument still stands.

THE ARGUMENT

[1.1] Biological Imbalance
Pro ignores my argument that same sex couples cannot achieve procreation, and hence should not be equated to heterosexual couples that can procreate. Instead, he wildly misrepresents my view as saying that humanity will become extinct if we allow gay marriage. Nice try, but I never said that. He needs to address the argument that I was making, not some other claim that he just pulled out of thin air. He says that an even greater purpose is adoption. First of all, I don"t how anyone can quantify the belief that is it greater than procreation. Children cannot be raised if they cannot be born, so procreation is at least logically necessary for adoption to take place, so being born might be more important, but either way, both are important, even if one is more important than other, but homosexual couples cannot provide the former. And second, I never opposed gay adoption, I oppose gay marriage. That"s what this debate is about. Pro still needs to address my argument.

[1.2] Genital Imbalance
Pro ignores my argument that same sex couples cannot achieve the sexual union that a heterosexual couple can, and instead asserts that this does not support my case. I argued that it did. If he does not think so, then he should explain why. He needs to address my argument. As I explained in preemptive point #3, principles matter in marriage. Marriage is not merely a means to an end. Pro did not address this, so my argument still stands.

[1.3] Holistic Bodily Imbalance
Pro ignores my argument that same sex couples cannot achieve the physical union that heterosexual couples can and hence should not be equated with heterosexual couples and says that this has nothing to do with the debate, and he asks why I brought it up. If he does not think it is relevant, then he should explain why, instead of just asserting it, and he should tell me what he does think is relevant (the economy? legal benefits?) what?) He doesn"t say.

[1.4] Spiritual Imbalance
Pro ignores my argument that same sex couples cannot achieve the spiritual union that a man and woman can, and just says that he wants to say something but cannot without being offensive. I don"t see how any rebuttal of my argument would be offensive, but either way, that is no excuse for not arguing. Pro is already being offensive enough by making rhetorical assertions and bumper sticker slogans instead of taking the debate seriously.

[1.5] Imbalance for the Children
Pro ignores my argument that same sex couples cannot provide the balance that children need and deserve that heterosexual couples can and hence should not be equated to heterosexual couples. Instead he appears to attribute a view to me that I never defended: that gay couples can"t provide any benefit to children and hence should not be allowed to adopt. I never said this, so his argument against it is irrelevant. We can always give gay couples a civil union and let them adopt without legalizing gay marriage. We do not have to choose between the extremes of legalizing gay marriage and giving no legal recognition whatsoever. And Pro could have at least provided evidence for his claims, but he did not do that either.

CONCLUSION

Pro is relying on a common fallacy known as "motivation speculation". [1] Rather than addressing my arguments, he simply looks for psychological motives behind my opposition to gay marriage. He believes that I am a homophobe, that I am afraid of gay people and that I my opposition to gay marriage is based on this fear. Unless he can offer some kind of argument for why he believes that, his case has no legs to stand on. It would be unfair of me to call him a heterophobe for opposing the traditional understanding of marriage. I am assessing what he says objectively. I expect him to pay me the same respect. And how does he know that I am not gay myself. Is he a mind-reader? And either way, why is he assuming that I cannot empathize at all with homosexuals?

Pro says that I "might think [his post] was a cop out because I don"t know him". Well, I do think he is coping out, but not because we don"t know each other, but because he completely ignored all of my arguments. At one point he says "I'm running out of space so I will make this brief". That is a lie. His posting was much shorter than mine and I had over a thousand characters left in this post. He just does not want to argue. He says I am "afraid" and that I want to "punch [him] in the throat!" Maybe that"s what he would like to do to his opponents but I am taking the high road.

Pro has failed to address my argument and he has presented no arguments himself.

[1] The Duck That Won the Lottery "Motivation Speculation"

Julian Baggini
Debate Round No. 4
Finalfan

Pro

I'm lost when you say that I ignored your post. I gave a response to each section. I had 30 minutes left before round was forfeited so I summarized. I told you to challenge me to another 5 rounds so we could properly address this issue! I'm sorry but none of your points actually give reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry

1.We have no misunderstanding. I know exactly what you are saying. It is simply wrong as illustrated by my reply! A gay man marrying a woman should be illegal. Your failure to recognize the love and commitment that is shared by homosexual couples only solidifies your obvious homophobia! It doesn't appear that you actually read my arguments (very common in debates)

2.You provided all of the evidence that I need that there has been nothing in your arguments that actually give reason for gay people not having the same rights. Again your attitude towards gay relationships is barbaric and completely void of empathy! If you are looking for evidence for this look no further than your own opinions!

3. If you believe the crap you have been slinging then yes.. no empathy. Plenty of fear and ignorance (yes I am trying to make you angry) When I see someone bully another, I hardly see the need for politeness!

4. Your argument perfectly illustrates my point. You are imposing your own values on people who are different from you. You are restricting their rights not the other way around. Do you think they are bull dogging the system to get married.. Absolutely not, they just want to have the same rights that you do! Stop using the word "evidence" because you have not provided a single shred of it yourself!

1.1 Again you keep saying that I am ignoring your arguments, when I look at my response it appears that you did not read it because I gave a simplified response to every single argument you made! The procreation argument was absurd. I proved that gay people adopting is far more important than procreation.. but you could care less about over population or orphaned children (apparently)

1.2 It was the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard for any subject. Again the fact that you think the anatomy of humans have anything to do with gay people getting married just furthers my observation that you are homophobic! I felt no reason to argue this concept because it is like saying that black people shouldn't vote because they have an afro!

1.3 I did ignore this a little. I know you want evidence to demolish your argument but again you provided none yourself, you used a simple observation (a very wrong observation) without any evidence. You have no reason to believe that heterosexuals have any more of a bond than the gays!

1.4 You think that homosexuals do not have a balance equal to heterosexual couples. But you provided no evidence. In fact 90% of your argument is based on opinion and bias observation. Stop asking for evidence unless you plan on providing some of your own!

1.5 Again, zero evidence and no basis for logic in your argument. If you want a proper debate. Have proper arguments that are not purely conjecture. Everything you have said points out an inequality between hteros and gays. This is exactly the attitude that needs to change. You are walking the line of bigotry and you represent the barbaric nature of Man. Also this argument has proved the control issues that have been the bane of human existence since the beginning of civilization!

You are relying on a common fallacy known as conjecture. You berate me with allegations that I ignored your arguments. Which is funny seeing as how I addressed every one of them Before you go demanding evidence, try finding some yourself! This debate was opinion based and your arguments were null and void of reason! I did take the low road on this one because I already knew going into this debate that you would not even read my responses. Instead you disregarded them as opinions. I replied in kind and was chastised for it. All of you debaters on this website need to see that there is a complete lack of trust among debaters leaving almost every debate a stalemate!
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Pro’s performance in the this debate has been shameful. He forfeited the second and third rounds despite the fact that he had three full days (not a half hour) to post something. Now he wants me to challenge him to a five round debate on the same topic? Why should I do that? He was the one who forfeited. He should challenge me again. Why don’t we just finish this debate?

[1] Individuals and Relationships
Pro asserts that a gay man marrying a woman should be illegal. How exactly is that an argument for gay marriage? And again he keeps ignoring the fact that gay people do have the right to get married. That’s not what this debate is about. It is about a gay couple. It is about the understanding of marriage, not an individual’s right to marry, which gay people already have.

[2] Relationships and Marriage
Pro still has not addressed my argument, but again relies on his rhetoric that I am “barbaric”.

[3] Consequences and Principles
Same thing. More rhetoric. I have nothing to respond to.

[4] Equality and Fairness
Yup, more rhetoric. I have nothing to respond to again.

[1.1] Biological Imbalance
Pro says he gave a “simplified” response to all of my points. If by “simplified” he means rhetoric that ignores everything I said, then yes, his response were very simple. Pro asserted, without argument, that adoption is more important than procreation. I explained why procreation might be more important but either way, it is important nonetheless, yet gay couples cannot achieve this, but Pro did not address this. He says that I don’t care about orphans. What? Did he not read where I said that I support gays adopting? This is about gay marriage, not gay adoption. Pro needs to stop changing the topic.

[1.2] Genital Imbalance
Pro even admits here that he did not address my argument. He says my argument is like saying that black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they have afros. I don’t know why he wants to stereotype black people, but anyway, this analogy is laughable. Your hair has nothing to do with voting, but sexuality (and the respectful use of it) is an important part of marriage. If Pro thinks that sexuality has nothing to do with marriage, or that marriage is a sexual free for all, then he should explain himself. His understanding of marriage justifies bestiality, incest, necrophilia, polygamy etc.

[1.3] Bodily Imbalance
He admits he ignored this too. He admits that he did not provide any evidence against this, and he asserts, without argument, that my observation is incorrect.

[1.4] Spiritual Imbalance
Pro again asserts without argument that my observations are incorrect. Until he can explain why, my arguments still stand.

[1.5] Imbalance For the Children
Pro says that I am bigoted merely for pointing out the unequal differences between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. Does that mean that society is bigoted for pointing out the differences between fully sighted people and blind people, and not allowing blind people to hold certain jobs because of that difference? Give me a break.

My argument in a nutshell is that there are five aspects in which gay relationships are not equal to straight relationships and hence do not deserve equal rights. We do not call things by the same name if they are not the same and we do not give equal rights to unequal things. It’s very simple. Pro has chosen to ignore this and rely on empty talking points and name-calling.

CONCLUSION

Pro has not responded to any of my arguments. He broke his rhetoric up into separate sentences and numbered them in accordance with my argument to give the appearance that he responded to my arguments, but anyone who reads them can see that they are all empty rhetoric. His responses are even interchangeable. You can take any one of his assertions for any of my arguments and stick them anywhere else and his post would sound the same.

Pro is not taking this debate seriously. He seems to think that he can win a debate by throwing big words like “bigot”, “homophobe”, and “barbaric” at his opponent. This is immature and it is no way to debate.

Meanwhile, throughout all his non-responsive rhetoric, he has not even attempted to make his own case for gay marriage. He makes neither positive nor negative arguments. He has completely failed to defend gay marriage. I contend that he should lose points for arguments as well as for conduct and grammar, due to his forfeits, mudslinging, insults, and careless argumentation style.

A lot of times debaters take troll topics and argue them seriously. This time, my opponent did the opposite, and he took a serious topic and trolled his way through it.

Sources

[1] Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking
D. Q McInerley

[2] Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues
Barbara McKinnon
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BrandonButterworth 4 years ago
BrandonButterworth
Bud, I don't want to argue with you. You don't seem too open-minded.

A word of advice though, if you ever want to win a debate, you might want to actually address your opponents arguments.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
I'm telling you it would take some extreme homophobia to think any one of those arguments even resemble a reason to infringe on the rights of others.. It is a sad day for America *tear*
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
5 reasons why straight people shouldn't get married

1. Then they will think its ok to procreate.

2. They will just end up fighting about money and crap.

3.Divorce rate is horrifying, Green card marriages, Drunken eloping in Vega...

4. If you put straight people on an island.. soon enough, they will fill that island with mouths to feed!

5.pee pees and vajay jays are yucky

There I guess straight people shouldn't be getting married either. You guys are clearly dealing with some teen angst.. so I will let your complete lack of common sense slide!
Posted by BrandonButterworth 4 years ago
BrandonButterworth
"It is clear that you want to ban gay marriage without any reason!"

He gave FIVE man! COME ON!
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
I will warn you "evidence" for either side in this debate usually come from bias sources.. meaning that if you look for evidence against gay marriage there is plenty out there to find. However if you want to support the gays right to marry, you will find a plethora of evidence to convince you. So this debate will not be traditional (like all of my debates) I wouldn't be surprised if this does not get accepted but I'm willing to battle anyone who does!

That was my opening. I was not interested in debating my 10th grade debate teacher. The traditional gay marriage debate is a waste of time, because what ends up happening is the people who are against gay marriage just start listsing a bunch of innocuous and irrelevant facts about nonsense leaving nothing to debate. I am left with the sour taste of homophobia from every argument without any reason for actually banning gay marriage. I wanted to get past the bull and find out from a real human being why gay people can't get married, I have yet to find someone who can answer that question!

btw here was what made me not want to debate you:

I ask that you please present your case in a readable, coherent manner. Number your arguments, provide titles to your arguments. Do not mesh multiple points into one. Give an introduction and conclusion to each post. Do not present too many arguments.

Red flag, someone is trying to control my debate!
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
You said that you "were very specific about who you wanted to debate with". What on earth are you talking about? You made it an OPEN challenge. Do you know what that is? And you did not say what kind of opponent you wanted

You said that I should feel "honored" that you replied to me. Well, if you start a debate, then it is your responsibility to reply anyway. That"s what debating is, my friend. It"s not about honor, and you are one of the worst debaters on the site, with a 16% win ratio, so forgive me if I don"t feel honored.

You say that you were repulsed by my attitude. I"d like to know why you felt repulsed. It was rude of you to forfeit two rounds, so you"re being a little hypocritical.

You said that you believe that banning gay marriage is about fear. So what? Some people believe that they are the reincarnation of Napoleon. That does not make it true. You need to give an ARGUMENT for why you believe that opposition to gay marriage is based on fear, not just ASSERT it. Maybe this is why you have a 16% win ratio.

Stop trolling
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
I did acknowledge your points. I nullified them with critical thinking. I invite you to do the same!
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
For some reason I feel no remorse. I am not under any heirarchy in this website. When I made this challenge I was very specific about who I wanted to debate with. Not someone who is up his own tushy about debating. So technically you should feel honored that I even replied to you at all. When I saw your accepteance post, I was repulsed by your attitude and did not want to debate with you at all. Then I saw your argument, which were completely arbitrary. I do strongly believe that banning gay marriage is about fear.. not necessarily hatred, however that is only to say that you have not said anything hateful.. only ignorant because of your irrational fear.. So yes I did throw out all of your arguments because they were not even arguments!
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
@Finalfan

Congratulations on your wedding, but that is no excuse for forfeiting a debate. If you do not have time to debate, then you should not be instigating so many debates. You need to be more responsible.

And this has nothing to do with ME keeping up with YOU. It's about YOU keeping up with ME. You already forfeited two rounds, and your response to my argument ignored most of my points. And it's not about ME getting angry, it's about YOU getting angry. Your post was childish and did not address any of what I said, and you accused me of expressing hatred against gays. That sounds like anger to me.

I already have presented a challenge to you with my argument. We have two rounds left, not five. If you're not going to take debate seriously, then you should leave the site.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
There it is.. Sorry I should have waited to start this debate. I was not as prepared for my wedding as I thought when I started this debate! If you think you can keep up with me and not get to angry debating with me.. present a challenge to me in another 5 rounds and we will see if you are homophobic or not!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BrandonButterworth 4 years ago
BrandonButterworth
FinalfanCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con, obviously for all of the insults pro hurled at him. Even to the point where pro said he was actually trying to make con mad. Arguments go to con, as pro simply claimed "It is clear that you want to ban gay marriage without any reason!" right after con gave five reasons. Sources go to con, obviously because con actually had sources, whereas pro didn't provide even one.