The Instigator
Crayzman2297
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
MasterKage
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
Crayzman2297
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,965 times Debate No: 19940
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

Crayzman2297

Pro

I would like to challenge you, MasterKage (alias "Aku") to debate the topic of gay marriage. I saw your other debate, and would like to revive/continue it.
First round is acceptance only, and I will allow you to offer definitions.
MasterKage

Con

==Acceptance==

Thanks for making this debate.
Obviously I have accepted.

==Definitions==

Gay: (In the context of the debate) of, relating to, or used by homosexuals gay rights movement> gay bar>.

Marriage: (same-sex marriage) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage>.

Constitutional: being in accordance with or authorized by the constitution of a state or society <a
constitutional government>.

Legalized: to make legal;
especially : to give legal validity or sanction to

Debate Round No. 1
Crayzman2297

Pro

Homosexuals are not gay by choice [1], and there is no scientific evidence to support any psychological or religious methods to "cure" it. The American Psychological Association has also acknowledged that homosexuality is in no way a mental illness. [2]

Mental Illness and choice having been soundly ruled out, it must be determined that homosexuality is
A: Natural
B: Harmless

Most counter-arguments for the case on Gay Marriage stem from the Bible, and its claim that homosexuality is in itself a sin. However, it is clearly stated through the First Amendment/Establishment Clause that the establishment of a national religion is unconstitutional. This means that the laws of Christianity (or any religion) have no place in Legislature. [3]

Religious arguments ALSO being ruled out, that leaves the (few) unbiased secular arguments.

I opt to let Con choose which ones he would like me to account for.

[1] http://www.avert.org...
[2] American Psychological Association, 'Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts'.
[3] http://law2.umkc.edu...
MasterKage

Con


I thank my opponent for their response.


Contention 1: Gay marriage will decrease world population.


Creation of offspring requires a sperm and an egg. [1] Females have a egg cell and males have a sperm


cell. Two egg cells would not create offspring, nor would two sperm cells.


Since offspring requires an egg and sperm cell, homosexuals would not be able to create babies, thus causing a significant decrease in population.


Contention 2: Gay marriage will decrease the significance of the institution of marriage.


The traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. If we allowed homosexuals to marry it would decrease the significance of the institution of marriage and further degrade marriage.


Sources


[1] http://www.provopulse.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Crayzman2297

Pro

I thank you for your arguments.

Rebuttals:

"Contention 1: Gay marriage will decrease the world population"
-First off, I would like to indicate the Con did not specify why a decrease in the world population would be a bad thing.
-Second, marriage would have no affect on this statistic whatsoever. People who are gay (married OR not) are most likely not going to have biological children of their own regardless.[1] Also, homosexuals may reproduce through artificial insemination or surrogate mothers. Legalizing Gay Marriage will not decrease the world's population in any way.

"Contention 2: Gay marriage will decrease the significance of the institution of marriage"
-How exactly would if decrease the significance of marriage?
-Legalizing gay marriage would enable a greater number of people to achieve happiness they desire. Legalizing homosexual marriage will not inhibit the ability of heterosexual couples to marry. Also, by saying "further degrade marriage", you are implying that marriage has already "degraded" without the help of the homosexuals. Legalizing marriage for homosexuals would be a milestone toward civil equality for all, and would solidify marriage as a bond of true love between two people.

Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to fully legalize same-sex unions. Prior to the decision to legalize, many critics made predictions very similar to the one you claim. Over six years later, and Massachusetts is doing well. In fact, they have the lowest divorce rate in the country [2]. If I were you, I would read the article that I just referenced before making your next argument.

Sources:

[1] Simple Logic
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
MasterKage

Con

==Rebuttals==

-First off, I would like to indicate the Con did not specify why a decrease in the world population would be a bad thing.

It's a "bad" thing because the homosexual population will eventually exceed the non-homosexual population. According to this U.S Census graph [1] on homosexual population. The estimated homosexual/lesbian population is over four million, the homosexuals/lesbians living in partnered houses is over one million, the homosexual/lesbians living in households with children is about three-hundred thousand. Note that this is just a census of the United States, and does not account for any other areas on Earth. This also doesn't account for homosexuals/gays who weren't willing enough to compete the census.

-Second, marriage would have no affect on this statistic whatsoever. People who are gay (married OR not) are most likely not going to have biological children of their own regardless.[1] Also, homosexuals may reproduce through artificial insemination or surrogate mothers. Legalizing Gay Marriage will not decrease the world's population in any way.

Let's examine each of the ways to artificially reproduce that my opponent mentioned.

Artificial Insemination: Artificial insemination, or AI, is the process by which sperm is placed into the reproductive tract of a female for the purpose of impregnating the female by using means other than sexual intercourse or natural insemination. [2]

There are two things that make this an unreliable method for artifical reproduction.

-Firstly, the success rate is between ten and twenty percent. Obviously this meager success rate shouldn't be relied upon. This requre several attemptes before actually achiveing successful reproduction. The average rate to aquire a reproduction using AI is five to ten attemptes. [3]

-Secondly, theres a significant amount of cost to AI's. The average cost for one session is three-hundred to five-hundred an attempt. Since the average rate to get a success is five to ten, let's calcualte the cost. So depending on the situation the average cost would be between one-thousand five hundred and five thousand. Obviously this is quite costly for the mearger rate of AI. [3]

Surrogate Mothers: Surrogacy is an arrangement in which a woman carries and delivers a child for another couple or person. [4]

-The cost for Surrogacy is absurd. On average it requires over one-hundred thosand [5]. Depending on the situation the cost could be greater.
For example, a surrogacy's fee is normally between ten-thousand and twenty-thousand, any legal or agency costs would generally be around fifteen-thousand to thirty-thousand.

-How exactly would if decrease the significance of marriage?

The traditonal marriage is between a man and a woman, so enabling homosexuals to marry would decrease the significance of marriage.

Also, by saying "further degrade marriage", you are implying that marriage has already "degraded" without the help of the homosexuals.

Yes it has. Traditonally marriage was the bonds of a man and a woman throught he course of both of their lifetimes. Now that we have so much divorcing, it has decreased the marriage aspect as well as the seriousness of marriage.

As you can see in this graph [6] of England and Wales at 1930 there is next to no divorces, yet in 2010 the amount of dicorces has increased to nearly one-hundred and fifty thousand.

Also, the United States has a much greater divorce rate than any other country. [7]

==Arguments==

-Homosexuals aquire more intimate abuse than non-homosexuals marriage.

1) This first graph [8] shows the lesbians/homosexuals with married women and men.
As you can see lesbians have the most percent in each catogory. Homosexual men, besides lesbians, have the greatest amount in ever catogory except rape.

2) In this graph [9] it shows the relations of lesbians and married woman and the relations of homosexual men and married men who get intimate partner violence.
Lesbians get 11.4% of intimate violence, while married women get 0.26%; homosexual men get 15.4% of intimate violence, while married men get 0.05%


Sources

[1] http://www.frc.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://health.costhelper.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://people.whatitcosts.com...
[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[7] http://www.nationmaster.com...
[8] http://www.frc.org...
[9] http://www.frc.org...


Debate Round No. 3
Crayzman2297

Pro

Con- you have enough sources to stock a small-town library, however many of them are flawed.

-First off, you have listed the number of homosexuals living in these United States. You have not explained your reasoning as to how this number will increase in any way, regardless of the number of married couples. Your source (1) fails to explain this either.

-Artificial insemination has a 10-20% success rate, [1] while traditional conception only has a 20% success rate. [2]
The cost of AI has no relevance to this debate, as I am certain that those who want their own children would consider any price a small price to pay.

-The cost of surrogacy also has no place in this debate, as it is still a viable option for homosexual men to produce their own children.

-"Enabling homosexuals to marry would decrease the significance of marriage."
Once again, you have failed to reason why allowing an alternative to something that is "traditional" is worse. Doing anything simply because "That's the way we've always done it" defies logic, especially in a society that is changing as rapidly as ours.
*also, permitting homosexuals to marry won't change "traditional" marriage at all- It will not remove their right. I am of the opinion that if you do not support gay marriage, then you should express that by not marrying one of the same sex as yourself, instead of attempting to govern how others should live their lives.*

The Divorce rate in this country is 50% for heterosexuals. [3]
You attempt to use this to argue that marriage has "degraded" enough already, and that homosexuals would only bring this number lower. Only 15% of homosexual men are in relationships lasting more than 12 years [4] according to your first source. This low number is unsurprising in a country where only 12% of its states allow homosexual marriage.

-Homosexuals acquire more intimate abuse than non-homosexuals marriage.
Your graph actually provides an excellent point in favor of of homosexual marriage-- note that the number of cases of intimate partner violence DECREASE SUBSTANTIALLY between "lesbians" and "cohabiting/married women", and likewise "homosexual men" and "cohabiting/married women". The graph (and the RELIGIOUS organization producing your source) did not care to did not care to compare married homosexual couples to heterosexual couples- rather, it compared "intimate partners" with married couples. Domestic violence is far more common among unmarried heterosexual couples. In fact, married women are LEAST likely to be abused, it being far more likely for boyfriends or lovers to be the cause of the abuse. [5]

Either way, can you justify eliminating same-sex marriage for ALL based on the actions of well below half of the gay community?

In closing, I will present some final statistics:

Communities with active support for homosexuals, including LGBT support groups (and a higher population of democrats...) have gay suicide rates that are on average at least 20% lower in.[6] Heterosexual suicide rates are also 10% lower in these communities.
If the simple preservation of human life is not enough to change your mind, then I feel sorry for the condition of your soul.

Homosexuals are functional members of society to the same degree as heterosexuals. Constantly vilified by churches and right-wing extremist, their lives are made that much harder by their constant battle with intolerance and inequality in this country. There once was a time when a similar battle was fought over civil rights and desegregation, where naysayers such as yourself heralded "the downfall of the country" should integration be legalized. Today, those same people are looked at and called "racists" by people of the modern day. Someday after civil equality is reached and homosexuality is recognized and accepted, people will view the naysayers of today in a similar light. By denying them the right to marriage you are telling them "your love isn't as good as everyone Else's", and you are treating them like a second class citizen. I live in America, the Land of the Free, where we are supposed to be the forerunners of the global civil standards. Discriminating against capable human beings and forbidding them their right to happiness goes against everything that this nation stands for, regardless of what past "tradition" has been.

For my last source, I will submit something poignant if unorthodox. There is a gay rights website operated by young supporters of gay rights. They use a combination of sarcasm and satire to express the ideas that we're trying to get across. Crude? Yes. Vulgar? Absolutely. However, through their portrayals of gay stereotypes and over-exaggeration they have been able to spread themselves near to the point of being viral. I would recommend you peruse this site before making your closing argument. [7]
*note- It is satire, so I will be very disappointed in your if I hear a claim that gays are more vulgar, etc; because of this. This would indicate that you took it far too seriously.


I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate.

Sincerely,
Thomas




[1]http://www.babycenter.com...
[2]http://www.womens-health.co.uk...
[3]http://www.divorcerate.org...
[4]http://www.frc.org...
[5]http://www.dm.usda.gov...;
[6]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...
[7]http://fckh8.com...
MasterKage

Con

==Rebuttals==

-First off, you have listed the number of homosexuals living in these United States. You have not explained your reasoning as to how this number will increase in any way, regardless of the number of married couples. Your source (1) fails to explain this either.

The amount of homosexuals in 1990 has increased sharply from, in 1990 the amount of homosexuals in the United States was 145 thousand, this amount has quintupled to about 780 thousand [1].

-Artificial insemination has a 10-20% success rate, [1] while traditional conception only has a 20% success rate. [2]
The cost of AI has no relevance to this debate, as I am certain that those who want their own children would consider any price a small price to pay.

My opponent made no attempt to challenge the meager rate of AI. The cost of AI has does have signigicance relevance in this debate. Like in many things, cost is a significant factor.

-The cost of surrogacy also has no place in this debate, as it is still a viable option for homosexual men to produce their own children.

Once again, the cost does have place in this debate.

Once again, you have failed to reason why allowing an alternative to something that is "traditional" is worse. Doing anything simply because "That's the way we've always done it" defies logic, especially in a society that is changing as rapidly as ours.
*also, permitting homosexuals to marry won't change "traditional" marriage at all- It will not remove their right. I am of the opinion that if you do not support gay marriage, then you should express that by not marrying one of the same sex as yourself, instead of attempting to govern how others should live their lives.*

Becuase, firstly, the traditonal marriage was shifted when divorce rates greatly increased. Divorce clearly worsens the instution of marriage, so wouldn't homosexual marriage.

The Divorce rate in this country is 50% for heterosexuals. [3]
You attempt to use this to argue that marriage has "degraded" enough already, and that homosexuals would only bring this number lower. Only 15% of homosexual men are in relationships lasting more than 12 years [4] according to your first source. This low number is unsurprising in a country where only 12% of its states allow homosexual marriage.

Exactly. Since 44/50 states don't have gay marriage. The majority of states have homosexual marriage, so why make it legalized further.

Your graph actually provides an excellent point in favor of of homosexual marriage-- note that the number of cases of intimate partner violence DECREASE SUBSTANTIALLY between "lesbians" and "cohabiting/married women", and likewise "homosexual men" and "cohabiting/married women".

Cohabiting: Cohabitation [2] usually refers to an arrangement where two people decide to live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship.

This does not refer to homosexuals or lesbians. All it refers to
two people.

The graph (and the RELIGIOUS organization producing your source) did not care to did not care to compare married homosexual couples to heterosexual couples- rather, it compared "intimate partners" with married couples.

If you had examined my source you'd notice it is the Family Research Council. I fail to see how this is a religous source.

Communities with active support for homosexuals, including LGBT support groups (and a higher population of democrats...) have gay suicide rates that are on average at least 20% lower in.[6] Heterosexual suicide rates are also 10% lower in these communities.
If the simple preservation of human life is not enough to change your mind, then I feel sorry for the condition of your soul.

This is not relevant to gay marriage.

There once was a time when a similar battle was fought over civil rights and desegregation, where naysayers such as yourself heralded "the downfall of the country" should integration be legalized. Today, those same people are looked at and called "racists" by people of the modern day.

Anyone who called disagreers with gay marriage are, quite frankly, idiots.

Racism [3]is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination.
Homosexuality is not a race, thus it can not be considered racism to disagree with it.

There is a gay rights website operated by young supporters of gay rights.

You, my opponenet, yourself admitted it was satire, thus isn't a sound source.

==Sources==

[1] http://igfculturewatch.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Another correction. Somebody vote the comments-thread S&G point against me. :)

In my first RFD post, I twice said something like:
: Pro wins on this issue, because
: a) Con never gave a plausible reason to believe that refusing to let gays marry will somehow cause
: them to reproduce more than they do now.

That's backwards. Con argued that letting gays marry would cause them to reproduce, not that _refusing to let them marry_ would cause them to reproduce.

(Come to think of it, he took both sides of that issue, simultaneously blaming SSM for depopulation and claiming it would cause them to reproduce.)
Posted by Crayzman2297 2 years ago
Crayzman2297
@Wiploc-

Thank you for your very thorough examination of our debate; You have pointed out things I could have done better, and I will do my best to take those to heart in my future debates.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
: *Facepalm*
:
: I didn't read it correctly.

That gives me a rush of good feeling. Thank you for admitting fallibility in a forum where people so often just dig in and insist they were right all along. It gives me hope to see people reach agreement on something, even something so small as this.
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
*Facepalm*

I didn't read it correctly.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
: There once was a time when a similar battle was fought over civil rights and desegregation, where
: naysayers such as yourself heralded "the downfall of the country" should integration be legalized.
: Today, those same people are looked at and called "racists" by people of the modern day.

He's offering an equivalence. Something like: After blacks got civil rights, the people who opposed that are remembered as racists; so figure that after gays get their civil rights, the people who oppose that will probably be remembered as homophobes.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
===continued===

Con says gays get beat up more than straights. Once again, he doesn't relate this to marriage. Are they getting beat up because they are married? Is Con protecting them from this abuse by refusing to let them marry? No explanation.

Pro says unmarried couples are more violent than married couples. Thus, allowing SSM should decrease the number of times they get beat up. This is a turn. Pro wins this issue.

Pro further claims that gays and straights commit suicide less where prejudice against gays is less. In effect, allowing SSM will save lives. However belated, another good positive argument.

Pro closes his final post with the eloquent reasoning that should have opened his first post.

Well, he actually closes it with some irrelevancies about some other web site. Both parties have been guilty of this, acting as if they can evade the 8000 character limit by incorporating other people's off-site arguments into their own. You have no right to make each other or your voters follow those links. You have to make your own arguments.

Con finally gives his rationale for believing that gays will outnumber straights. He still doesn't say whether it's good or bad, or what it has to do with marriage. Even if it were a good argument, we would have to ignore it since Con waited to introduce it until his last post, when Pro is no longer able to respond.

Conclusion:
Con raised two arguments against SSM. Pro refuted them both. Pro did make a belated case in favor of SSM, which was not refuted. (Even if we don't count the great case Pro made in the final round, there were positive arguments salted thru earlier posts: SSM reduces suicide, allows formal recognition of love, achieves civil equality.)

Victory: Pro.
Posted by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
I apologize for the last three lines of my previous post.
: Con says SSM will decrease the significance of marriage.
: Pro asks for a reason to believe that so he'll have something to refute.
: Pro does
Leftover gibberish, pushed to the bottom of my post, that should have been deleted.

Now we continue my RFD:

===

Con says SSM will decrease the significance of marriage. Doesn't say why we should believe this. Doesn't say whether it would be a bad thing if true.

Pro asks how Con figures that, and also comes up with a positive case: Legalizing SSM will create civil equality and let gays solidify their marriages. This may be a turn, if solidification increases significance.

Pro points out that a state with SSM has lower-than-average divorce rates. I don't see what that has to do with anything now, but it's prescient. Once Con claims that rising divorce rates decrease the significance of marriage, then this will serve as refutation. We readers of this debate have no reason to believe gays divorce more than straights. Therefore, since that is the test Con provided, we have no reason to believe that SSM will decrease the significance of marriage.

Con says traditional marriage is heterosexual, so SSM will lessen its significance. In other words, he has repeated his claim without explaining or defending it. Does letting blacks into the military decrease the significance of military service? (Note that Pro didn't make that blacks-in-the-military argument. I'm not arguing for him. I'm just illustrating that I'm watching for Con to offer an explanation of why SSM would educe the significance of marriage. Con made the claim; Pro asked for an explanation; Con restated the claim in more words; we're still waiting for a reason to believe it.)

Now con says divorce corrupts marriage, validating the prescient refutation mentioned above.

===continued===
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
There once was a time when a similar battle was fought over civil rights and desegregation, where naysayers such as yourself heralded "the downfall of the country" should integration be legalized. Today, those same people are looked at and called "racists" by people of the modern day.
Posted by Crayzman2297 2 years ago
Crayzman2297
@MasterKage

I wasn't calling opponents of gay marriage racist: I was comparing them to racists.
Posted by MasterKage 2 years ago
MasterKage
@Wiploc

My post meant to be,

Anyone who called disagreers with gay marriage racist are, quite frankly, idiots.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 2 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Crayzman2297MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had better sources overall, for one thing, and the rebuttals and arguments were very strong. CON seemed to have a hard time arguing against them.
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 2 years ago
WriterSelbe
Crayzman2297MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious winner. Unrelated evidence and charts on the Con.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Crayzman2297MasterKageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: A good debate. Both sides did well and therefore both recieve their due from me.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
Crayzman2297MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
Cobo
Crayzman2297MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm only giving source vote because both sides strayed from the resolution and just talked about the effects of gays and marriage. Never did either side go into the constitutional part of the resolution.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Crayzman2297MasterKageTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: source go to con, but sorry I must say that he didn't defend his arguments well. They where strong arguments, but it wasn't defended. He was on the hill, but pro bombarded him and drawed him into a pincer movement. (analogy) But overall both did well. I hope more voters com, and i hope to see the final out come =)
Vote Placed by Korashk 2 years ago
Korashk
Crayzman2297MasterKageTied
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 never defended his assertions and in some cases never reasonably explained why his assertions were negatives. Even if he had, Pro ripped them apart.