The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Gays should have a new type of civil union as a major option.

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 4 votes the winner is...
frozen_eclipse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,920 times Debate No: 23782
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

Structure of this debate.

1-acceptance/introductions
2-positions
3-rebuttals
4-rebuttals
5-rebuttals/summary

I am for gay rights, and was for gay marriages until I had this idea in witch gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in America because marriage is usually religious though it could be debated if marriage was first introduced by religion or not. It cannot be debated that regardless of origin marriage is usually conjunctive with religion and has been embraced by religion throughout time and is present modernly.

As we know most if not all religions are against gay people, and or gay marriages. Since allowing this would contradict religious and traditional beliefs( Im against tradition because others values potentially can cloud potential development of personal views.) and is likely going to become the premises of why gay marriages will probroly never be approved on a federal level. Gay people shouldn't marry but instead introduce a new type of union. It will have the same purpose of marriage but will not involve anti-gay religious believers or those guys who read the vows who are religious(I forget what there called.) Since this is the acceptance/introductory round I will post and name this type of union next round........Side note.... Their are many avenues that one could take to tackle this debate. I honestly want to debate a female because they tend to have acceptable views of rights to me. Though it doesnt really matter what gender or species accepts this debate.....lol....

It's highly probable that my opponent may use the one man one woman rule, or the naturallity argument if they are against gay unions derelict of any circumstances most likely for moral reasons. Id rather avoid these types of arguments due to repetition but if you are compelled to do such then go for it. I request that if my opponent uses this logic please post why this logic should be acceptable and upon what premise this is based. As for personal opinions i ask that one explains their logic from A to Z witch is the logical way to explain logic. I intend for this debate to give me a broadened perspective on how people feel about gays having a separate type of union( or one at all) and if people find it acceptable and if this proposal could potentially work at resolving the gay marriage problem. Thanyou I appreciate whom or whatever accepts this debate.....lol
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I accept this debate with the following definitions in place:

marriage: A state of union in which to (or more) consenting individuals are formally recognised as being together, commonly recognised by society and law.

civil union: a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, with rights similar to, and usually less than, those of marriage. [1]

In this debate, I hope to show how civil unions would be worse in comparison to marriage in a modern society. However, I wish to add a specific rule to make this clear: civil union should not be defined as being the same as marriage, except with those of the same sex for one and one of different sex to the other. This, in essence, is defining marriage as the same thing as civil union, and does not solve any problems. One can easily recognise that the only difference is discrimination between two sexual orientations, without any real difference: it's simply a different but equal argument. In this case, we essentially legalise same sex marriage, but call it civil unions. In other words, we legalise same sex marriage. This would be a tautology in which we have legalised same sex marriage.


1 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I want to first thank Mr. Hawkins for excepting this debate. Im almost completely positive that this may get very interesting . For this round I will respond to the previous comments posted and will then present my logic.( I will bold and underline cons quotes.) As this debates structure goes this round is exclusively purposed to propose our sides platform. So rebuttals will be posted next round. Gay people should have the option of a new civil union to be introduced to more states and to be legal in more places than just the very tiny few it is in America. Society is well aware of the traditional and religious reasons that gay marriages are by majority of the country rejected. Since marriage seems to be the only option for a potentially permanent bonding union available, gays want to get married. Because it seems to be the most legitimate way to make a statement of commitment and etc…I also want to state This debate is not necessarily about proving witch type of union is worse but instead is about if gay people should be allowed the option of civil unions. I affirm that gays should have this option for the following reasons;

1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Gay people are people. They are entitled to the human rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness extends unless it hinders anothers ability to pursue the same ideals. Gay people deserve to be happy. It is observed in our society that marrying is the ultimate and final step to attempt to gain a secure bond and create happiness between one and their mate. Pursuing Marriage and/or civil unions is an attempt to pursue happiness. Why? By marriage or civil unions it creates a source of commitment that the couples love and or bond will last, The title of marriage also may act as a repellent to others witch can further ones belief that a couples union is strong enough to last as is their love. As we know when we are in love it tends to make people happy. The pathway to happiness states, “There is one step to creating happiness. It is to express love. When you express the emotion of love you create happiness and joy within yourself.” http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com...

So to express a couples love for one another using the catalyst of marriage witch is considered the best way to express love, couples pursue happiness. By society first denying gays the option of marriage and then negating this resolution and not allowing the option of civil unions to not be a major option for a person to pursue happiness, then realistically speaking society is depriving a person of the human right of the pursuit of happiness. Maybe denying marriage while allowing civil unions may be justified because atleast your allowing one method for gays to pursue happiness. Rather than the conditions of this resolution where the over all pursuit of happiness is being compromised by disallowing both marriages and civil unions. As we can clearly see gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. By banning both marriages and the option of civil unions this right is being denied.

2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied.

Gays need to have equal rights especially that of the pursuit of happiness. If one major route is closed another route needs to be used to find your way to ones destination. If we block both routes and discriminate certain rights based on sexual orientation and or gender then were infringing upon the equality principle and the pursuit of happiness. In order for America to avoid doing this civil unions need to be an option if marriage is denied. Marriage is not the same as civil unions. Marriages are given over 1,049 rights, marriages are recognized federally and state wise. There are marriage protection laws. They have tax benefits and many other rights while civil unions do not. Civil unions are given about 300 rights and is only recognized on a state level. Many people oppose marriages for religious reasons. In a civil union it avoids religion and usually the ceremonies as well. Civil unions are like a recognized partnership while a marriage is a recognized commitment to love one another. Civil unions are not the same as marriages. For America to not contradict its principles of equality and that all humans are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it would be fair if America would allow gays an avenue to pursue these principles and rights. How can we do this? Simple by allowing civil unions to be an option for gays.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

(For clarity, SSM is same sex marriage, and R[x] means R followed by a number, meaning Round, then the number of the round. e.g. R1 = Round One)

My opponent seems to have constructed her argument in a way which makes it seem that I am against civil unions as I am against unions of the same sex. I'd like to clarify: I am constructing a counterplan argument here. A counterplan argument is, for those who do not know, an argument where I propose a better solution to the problem my opponent is discussing.

The problem

The reason my opponent wants civil unions, as outlined in the first round, is twofold. The first is that:

"most if not all religions are against gay people, and or gay marriages. Since allowing this would contradict religious and traditional beliefs" (R1)-- this can be summarised that religious people would get angry at the legalisation of gay marriage.

The second is that: "Gays need to have equal rights" (R2). This is simple.

I maintain that we should legalise Same Sex Marriage. The reason is simple: the first problem is an inexistent or irrelevant one, and the second is solved better (in impact calculus) through Gay marriage. Thus, SSM is the best solution. To summarise so far, SSM is the best solution, better than civil unions. Thus, the resolution would be negated.

The primary reason why we should ignore the religious aspect is because marriage is not religious. The moment marriage becomes possible for non-Christians, or the irreligious, marriage stops having a religious aspect. Further, the moment marriage starts being done outside of the church, such as by the government, then it stops being a religious institution. It’s history, granted, is a religious one, but that does not mean that it is currently religious. When the irreligious get married in irreligious backdrops, calling marriage religious is irrational. In the words of Olson, "Marriage, the Supreme Court has said again and again, is a component of liberty, privacy, association, spirituality and autonomy."[1]

Further, saying it will annoy religious people, I am forced to respond with “So What?” Not carpooling annoys environmentalists, abortion annoys pro-lifers and jews annoy Nazis. It’s the way the democratic world works. A pressure group forms, it makes its case, a counter-group forms, and they make their case. The public then decide. And what has the public decided?

SSM USA Poll.

As visible from the graph, the public in general are now in favour of SSM. Thus, it should be democratically legalised.

I also want to bring in the socially libertarian approach. If you remember the quotation I posted before by Olson, I wish to expand it: "It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence dispensed by the State of California, or any state, to favored classes of citizens which could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation. It is not a right belonging to the State of California." In other words, it is individual liberty that is important here. No body has the power to state whether one should be allowed to be married, nor is a lesser alternative promote this. The country or state enacting the law should have no say. In the words of J.S.Mill:

"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression... Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling..."[2]

In other words, we must have the state protect our ability to do as we wish, and stop social tyranny. We cannot have a system where systems "could easily be withdrawn if the state were to change its mind about procreation". We have a moral imperative give people the choice to be able to choose to act as they wish, and not force our will on others. This means giving them SSM if wanted.

Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I have a problem with my opponents counter plan approach. Lets say he finds a solution to the problem. Witch in this debate is the religious and traditional aspects witch people use to oppose same sex marriage. Secondly the issue of gay rights. Now pro says lets just allow them to marry. Even though my view on this should be irrelevant because this debate is about civil unions I support same sex marriage. If same sex marriage was allowed in all states then it would fix the problem. The only issue is the that though public opinion is starting to accept gay marriage now it's still illegal in most states."Besides California, 28 states have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage, and 12 others have laws that restrict unions to one man and one woman." [1] . In 2008 California passed a ban on same sex marriage.[1]In north Carolina we just passed amendment one.[2] This is pure evidence that even though the surveys say people are starting to accept gay marriage the voters are still having a negative vote on this issue and is making the opposite statement from what the polls say. Maybe people are not voting enough but that's a different issue. So what I am saying here is my opponents proposal would work only if gay marriage was legal on a federal level. Since is not and most likely will not cons counter plan argument isnt a valid standpoint because the conditions for his plan cannot be met.

Gay people should have the right to pursue happiness via marriage or civil unions. Lets remember this debate is about if civil unions should be a major option to pursue happiness for everyone. We wont meet the conditions of cons counter plan. So if gay marriage is being denied to gays witch it is another option needs to be available. That option is civil unions.

Religion and tradition

Yes I am aware that marriage is not exclusively religious. That's not my argument. my point for a gay person to not be married is if that person getting married is religious. In that case they should not get married because it contradicts their own beliefs. My argument is this, majority of people oppose same sex marriages because of traditional values based on religion and traditional beliefs where people use the gay marriage isnt natural argument. Or they use the bible or other religion as their defense. These two are the major arguments against same sex marriage. One is because of religion and the other is because of traditional values. I don't agree with those but it cannot be ignored that the majority that denies same sex marriages deny it for these major reasons. It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs. Witch is why marriage wont be approved on a federal level unless we eliminate that kind of thinking. Witch seems impossible because the battle of this right has gone on for so long and it seems the opposers seem to win the argument. Witch hinders gay rights.

My opponent seems to agree with bot of my gay rights contention so I see no need to further discuss it.


It seems we have turned this debate into a gay marriage debate. It was kind of necessary because cons counterargument depends on it. As we can see the conditions for cons counterargument will not happen. so gay people need to have a second option to pursue happiness. Lets go a step further and say one day possibly gay marriage might be approved on a federal level. Those conditions will take decades or even thousands of years. Gays should not sit idle and expect that tomorrow the ban on whatever state their in will be lifted. That is highly unlikely. As for the present gays need to have a second option until or if the day comes when the conditions for cons counter plan are met. So civil unions need to be a major option in order for America to not contradict its principles of equality.

Sources

[1]....http://www.washingtonpost.com...

[2]....http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Stephen_Hawkins forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Pro

Wow. I didnt expect my opponent to forfeit. Seeing as he did indeed forfeit my points still stand unreffuted. Both of my contentions witch are,

1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied.

Also I seem to win the issue of religion and tradition being a major factor as why gay marriages will most likely not be legalized federally in the u.s and other countries which deny gay marriages.So for the sake of equality what should we do? Simple offer civil unions as another major options so that gays can pursue happiness as well.We also see in this debate that cons counterplan approach fails.For these reasons and cons forfeit i believe a pro vote is justified.

Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Introduction

To sum up the criticisms of my opponent, I shall state them here. Firstly, there is a problem with my counterplan, stating that “the religious and traditional aspects witch[sic] people use to oppose same sex marriage”, which means simply put that religious people will not be happy, and it does not solve their grievances. The other criticism was based on the idea that my counterplan would work only if gay marriage was legal on a federal level. Due to this, it was stated that “we wont[sic] meet the conditions of cons[sic] counter plan”. Finally, the religious argument was reformed again, to “they should not get married because it contradicts their own beliefs”. To state again, my opponent claims the counterplan does not work on a federal level and makes the religious unhappy. Further, gay marriage contradicts the beliefs of those involved. I aim to show how the criticisms are either false, or irrelevant to my case. My opponent also states that his arguments have been uncontested, which counts as his being stronger. I shall point out that this is a counterplan, not a traditional refutation: I accept that, though it is possible that these benefits exist, they are less compared to the benefits of legalising SSM.

Examples, examples, examples

My opponent’s first criticism is that gay marriage would “gay marriages will probroly[sic] never be approved on a federal level”. I claim that this criticism is irrelevant. As the debate is an ought debate (as per the use of the word ‘should’), the practical ability is irrelevant: as long as it is possible and there are no serious obstructions, of which I state there are none other than religious, which I shall later address, there is good reason to have it legalised. However, the major problem is that my opponent is saying this as if the debate only matters in America. I wish to point out that the debate has no geographic bias in the title. This attempt to restrict the debate to a region is unjustified. In the majority of modernised countries, of which is our standard - as our standard should be based in countries that can feasibly impose legislation - nine countries have SSM legal, including Netherlands, Sweden, and others. Discussions in the UK are underway to legalise SSM, with the system most likely being legal in 2014, when the referendum is called (and all projections show a pass)(picture). In France, “D'après le sondage Ifop dont les résultats détaillés paraîtront dans l'édition du 26 juin de Dimanche Ouest-France, 63% des personnes interrogées se sont dites favorables au mariage homosexuel et parmi elles, 37% y sont même "très favorables" (in short, 63% are in favour of SSM) and in Germany, and only 40% of Austrians are against SSM. In short, as a turn, it is more democratic to legalise SSM than it is to oppose it. Living in a democracy, we need to follow out the will of the people. Further, as legalising SSM is something we need to promote, as shown previously in the argument from J.S.Mill. It is affirmed that SSM should be legalised instead of Civil Unions.

Religious aspect

I felt I adequately covered this in the previous round, but I shall do so again. If marriage is not religious, the fact that religious people are offended by marriage is irrelevant. We do not live in theocracies: we live in democracies, where the majority should set the laws. Whether the religious mind is an irrelevancy: the only important part of this issue is the part regarding the majority, not the majority of the religious. However, many religious groups find that SSM is not just compatible but promoted in their faith. “Some examples of [Christian] organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[1] Also, my opponent’s second paragraph on “Religion and Tradition” is nonsensical, either for self-contradiction, non-adherence to the facts, or sentences not making coherent sense. For example, my opponent says “It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs”, meaning (I think) that the majority of Americans are against SSM. Not only does this artificially and unjustifiably narrows the scope of debate, but is categorically false: as shown in the previous round, the majority of Americans are in favour of SSM. My opponent claims the problem is with things such as traditional values not changing, which is why SSM will not be able to be legal. However, my opponent is pushing for civil unions, which has the exact same problem in this region.

I wish to make a final point: the idea came up about conservative values not being able to be updated. I wish to state that by legalising SSM, we can make people more open minded. The inverse slippery slope shows that by legalising SSM, we can gain more insight to whether it is a good idea to legalise it or not[2]. By taking a cautious approach, we limit information and freedom. Any arguments making empirical, justified claims against the legalisation of SSM is purely speculation until we test the hypotheses put forth: to actually make any of the claims for SSM justified, we need to legalise it t test them. Hence, we have good reason to legalise SSM.

In short, my opponent’s conclusion comes down to the idea that the time for equality is in the future. My conclusion is that the time for equality is the present. My opponent states it will take thousands of years for equality to occur. I am simply more optimistic. And realistic. The evidence is clear: same sex marriage should be made legal.

edit: I apologise for the forfeit. I had this argument written, but it didn't seem to send. I apologise for this.

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;
2 - Intertemporal Disagreement and Empirical Slippery Slope Arguments, by Thomas Douglas


Debate Round No. 4
frozen_eclipse

Pro

At this point I will summarize this debate and produce a final refutation at the same time.

At the beggining of this debate con produced a stance in this debate witch is as follows, " I hope to show how civil unions would be worse in comparison to marriage in a modern society." Con has failed to promote his stance because he hasn't successfully proven why civil unions would be worse than marriage in a modern society. Now I am completely aware that neither of us debaters said whom has the burden of proof but while debating one must prove his side of the debate regardless. So with that being said con hasn't proven his case whatsoever and has completely gone somewhere else with his case and has constructed his argument in a way to turn his case into arguing mainly same sex marriage. witch does not support his stance for this debate.

My stance is this,. Gay people should have the option of a new civil union to be introduced to more states and to be legal in more places than just the very tiny few it is in America. As you see I bolded options because that word is the most important part of this debate. Speaking in terms of equality if homosexuals are being denied marriage and civil unions then they have no options. How are they to pursue pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Witch is synonymous with my first contention being, "1. Gay people deserve to be entitled to have the option of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Witch my opponent agrees upon because he never refuted this point. In debating my philosophy is silence equals concurrence.

Moving on my opponent offers a counterplan in witch is platform is, " Thus, SSM is the best solution. To summarise so far, SSM is the best solution, better than civil unions. Thus, the resolution would be negated." There is A major problem with his counter plan. It fails because As we know same sex marriage isnt legal federally so obviously all gay people cant take advantage of this option to make it fair. This problem is the reason im having this debate as we can see to not contradict principles of equality all people including gays should have the major option of civil unions. Since gay people cant marry they need to have another option for the sake of fairness. That option is civil unions. My second contention witch con also failed to refute explains my logic on this matter in further detail, "2.Civil unions should be an option if marriage is denied. "


Religion and tradition

Cons counter plan also fails for these additional reason. Majority of people oppose same sex marriages because of traditional values based on religion and traditional beliefs where people use the gay marriage isnt natural argument. Or they use the bible or other religion as their defense. These two are the major arguments against same sex marriage. One is because of religion and the other is because of traditional values. I don't agree with those but it cannot be ignored that the majority that denies same sex marriages deny it for these major reasons. It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs. Witch is why marriage wont be approved on a federal level unless we eliminate that kind of thinking. As we can see the conditions for cons counter plan most likely wont happen. IF it does happen it might take years. There's no way that the conditions will be met by tomorrow so are gays to just sit idle and be denied their constitutional rights? to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? NO civil unions is the awnser.

Here are some statement from the last round from con

"we live in democracies, where the majority should set the laws. Whether the religious mind is an irrelevancy: the only important part of this issue is the part regarding the majority, not the majority of the religious. "

First not all countries are democracies. Second lets look at America con fails to realize that majority of Americans are religious witch makes them very relevant in voting for laws when they vote seeing as majority always wins in votes. Here's what the data says...."76.5% of American adults are Christian , 14.1 are nonreligious" [1] These people are voting and have negative views toward gay marriage and civil unions as we can see they are a major contributor to the non legalization of same sex marriage and civil unions.

"Many religious groups find that SSM is not just compatible but promoted in their faith. “Some examples of [Christian] organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church,"...etc

Their faith is based on what? The bible and hers what it says, Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."[2] as we can see those people are contradicting there own beliefs. They also don't count because con cannot prove that these people are voting in elections. While I can prove those whom are not contradicting there own religious beliefs are indeed voting.[3]

"Also, my opponent’s second paragraph on “Religion and Tradition” is nonsensical, either for self-contradiction, non-adherence to the facts, or sentences not making coherent sense. For example, my opponent says “It seems majority of American voters support those beliefs”, meaning (I think) that the majority of Americans are against SSM. Not only does this artificially and unjustifiably narrows the scope of debate, but is categorically false: as shown in the previous round, the majority of Americans are in favour of SSM."

Here's what happened since con is confused. He showed that majority of Americans are starting to favor same sex marriage. I responded and showed proof that although his poll says that. Those who are voting say other wise. Its not the polls that lead to making laws its the votes. It doesnt matter what non voters think in legal matters.

final statement

As we see civil unions need to be a major option for gays. Con never defeated any of my contentions and actually seemed to promote then in his last post. I have proven religion and traditional values to be a major issue in this matter. I have also successfully proven cons counterplan will not work. Con has also failed to prove his posisition of this debate witch was to show how civil unions are worse than gay marriage. I believe a pro vote is a very justified response to this debate.

Sources
[1]....http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[2].....http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3].....http://pewresearch.org...



Stephen_Hawkins

Con

I shall simply post a conclusion, as per arrangements. As it is a conclusion, it'll be pretty short.

I set out, in this debate, to refute a syllogism inherent in my opponent's argument. The inherent syllogism was this:

P1 - If gay marriage is banned, then we should have civil unions.
P2 - Gay marriage is banned
C1 - Therefore we should have civil unions.

As a counterplan, I presented my own.

P1 - If gay marriage is banned, we should have SSM legalised rather than have civil unions
P2 - Gay marriage is banned
C1 - Therefore, we should [change the law and] have SSM legalised.

This syllogism is about modernising and fixing the law. Civil Unions, which are marriages of a same-sex couple with less rights than a marriage cannot be coupled with a normal marriage: it's legalising marriage whilst criminalising marriage. Thus, we have a dichotomy: SSM, or civil unions. I have given 3 reasons why SSM should be legalised: it is democratic, it promotes rights, and it is promoted by an inverse slippery slope.

Democratic

Firstly, in a modern democratic society, such as America. My opponent cites evidence that is meaningless to the debate to promote their cause, such as the religion of people in America. Unfortunately, my opponent seems not to realise that the majority of people still want SSM. Saying it does not fit in with religious belief is untrue, as I provided many religious groups, including many Christian ones, which promote SSM. This case survives scrutiny, and alone demands legalisation of SSM. There has been no reason to suggest that we should not listen to democracy: our society is based on it, after all. The majority of modern countries are democratic, and would do well to put in place the democratic consensus.

Religion

My opponent cites Bible verses at me to state the law. The irony is, the Bible says we should kill the homosexual demographic. My opponent has contradicted her own case, and any promotion of civil unions would contradict this. If we accept this argument, we cannot have civil unions. If we accept my argument, we have SSM instead. Any addressal of this point, through necessary, would be a new argument. Further, a debate in theology is pointless. So I shall revert to my previous point: Catholics, Protestants, Evangelists, Orthodoxists, and many many other churches all want SSM. It is a shame that my opponent has to attempt a new theological argument in the final round.

And regarding my opponent's final paragraph before the final final statement, he states that he provided proof showing that the voters are against SSM, and SSM would be legal if more people who were for SSM voted. I see this purely as an inescapable turn: that because the majority still want SSM legalised, then it should be. What this means is solely that the non-voters need to vote, be loud, and start making noise. Sitting back is what the problem is. However, now, especially after recent events regarding SSM such as Obama's promoting of SSM combined with California's turn, would be where the voters are now the most active, and votes on the issue would make massive reforms.

To conclude, I have provided strong reasons why SSM should be in place instead of Civil Unions. Civil Unions are marriages which grant only partial rights to married couples. I am promoting a full recognition and rights for those who are married. This is a reasonable request, and should be in place over civil unions. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Oh now that is stupid. People voting conduct simply due to the single forfeit, to turn the entire debate to vote for a single person -_-
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
oh travniki....sigh...smh
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
i guess none saw this.....
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Seeing as I said beforehand that I'd post in comments, due to lack of ability to post in actual round, then posted in comments, then said post was ignored... -_-
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
it doesnt matter....a forfeit is a forfeit......
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
No theology was brought up in any other rounds. An argument becomes an argument when an argument is posed, not a statement. An unjustified statement is no more an argument than me saying "you're wrong" in the second round lets me bring up literature as why in the final. Any rebuttal would be appealing to theology, which I have not done either. If you used a biblical quotation earlier, or used the Bible at all earlier, I'd consider it valid, but in any rl debate, that would be seen as a new argument.

Further, I'm pretty annoyed I'm losing conduct when I posted the actual debate round 3 minutes after in the conclusion -_-
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
and sir......debates run by the set structure of witch changes depending upon who sets it, in this case that would be me, and as we see i allowed for reffutation of your points and my points,all debates do not run on ones traditional procedings that there used to. And seeing as weve been talking about thology since round one i simply do not agree with your accusation........but anyway good debate.....it was the best challenge ive had so far
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
we have been talking about theology ever since round one sir.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
And don't worry about 16kadams, he doesn't understand the difference between legitimate arguments to democracy and illegitimate arguments to majorities or bandwagons.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Sorry, I only do debates in formal proper settings, and final rounds means no new arguments. And theology is a new argument, not a refutation.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
frozen_eclipseStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
frozen_eclipseStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con case was "Thus, SSM is the best solution. To summarise so far, SSM is the best solution, better than civil unions. Thus, the resolution would be negated." and he argued it effectively throughout the round, S/P for "witch"
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
frozen_eclipseStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: For starters, conduct. I will try to revisit this.
Vote Placed by Matthew3.14 4 years ago
Matthew3.14
frozen_eclipseStephen_HawkinsTied
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 rebutted most of Con's arguments during the 3rd round while Con failed to reply.