Homosexual Marriage in New York
Debate Rounds (3)
When arguing value propositions the advocate must prove that effect, significance, and inherency have all been met, or they have not demonstrated enough evidence to establish prima facie, which is what must be present to show there is sufficient cause for a change in belief or action. Effect focuses on showing the audience the results or consequences of what has happened, is happening, or will happen (Rybacki). The advocate briefly demonstrates effect by explaining how gays sometimes feel like they cannot express themselves for who they are without being judged, and not allowing them to marry is denying them the right to express who they really are. But with that said the advocate did not explain the significance of this problem. Significance is related to the magnitude, severity, or frequency with which the effect occurs. Simply stating the effect of not legalizes gay marriage in New York City is not enough evidence to justify a change in the law. I argue that the advocate does not properly argue inherency, which refers to the belief that a problem exists because of an existing belief or behavior. The advocate sites the bible as an example claiming that because the bible does not talk against picking your own spouse society should also allow homosexual marriage. The problem with this example is that although the bible may not be openly against choosing your own spouse, and the majority of Christians believe that God wants you to marry who you love, the bible does talk openly against the idea of homosexual marriage. For instance, in one of the very first verses in the bible Genesis 2:24 Moses says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". Also in Leviticus 18:22 it says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination". In Matthew 19:4-5 the bible says, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". These are just a few examples in the bible that are against homosexual marriage. So to say that society should make exceptions for homosexual marriage like what has been done for choosing your own spouse is not a very good comparison.
Through my argument I have demonstrated that the advocate did not adequately present the audience with evidence for effect, significance, and inherency and therefore does not create a prima facie case to justify a change in the law.
wareese forfeited this round.
ava234 forfeited this round.
wareese forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 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||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)
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.