The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,695 times Debate No: 22151
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




16kadams told me I should do a Gay Marriage debate, so here we go.

We'll be debating about gay marriage. Meaning that this debate will be about marriage between homosexual couples which includes both gay and lesbian couples. This debate will not be about marriages that are stupid, or marriages that are dumb, or marriages that are n00bish, since gay can also mean these things (that's not hate-speech, I'm just pointing out that adolescents often use the word "gay" liberally). Since this debate is about homosexual marriage it is about same sex marriage.

The definition of same, is, same. The definition of sex, is, sex. The definition of marriage, is, marriage.

Also, since we are debating about same sex marriage, gay marriage, and homosexual marriage, we are also debating about lesbian marriage. Which means a marriage between a lesbian couple which does not exist (also, pigs can't fly. That's logic). This is because marriage is defined as a union between a heterosexual couple (don't ask for a source, you know it is). But since we know we are debating about words that contradict each other we thus know that we are debating about which word we should change. Now, personally, I think "gay", "lesbian", "same-sex", and "homosexual" should all have their meanings changed to mean "as though they were not". So you could be like "Hey, you're a gay fish", which means that you're not a fish. However, I don't think Pro will agree with me on that. Thus the REAL debate is about whether "marriage" should be redefined so that it includes unions between heterosexual unions so they can have tax benefits and all that.

Also, this debate is NOT, and I repeat NOT about transexual couples. This is very important. Do not turn this debate into a debate about transexual couples. Because I don't even, man. I don't even.

If you argue semantics you thus declare yourself to be a n00b and forfeit the entire debate.


1. R1 is for intro, definitions, and acceptance (no ACTUAL arguments, please)
2. Make some sort of spelling or grammatical error in R1.
3. Be nice to me because I like you, but I don't like like you. So don't get that idea.
4. Make good arguments because if you don't I'll call the police.
5. Never mind.
6. No new arguments in R4. Srsly.

If you accept this debate I love you unless you turn this debate into a debate about transexual couples because the psychological implications of debating about transexuality far outweigh the pros to such an exchange.

Also, to clear things up this debate will not be about gay fish because I have neither the time nor the tolerance to debate about gay fish. This debate is about marriages between one man, and another one man. Or, this debate will be about a marriage between one woman, and another one woman.

In addition, this debate will not be about marriages between members of another species because that's honestly weird. I know that my subjective opinion is irrelevant but I just don't want to debate about marriages between like two dogs or whatever.


Introductory remarks

I‘ll start by saying a big thank you to Con for the chance to debate this topic. As I understand it, both of us are debating this for the first time, and we both truly believe the positions we hold in the debate, which usually makes for an interesting conversation. Given that the first round is merely for definitional and introductory purposes, I’ll restrict myself to holding off on presenting arguments until the next round. In my opening round however, I would like to provide some clarification on the debate resolution, as well as provide a foundation upon which both Pro and myself can utilise, so as to ensure that we understand each other, and that the debate provides a genuinely useful exchange of ideas. As Con helpfully clarified in the comments (1), this debate is whether or not marriage should be interpreted as exclusive to heterosexual couples. As such, both of us will seek to define and defend our own definition of marriage, with reference to the arguments we present in R2. With this in mind, let’s briefly clarify some definitional matters.

Defining marriage

Before I distinguish between the approach of Con and myself, I want to provide a pretty basic and impartial definition on the functional basis of marriage in society,

Marriage - “a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship . . . an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. “(2)

Obviously, there are additional criteria for marriage which we would recognise, so I would add (just to be clear) that this applies only to consenting adults, and that it is a relationship recognised by the state , both in terms of the legal permutations (spousal rights), and social consequences (e.g. state benefits and such) for those who enter this relationship. If Con wants to add or clarify anything, he can do, but for the purposes of the debate, I think this gives us a sufficient platform to explore our differences.

Where Con and I differ is in our approach to the availability of marriage:

Traditional Marriage (abbr. - TM) - “Marriage is the lifelong commitment and faithful union of one man and one woman. As such, marriage is the natural basis of the family because it secures the relationship between biological parents and their children.” (3)

Such a definition excludes same sex marriages. In laymen’s terms, it is the view that the institution of marriage should be preserved for one man, one woman, as Con indicates. This I take to be Con’s position.

Same Sex Marriage (SSM) - The ability for homosexual couples to enter a contract which is identical in the eyes of the law and society as that of a heterosexual marriage. This what we might call the inclusivist approach to marriage, as it extends already existing marital rights to include couples of the same sex. This is synonymous with Gay marriage, although the label is perhaps a little more clear of including both male and female homosexual couples, which Con indicates is his target (4). This is the definition of marriage I will be defending.

In the debate, my role therefore will be to justify SSM, while Con will try to argue of the virtues of preserving the traditional concept of marriage.

Scope of the debate

It is thus far unclear whether Con plans to argue against SSM from a legal, moral or political point of view. While I certainly think that the moral aspect of allowing or denying SSM is probably the most important, any of these approaches, or a mixture of all 3, would be fruitful in analysing both the current state of affairs, with respect to SSM, as well the implications of implementing a change. Given that Con will start off the debate, I’ll leave it to him to see which aspect(s) he wants to emphasise, and then I’ll respond accordingly.

Lastly, the usual accepted standards of debate apply here. Both Con and I will strive to offer public, (and as far as possible) objective reasons for our stated positions, and the possible effects they might have. Any reason which merely amounts to personal distaste, or any effect which has no tangible difference on the real world should be discarded. As I said however, this is pretty standard, in fact one could even say it is necessary for debating, as without which we would be merely sharing personal attitudes rather than contending what is an important issue.


With this, we now have a relatively fertile stage to advance the debate. All that’s left to do is to thank the readers in advance, and to welcome Con to make his case.

Sources and endnotes

1. “We're debating about the definition of marriage and whether it should be changed. In the end, my definition will be different then yours. But that's the whole point of the debate. You can post your offered definition of marriage and give arguments to support it.” (CON) Comments section
4. “since we are debating about same sex marriage, gay marriage, and homosexual marriage, we are also debating about lesbian marriage.” (CON) R1

Debate Round No. 1


SuburbiaSurvivor forfeited this round.



Unfortunately, Con has forfeited his first round. As it is necessary for us both to justify our own definition of marriage, Con simply must present a case of his own, as well as showing my arguments to be unsound. Given that he has only 2 rounds left to do this, I wish him the best of luck.

I also trust that voters will vote accordingly with respect to conduct, in light of the forfeit.

The case for SSM (Gay marriage)

I must confess to being almost completely at a loss to see the controversy here. The fact that we’re even debating this issue toady is testament to the fallibility (to put it mildly) of human nature, and I firmly believe that those who oppose gay marriage will be seen in the same sobering historical light as those who defended slavery and other such abhorrent practices.

However, as this is a debate, it’s incumbent upon me both to provide arguments, and not merely rely on my own moral indignation. As such, I will seek to provide justification for the definition of marriage I sketched out in R1, with an eclectic case for SSM.

A1 - The presumption of liberty

“It’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic right as someone else.” (1) - Jon Stewart

Before, I make the argument here, I first want to establish that marriage is indeed a right (2). As Con is American, I will simply refer to the Supreme Court, who has, on 14 occasions, ruled that marriage is indeed a fundamental right. To use just one example,

“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival“ (3).

Given this, the argument here, like the presumption of innocence, seeks to address where the burden of proof lies. It can be formalised thus:

P1 - If we are going to differentiate rights based on factors like sexual orientation, we should have overwhelming evidence that such an intervention is necessary for the public good.

P2 - Denying the right of marriage to same sex couples is based upon their sexual orientation.

C - :., We should have overwhelming evidence that such an intervention is necessary for the public good.

If sound, this argument demands that whomever wishes to act towards differently towards gay couples, (as would be the case with factors like race and so forth), simply has to accept that they have a massive burden of proof to show society should favour one group of people over another, when it comes to the right of marriage.

Defending P1 - Here, I will simply utilise the concept of Rawls’ veil of ignorance. The basic idea of this is to imagine a situation where:

“ no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like.” (4)

Clearly, without content specifics, we would all accept P1 as a pretty important rule. If we didn’t know which criteria the state would differentiate on (race, gender, and so forth), we would hope that any preferential treatment of one group(s) over others would, at the very least, be exceptionally well justified, indeed even allowing that such a decision could even be so. To argue against P1, Con will have to argue against not only a principle pretty well enshrined in our moral sensibilities, but also one which features prominently within Western liberal democracy, including the US founding documents.

Defending P2 - This I take to be a tautology. Traditional marriage necessitates differentiating between heterosexual and same-sex couples, solely based on sexual preference. As such, P2 is true by definition.

If this argument is true, it means that any treatment of couples must be equivalent, unless Con can provide this massive support to warrant differentiation. If there is any doubt to the efficacy of his case, we should all presume liberty. The importance of such a high standard of proof is heightened even more however when we recognise that gays are a historically persecuted minority, especially in the eyes of the law. The existence of sodomy laws (5), for example, is just one such instance of bigoted and hateful persecution of gays which was (in many cases) legitimised by the legislature.

Unless and until, Con can meet this massive burden, which he hasn’t even begun to do, we are justified seeing SSM as the option which preserves liberty for all.

A2 - Institutionalised bigotry

Treating same sex couples as morally inferior or deviant, which exclusory marriage does, perpetuates and crystallises bigotry, and does so with the approval of the state. Life choices or preferences are matters for the individual to decide, if this action does not harm or affect other people. As the bumper sticker quips, “If you don’t like SSM, don’t have one.”

Furthermore, bullying towards gay and lesbian teens is rife, perhaps even 3 times as much as their heterosexual peers. This can also lead to an increase in the rate of physical and mental health problems for these teens later on in life (6). Witness also the stream of horrendous violence against the gay and lesbian community, the most tragic example of which was the brutal torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, a crime committed solely because of hatred towards homosexuality (7). It’s clear that state-sponsored discrimination towards homosexuals is tacit approval of the mindset which treats gays and lesbians as inferior to heterosexuals, or as a group to be dehumanised. An embodiment of such discriminatory action by the government by denying SSM simply perpetuates the conditions for this hatred, and as such, we should seek to eliminate it.

A3 - Equality

By denying SSM, a homosexual couple will be arbitrarily cut off from many benefits and privileges afforded to their heterosexual counterparts:

“Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse…” and many other sides. (8)

Provision of many of these benefits would not even be monetarily based, so denying these rights to one’s life partner because they are of the same sex seems unnecessary, cruel and a massive encroachment on the private affairs of individuals, especially when this can be so easily remedied by allowing SSM.

A4 - Extension of marriage

This last point is relatively simple. Given that we both (I would presume) agree that society should maximise goods, and that marriage itself provides many goods (e.g. stability, health benefits, better commitment and so on) wholly apart from procreation, we should do whatever we can to encourage an increase in the number of marriage, and SSM would obviously help do that. As such, SSM would help maximise the benefits of marriage, by extending these benefits to a greater number of loving couples.


Although there are these arguments, and many more to justify SSM, I ultimately do this just, well, obvious. It really is an appalling indictment of where we are that people have to justify such basic and fundamental human desires as marrying the person they love.


2) Several of the points made are taken from Freeman in his excellent debate here
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I'd like to apologize to both the audience and Pro for forfeiting the first round. I except no punches to be pulled on that conduct point. However, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and commend him for a clearly well-put case. His passion is clearly evident in his writing, and thus I am honored to debate him on such a controversial subject.


As pointed out in Round 1, the primary focus of this debate will be on three crucial points:
    • What marriage is.
    • The purpose of marriage.
    • Marriage as a fundamental right.
In regards to marriage, my opponent essentially advances the argument that:
    1. Homosexual couples have a right to get married to each other.
    2. Homosexuals are denied this right soley based on their sexual orientation.
    3. Denying this right reinforces and promotes bigotry and/or bullying.
While I'd like to point out that these are clearly condensed versions of Con's arguments and I am not attempting to commit a straw-man fallacy. Hoewever, I do believe these points accurately depict Con's arguments and I will attempt to make my own case as well as simultaneously rebutting my opponents case.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to give a direct rebuttal to Pro's arguments due to the fact that I still have to make my own case. However, I hope to answer his main objections in my opening argument.

What Is Marriage?

Marriage is an elevated societal status that facilitates procreation and childrearing [1]. Therefore it is defined as a union between one man, and one woman, which constitutes a procreative-type union. While many argue that marriage is about promoting a loving and lasting relationship between two individuals, this is merely an aesthetic perk to marriage, and is not the primary purpose of marriage. The Institution of Marriage exists for the very reason that the State has an interest in procreation [2]. Seeing as how the State presides over society, and society is made of human beings, the further creation of human beings to further society is of paramount interest to the State. Therefore since it is in the State's interest to facilitate procreation and child-rearing, it is in the State's interest to create an elevated societal status that gives special recognition (which helps to facilitate procreation) to procreative-type unions.

This is the primary cause of concern in regards to same-sex marriage. The State has no interest in same-sex unions because same-sex unions are incapable of procreation. Anatomically, same-sex couple are entirely incapable of procreating. Thus the State lacks any interest in granting same-sex unions an elevated societal status because doing so does not further society.

Therefore we find that same-sex unions do not qualify as a marriage to begin with. Thus claiming that we are denying marriage to same-sex unions is inherently false, because same-sex unions are incapable of qualifying as a marriage. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, a bisexual man and a bisexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation because while their sexual orientation differs from the vast majority of most procreative-unions, they are still in a procreative-type union and therefore their union can qualify as a marriage.

Is Marriage A Right?

While both myself and Pro agree that marriage is indeed a right. The real contention is whether or not same-sex unions deserve an elevated societal status equal to that provided in traditional marriages. If so, then this would imply that there exists some right for any union between two human beings to be given the same elevated societal status as marriage. To contend this, I offer up the following argument (formulated by Contradiction of our very own DDO):

  1. Our rights exist to safeguard our flourishing.
  2. Human flourishing is determined by what is proper for human nature.
  3. Therefore, our rights derive from our human nature.
  4. Same-sex marriage is intrinsically contrary to human nature.
  5. Therefore, there is no right to same-sex marriage.

I imagine that Pro will not contest the first premise as any utilitarian would agree with it. If safe-guarding human flourishing is a universal goal, then our rights exist for the reason of continuing that goal.

In regards to P2, human flourishing is not being determined merely by our arbitrary human nature, but that which is proper for human nature. Essentially, what is proper for human nature is that which furthers human flourishing. Therefore that which does not further human flourishing is not proper for human nature. Clearly, procreation indeed furthers human flourishing as A) It brings forth human beings into existence (no human beings=no human flourishing) and B) human beings are necessary for human flourishing as a greater population of human beings is directly correlated with an increase in technology and agricultural advancement which aids human flourishing [3].

P3 logically follows from P1 and P2.

P4 at first appears to be the weakest link in this argument until you re-examine the previous premises. Same-sex marraige is intrinsically contrary to human nature not because homosexuality is wrong (the morality of homosexuality is irrelevant in this debate), but because same-sex marriages do not further human flourishing. In principle, same-sex marriages do nothing to further human flourishing in that they offer nothing to society of anymore value then two human beings who are not in a union, therefore, they are intrinsically contrary to what is proper for human nature.

Thus, the conclusion, there is no right to same-sex marraige.

In regards to bullying

Here Pro argues that in denying same-sex marriage, we are encouraging homosexual bullying. This is clearly a case of correlation without causation. Recognizing that same-sex unions are morally inferior to heterosexual unions is on the same grounds as recognizing that being a bachelor is morally inferior to heterosexual unions. That is, assuming we define that which is moral as being that which furthers human flourishing.

Of course, giving procreative-type unions an elevated status in society does not, in any way, encourage people to see homosexual individuals as morally inferior to heterosexual individuals. All human beings, regardless of sexual orientation deserve the same individual rights such as freedom of speech, a right to life, and the freedom to pursuit happiness. Those who bully homosexuals will continue to do so because of their personal biases whether or not SSM is legal or not. To decrease bullying you need to decrease personal biases against homosexual individuals, not legalize same-sex unions.


Finally, one must wonder, if the only reason for allowing same-sex marriage is because two individuals love each other, why not give friendships an elevated societal status? In fact, why draw the line at species? If procreation is irrelevant to marriage, what makes bestial relationships morally inferior to same-species relationships? Although these points are a bit of a side note to the main thrust of my arguments, I am curious to see how Pro will respond to these objections.

All-in-all, there exists no right to same-sex marriage, and the State has no reason nor interest in granting same-sex marriage.

[1] (a)

[2] (a);

Court rulings regarding the purpose of marriage:






My thanks to Con for an engaging last round. I'll get right to it.

The case against SSM

What is marriage

Here Con argues that the reason why marriage exists in the first place, and has an elevated status in society, is because “the state has an interest in procreation”. He argues that because the interest of society is primarily to both produce and shape future generations, the State rightly “gives special recognition (which helps facilitate procreation) to procreative-type unions.” As such, SSM is denied because they such unions are “entirely incapable of procreating”, which is the very purpose of marriage (or least accounts for the state’s interest in it).

There are, however, several fatal objections to this position:

1. “Procreative type vs. Procreative ability - First, Con’s sole reason for denying SSM invites us to make a very useful distinction between procreative-type (any heterosexual couple) and procreative-able couples (exclusively heterosexual couples who both have the biological means and the will to produce children). Given this distinction, Con’s argument completely falls apart. While he wants to say that all heterosexual couples should have the right to marry, he only provides justification for those able to procreate, for if the State recognises marriage on the basis of procreation, what possible reason could it have to differentiate between a heterosexual couple unable to procreate (because of infertility or desire not to) and a homosexual couple who are similarly unable to produce life? If the State utilises marriage for a goal (procreation), presumably all that matters is that its intended result is actualised. If a marriage can’t meet this demand, on such a view, it should be denied, which would exclude many heterosexual couples, as well as all homosexual couples from marriage, which Con, I assume, doesn’t want to do.

Con simply needs to answer why procreative-type unions which can’t produce children deserve the special status of an institution which he himself defines as directed towards producing children.

2. Secondly, there are better ways to promote the procreation of life, which would also allow for the inclusion of SSM. A positive welfare state, for example, could target specifically those couples who are producing children, helping monetarily, and practically (help with looking after children, etc) and so on. Indeed, such a system would not only avoid the exclusionary drawbacks of denying SSM and some heterosexual marriages, but would also limit special status to those who actually need it, through money and assistance directed at couples who actually have children. In fact, such a system already exists in the UK and elsewhere.

3. Using crude utilitarianism seems pretty dangerous here. Is Con suggesting that if overpopulation was a problem, we should ban marriage? It seems so, if one justifies marriage in such a way that it must meet the needs of the state.

Marriage as a right

Here, Con argues that because SSM doesn’t “further” human nature, then homosexuals have no right to SSM, given that our rights derive from our human nature. The problems with this argument seem manifest:

1. This argument essentially begs the question. I argued in my extending marriage point that there are benefits to SSM to society, and Con is yet to respond. As such, P4 (that SSM provides no value to society) is false.

2. The best way to maximise human flourishing is to maximise individual freedoms. As such, having the government dictate to individuals the morality of private choices seems completely at odds with our desire to “safeguard our flourishing”.

A related point to this is that western liberal democracies are built almost entirely on this principle of individualism, at least with respect to social issues. For example, it may benefit society in the short-run to dictate to an individual that they become a doctor, instead of a rock star, because there is a shortage of doctors. But living in a society where such measures are enacted would very quickly strip the individual to freely choose, and erode civil liberties based on what politicians decided was most beneficial for the public good. As such, I contend that what is best for human flourishing is to allow people to make their own choices, with respect to private relationships which affect only those parties who enter into such an agreement, which would obviously need to include SSM.

Slippery slope

This isn’t really an argument from Con, he just asks 2 questions suggesting that if we redefine marriage to allow SSM, why not allow marriage between animals, or recognise friendships as marriage. What I would say to Con is that marriage (as I pointed out in R1) is wholly based on consent. Only human adults are typically recognised as responsible enough to undertake similar contractual arrangements in parallel cases, so I don’t see why this would change if we are to include more people of this type (adults) when we introduce SSM. As for friendships, again it is to do with choice. The understanding of a spousal relationship and obligations is such that friends could indeed choose to get married, if they felt that their relationship met these conditions, but most friendships are qualitatively different relationships, and as such, simply don't require the provisions of marriage.

But I want to pose a slippery slope of my own. When we deny SSM, we don’t have to speculate on what the various negative effects could be, as Con does. Things like Sodomy laws and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are the real-life examples of having the government judge what goes on between private citizens in their own bedroom. Thus if Con really is concerned about a slippery slope, he should be in favour of SSM.

Con's sources

Just to add, almost none of Con’s sources work, linking instead to home pages. Also, using partisan groups, like the Witherspoon Institute and the Marriage law foundation to support one’s definition of marriage seems pretty circular.

The case for SSM

A1 - The presumption of liberty

A3 - Equality

A4 - Extension of marriage

As of yet, Con is yet to respond to any of these arguments. As such, regardless of the efficacy of his rebuttal to my second argument, we can affirm that we have at least 3 good reasons to justify SSM.

Extend arguments.

A2 - Institutionalised bigotry

Here Con responds to my argument by saying that correlation does not equal causation, with respect to denying SSM and homosexual bigotry generally, but I was making a slightly more subtle point. What I was trying to say is that one of the most effective ways to limit such hate is to practice public condemnation through social ostracism, ideally with the backing of the government. Such action has seen a partial shift in the way society views racism and sexism. Vocal supporters of such view such are rightly characterised by society as primitive and ignorant. Now such a move with regard to hate crimes against homosexuals simply isn’t credible, given that we have the State actively participating and perpetuating the view that homosexuality is somehow morally deviant or unnatural, which as I said, even if it doesn’t directly contribute to the huge increase in hate crimes, some of which escalate to murder (a view which seems wholly plausible in its own right), it certainly does optimise the conditions for such hatred by entertaining discrimination with the veneer of respectability. Granting SSM would be a massive step in eradicating some of the bigotry enshrined into State institutions.


Based on the debate thus far, we have 4 excellent reasons to affirm that SSM is justified in a variety of different ways. Only one of these reasons has even been addressed. As for the case against SSM, I have shown how the reasons provided by Con are incapable of justifying the traditional marriage viewpoint. As such, thus far, the resolution is undoubtedly affirmed.

Debate Round No. 3


Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to write up a full response. Therefore I concede. While I ask that we leave this at a tie, whatever the voters decide is fine by me.

These are the correct sources for Round 3:

[1] (a)

[2] (a)

Court Rulings


As Con explicitly concedes the debate, I urge a vote for Pro as the only reasonable action voters may take.

Con inexplicably asks for a tie, but given that I have answered every single one of his arguments in detail, and he hasn't even responded to 3 of mine, I see this as both a desperate and rather unsavoury attempt to prevent what should be an inevitable affirmation of same-sex marriage.

Given that Con was online for the past 6 days frequently, that I actually accommodated him by delaying my own posts to the last few hours to give him extra time at his request, and that he was the instigator of the debate in the first place, I find it utterly bewildering that Con seemingly can't even concede gracefully, waiting until the last minute, and then asking voters to consider leaving the debate a tie.

As such, I implore the voters to judge accordingly, and to see this as a promising debate spoiled by Con, and as such, a debate demanding a resounding Pro vote.

My thanks and apologies to the readers in advance.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
unitedandy, I'll challenge you to a rematch when I have more time.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Missed two... :(
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Hahahaha I'm so going to lose this. I barely even have time to write the last round.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
I was really busy. I thought I had more time...
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
what in the hell
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Really sorry about that, bro. I've been really busy. I'll make it up in the next rounds.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
:O good luck mate :) I can help you on the secular case against SSM though ;)
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Yup. We're debating about the definition of marriage and whether it should be changed. In the end, my definition will be different then yours. But that's the whole point of the debate. You can post your offered definition of marriage and give arguments to support it.

Keep in mind, by changing the definition you're implying that gay marriage should be recognized by the state and society, etc.

By the way, I was looking over some of your debates, debating is definitely not something you're bad at. This will definitely be a challenge. This is my first gay marriage debate, as it is yours, so this should be fun.
Posted by unitedandy 4 years ago
When you say that R1 is for definitions, do you mean that I can propose my own definitions and and then try to justify them in R2 with arguments, or is it the case that I have to accept your definition of marriage and argue that it should be redefined? You seem to point towards the latter, but given you allocate R1 for definitions, I'm unsure.

Either way, I'll give it a go.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Send me a challenge if you so desire, my friend. I'd be happy to debate this with you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a round and conceded....