Debate Rounds (5)
I'll be arguing semantics.
Firstly, I "disagree that a fellow human being has the same rights as any of us". That is, I'll argue that in the status quo, we don't have equal rights. Note, this is not an endorsement that this should be the case, rather that it *is* the case.
Secondly, if you instead meant that you challenge anyone who disagrees a fellow human being *should* have the same rights, I'll argue that we should have enhanced gay rights. Read: we should legalize same sex civil union/marriage where appropriate. But that this should not be seen as an endorsement of equal rights.
In analogy, women/men don't have equal rights to abortion but this isn't a sign of de facto discrimination. Lack of 'equality' doesn't necessarily imply a state of injustice.
So, in a more ideal world, we'd have enhanced 'gay rights', but not necessarily 'equal'.
I'm glad you share that opinion, yet I am confused as to why you think that the lack of equality doesn't pertain to injustice. I refer to laws against homosexuality. At the moment heterosexuals are (and always have been) legally allowed to marry members of the opposite sex. In some parts of the world, individuals are not allowed to marry a member of the same sex. Does this not indicate a state of inequality? Yet in the other parts of the world where the union of members of the same sex is permitted, would that not indicate equality?
Unfortunately, the topic doesn't bind me to arguing against specific formulations of rights--I don't have to argue against gay marriage. All I have to argue is that there could exist a just state where rights aren't strictly equal. So, no, a lack of strict equality does not imply injustice. Natural barriers might often lead to less than strict equality while not rising to the level of an injustice. For example, Herero marriage features a particular child support norm that would not clearly translate. Hence if same sex and opposite sex marriages developed different norms reflecting the particulars of each institution, we would be incorrect to presume a state of injustice. In arguing for strict equality, the onus goes to you to prove that no difference could ever be acceptable.
But I'm not bound by what you'd like to debate against. I don't see any response to my second contention--that even the ideal might not be 'strict equality'. We should extend this as un-responded to.
Invalid forfeited this round.
I think I get the semantic argument (no specific weight).
On the plain language argument, we should extend justice =/= strict equality. I don't see any responses to this argument, so I think the barrier should be much higher for my opponent in R4. That is, he'll need a very good reason why strict equality is the only acceptable standard.
As I stated before, I did make a mistake by not clarifying in my first post the topic by which I wanted to adhere to. You then pointed out my fault in your first post, but also stated that you understood what I had actually meant. In my second post, I noted my mistake and corrected it. I briefly explained current world views on the topic of gay marriage.
Some places in the world see the union of same sexes as an abomination, and therefore make it illegal. They are not permitting these people to have the same rights to marriage as any straight person would. How can you not see that as an injustice?
Even after making this clear, you continue to point out a simple grammatical error I made in the first post. This only leads me to believe that you accepted the challenge so you could pull off a win by straying from the topic because I didn't initially make that topic clear enough.
So, I think we agree this debate comes down to two arguments.
Essentially, you're arguing intent here. This is fine and legitimate, but it's incorrect to state that "[I] understood what [you] had actually meant." Instead, it would be more accurate to say I understood what you potentially meant. Yes, you correct your mistake in your second post, but this places me at a disadvantage--I needn't have wasted time replying to a potential argument. I offered a compromise in R3--that this should be a separate voter and weighted differently. I don't see where you address this specifically, except perhaps that you attempt to minimize it directly. I'd think this slightly abusive considering you forfeited R4 and I've extended the argument. But, perhaps we'll let the voters use this to tip the scale if, indeed, they view the debate that close.
2nd. Plain language
'Some places in the world see the union of same sexes as an abomination, and therefore make it illegal. They are not permitting these people to have the same rights to marriage as any straight person would. How can you not see that as an injustice?"
Please don't straw-man my position. Specifically, I stated "I'll argue that we should have enhanced gay rights. Read: we should legalize same sex civil union/marriage where appropriate. But that this should not be seen as an endorsement of equal rights." It's patently dishonest to suggest I said anything otherwise. You've not responded to what you yourself have labeled the more important argument. I clarified the position in R2, and you wasted time with the 1st argument in R3 and then forfeited R4. My position is quite clearly that LGBTQIs deserve justice.
"Even after making this clear, you continue to point out a simple grammatical error I made in the first post. This only leads me to believe that you accepted the challenge so you could pull off a win by straying from the topic because I didn't initially make that topic clear enough."
This is dishonest. I know you didn't responded in R4, but you could have at least done me the courtesy of having read my response. That is, I spent 10 words on what you'd like the round to come down on, even as I've agreed this isn't an important argument.
I then spent 50 words on the more important argument. To rehash, your clarified position is that gays deserve "equality". I gave you the burden of justifying 'strict' equality where I argue that justice can be achieved with slight differences, and I referenced child support arrangement norms differing by relationship type. You haven't once responded to this argument.
Abandon the smoke and mirrors, it isn't going to work out. I gave you the specific burden in R4 that you needed to give "a very good reason why strict equality is the only acceptable standard." You haven't done so. Con should win this round. I've extended the mutually agreed important argument across each round. LGBTQIs deserve enhanced rights. They deserved near equality, but 'strict' equality might not apply, and this isn't problematic. Justice can be achieved without strict equality.
Voters, thank you for your attention.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct automatically goes to Con for the forfeit by Pro.
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.