The Instigator
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Homosexual Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,378 times Debate No: 7595
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (10)

 

studentathletechristian8

Con

Hello, everyone! I am completely new to this website. I've been looking on it for weeks, and I love the way this site allows people to debate and create friendships. I welcome anyone who dares to take this debate topic. I first would like to thank the audience for reading and do hope that the voting is based on which side presents the better case. Now here is the argument:

Resolved: Homosexual Marriage. I will take con, my opponent will take pro.

My first point is that homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms. Homosexual means "of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." I will refer to the word homosexual as gay throughout the debate, and it applies both to men and women unless a certain example shall be specified. Marriage means "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments or religious ceremonies." Because the term "gay" refers to people of the same sex, and the term "marriage" refers to people of different sex, gay marriage cannot be valid and hence cannot be supported by pro, which means the resolution must go to con!

The second point of the argument is that gay marriage would outright ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society. Because marriage is a sacred institution between man and woman, the acceptance of gay marriage would hence open marriage to unsacred unions not only of people of the same sex but also to polygamy and zoophilia. Marriage is the fundamental order of family structure in society, and gay marriage would ruin that institution and destroy the one thing in society that keeps people tied together.

At marriage, man and woman become one. Marriage signifies that a man and woman become whole and part of one another. The marriage of two gay men or two lesbian women does not result in the institution of a whole, which is the whole point of marriage in the first place, to became sexually together. Two guys cannot become sexual as a whole together, for there is no egg. Two women cannot become sexual as a whole together, for there is no sperm. Therefore, gays cannot become sexually whole or "one," which disproves that gay marriage can even happen, and supporting gay marriage would result invalid and the argument would once again go to con!

One of the main points also is that gays cannot reproduce. Two sticks cannot magically "rub" together and make a baby fire as if they were in the wilderness. (Did you catch the metaphor? If you didn't I simply stated that two men can't have kids) Likewise, lesbians cannot reproduce. The thing that makes marriage special is the chance and ability to reproduce. Gays automatically cannot have this opportunity if they were to get "married." Because reproduction and child bearing are the main objectives of getting married, then it would be irrelevant for gays to be married.

I would also like to say that around 75% of society is for gay rights, but over 50% of society is against gay marriage. Why is that? Like I stated before, marriage is a sacred institution meant only for one man and one woman. Because the majority will of the people is against gay marriage, then society henceforth shall be against gay marriage.

I would also like to say that various religions are against homosexuality and gay marriages. Marriage is a religious ceremony, and gay marriage would be going against a majority of religions.

And, gay marriage has a downward spiral effect on society. If gay marriage were to be supported and practiced by more people, society would start to accept it and people would be more prone to gay feelings and gay marriages. You may argue that this point cannot be proven and therefore should be excluded from this debate. However, I shall give several an example of this downward effect. Pornography has been widely spread throughout the globe. Why is that? The introduction of PlayBoy Magazine and online sites are being spread to teens and young adults who have been revealed to it and feel that it is accepted because others are accepting it. This directly relates to gay marriage. Even though the acceptance of gay marriage cannot directly choose the sexual orientation of someone, it can be a factor in sexual preference of children and teens everywhere in the future.

All in all, gay marriage is wrong. I firmly believe that it is, and I hope to support my points more in the following round.

Like I stated before, I am brand new to the site. These are not my strongest arguments, for it is only the first round. I hope I made my stand and points clear. If I have not, please call me out on something and I will make it clear. I look forward to posting more arguments and receiving more information on how to use this site. Thanks everyone! Vote con!

(I apologize for not citing so far, my computer couldn't download the websites, i hopefully will in the next argument)
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting this debate, and I welcome him to Debate.org, hope this turns out great! I should remind my opponent that next time, the resolution (title) of the debate should reflect a claim, a sentence with an opinion. However, I'm sure that both of us as debaters and those who will judge this as voters understand the topic at hand - gay marriage. My opponent, being Con, is obviously against it and I, being Pro, am obviously for it. With this little introductory post done, let's get to the debate!

For the purposes of clarity, "gay" will now refer to the entirety of the LGBT community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender). Also, it should also be noted that any references to the legality of gay marriage takes place in U.S. jurisdiction - if it was Sudan, this debate would be much, much different.

==========
Con Claims: Homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms
==========

I don't see how this is much of an argument at all. Yes, in many states and in the federal government marriage is defined to exclude homosexuals, but that IS the point! The entire issue at hand is whether or not marriage should include homosexuals, which I am obviously contending. This argument is no more but a red herring.

==========
Con Claims: Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society
==========

First, my opponent claims that legalizing gay marriage will be a slippery slope to other forms of marriages, such as "polygamy and zoophilia". This seems like the trump card, does it not? Well no. I argue that incestuous and polygamous marriages should be legalized as well. The only requirement for people(s) to get married is that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Case solved!

He then claims that marriage is a "fundamental order of family structure in society", and that it's vital to society. But wait, how come marriage is becoming less and less common now[1]? Why is being in a relationship now viable? Oh lord, the tyranny! Shouldn't society be in crumbles? But wait. Look at the crime rates for many states...it's actually declining[2], and overall the average hasn't increased much - if at all.

And realize this: he is arguing that somehow what two guys do in bed will...destroy civilization and humanity as we know it? Interesting - I ask of my opponent, describe to me how what two men or women are doing privately will affect the infrastructure of society. I mean, it's obvious that gay people exist right now, and are free to have private relationships. As stated in the previous argument, crime is NOT going through the roof - even when marriages (which are obviously dominantly heterosexual) are decreasing in commonality. If marriage is the bedrock of society, as you would claim, would not society be doomed already? How exactly does stamping the label "married" and giving beneficial rights to a gay couple bring the end of society?

The thing with these slippery slope arguments is that people who use it rarely, if ever, use it correctly.

==========
Con Claims: Gays can't become "sexually whole" or "one"/they can't sexually reproduce
==========

Why does it matter if gays can't sexually reproduce? Marriage may signify that a man and woman become whole, but it can mean many times for other people as well. To others, it may simply be a pragmatic way to live life together as a couple. Why the melodramatic terms and the emphasis on sexual reproduction? Whatever the purpose of marriage was originally (which was more like polygamous families, proxies, and arranged marriages - religious ideals weren't introduced until the Catholic Church stepped in), it doesn't matter. To say otherwise would be committing the genetic fallacy[3].

If you said that sexually reproducing is natural, then you commit yet another fallacy - the appeal to nature[4]. Just because something is natural or not, does not make it good or bad in itself. For example, many people think that just because a particular item is natural, it's automatically good for them. But MANY natural plants can kill you or cause great diseases - what's so good about that?

==========
Con Claims: Because the majority will of the people is against gay marriage, then society henceforth shall be against gay marriage.
==========

Really man? Are you just saying this as a fact, that it will be hard for society to bend it's thinking? Because that's totally true. But if you are arguing that because that society or culture believe it's right, it must be right, then you are a cultural relativist my friend. Truly tyranny of the masses.

==========
Con Claims: Legalizing gay marriage may influence people to become gay
==========

Exactly how will this work? Do you have scientific evidence to back up this claim? Because if scientists aren't even really clear of what causes homosexuality, how can you possibly argue that legalizing it will cause others to be gay?

You bring up the point of Play Boy, and how many people "accept it". Yes, there is much more sexual freedom in society now than there was 50 years ago. HOWEVER, the change happened in being open, not sexual preference. People were just much more comfortable with their sexual orientation, it didn't *change* because Play Boy was distributed around the globe.

But let's grant you this; let's say you are correct and that legalizing gay marriage will make some people gay. Why does this matter? Is being gay wrong? Because now it's your burden to show why homosexuality is wrong.

=========
Conclusion
=========

I hope that was a meaty enough response for my opponent :). I await his response.

---References---
1. http://www.divorcemag.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
studentathletechristian8

Con

First, I would like to say that it is an honor to be debating one of the best debaters on this site. I hope I can clarify my points further in this round, I know my previous points may have been sketchy.

For this round, I would like to start off by telling the audience to look at the websites The Skeptic has for his proof. The Skeptic may think this is irrelevant to the debate, but 75% of his sources come from wikipedia.org. Anyone can post pages of biased information or research on there, and if that's where he found most of his facts or proof, then they are most likely invalid and should be excluded from the debate. I would appreciate it if you do not use wikipedia.org, for it is not a reliable source. It has probably influenced some of your debate, and created a biased statistic or proof on your part. Thank you.

Now onto my arguments: (I will make my numbers match his subtitles that start with Con Claims:)

1. Homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms.

The Skeptics says "The entire issue at hand is whether or not marriage should include homosexuals, which I am obviously contending. This argument is no more but a red herring."

I guess you didn't read my argument. My point of saying that marriage is defined as a union between man and woman is that homosexuals in marriage would make it of the same sex, not opposite sex of one man and one woman! Hence, it would ruin the definition of marriage, which is precisely why marriage should not include homosexuals. By definition, heterosexual couples can get married, and by definition homosexuals cannot.

2. Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society.

The Skeptic quotes "I argue that incestuous and polygamous marriages should be legalized as well. The only requirement for people(s) to get married is that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Case solved!"

Case not solved! Are you insane? The only requirement for people(s) to get married is not that all parties are consenting and that all parties are adult. Where did you get that definition? I know I have repeated this in the other argument, but MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. You give no proof on how incestuous and polygamous marriages would be beneficial or why they should really be allowed. Your definition does not include the entire definition of marriage. You don't even state where you found this fallacy. My whole point of saying gay marriage would lead to polygamy and zoophilia is that gay marriage would defy the traditional definition of marriage and make love the main requirement to get married. Hence, it would lead to the acceptance of polygamy and zoophilia because it would be acceptable for groups of people and animals and people to get married ONLY IF THEY LOVE EACH OTHER. How could this be acceptable? People would begin getting married to their cars, just as long as they love them right? You find nothing wrong with that? I would ruin the specialness of marriage and make marriage unimportant. (P.S. the crime rates are also irrelevant to the topic)

3. Marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society.

The Skeptic writes that marriage is becoming less and less common now, so he asks why is being in a relationship now viable. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is completely irrelevant. I said that marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society because when one man and one woman get married, they have the possibility and potential to create a family with however many kids. All heterosexual couples who get married have the chance or opportunity to have kids and create a family. However, homosexual couples who get married have absolutely no possibility of having children with one another. The Skeptic may say why does this matter? They can adopt, can't they? What does the essence of family have to do with it. Well first, I would like to say that society grows and prospers due to the natural reproduction of children. Many heterosexual couples wait until marriage to have sex and make children, so it obviously does matter. And the thing about adoption is just absurd. Yeah, gay couples can adopt, but if gay marriage continues to grow and get accepted, gay couples will continuously adopt children until there aren't too many left. The main argument for this one was that heterosexual couples in marriage can create a family and hand down their traditions and customs, which helps further society by creating more children and having their traditions be respected. Gay couples in marriage can't create kids.

I just want to say this comes back to one of my main points. Gay couples naturally cannot reproduce, so wouldn't that send an alarm signal saying that gay couples aren't supposed to be together hence shouldn't be married? Gay men and gay women have no possibility of reproducing or leaving their "legacy" to their own child. Normal nature proves that gay marriage should not be.

The Skeptic then challenges me to describe how two men or women doing it privately will affect the infrastructure of society. Since The Skeptic did not refer to gay marriage in this rebuttal, I cannot infer what he was asking me to say or do. Hence, his argument should be invalid. If he wants me to answer him in the following round, he needs to directly address gay marriage.

However, he does come around to asking me "How exactly does stamping the label "married" and giving beneficial rights to a gay couple bring the end of society?"

You seem to only think that directly this does not affect society. But how about we think about how it will affect the future? The acceptance of gay marriage leads people to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. It will destruct the morals and ethics of society by leading people to believe and accept gay marriage, which is against the institution of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to the wearing down of the morals and principles of people in society. It may not directly affect one person, but it will indirectly influence many people in society eventually.

4. Gays can't become "sexually whole" or "one"/they can't sexually reproduce.

"To others, it may simply be a pragmatic way to live together as a couple." Can't gay people live together as a couple without being married? Heterosexual couples do that all the time, as well do homosexual couples. So ha! You have just said that gay people can live together as a couple without being married, so you support my side that they shouldn't be married. You also say that whatever the purpose of marriage was originally it doesn't matter. Well it kind of does matter. The original purpose of marriage may have been changed and altered to get our present definition of being a union between one man and one woman, so it is once again supporting my argument that gay marriage should not be allowed.

"If you said that sexually reproducing is natural, then you commit yet another fallacy- the appeal to nature." I am simply saying that if you look at the nature of gays, they cannot reproduce or create anything (that has the potential of life-a child) together. Natural nature disproves that gay marriage should be allowable.

5. Because the majority will of the people is against gay marriage, then society henceforth shall be against gay marriage. You give no counterargument. You actually agree with me it's hard for society to bend its thinking-all you do is call me a cultural relativist- you present no case, hence it should be another vote for con

6. Legalizing gay marriage may influence people to become gay.

The whole argument about this is that if more people are opened up to it and revealed to it, it opens their mind to gay marriages and gay people-they would find nothing wrong with being gay themselves.

And you conclude by saying I must show why homosexuality is wrong. No. Only homosexual marriage. I will address this later. Than
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for his fast response, and the nice compliment. He, as well, constructs coherent and well stated arguments.

My opponent claims that my sources are tainted, be cited from the dreaded Wikipedia. However, you will notice that when I cite these sources, 1 of these three is a graph of the crime rate (how can that be edited?), and the other 2 are simply pages about the fallacies I mentioned. The appeal to nature and genetic fallacy are much less common than the slippery slope fallacy, for example. I merely put those references so anyone who is not familiar with the aforementioned fallacies won't be confused on what it is (in other words, it was for my opponent and the readers' sake). There is nothing shaky about what I have done.

==========
Con Claims: Homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms.
==========

Again, my opponent is off-topic. The whole POINT of this debate, of this issue, is to change the definition of marriage! The definitions of words always changes, since the beginning of society. For example, the word attic used to mean vagina. Not only that, but new words are being created. Several dictionaries now have "Google" as a valid word! So for my opponent to argue that the definitions "collide" is to simply dissuade you, the voters, from what this debate is really about.

==========
Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society.
==========

Again, my opponent seems to be stuck in the muck of "it's not defined that way!". Well duh, that is obviously the point. I am not arguing that polygamy and incest are currently part of the definition of marriage. I NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did I say that the only reasons people need to get married is to be consenting adults. I NEVER SAID THAT. I said it SHOULD. The key word is _should_.

[quote]"People would begin getting married to their cars, just as long as they love them right?"[quote]

Did you not read my two requirements? How is a car consenting, if it has no brain? How is a car an adult, if it can't grow?

==========
Con Claims: Marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society.
==========

Again, my opponent's big paragraph basically begs one question: why does marriage HAVE to include sexual reproduction? He dodges my two fallacies I included in my previous argument. If he says marriage is for sexual reproduction because that was the original meaning of marriage, then he is committing the genetic fallacy. It doesn't MATTER what the original meaning of something was if the current meaning is changed (a marriage ring used to signify bondage and a man *owning* a woman). If he says that it's "natural", then he is committing the appeal to nature fallacy. You see why it was important for me to give those Wikipedia links to the fallacies I listed? You seemed to have not read them or understand them, because you wouldn't make this same argument.

[quote]"All heterosexual couples who get married have the chance or opportunity to have kids and create a family."[quote]

And heterosexual couples can't have kids and a family without getting married? It would be ridiculous to say that marriage is the only way to reproduce - it's merely a label and an obtainment of rights for you and your spouse.

[quote]"I just want to say this comes back to one of my main points. Gay couples naturally cannot reproduce, so wouldn't that send an alarm signal saying that gay couples aren't supposed to be together hence shouldn't be married? Gay men and gay women have no possibility of reproducing or leaving their "legacy" to their own child. Normal nature proves that gay marriage should not be."[quote]

Again, the appeal to nature fallacy. Refer to previous argument, and hell to the previous round.

==========
Con Claims: Gay marriage will destroy the infrastructure of society
==========

[quote]"The Skeptic then challenges me to describe how two men or women doing it privately will affect the infrastructure of society. Since The Skeptic did not refer to gay marriage in this rebuttal, I cannot infer what he was asking me to say or do. Hence, his argument should be invalid. If he wants me to answer him in the following round, he needs to directly address gay marriage."[quote]

EL-OH-EL! What a cop-out! So my argument/rhetorical question is simply dodged because I replaced "gay couple" with "two men or two women"? Where is this hidden debate rule where it states that you can't use synonyms? Here, to end any quarrel: what does the actions of a gay couple in the privacy of their bed have to do the downfall of society?

[quote]"The acceptance of gay marriage leads people to believe that gay marriage is acceptable."[quote]

We are obviously arguing whether or not gay marriage is acceptable; if it's morally acceptable.

[quote]"It will destruct the morals and ethics of society by leading people to believe and accept gay marriage, which is against the institution of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to the wearing down of the morals and principles of people in society."[quote]

Typical phrasing, but strip away the fancy words and you get an empty dish. You are committing the slippery slope fallacy if you don't show exactly how legalizing gay marriage will "[destroy] the morals and ethics of society".

===========
Con Claims: Marriage is to become "sexually whole" or "one"/sexually reproduce.
===========

My opponent COMPLETELY misses my main argument concerning this. Being married gives RIGHTS to the couple involved. A little more than 1000 federal rights, and several hundred state rights (obviously depends what state you live in). These include hospital visitation rights, and many rights involving taxes (usually resulting in more financial security). Has my opponent read past all my major arguments?

[quote]"I am simply saying that if you look at the nature of gays, they cannot reproduce...Natural nature disproves that gay marriage should be allowable."[quote]

This. Is. HILARIOUS. The quote I present to you from my opponent is his response to my claim that if he says gay marriage is wrong because it isn't natural, you are committing the fallacy of appealing to nature. If you read his last sentence, he says "natural nature disproves that gay marriage should be allowed", which DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FALLACY! I am seriously doubting my opponent has read the sources I gave for his own benefit.

==========
Con Claims: The majority will of the people is against marriage, therefore society will be against gay marriage
==========

My opponent accuses me of giving a counterargument, but he fails to see that his claim IS NOT an argument, but a tautology! You say that the majority of people are against gay marriage, therefore society (which is another word for saying the majority of the people) is against gay marriage. Well duh. This is a fact! A descriptive statement! This debate is about whether or not gay marriage SHOULD be legalized, a prescriptive issue. It doesn't matter what the majority of people believe.

Now, if you argue that BECAUSE the society believe gay marriage is wrong, then it must be wrong, then you are a cultural relativist. Not only that, but you commit the ad populum fallacy. What the majority of people believe does not mean it is true, or that it should be so.

=========
Legalizing gay marriage may influence people to become gay.
=========

First, my opponent does not respond to my question of how legalizing gay marriage will make more people gay. Where is the science, I ask.

Secondly, he misses the point. His argument begs the question: why is homosexuality wrong? He makes it seem as a dead end when he states it will make people gay. So yeah, let's say it will. SO WHAT? Why does it matter? My opponent needs to clean up his conclusion.

=========
Conclusion
=========

There hasn't been much new material in this round. My opponent needs to read my argument
Debate Round No. 2
studentathletechristian8

Con

Do you readers see what is going on? In this previous round, the Skeptic has made no debate arguments of his own. Even in the first round, all he did was attempt to rebuttal my arguments. Debate is supposed to be an engage when BOTH sides present cases.

Also... readers don't be swayed by the way he keeps saying everything is a "fallacy" and the way he tries to sound intelligent and overreaching to make himself seem knowledgable

I contain the potential to attempt th logical and absolute rationale that persuades its substantiated efforts and embraces to establish the pinpoint clearance of the subject itself refers to. This pretty much sums up his whole "debate." He just skimmed through my points and then just wrote about how I was wrong and what fallacy I was contradicting or whatever. He really gave no proof or the other side of the argument, hence the vote should go to con.

I will give a quick summary though:

There is a reason why 75% of society is for gay rights but over 50% of society is against gay marriage. Gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. My opponent keeps telling me to prove by science or by logical reason why the points make sense, but look at the previous rounds. He just didn't want to post an actual argument.

Gay marriage is wrong. I GAVE REASONS AND SUPPORTED WHY I BELIEVE GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG, AND MY OPPONENT DID NOT GIVE ARGUMENTS TO HIS SIDE, HE ONLY DISREGARDED WHAT I TYPED OR JUST ASKED A QUESTION THAT I ALREADY ANSWERED. the vote should go to con, because pro really never supported the pro position, he only critiqued mine

please audience vote as you wish. i thank you for reading this debate. please do not be swayed by his comments in this round. he will just try to defend himself and disregard all the truth that I refer to. Thanks
TheSkeptic

Pro

[quote] Do you readers see what is going on? In this previous round, the Skeptic has made no debate arguments of his own. Even in the first round, all he did was attempt to rebuttal my arguments. Debate is supposed to be an engage when BOTH sides present cases. [quote]

By refuting your arguments, I HAVE presented my case. The entire point of a debate is to pit arguments against each other. You present an argument, and I refuted it with another argument. I suspect that you are only saying this because you don't have an adequate argument to refute my position.

[quote]Also... readers don't be swayed by the way he keeps saying everything is a "fallacy" and the way he tries to sound intelligent and overreaching to make himself seem knowledgable[quote]

So my opponent accuses of me "[trying] to sound intelligent" when he, apparantely, doesn't even know the fallacies themselves? My opponent attempts to say that he knows more about debate than I do, and he doesn't even realize that knowing your logical fallacies is VERY important to debate. I called you out on your logical inconsistencies and you say I'm being pompous? It is you, sir, who should step down from the pedestal and actually refute my arguments.

[quote] He just skimmed through my points and then just wrote about how I was wrong and what fallacy I was contradicting or whatever. He really gave no proof or the other side of the argument, hence the vote should go to con. [quote]

How you were wrong and what fallacy you were contradicting or "whatever"? So you don't care if you commit a fallacy?! That is quite position - one that isn't embraced in the debating community.

You then go on to say that I have no "proof" or "arguments". Are you kidding? Have you even READ my arguments?

You say that marriage doesn't include gay marriage, I argued this is a red herring and that the definition SHOULD.

You say gay marriage leads to polygamy and incest, I argued that this implies polygamy and incest are "bad" things; I thus argued that polygamy and incest should also be legal forms of marriage.

You say heterosexual marriage helps prevent society from going into decay, I argued that marriage is already become scarce, and yet the crime statistics show that society is NOT going into decay.

You say that gays can't reproduce, but I argue that this is committing the appeal to nature fallacy - that it doesn't matter if something is natural or not.

You argue that gays should just not get married, I argued that marriage gives right so there IS a benefit.

You argue that society is against gay marriage, I argued that this is a red herring unless you are a cultural relativist.

Tell me. How did I NOT present anything but cogent counterarguments?

[quote] I GAVE REASONS AND SUPPORTED WHY I BELIEVE GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG, AND MY OPPONENT DID NOT GIVE ARGUMENTS TO HIS SIDE, HE ONLY DISREGARDED WHAT I TYPED OR JUST ASKED A QUESTION THAT I ALREADY ANSWERED. [quote]

This statement his ridiculous and a lie. How so? Just look up to my brief summary.

==========
Conclusion
==========

Voters, my opponent has conceded this debate. He has not given any new arguments (except to regurgitate past arguments).

It's ironic. He has accused me of being ignorant and not giving any arguments when it is in fact HIM who is the culprit. He has only agreed to disagree, and nothing else. If it is true that I didn't give any arguments, then why doesn't he go through each of my responses and show how they weren't really arguments? My responses weren't monotonous and didn't consist of "I disagree, I disagree, I disagree". If he was so sure of himself, then why didn't he go through each of my argument (or in his mind, just disagreeing sentiments) and show the flaw in it? It's because he can't.

It's funny, because his response mirrors exactly what my mom said yesterday. Let me give you an example:

Opponent: I argue X is wrong because of Y
Me: Okay, well I argue Y is a false reason because of Z, therefore X is not wrong.
Opponent: You gave no reasons! No arguments! I win!
Me: ...*twitch*

He probably realizes that my rebuttals hold weight, and he resorted to this. That is the only tenable explanation I can think of, besides assuming he doesn't understand my arguments. Either way, it is I who has rightfully won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
@youngpolitic: Gay marriage and Gay civil unions are basically the same

@ Grayron: keeping traditions is easily refuted in that society progress's naturally.
Posted by youngpolitic 7 years ago
youngpolitic
Isn't the state defining marrige, gay or not, in violation of the Seperation of Church and State? I think it is, meaning I don't think the state should have any say in marrige at all. If a church won't marry to men or two women tough squash. Don't whine to the state about it. Am I right? Or am I completly off track here?
Posted by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
Most Anti- gay marriage debates just say that we should stick with the tradition. Traditions can sometimes be wrong so think of another compelling argument.
Posted by ShaeRhiannon 7 years ago
ShaeRhiannon
Just a note, about gay marriage not being natural, it is a proven fact that even in the Roman/Greek times there was gay/bi relationships going on. Many greek men had male concubines to signify their wealth (women being worth less then men etc).
Heres a website: http://depts.drew.edu...
Though I have noticed that there was never same sex Marriages.

Either way marriage is just a dressed up ceremony when you leave all you have is lots of photos, memories and a piece of paper. If they want to go out and spend over $20,000 dollars for a piece of paper saying they're married what right does anyone else have to stop them? If that piece of paper makes them feel happy for the rest of their lives what right do we have to stop them?
Posted by Interrobang 7 years ago
Interrobang
He also is not saying why marriage is only between a man and a women- the dictionary is not law.
Posted by xonyo 7 years ago
xonyo
I'd also like to hear that, as well as the issue with reproduction; it may soon be possible for two women to reproduce using their own genetics.
Posted by Interrobang 7 years ago
Interrobang
I'd like to hear what Student says about straight couples that are unable or unwilling to reproduce, and still want to get married.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I agree with you man.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by WhiteWolf 6 years ago
WhiteWolf
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Interrobang 7 years ago
Interrobang
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by grayron 7 years ago
grayron
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
studentathletechristian8TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07