The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Gay marriae should not be acknowledged by the Federal Goveronment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 91727
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

harrytruman

Pro

Rule #1- Google documents are not a violation of conduct since you could just as easily start a google document as I can.

Rule #2- Don't flake out/drop out of the debate because you're losing.

Rule #3- Respond to my arguments, you can't make up facts/ not respond to my arguments as was the case with my last debate on this subject.

Rule #4- We will have 3 days to respond to arguments, this does not include Shabbat, so If I post on Friday night, I have until Tuesday night to respond, which allows me or you to post a google document link 1 day before you intend to publish your argument.

Rule #5- If my opponent violates any of these rules, the voters must vote against the offender in the category coinciding with the violation, if you vote for him/her in a category which he/she violate a rule in, your vote will be reported for violation of these rules.
Danielle

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate.

I accept the rules and would like to note that the resolution refers to marriage (not marriae).

To be clear, I believe marriage is a spiritual contract that could easily be replaced with power of attorney rights. I also don't believe in governmental marriage benefits in general. However so long as the government recognizes heterosexual marriage, the goverment should absolutely recognize gay marriage and provide the same benefits to same-sex couples.

I look forward to an interesting discussion on the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge and now I will provide my argument. Firstly, this debate deals with whether or not the Federal Government should acknowledge gay marriage, not whether it is moral or not.

The constitution never grants the Federal Government, let alone the Supreme Court, the power to define marriage or to acknowledge marriages. According to the Tenth Amendment, this power should be left to the states respectively or to the people.
Danielle

Con

The United States Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals [1].

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law. Where there is conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law [2].

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868. It states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [3].

The 14th Amendment marked a large constitutional shift, which specifically inhibited the state's rights to discriminate as freely.

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when SCOTUS struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [4].

The Due Process Clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [5]. This essentially means the laws on record will be scrutinized for legitimacy in order to ensure people's rights are being recognized and protected. Whereas the law used to uphold outdated and immoral policy in the past, due process considers both the law as-written as well as the spirit of the law. Indeed we have made many adjustments throughout history; recognizing black people as free citizens and giving women voting/property rights are just some examples. The Equal Protection Clause looks to guarantee that all people would have rights equal to those of other citizens [6].

Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which Judge Vaughn R. Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner [7]. Afterward the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision along with a handful of other cases. This makes sense if you extend the same logic of due process and equal protection for gay couples. SCOTUS ruled that there was no reason to exclude gay couples from the same protection as heterosexual couples in similar relationships, which SCOTUS has every legal right to do.

The 14th Amendment posits that freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Gay Marriage is now the Constitutionally valid law of the land thanks to the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

[1] http://afer.org...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4] http://www.supremecourt.gov...
[5] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[7] http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

The Supreme Courts decision is null and void, Article 3 of the Constitution lists all the powers granted to the Supreme Court, and none of them include 'defining marriage,' and since there was never ant ammendment passed granting the Supreme Court this power, their decision is void and without meaning, you can see the constitution here. {1}

This may not apply to Loving v. Virginia, since the Supreme Court was granted the power to enforce the law, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 {2} says in Title 2 Section a;
"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

This does not apply to gay marriges, and for a number of reasons, I will post 3 reasons why this clause does not apply to gay marriage, and each one will have a few paragraphs to back it up.


Number one, it does not count as discrimination since the definition of discriminate is "[to]make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age." To refuse to acknowladge a marriage on moral grounds is not unjust, by doing so you are not showing prejudice and it is not on grounds of race, sex, or age.

It is not unjust since the definition of unjust is not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair, on the contrary, if this decision not to acknowledge gay marriages can be proven to be upon moral grounds, then it may not be defined as unjust. So, I will prove that gay marriges are immoral, thus denying them is not unjust, and therefor not discrimination. To prove this, throught history, marriage has always been defined as a) between a man and a woman, and b) a religious instituion. This has been true always, in Native American Culture, Jewish culture, Zoroastrianism, etc. Since when marria was invented, it has always been defined as betwee a man and a woman, this is the proper and correct definition, and anything otherwise, may be catagorized as sex outside of marriage, therefor immoral.

It is not a preudice since prejudice means to judge someones person based on sex, race, creed, etc. No one is prejudice against gay people since no one is making a biased statement/belief about them which has no actual gronds other than bias. For example, to say all Muslims are terorists would be a prejudice, while saying 'the Qur'an mandates them to be terrorists' is not. Thus, since no one is saying anything about the chracter of gay people out of bias bynot acknowlding their marriages, this is not prejudice. If someone didn't want to participate in /acknowledge a gay marriage because "all gay men are axe weilding murderers," this would be prejudice, otherwise, it is not.


Gay people would not be denied accomidation or equal protection undeer law if we chose not to acknoledge gay marriages. The reason for his is that itr isn't on account of them being gay, it is on account of what they want to be acknowledged. If a straight man wanted to have a false marriage acknowledged, he would be turned away too, if a Muslim tried to marry a nine year old girl, would not acknowladging his false marriage count as discriminating against pedophiles?

Since the claims of discrimination are on accounts of being deprived of a accomidation which is non-specific. Meaning, the acmidation is different for each person. For example, say there were a guy who wanted to drive into a military base, and the military prevented him from doing it, then he claims that he is being discriminated against, because he is being deprived of the ability to drive where he wants, while people who don't want to drive into a military base are allowed to drive whereaver he wants.


I've proven that any claims of discrimination on accounts of sexual orientation are not genuinely cases of discrimination. Keep in mind, according to the Tenth Ammendment, the issue of gay marriage should be left to the states respectively or to the people.


{1}. http://www.archives.gov...
{2}. https://www.ourdocuments.gov...
Danielle

Con

== Legal Arguments ==

Pro does not contest the Supremacy clause, and his entire argument crumbles under Marbury v. Madison [1].

This was a landmark SCOTUS case in which the Court formed the basis for judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. A federal court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review. Since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has claimed the final word on what the Constitution means, so state provisions that conflict must yield to those interpretations.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

— U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2

The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts [...] and writs of mandamus [...] to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

— Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13

Pro claims there is little to no link between gay marriage and Loving v. Virginia. That is false. The Supreme Court's decision on marriage is based on the premise that there is a “fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person” to marry. That right requires that the person be able to choose who to marry. “This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause" [2].

I should also point out that Pro's reference to Title VII is entirely moot, seeing as how that is a legal standard for EMPLOYMENT [3]. Every single one of his arguments on why sexuality should not apply to Title VII is irrelevant. Pro misrepresents the definition of "discriminate" and claims discrimination is only valid against the demographics protected under Title VII which is #1 wrong and #2 irrelevant. Discrimination is 100% legal and protected by the first amendment. It is only illegal in the case of employment, hence Title VII, and this debate has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with employment.

Pro then goes on to claim that gay marriage is immoral. That's interesting because he specified that he did not want to argue the merit of gay marriage, but whether or not the USFG (SCOTUS) has the legal authority to implement gay marriage at the federal level -- which I've already proven that they absolutely do. So for now I'll finish explaining why the USFG should acknowledge gay marriage, and then I'll address my opponent's points on the morality of gay marriage.

Many decisions by Supreme Court Justices have interpreted the Tenth Amendment to protect the powers that states have traditionally used as part of government that operates closest to the people themselves. "The bans on same-sex marriage in Tennessee and other states, the SCOTUS ruling said, must yield to that Amendment’s guarantee of equality in how a law applies to the most intimate relationship between people – that is, the choice of a life partner in marriage... From the Supreme Court’s view of the matter, this was an extension of the constitutional idea that race cannot be used as the basis for access to marriage (and divorce). The idea that people of different races cannot marry was ended by the court in 1967 in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Since then, the category of people who cannot be excluded from equal legal opportunity has been extended to gay people" [4].

== Moral Arguments ==

Pro fallaciously appeals to tradition in order to distinguish moral right and wrong. Just because marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman does not make it the moral absolute. After all, interfaith and interracial marriages were once banned by law, but we recognize that assuming the ways of the past are automatically correct is illogical.

Pro is wrong anyhow about marriage being between a man and a woman in every culture throughout history. Indeed various types of same-sex unions have existed all over the world throughout the ages, including ancient times through present modern day [5].

My opponent goes on to claim that "false marriages" are not recognized under the law, i.e. marriages involving children. This is irrelevant because the entire debate is about whether or not gay marriage should qualify as a false marriage. And why should it? Once again, marriage has been ruled 14 times as a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals. Pro has not proven that gay marriage is immoral, but rather gays do not have federal protection under (some) aspects of the law such as employment discrimination.

Pro writes, "Gay people would not be denied accomidation or equal protection undeer law if we chose not to acknoledge gay marriages." --- This is a completely nonsensical and redundant statement. He just said that gay people would not be denied equal protection if we chose to deny their equal protection. Che? What? Huh?

Essentially Pro's case is that barring gay marriage is legitimate discrimination, because sexual orientation is not a protected class under an irrelevant employment standard. But I noted that Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a 2010 federal court decision in which the Court concludes that the Constitutional right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner. Children do not qualify; they cannot enter legal contracts. However Pro has failed to prove or even explain why gay marriage in particular is immoral. He has only appealed to tradition and the (irrelevant) laws already in place.

Since we have a few more rounds to discuss, I'll let him try and address this moral issue if he so chooses.

I've already won the legal argument; the Supreme Court does have the authority to make gay marriage the law of the land.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] http://thinkprogress.org...
[3] https://www.eeoc.gov...
[4] http://blog.constitutioncenter.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

Again, the supreme court was never given any of this power, not to define marriage, not to include gay/bisexual people under the 14th ammendment or the Civil rights act of 1964. The Supreme Cout is given very few powers, those are 1) handle cases which have been appealed through the lower courts 2) facilitate law suits between states and against the federal goveronment and 3) enforce the law. Never to expound a law, define a law, interpret a law, etc.For this reason, the supreme courts decision acknowladging gay marriages is null and void, my opponent cannot come up with any clause showing otherwise.

The Supreme Court had no power to grant the American people any "right to marriage," as they claimed in Loving v. Virginia, or otherwise, only to enforce the law as courts do, that means they nullified state laws prohibiting interracial marriages as they violate the constitution, they weren't using their power by this since the supreme court has no legal power, they were only using legal power which was already there, i.e. the 14th ammendment.

And yes, this debate deeals with wether or not gay marriages should be acknowladged, the resolution isn't that it is immoral, thhis was only a key point backing up another point. Since the original definition of marriage is beteen a man and a woman, this is the correct definition, not definitions assighned later, for tis reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage, and thus should not be recognized as such.

Though gay marriages appeared before in history, they only go back to Ancient Rome, not when marriage was invented, thus, the original definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and in no other form. For that reason, gay marriage is not genuine marriage.

Danielle

Con

Pro claims that I "cannot come up with a clause" that shows the Supreme Court's decision was valid. On the contrary, I've outlined the Supremacy Clause (which Pro dropped). I've explained how SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to rule in favor of gay marriage. I've explained the Due Process Clause (which Pro did not successfully negate) and Supreme Court precedent in multiple cases. Right there I've already used two clauses of the Constitution to justify my case, so Pro is lying. Moreover I've explained how legal precedent and the Supreme Court works insofar as interpreting the Constitution and how they have done so justly.

Pro keeps repeating arguments that I have already negated which is a waste of time and character space.

For example, he writes "The Supreme Court had no power to grant the American people any 'right to marriage' as they claimed in Loving v. Virginia. I've already explained that the United States Supreme Court has ruled fourteen times that marriage is a fundamental right of all (adult) individuals - not just in Loving v. Virginia but in other cases which I cited with sources; see the first line of Round 2 for reference. This must be extended even if Pro ignores it.

Furthermore, I've explained pretty explicitly how the Court came to its decision in that case. Once again, the court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ergo, Pro is lying when he says the Court had "no power" to grant the people the right to marriage. They had that power 14 times and in the Loving case in particular, invoked 2 parts of the Constitution to validate their ruling. The Supremacy Clause gives them the power to use federal law to trump state law.

Pro continues to say that since the original definition of marriage included a man and a woman, that definition should remain the same. However this is a fallacious appeal to tradition which I've explained in the last round. Pro did not respond to the flaw in his faulty logic. Once again, just because something was written one way by law doesn't mean the law is justified or should remain the same. Please extend my examples of interfaith and interracial marriages once being illegal, but the law was rewritten to accommodate a better standard of morality.

Gay tax payers deserve the right to choose their marriage partners if their partners are other consenting adults. Pro has not explained why gay relationships or marriages are immoral outside of fallacious appeals to tradition and authority. Human sacrifice used to be legal. Only white males used to be able to legally own property. Surely the laws of the past should not always be upheld.

Gay people in loving relationships deserve to have equal protection and receive the same benefits, rights and privileges as their married peers. They are citizens whose relationships will not harm themselves or others.

Marriage is an institution that benefits both the individual and society as well as strengthens families. Families come in all different shapes and sizes, however, all deserve legal rights and protections. Children born to gay parents might not have the same protection as their peers with heterosexual parents. This is dangerous and unfair.

Couples in loving relationships who seek to make their partnerships legally official should be afforded that opportunity regardless of their sexuality. By Pro's logic, a man and a woman who are not in love (and may be gay) or barely know each other can get married, whereas two people of the same sex who are in loving relationships should not be able to marry each other. That is illogical. Sexuality or sex should not be the basis or criteria for marriage.

Gay marriage has little to no effect on the heterosexual community. It is therefore none of their business to dictate how other relationships and families are recognized. Gay people and relationships will exist (and seek legal protections) whether homophobes appreciate them or not. These couples should have hospital visitation rights and receive the same tax considerations; there is no reason to view them as separate from heterosexual married couples under the eyes of the law. Just because it makes some people uncomfortable is entirely irrelevant. The separation of church and state means religious people have no rhyme or reason to impose their archaic moral standards on others.

Promoting gay marriage means gay people will be more accepted. This will decrease depression and suicide amongst gays, and make people have an easier time coming out and being in healthy relationships they don't have to keep hidden or be ashamed of. Same-sex couples look to have families by having biological or adopted children of their own, and families deserve legal protection under the Constitution -- which is exactly what SCOTUS has ruled many times over, and rightfully so.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

None of these clauses grant the Supreme Court the authority to change the constitution or US law, none of them. The Supreme Court is only given the power to enforce the law, not to make any decisions about it exept on how to enforce it, never toexpound on US laws. I'm not repeating arguments you have negated, none of your clauses say what you claim they do, show me where.


And you tried to rebuttal my argument that the supreme court isn't given the power to grant the American people rights by saying "they ruled that people have the right to marriage." This is nonsense on my opponents side, here's what it is like, a police officer decides that eating pork is illegal, I ask who gave him the power to decide that, he responds by saying "I ruled that pork is illegal." Police officers are given the authority to enforce the lsaw, nothing more, just like the supreme court.


Yes, the Sureme Court has the power to enforce certain clauses, but not to decide what they mean or to add to them. The supreme Cout did have the power to decide segregation was unconstitutional, but if the supreme court decided that it also applied to peope based on gender, thus men should be allowed to go into the womens bathroom, that would be uconstitutional. Just like the presdent is allowed to goveron all actions of war, but not to declair war.


There is difference, interracial marriage was originaly allowed, banning it came long later. Infact any example of something bad that was once legal can be refuted, slavery for example was once legal, the issue is orgiinaly it was banned, so this would reenforce my argument. Human sacrifice used to be legal, but before that itr was unacceptable, and at one pint only white men could own land, but before that anyone could.


And sexuality isn't the criteria for marrige, just because some people want to marry someone which that institutn would not be real marriage, this does not entitle them to be treated as they want, only equal to the rest of us. That is, it doesn't matter wat you want, that isn't a right- getting what you want, you are only entyitled to what you earn. Obcourse, the Declaration of ndependance protects "the pursuit of happyness," for this reason homosexuality should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to be a part of it by acknowladging it.


And no one is sayng religious people have any right to dictate others lives, but if they don't want to acknowladge gay arriage, gay peole shouldn't be allowed to force THEIR ideologies on them. And really, gay people will never be accepted by those who opps homosexality, but always by liberals, and since no law can force consrvatives to support gay marriage under the freedom of expression, they will be accepted just as much as before, I'm sure no one will feel more acceptd because the goveronment decided o fore absurd liberal ideolgies on others.


Danielle

Con

Pro states that none of the clauses I've mentioned (Supremacy Clause, Due Process Clause, etc.) grant the Supreme Court the authority to change the Constitution or U.S. law. Apparently Pro has not read the last rounds thoroughly.

The Supreme Court absolutely and positively has the authority to make rulings on marriage cases. I've cited over a dozen examples throughout this debate. The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution [1].

Virtually all SCOTUS cases involve cases where the defendant (or state) appealed a state court decision on the basis that the state supreme court misapplied the law, or violated the U.S. Constitution. Ergo SCOTUS did not "change the Constitution" as Pro fraudulently implies, but rather INTERPRETED the Constitution as such to decide it provided equal protection for gay people/couples.

Since the role of SCOTUS is to interpret and apply Constitutional protection to U.S. citizens, and their ruling via the Supremacy Clause trumps state rulings, I have explained (many times) where SCOTUS' authority derives in their marriage ruling.

Pro writes, "The supreme Cout did have the power to decide segregation was unconstitutional, but if the supreme court decided that it also applied to peope based on gender, thus men should be allowed to go into the womens bathroom, that would be uconstitutional." This is not supported. Since SCOTUS could decide segregation and bans on interracial marriage were Unconstitutional, they could logically follow up with gay marriage bans being Unconstitutional. However Pro hasn't explained why not -- he simply makes an irrelevant point about gendered bathrooms (which are not Unconstitutional by the way).

Pro has no rebuttal at all regarding slavery, bans on interfaith marriages, human sacrifice, etc. except to make confusing and nonsensical comments on the legality of those things. My point was that all of those things were once legal - proving that the law as written is not always just, therefore redefining the terms for marriage might be justified.

Pro writes, "Obcourse, the Declaration of ndependance protects 'the pursuit of happyness,' for this reason homosexuality should not be illegal, but that doesn't mean we have to be a part of it by acknowladging it." Let the records show that acknowledging something does NOT equal being part of it. I acknowledge that abortion occurs but I have never been part of one. Pro nor anyone else is required to have a gay wedding or embrace gay weddings; only accept that gay marriage is the law of the land.

In the last round, I've argued at length why gay marriage is both righteous and moral. It protects people in loving gay relationships who simply look for equal protection and rights under the law. My opponent has dropped virtually all of my arguments on why gay marriage isn't harmful but is helpful.

I've used the other rounds to explain and repeat how SCOTUS has the authority to dictate marriage parameters by law, as well as outlined the specific clauses and legal referendums they have used to do so.

Thanks!

[1] http://www.supremecourt.gov...
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
== Constitutionality ==

Pro opens by talking about the power of the Supreme Court to "redefine marriage," which doesn't link to the debate, because the debate is not regarding the Supreme Court's decision in <em>Obergefell v. Hodges</em> -- rather, it is about whether same-sex marriage (SSM) <ins>should</ins> be recognized. Under an equal BOP (which holds since the resolution is normative), Pro has to present reasons to *not* acknowledge SSM, not merely reasons to not recognize the decision of the SCOTUS -- so this isn't offensive. Regardless, Con thoroughly refutes this argument. Con shows that the 14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection," and she cites <em>Loving v. Virginia</em> where interracial marriage was legalized in the state since the law against interracial marriage violated the equal protection clause. Pro says Article 3 doesn't give the Supreme Court power to redefine marriage, and that the case cited by Con was an exception because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Con has a very compelling response, that if the Civil Rights Act applies, the 14th Amendment applies here too. She also shows that the Supreme Court is actually given jurisdiction by Article 3 over such issues. Pro drops this, and also drops the 14th Amendment response, which gives Con the legal debate.

== Moral issues ==

Pro argues this in R3, which is strange since they opened in R2 saying moral issues are irrelevant. Anyhow, Pro's argument is that gay marriage is against tradition, so is "unjust," which makes no sense lacking a link between tradition and morality, and lacking the link between state action and morality. Con points out these two issues, which Pro doesn't adequately address, so Con wins this.

== Conclusion ==

Pro is dropping too much and doesn't win any sufficient impact against Con's constitutionality turn, so I vote Con. This vote is on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
*Vote
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
*Vote
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 4: Conclusion

With Con winning both arguments in this debate, I have to give the arguments points to Con in this debate.

This debate has been part of a Voter's Union vote.
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 3: Morality

Pro originally brings this argument up in R3 as he defines marriage as the traditional marriage between man and woman. He then goes on to argue how since it's tradition, then it should simply stay law in that regards. The issue with this argument is that he doesn't say why this is bad. He only argues for traditional marriage, but doesn't give the argument any harms as to why it's bad outside of it goes against tradition. There isn't any harms here on Pro's part so the argument doesn't actually carry any weight even if he wins it. Con, however, creates harms in this argument as she argues that there are lives at stake due to the discrimination they go through being unable to marry and their children face discrimination as well. Pro brings up the death suicide rate. Con moves on to talk about how same-sex unions have existed in the past and Pro's argument is negated. Pro attempts to refute by stating that there was homosexual marriage with the Romans, but that wasn't when "marriage was invented." This statement is rediculious as marriage wasn't really "Invented." Con's arguments in regards to suicide and discrimination in that regards is dropped.

With that I have to give this argument to Con.
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 2: Legality (Cont.)

After R3, Pro doesn't really bring up any relivant arguments and simply just repeats himself on a lot of his past arguments. I find it interesting that Pro brought up how it would be Unconstitutional to enforce Shiara Law, but yet he supports the traditional marriage, but I'll get more in to depth on this in the second section of the arguments.

With that and several of Con's own points dropped. Con wins this argument.
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 1: Legality

In this debate, the arguments can be broken-up into two sections: Legality and Morality. For this first part I will be going over the legality portion. Pro begins in R2 by stating that the Constitution doesn't give SCOTUS the Constitutional power to define marriage. Con, in counter, argues that the SCOTUS has done this 14 times before in the past recognizing marriage as a right. One of the important cases that Con brings up is Perry V Schwartzenegger which the ruling was stare decisis on the Virginia case which showed that marriage was protected in order to protect the individual's choice. This portion was dropped by Pro in this debate and it's important as it could have easily been used to talk about the Right to Choose in many other cases, so this argument is automatically flown to Con's side. To add to this was that Pro argued the Supremacy Clause in the Consitution showed that the Federal level over rides state level. The 14th Amendment had also ensured protection of equality which was another important case. Pro attempted to counter the 14th Amendment by claiming that the Article 3 of the Constitution doesn't give SCOTUS the power to make these decissions. It was purposely made to be very vague and left up to interpertation which was a point that I was surpised that wasn't brought up in this debate. Pro then moved on to claim that the Civil Rights Act and Title VII doesn't apply to homosexuals. Con brings up Marbury V Maddison which the SCOTUS created Judicial Review which gave them the ability to go and interperate Federal as well as State law and check their Constitutionality. Pro is confused by this, but Con clarifies that it's about interperting law and they are also given the ability to strike it down based on the law's unconstitutionality. She also moves onto show that Title VII applies to employment, not other rights that should/are in existance. Both of these arguments Pro ends up dropping as the debate continues.
Posted by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
Reading the debate now.
Posted by Boneyard 12 months ago
Boneyard
Good luck trying to get anything but parroted sound bites from Harry. I just finished a debate with him and it went the same way. Only with you he seems to have doubled his input.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 11 months ago
tejretics
harrytrumanDanielleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
harrytrumanDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.
Vote Placed by TUF 11 months ago
TUF
harrytrumanDanielleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V8EqjtHpDG_AdKibe334CSOG-B1MchERa8jzlaw59og/edit?usp=sharing