The Instigator
GOAT_23_6
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be legal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
GOAT_23_6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 89682
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (1)

 

GOAT_23_6

Pro

In your vote you say that because of biblical reasons that we should not allow it. First round is acceptance only.
harrytruman

Con

The Tenth Ammendment to the United States Constitution says:
"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."

The Supreme Court was never given the power to decide what the correct definition of Marraige is neither wsthe Federa Goveronment, thus this should be left to the states. The constitution is the Sureme Law of the Land, any law or decision in violation of it is void, it isn't a law.
Debate Round No. 1
GOAT_23_6

Pro

Hmm. Con decides to go to the constitution to prove his point. Well, as I recall, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The states cannot choose someone's right according to the first amendment sir.
harrytruman

Con

Pro should better explain his argument and how "Freedom of religion" translates to "let's violate the constitution," you should really read history because the word "state" means a sovereign state, a full on nation, meaning that every state was supposed to be just that, "United States," not State divided into smaller states."

Besides, if we left Gay Marriage to the states we would have gay states and straight states, then the issue would be solved, the answer to the question "what is the proper definition of marriage?" Will be"it depends on what state you live in."
Debate Round No. 2
GOAT_23_6

Pro

GOAT_23_6 forfeited this round.
harrytruman

Con

Geeze Liberals can never defend their own beliefs and yet Gay Marriage is legal inall 50 state- idiots.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 7 months ago
Conspiracyrisk
Like I said, I didn't spend much time on my RFD because this wasn't a very good debate. If you had provided a more thorough argument, I might have voted for you.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
Don't LIE of your RFD, if there were a way to bann you from voting on my debates I would do it- noh, wait, there is.
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 7 months ago
Conspiracyrisk
It's past the voting period now. I couldn't change it even if I wanted to (and I don't).
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
You lied in your RFD! Fix it up or delete it!
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 7 months ago
Conspiracyrisk
I didn't realize when I voted that it would become such a big deal. Honestly, I didn't spend too much time deciding on points because this was just an awful debate. I realize Pro forfeited but both of you had terrible conduct.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
Get a reasonable guy over here because he said my opponent made arguments that he NEVER MADE.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
We've been over this. He made connections between disconnected points from your opponent. Those connections are the interpretation I'm talking about. It's not up to you or me to decide whether or not those interpretations represent a reason for removal because he's not adding distinctly new points through the RFD.
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
Interpreted? He added sdtuff in that never happened!
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Conspiracyrisk// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments - the resolution is normative, so both sides share the BOP. Con had two points that I could discern. One was that the supreme court's decision violates the constitution. This is irrelevant, since the debate is about the whether gay marriage should be legal, not whether the Supreme Court made the right decision. Con's other point was that leaving gay marriage legality to specific states would solve the issue of gay marriage. This is also irrelevant, as it doesn't relate to the resolution. Pro's only point was that anti-gay marriage laws violate the first amendment by being a law regarding religion. Pro does a poor job of explaining this and relating it to the resolution, but it was relevant to the resolution. Con merely talked about the Supreme Court and States' Rights, which don't have to do with the resolution of "Gay marriage should be legal."

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does a sufficient job analyzing the aspects of the debate he views as key and explaining how they informed his decision.

Note: The reporter's concerns with the vote, while they may be valid for explaining why it's suboptimal, are not sufficient reason for removal. He didn't say that Pro never made any arguments, just that they weren't relevant to the debate, something he explained. While the voter may have interpreted more meaning from Con's points than Pro did, that's not reason enough to remove the vote either.
************************************************************************
Posted by harrytruman 7 months ago
harrytruman
He did state things factualy wrong, he said that I didn't make any arguments, while you can look at the debate and see that this is false. As I said before, he said that pro made an argument that he never made, he cited the first ammendment but never made any arguments on it, he said that he did, while we all know that he didn't.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Conspiracyrisk 7 months ago
Conspiracyrisk
GOAT_23_6harrytrumanTied
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: Arguments - the resolution is normative, so both sides share the BOP. Con had two points that I could discern. One was that the supreme court's decision violates the constitution. This is irrelevant, since the debate is about the whether gay marriage should be legal, not whether the Supreme Court made the right decision. Con's other point was that leaving gay marriage legality to specific states would solve the issue of gay marriage. This is also irrelevant, as it doesn't relate to the resolution. Pro's only point was that anti-gay marriage laws violate the first amendment by being a law regarding religion. Pro does a poor job of explaining this and relating it to the resolution, but it was relevant to the resolution. Con merely talked about the Supreme Court and States' Rights, which don't have to do with the resolution of "Gay marriage should be legal."