Debate Rounds (4)
Pro has the BoP of proving that gay marriage should be legal in the United Sates of America.
As I have stated, you have the BoP of proving that the United SATES of America should legalize gay marriage, not the United States. I also have asked you what the United Sates is, and in return, you tell me what the United STATES of America is. They are not the same thing. Since Pro has failed to fulfill his/her defining of the term "sates", I shall do so.
Sates are not a place in which gay marriage can be legalized in, instead, they are "a Southeast Asian, especially Indonesian and Malaysian, dish of marinated, bite-size pieces of meat, skewered, barbecued, and usually served with a peanut-flavored dipping sauce."
Why should people marry inside food? The only kinds of people who could fit in there are tiny newborn babies, and I mean REALLY tiny. Not only would it be rare to find a pair of two tiny babies of the same gender, but I don't see the point of legalizing tiny babies to marry each other when they don't even know what it is. Why would we waste money (for buying sates for babies to marry in) and time just so a small amount of babies who don't know anything about the world yet can marry. It IS hurting people because the sates could probably heat up and even cook the babies.
Your claim that reasoning is better than philosophy and religion is only an opinion. Why?
So the Constitution says that happiness and pursuit of life should be garaunteed for everyone. How are we going to make newborn babies happy by cooking them alive in a sate, thus, reducing the population?
You said it yourself, "I believe Homosexuals should be able to get married in the United Sates Of America for a variety of reasons."
You have the burden of proof of supporting that people (babies) should be allowed to resort to same-sex marriage inside a sate.
You have also failed to debunk my claim properly, and have already established your debating topic. In return, since you have the BoP, you MUST prove what you have claimed.
16 with parental consent but the other partner must be 18 or older. Younger with judicial consent (with no strict minimum age). With parental consent, serious reasons are required for a minor to marry; without parental consent, the unwillingness of the parents has to constitute an abuse. If that was some sort of ex-sample it did not work nor was it understandable so i'll take it as illogical cause i never was intoning that babies should be able to get married.
I was never saying babies should get married I simply said, Should gays get married (within the the legal age of course) therefore debunking your babies argument. You also mentioned us wasting money to do something impossible, marriage only costs money for the two of the of the people in the marriage. It costs no state tax, no federal tax, nor any city tax all expenses are between the two. They pay for the cake, the chapel, and all other expenses therefore proving your statement wrong.
You also said that america does not exists which is also lunacy, that's also like saying Finland or japan is "non-exsistent" which is false. I get the idea that maybe the idea of it is "non-exsistent" but physically it is false. It is a land mass is it not? therefore the states within the land mass would also exist and to regulate the rights of it's people. Some rights should be regulated such as guns and drugs but marriage really!?!, no that's wrong people should be able to choose who they love and marry not be regulated. Who you love is who you love and that's final.
Also I introduce the sex argument, a gay guy could not get an erection from a girl. Vise-versa a lesbian could not get aroused to a guy. Therefore it is not a choice to be gay and to oppress people for something they can't help is morally wrong no matter if you believe america exists or not it is wrong to oppress a particular group of people.
You still haven't defended would could have been a grammar error in your first claim. You said "sates", and I am talking about sates, yet you keep on assuming that I am talking about states. Sates are food, not a place that exists within America.
If I say Godzilla of Japan doesn't exist, I am not saying that Japan doesn't exist, I am saying Godzilla doesn't exist.
You also haven't refuted my kritik on "sates". I provide a definition, and in return, you do not rebut it by making a solid point.
You failed to clarify that you were talking about people over 18, so why should I make the assump that you were talking about said people? My argument is that only tiny babies could fit in sates. Otherwise, what are we going to do? I guess we could still make giant sates for people to marry in, but that would be pointless. Since we would have to pay for huge sates, then yes, money will be spent.
A gay couple can still feel heat, seeing as they would slowly get cooked inside a sate. You haven't properly refuted any of my claims about sates, your argument is basically: "Really? Now you're bringing babies into this?" That is not a proper rebuttals. And since we are discussing sates, all of your rebuttals are invalid. You never gave me a specific age for marriage, and I never clarified that you mentioned babies. But since you failed to establish the age, I had to get the ball rolling. Now you must refute this: Why should a gay couple of people over 18 hold a marriage inside a giant sate? I do not want a mere opinion of: "Really? THAT'S your argument?" Give me actual reasoning on why that should be legal, since you established that people should be allowed to marry in sates. I do not question gay marriage itself, as you keep assuming that I do, I only question the idea of them marrying in sates.
Your sex argument isn't specific enough. What's so bad about having erections or having sex with a different gender? Are there statistics that suggest that sex or erections are bad? What is it that is so negative about sex and erections?
State: 2. a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
All my evidence is right here proving you States argument wrong, you declared that states were a South Asian food which they are not as you can see by my second definition at the top. This was of google definitions so you can most likely count on it and for my wiki source at the top it specifically states what a state is. You should have read my first debate more car fully I said United States Of America implying the actual states of America such as Virginia or California.
Also I specifically said in my last argument and I quote "16 with parental consent but the other partner must be 18 or older. Younger with judicial consent (with no strict minimum age). With parental consent, serious reasons are required for a minor to marry; without parental consent, the unwillingness of the parents has to constitute an abuse. I assuming you already new the legal age since you were from america. I did not put a age because I also assumed I was going to be debating with a intellectual person who would not use "Food" and "Babies" as rational debating materiel.
Yes my sex argument is specific enough, you implied that I said erections and sex were Bad which I did not I said and I quote again " Also I introduce the sex argument, a gay guy could not get an erection from a girl. Vise-versa a lesbian could not get aroused to a guy. Therefore it is not a choice to be gay and to oppress people for something they can't help is morally wrong no matter if you believe america exists or not it is wrong to oppress a particular group of people."
I don't know how you got erections are bad out of that I was simply saying that being gay is not a choice as many believe it to be. No it is not bad to have sex with the opposite gender nor the same gender, what's your point? www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html
I also ask next time you accept one of my debates (if you do) that you do not troll, because you were ether trolling this whole time or just being flat out ignorant.
Also the supreme court just ruled today that gay marriage will be legalized, you have nothing now do you? www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/
Let's start off with the fact that my opponent has provided a definition much later than I did. Since it's also just the implementation of a definition, and is not a kritik on my definition, my definition of the word "sates" remains solid.
Your so-called evidence does not prove my case wrong due to a major hole in your claim. I did not say that states are Asian dishes, I stated that SATES are Asian dishes. Those are two totally different words. Since your statement is not true, your rebuttal on my sates argument has collapsed entirely.
I read your first argument carefully, and you said SATES. Hence your quote in Round 1: "I believe that Homosexuals should be able to get married in the United Sates Of America for a variety of reasons." I would use this debate as a source, but anybody can just read your claim in Round 1 to know that you said "sates". Your argument is invalid.
Your sex argument is not sound. I had to assume you meant that erections and sex are bad, since I don't know why else you would put that there. Your whole statement involves two points: 1) That erections and sex won't occur for gays 2) That being gay is not a choice and they cannot help it. First of all, you speak of these points as if they are in relation to each other. They are not. One point is about sex and erections, and another is about naturally being gay. You just say that gay people won't get erections and a lesbian would not get aroused with a guy. Are you trying to say that's a good thing? What is it about sex and erections that may be beneficial or not? You just state that gay/lesbians won't be attracted to the opposite gender without taking a clear position on the topic. What is it about sex and erections that is so important? And now that I have officially refuted your "states definition" argument, it's fair to say that any point of yours about it being wrong/right for gays to marry is invalid. Since we are discussing sates, I think it's wrong or immoral to cook (or at least heat up to extreme temperatures) a gay couple. You have not refuted that claim, thus, it stands strong. That's my point. I believe the real question is, what's your point?
I am not trolling, you put the word "sates" in your first claim. You did not refute my definition quickly enough and have failed to refute my case as a whole. You only make the bare assertion that I am a troll. But by my definition of troll that can't be right. Troll-"a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills". I don't know why I would be debating online if I lived in the caves. I think you're the one who's being ignorant.
And finally, for the final major flaw. So you're using the Supreme Court as reasoning for why gay marriage should be legal? You cannot piggyback off of the Supreme Court and treat that as your own argument. This argument would make sense if the topic was "Gay marriage will be legal". Since I would've been wrong about gsy marriage not being legal, I would have lost. But just because something happened doesn't mean it should be legal. People still debate about whether cigarettes should be legal, even though it's already legal everywhere. The "this is legal right now argument so it SHOULD be legal" argument is flawed. You need to specify WHY something should be legal, not that it is legal. Maybe if you could have used some points that were made in the Supreme Court case, then that would've made sense. But instead, you just decided to piggyback off of the Supreme Court and use that as an argument. Now please tell me, why would you assume that I "have nothing?" Are you simply underestimating me by assuming that this dull point actually refutes my argument?
I would like to point out that my opponent hasn't fully rebutted my case, meanwhile, I have rebutted all of my opponent's points in his/her case. As a whole, my opponent's arguments fail, since he/she has not specified all of his/her points and did not fully rebut my case. I have refuted both my opponent's case and his/her rebuttals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give conduct to PRO because CON clearly never intended to debate what was obviously the topic. Having said that, CON explained in their opening argument that they interpreted the debate as "...of the United SATES"--not "STATES"--and made this assumption VERY explicit in Round 2 of the debate. All PRO needed to do was clarify the debate in Round 2 and point out the absurdity of CONs assumption about the debate (and I would have even accepted this clarification as late as round 3 after CON made their argument painfully clear in Round 2). Since PRO didn't address CONs interpretation that this was "...of the United SATES", not "STATES", I see that as an argument conceded by PRO and since that argument defined the debate, PRO agreed to CONs interpretation and thus all arguments made by PRO were irrelevant to the debate (and CON pointed out that PROs arguments were irrelevant). Therefore I must give arguments to CON.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.