The Instigator
heisenberg
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Magicr
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

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 3 votes the winner is...
heisenberg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,294 times Debate No: 24530
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

heisenberg

Pro

(FYI, I already posted a debate like this, but someone accepted as Pro when they had actually misread the resolution. So, I'm posting the debate again, but if you see another debate around that is exactly like this, ignore it, it's dead and waiting to be deleted by a mod.)

As Pro, I will affirm the resolution, attesting that gay marriage should be legal in the United States. As Con, you will argue against the resolution, attesting that gay marriage should not be legal in the United States.

Definitions:
Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage): a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender. [1]

Legal: Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal. [2]

Rules:
Round One shall be for acceptance, not beginning one's argument.

Sources:
[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage

[2] dictionary.reference.com/browse/legal
Magicr

Con

I accept this debate. I will preface this by saying that I agree with the resolution, but am looking forward to the challenge this resolution will provide.

I would like to clarify and add a couple of definitions:

Legal in the United States- Federal law, the supreme law of the land [1].

Should- used to express obligation or duty [2].

Marriage- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other [3].

My opponent has the BoP to show why the United States is obligated to make gay marriage legal.

Sources:

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Let the debating begin!
Debate Round No. 1
heisenberg

Pro

I accept Con's definitions. Hopefully this will be a good debate.

Ultimately, gay marriage is an issue of civil rights, and I will argue on the basis that the government should provide equal benefits to gay couples as it already provides for heterosexual couples. There are both state and federal benefits, although the majority of federal. Some of these benefits include:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; [1]

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the laws. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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." [2]

Since there are thousands of laws pertaining to marriage, gay couples should also be protected in their right to marry under state law. Marriage is outside the federal government's jurisdiction, according to the tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [3]

This is my short argument. I do have a number of other arguments that attempt to refute common arguments against this one, but I shall wait for Con to state his arguments, so that I can attempt to refute them specifically.

Nonetheless, I have shown, as my Con has stated, that "the United States is obligated to make gay marriage legal." States are obligated to give gay couples equal protection under the law, while the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution.

Sources:
[1] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com...
Magicr

Con

I will begin this round by pointing out that my opponent provides no evidence for his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right. Because there is no evidence for the claim, it will not be accepted as true.

I will continue by quoting my opponent: “Marriage is outside the federal government’s jurisdiction, according to the tenth amendment: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’”

My opponent’s quote shows that marriage is an issue for the states to handle, not the federal government. Because the resolution calls for gay marriage to be legal in the United States, and legal in the United States has been accepted to mean federal law, my opponent has himself acknowledged that it is not within the power of the United States to put the resolution into effect.

He also says that “While the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution.” The federal government is unable to ban gay marriage, likewise, it is not able to legalize it.

Thirdly, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act states:

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship” [1].

This law means that it is up to each state to determine how it wishes to define marriage, and states do not have to accept the same sex marriages of other states.

If a state decides to define marriage as an act between a man and a woman, then all laws on marriage only apply to heterosexual marriages.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law [2]. If the law states that marriage is for heterosexual couples, then all that is required is that all heterosexual couples are allowed to take advantage of those laws.

My opponent has said “Since there are thousands of laws pertaining to marriage, gay couples should also be protected in their right to marry under state law.” I have shown in this round that because some of these many laws occur in states that have defined marriage as applying to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples are not protected under these laws.

I have also shown in this round that not only is the United States not obligated to make gay marriage legal, it is unable to do so based on the agreed upon definitions.

Question:

If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?

Sources:

[1]- http://www.gpo.gov...

[2]- http://www.archives.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
heisenberg

Pro

"My opponent’s quote shows that marriage is an issue for the states to handle, not the federal government. Because the resolution calls for gay marriage to be legal in the United States, and legal in the United States has been accepted to mean federal law, my opponent has himself acknowledged that it is not within the power of the United States to put the resolution into effect. He also says that “While the federal government should have no say in the gay marriage issue, making the federal government unable to ban gay marriage itself unless through an amendment to the constitution.” The federal government is unable to ban gay marriage, likewise, it is not able to legalize it."

My opponent makes the claim here that something can be neither legal and illegal, but he fails to provide evidence or reasoning for this claim.

I claim that something is legal until it is made illegal. Since the federal government does not ban gay marriage, gay marriage is thus legal in the United States; the government does not have to write up a law for everything to say that it is legal when it already is; the government does, however, have to do this to make something illegal.

My opponent now has the responsibility to not only refute my claim, but he also must provide reasoning or evidence for his claim gay marriage can be neither legal or illegal on the federal level.

"I will begin this round by pointing out that my opponent provides no evidence for his assertion that gay marriage is a civil right. Because there is no evidence for the claim, it will not be accepted as true."


Allow me to elaborate further then. From the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival." [1]

Now, I shall refer to my opponent's definition of marriage that I accepted at the beginning of the debate:

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other."

Under this definition, gay marriage certainly could be considered a civil right, just as marriage already is, under certain jurisdictions. As long as gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage, it is a civil right.

I shall argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, but first, I shall address another one of Con's points.

"Thirdly, Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act states:

“No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship” [1].

This law means that it is up to each state to determine how it wishes to define marriage, and states do not have to accept the same sex marriages of other states."

The Defense of Marriage Act has not been tested for constitutionality in the United States Supreme Court, and thus, it remains law. This debate, however, is not a question of whether or not gay marriage can be legal in the United States, but rather, whether or not it should be legal. Should was already defined as "used to express obligation or duty." In this use of the word, can is defined as "be able to." [2]

The United States does have the obligation or duty to enforce its laws; this does not mean that the states have the obligation to define marriage as only between a man or a woman.

According to my understanding of it, the entirety of my opponent's response to my argument, which makes up most of his argument, hinges on the fact that states can define marriage as they wish, under a few restrictions, none of which includes the guarantee that the states have to define marriage to include gay marriage. Thus, the states do not have to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples as they do heterosexual couples, nor do they have to provide the right to marry to homosexual couples in the first place, because even though marriage is a civil right, as long as the definition of marriage does not include gay marriage, then gay marriage is not a civil right. Overall, his argument hinges on the fact that the states do not have to define marriage to include homosexual marriage. Con can correct me if I am mistaken with my understanding of his arguments.

This means my only rational response to this argument would be to argue that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage. Now, there is little legal precedent or standing for this on a federal basis, and state basis varies, and thus, I will simply use reasoning and rational thinking as opposed to relying on legal documents, which my opponent and I have used throughout this debate. Nonetheless, if my argument, which is that gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, is successful, and my opponent's refutations are unsuccessful, then gay marriage should be legal in the United States, because marriage is a civil right that the states already provide for heterosexual couples.

To begin my argument as to why gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, I shall say that marriage is not necessarily naturally between one man and one woman; in other words, my opponent has to provide reasoning for the claim that marriage should be between a man and a woman, just as I have to provide reasoning that marriage can include homosexual couples.

Evidence for the notion that marriage may not just be between heterosexuals is shown throughout history. Same sex marriages have been tolerated in ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, and even a few examples in Middle Ages European secular law. [3]

As for rational reasons to include gay marriage in the definition of marriage, some examples are: it would allow gay couples to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples; it does not hurt society or anyone in particular; marriage is also a matter of love, and this allows homosexual couples another way to express their love; marriage would encourage family values amongst homosexual couples in the same way marriage encourages family values amongst heterosexual couples; it would encourage child adoption amongst homosexual couples, giving more children stable homes where the parents are in a social contract to stay together.

This is the end of my argument for round three, and although I do have more to say and argue, I cannot fit in for space reasons, mainly because at this point I have one last thing I need to address, which is addressed below this paragraph.

"Question:

If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?"

The question shall be ignored until my opponent provides reasoning as to why it is relevant to the debate. The debate is about whether or not gay marriage is legal. Although arguing gay marriage as a civil right may be necessary for my side of the debate, and arguing that it is not a civil right may be necessary for my opponent's side of the debate, arguing polygamy as a civil right or not a civil right is irrelevant as to whether gay marriage should be legal or illegal. I see the question by Con as an attempt to draw away from the main topic of the debate, and readers should take this in mind when determining the conduct of the two debaters. I am not at fault from drawing attention away from the debate in this instance because I am simply addressing a question asked of me as opposed to asking one myself. Likewise, my opponent shall not be at fault if he tries to explain why this question is relevant to the debate; if he fails to do this, however, this question should be a factor when determining his conduct in the debate.

[1] http://tiny.cc...
[2] http://tiny.cc...
[3] http://tiny.cc...
Magicr

Con

"My opponent makes the claim here that something can be neither legal and illegal, but he fails to provide evidence or reasoning for this claim."

Opposite to what my opponent has said, right before this quote I provided evidence from my opponent's argument concerning the tenth amendment. I shall expand upon the reasoning involved.

What I have said is that the federal government cannot make laws either way concerning gay marriage. It is up to the states.

"I claim that something is legal until it is made illegal."

Let's look at a few examples to examine when something is legal.

1. An employer can pay their employees whatever they want until a minimum wage law is passed. Thus, in this case, it is legal to pay whatever until a law is passed, then it is illegal.

2. There are no laws concerning marriage whatsoever. Marriage was defined as a legal union. Because there are no laws pertaining to marriage in this situation. Legal marriage does not exist. Anyone can have a religious ceremony and live with whomever they wish, but this legal union does not exist because there are no laws.

As can be seen in these two examples, something is not always legal until it is made illegal. In the second example, marriage as a legal union simply did not exist. An action can be considered legal until it is legislated otherwise, but something provided by the government, (in this case a marriage by law), does not exist until it is brought into existence by law.

Civil rights

Civil rights- The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship [1].

Marriage- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other

"Under this definition [of marriage], gay marriage certainly could be considered a civil right, just as marriage already is, under certain jurisdictions. As long as gay marriage is included in the definition of marriage, it is a civil right."

Gay marriage can only be considered a civil right in some jurisdictions. This is because as noted in the definition, gay marriage is only a part of the definition of marriage in some jurisdictions.

Because civil rights are rights that are gained by being a citizen or resident of a certain jurisdiction, gay marriage is only a civil right in those jurisdictions that recognize the definition of marriage as gay marriage or straight marriage. In jurisdictions that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a right that belongs to people who are under that jurisdiction.

"The United States does have the obligation or duty to enforce its laws; this does not mean that the states have the obligation to define marriage as only between a man or a woman. "

The United States does have an obligation to enforce its laws. One of these laws is the tenth amendment which gives the states, not the federal government, the power to legislate marriage. My opponent's argument that the federal government is obligated to legislate marriage is an argument for the government to break the law.

My opponent also highlighted the difference between "should" and "can." Of course Congress can pass any law it wants to, however it should pass all laws. The reason it should not pass a law legalizing same sex marriage is that such a law is unconstitutional.

Whether gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage

My opponent is correct in assessing my argument. My argument's main points are that states may define marriage as they wish and that the federal government cannot constitutionally regulate marriage.

As his final argument of the previous round, my opponent chose to argue why each state should include gay marriage in the definition of marriage. Unfortunately, this argument is not applicable to the resolution. The resolution, interpreted using the agreed upon definitions, states that the federal government should legislate to make gay marriage legal. The choices states make concerning the definition of marriage is not a part of the resolution. The important part is that states are allowed to make that choice.

Thus, my opponent is arguing for an unconstitutional action and the specific actions the state's choose regarding the definition of marriage are not topical to the resolution.

Question

Although I believe I have sufficiently proved the non topicality of the previous argument, I anticipated such an argument in the previous round, and thus posed the question "If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?"

My opponent chose not to answer the question because he felt it was not topical to the resolution. This question is absolutely relevant to the resolution. This is because if we are exploring redefining marriage, we must look at the possible precedents that it could set. Polygamy, as a comment on this debate pointed out, could become part of the definition of marriage because of the precedent set.

I suspect the real reason for his response is that he simply did not wish to answer the question. Why might he choose this response?

Let's say he chose to affirm the question and say that yes, if gay marriage can be a civil right, then polygamy too can be a civil right. In that case, he would have to defend polygamy because I could use a moral argument to show why polygamy was wrong and if gay marriage led to polygamy, this would be a morally wrong procedure.

If he chose to negate the question, then he would have to prove that gay marriage would not be setting a precedent for polygamous marriage. This is also a challenging argument to make.

I am not saying this is the reason he chose not to answer the question, but it certainly appears that way.

I myself feel no reason to push for voters to vote one way or the other on conduct because I feel my argument are strong enough to win by themselves. I will, however, remind readers that my opponent has chosen to not respond to a question which I have shown to be directly related to the issue at hand.

Summary

1. I proved that legal marriage does not exist until brought into existence by law

2. I proved that marriage is not a civil right throughout the United States, because only some jurisdictions recognize marriage as both homo and heterosexual.

3. I proved that my opponent is advocating for an unconstitutional action.

4. I proved that how states choose to define marriage is not important to the resolution.

5. I proved that my unanswered question is relevant to the resolution, so it is my opponent, not I, who am drawing away from the resolution.

Source:

[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Debate Round No. 3
heisenberg

Pro

"...something is not always legal until it is made illegal. In the second example, marriage as a legal union simply did not exist. An action can be considered legal until it is legislated otherwise, but something provided by the government, (in this case a marriage by law), does not exist until it is brought into existence by law."

Allow me to start out by reintroducing the tenth amendment while defining the United States Constitution.

According to the tenth amendment, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (I won't bother sourcing this, since it has been sourced previously.

United States Constitution: a document that outlines the basis of the federal (national) government of the USA [1].

Ultimately, my opponent is confusing legal and establishment, when he says elsewhere "Because there are no laws pertaining to marriage in this situation. Legal marriage does not exist." According to Con, legal marriage is not established according to federal law, because federal law cannot establish it. I say that this does not mean it is neither legal or illegal, however, and this is because the Constitution does not mention it. If the Constitution restricted it, it would then be illegal. But since it does not restrict marriage, and thus passes on the powers of legal marriage to the states according to the tenth amendment, the Constitution permits it, making it legal according to the previously agreed upon definition: permitted by law. It does not establish it, but that does not mean it is not legal, since it does permit it. Since the federal government must abide by the Constitution, gay marriage is legal according to federal law, since it is legal according to the Constitution.

Con will certainly disagree with me on this, and it is unfortunate that I am not be able to respond to his attempts to refute this argument.

"The resolution, interpreted using the agreed upon definitions, states that the federal government should legislate to make gay marriage legal. The choices states make concerning the definition of marriage is not a part of the resolution. The important part is that states are allowed to make that choice."

Con's understanding of the resolution is incorrect. According to Con, "My opponent has the BoP to show why the United States is obligated to make gay marriage legal." This does not mention any form of legislation; it can include legislation, but it does not have to. Instead of legislation, I have shown the USA should make gay marriage legal through the Constitution. In other words, above, I have shown that gay marriage technically already is legal in the United States.

My previous arguments concerning whether or not the states can decide is technically irrelevant, but that is because I had an incomplete understanding of the resolution, one that already assumes that gay marriage is legal in the United States according to the Constitution, which means we will be arguing about whether or not the states have an obligation to allow gay marriage. My opponent seemed to have an understanding of the resolution that too seemed incorrect, because he figured it involved legislation; as I pointed out above, this was incorrect.

"My opponent chose not to answer the question because he felt it was not topical to the resolution. This question is absolutely relevant to the resolution. This is because if we are exploring redefining marriage, we must look at the possible precedents that it could set. Polygamy, as a comment on this debate pointed out, could become part of the definition of marriage because of the precedent set.

I suspect the real reason for his response is that he simply did not wish to answer the question. Why might he choose this response?"

I have an explanation. I did not understand the context of the question, because there was not any context at all. It was just the question itself, not mentioning how it applied to precedent or anything. It was your responsibility to explain how the question applied to the resolution. Without context, I was unsure how it applied to the debate; I had ideas, but I did not know exactly. It was not my responsibility to provide context to the question. You, as you basically admit in round three, wanted to follow up with more arguments, which I shall address. The arguments was the context I was asking for.

"Let's say he chose to affirm the question and say that yes, if gay marriage can be a civil right, then polygamy too can be a civil right. In that case, he would have to defend polygamy because I could use a moral argument to show why polygamy was wrong and if gay marriage led to polygamy, this would be a morally wrong procedure."

I don't necessarily see a problem with the legalization of polygamy, under the same precedent as gay marriage. States have the ability to define marriage as whatever they wish, as long as it is a legal contract between adults; thus, simply having marriage as a government institution would open the doors to polygamy. To argue that gay marriage would create precedent is not true. My opponent would have to argue that polygamy is immoral and that marriage should not be involved in government.

"I myself feel no reason to push for voters to vote one way or the other on conduct because I feel my argument are strong enough to win by themselves. I will, however, remind readers that my opponent has chosen to not respond to a question which I have shown to be directly related to the issue at hand."

Well, I did not chose to respond to the question before he tried to show how it was relevant to the debate, as opposed to after. Here he is simply being dishonest, trying to make it look like I ignored the question that had context behind it. Once he put context behind the question, I addressed it. I should not be punished for questioning a different topic my opponent brought up without placing any sort of context. If anything, he should be at fault for not putting it in context of the debate.

Summary:

"1. I proved that legal marriage does not exist until brought into existence by law."

I have addressed how marriage is still legal, in that it is permitted by law, even if it is not established under federal law.

"2. I proved that marriage is not a civil right throughout the United States, because only some jurisdictions recognize marriage as both homo and heterosexual."

I believe he meant to say that he proved gay marriage, not marriage, is not a civil right throughout the United States. In any case, I have already provided arguments why gay marriage should be included in the definition of marriage, which already is a civil right.

"3. I proved that my opponent is advocating for an unconstitutional action."

I have refuted this.

"4. I proved that how states choose to define marriage is not important to the resolution."

This was due to my misunderstanding of the resolution, something we are both guilty of, just in different ways.

"5. I proved that my unanswered question is relevant to the resolution, so it is my opponent, not I, who am drawing away from the resolution."

I shall quote my previous rounds post: "I am not at fault from drawing attention away from the debate in this instance because I am simply addressing a question asked of me as opposed to asking one myself. Likewise, my opponent shall not be at fault if he tries to explain why this question is relevant to the debate." I assume that Con had simply forgotten what I had said in my previous post, because he did not address it. It's an honest mistake, and he should not be penalized for drawing attention away from the debate with this part of his summary, and neither should I, because I was simply pointing to his honest mistake.

I thank my opponent for the debate. This was my first one, and I learned a lot, not just about the topic, but debates in general.

[1] http://www.enchantedlearning.co...
Magicr

Con

I apologize for having to make these arguments that my opponent will not have a chance to respond to. Unfortunately, because of the change in arguments on the last round on his part, I am forced to do this.

If, like Pro has said, gay marriage is currently legal as part of United States federal law, then I have the BoP to prove why the law should be changed so that gay marriage is not legal. If, however, I can prove that legal gay marriage is not currently part of federal law, then Pro would have the BoP to prove why the law should be changed.

In this round I will show how gay marriage is not legal under federal law. The other option my opponent has argued for in the previous round is that the Constitution should be changed to make sure that gay marriage is legal if I can prove that it is not already. Because he bears the BoP in this case, I contend that he has not provided good enough reason to take this power from the states. So at this point all I must do in order to win this debate is to prove that gay marriage is not currently legal.

Legal in the United States was accepted at the beginning of the debate as federal law. The definition of federal law which was included in that definition is: " the supreme law of the land."

If legal gay marriage was the supreme law of the land in the United States, then all states would be required to allow gay marriage. Obviously states do not have to make gay marriage legal according to the tenth amendment.

The tenth amendment does not make marriage legal. Instead, it defers this power to the states.

So it is legal for the states to make gay marriage legal. It is also legal for the states to make gay marriage illegal. So gay marriage is not legal in the United States which would mean that it was the supreme law of the land. What is legal is for states to decide.

So although it is permitted by law, the agreed upon definition of legal, it is not federal law, the more recent agreed upon definition of legal in the United States.

Conclusion:

Same sex marriage is not currently legal in the United States under federal law.

Same sex marriage is only a civil right in some jurisdictions in the United States.

My opponent has not provided a substantial reason why the states should not be allowed to maintain the power to decide for themselves.

Therefore, I have fulfilled my BoP by showing that my opponent did not fulfill his.

I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Response to Chelicerae's vote:

"Pro wins the debate because Con was unable to refute the civil rights point."
I did just that in R3.

"Pro cited the Supreme Court and the Constitution and all Con did was bring up polygamy, which is irrelevant to the point."
I did so much more than just bring up polygamy. It appears as if Mr. Chelicearae did no bother to read the debate. I challenged the resolution on the basis of state's rights and the tenth amendment. I did show the relevance of the polygamy thing, but that was not my most important argument.

"For these reasons, Pro wins on argument and conduct."

Someone please come along and actually read the debate. I believe I made a pretty strong case. I don't know for sure whether it wins or not, but it is really disheartening to have a vote by someone who obviously did not bother to thoroughly read both arguments.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
"If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?"

Of course it is. Once gay marriage is no longer remotely controversial, that will probably be the next impediment to the expression of human love that progressive countries break down.
Posted by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
I'm new, so I didn't even realize you could edit stuff like that. Changed.
Posted by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
It's not really a double negative. A double negative would be gay marriage should not be illegal in the USA. But I get what you're saying, regardless.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Oh, right. You could just reinstate the debate tho.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Monster is awesome!

The double negative with your position and resolution is confusing. It would be clearer if you were Pro "gay marriage should be legal in the US". Is there any particular reason you aren't?
Posted by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
It's a little late for that now, unfortunately. I think it's redundant to change it and either way works, but apparently people don't read the round one post.
Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
It would be easier if you made the resolution "Gay marriage should be legal in the United States" and took Pro
Posted by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
Yes.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Hum...Tenma?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
heisenbergMagicrTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The inclusion of the word "should" in the resolution made the topic clear. Pro supported that case with his civil rights argument and most importantly his argument showing why marriage should extend to gay couples. Con did not refute any of this but instead argues over the constitutional rights of the federal government, which fail to address the topic being debated. He could have simply argued that every citizen has the same rights; to marry someone of the opposite gender, but he didn't.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
heisenbergMagicrTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: "If gay marriage is a civil right, then is polygamy a civil right?" Pro should have just said "yes" and accepted the reductio.
Vote Placed by Chelicerae 4 years ago
Chelicerae
heisenbergMagicrTied
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: Pro wins the debate because Con was not able to refute the civil rights point. Pro cited the Supreme Court and the Constitution, and all Con did was bring up polygamy, which is irrelevant to the point. For these reasons, Pro wins on arguments and conduct. Spelling and grammar was, in my opinion, equal between the two. Neither cited any sources, so that remains tied as well.