The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

I should be allowed to marry Mother Earth!

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 871 times Debate No: 77104
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)




RD1 - layout
RD2 - presenation of sides
RD3 - rebutalls
RD4 - counter-rebutalls


- No Profanity
- BoP is shared
- I will be the only one particapating in the final round. My opponent's conduct will not be decreased by voters.


Debate accepted.

As Pro has specified that round one is for the layout of each case. I will briefly summarize what my argument will be:

-That mother earth is not a human being and/or entity and therefore not able to give consent to marriage--this will in fact be the main point in my argument[s].

-That even if mother earth was able to give consent, it may not actually want to marry Pro.

-That such a marriage could not legally take place--for example, one would not be eligible for a marriage certificate confirming that they are married to mother earth and that this kind of partnership would never be legally recognized.

-That it would defy and wholly contradict the traditional sense of marriage, which is that two human-beings come together in formal and legal unity.

**Burden of Proof**

Seeing as it's a shared BoP I'd remind Pro that he has the task of affirming his resolution and showing exactly why and how he should be allowed to marry mother earth, this should include providing a full argument and supporting it with a legal basis. Whereas it's on me to simply negate the resolution and provide enough evidence against it.
Debate Round No. 1


Did I mention that I should have the right to marry Mother Earth, and not that I love her?!?

I say since gay marriage is aloud, why not object marriage?

Also, the US is supposed to be a free country. So why are there even rules in America! For gods sake, Murica! Stop lying! It's not a free country if something is not allowed.
definition of free - Not controlled by obligation or the will of another


As Pro has actually failed to provide an argument himself, I will keep this round relatively brief and first respond to Pros *small* amount of points:

I'd remind that Pro that not once in round one did I state or imply that Pro was in "love" with mother earth, and argued purely from the standpoint that she not be allowed to marry "her", or rather "it". Once again I used the fact that there would be no legal basis in him being able to marry mother earth and this kind of marriage could not be allowed as it would not be recognized.

Pro compares marriage with mother earth to gay marriage and brings this up as a reason to allow it--however, this is of course not valid. For starters, gay marriage is that between human beings. Mother earth is NOT a human being or a human entity. Those of the same-sex getting married can willingly give their consent, speak their vows, and sign the necessary papers; obviously mother earth cannot.

The Cornell University Law School outlines this as a definition of marriage:

"The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law."

So once again, only humans beings [otherwise known as "people"] can be married--thus showing that legally Pro should not be able, nor possibly could be able, to marry mother earth. [1.]

Pro further argues that the U.S is supposed to be a "free country", and therefore shouldn't have rules. However, he has completely misunderstood how "freedom" relates to the U.S and what actually constitutes a "free country". Overall the U.S is a free country as people are enabled civil rights, are protected by law, and enjoy basic liberties. Obviously a country has to have laws as if they didn't it would result in complete anarchy. On the contrary to what Pro seems to think, laws are actually in place to protect "freedom". If they did not exist, people would essentially be able to exploit whatever and whoever they like AND impose upon the freedom others.

Once again, laws are specifically there to protect people and the basic rights of all civilians [3.]

I'd also state that Pro made a blatant inaccuracy with his *short* law contention, he starts off by stating "the U.S" and then argues on as to "why are there even rules in America"; which is not a country but a continent [4.]

Only the U.S is categorized as an actual country, so in order to keep things correct Pro simply should have stayed with that.

Debate Round No. 2


First of all i did not 'fail' to provide an argument since that argument is enough to destroy you if you actually think about it.

Joachim, a grown man has married a steam engine. This is called object sexuality. To add on Eija-Riitta has married the Berlin wall. Also Liu Ye, a Chineese man, has married a picture of himself. This is called not only object sexuality but narcism. Since you yourself have called the world 'it' than you yourselve are calling mother Earth an object. Nowhere does it say that object sexuality is illegal. So therefore you should not be stopping me from my rights of marrying Mother Earth!


Now onto my what will my last round for this argument as Pro has specified that round four is exclusively for him.


Pro first states that the *small* argument that they displayed in round two has somehow had the capacity to "destroy me", however this is quite clearly not the case as I have provided an actual argument of my own and fully rebutted all of Pros points.

I'd note to voters that this comment could technically be a violation of conduct rules. And more to the point: Pro has literally given no argument that has either responded to my own contentions or been superior in any way.

Regarding Pros "sources", the first one simply leads to: "object sexuality illegal" conducted on a Polish search engine. NO evidence for Pros case has been established and this link does simply not count. I will reiterate the reasons:

-It doesn't direct me [or any potential readers] to any specific website that supports Pros argument.

-Technically, "mother earth" is still not defined as an "object". The "earth" is in fact defined as:

1. the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe; especially : cultivable soil.

2. the sphere of mortal life as distinguished from spheres of spirit life — compare heaven, hell.

3. areas of land as distinguished from sea and air.

So the earth is absolutely not an "object".

This relates directly to Pros examples of actual objects and people deciding to marry them. For example, the second source starts off by listing someone who has married a steam train--which is one specific movable object, and more importantly not something that could possibly be compared to mother earth. A steam train is defined by the following:

"A train that is powered by a steam engine."

Thus showing that it is entirely different to "mother earth" and does not count as a valid comparison or contention in Pros argument.

Another point would be that the person in question could physically touch this steam train and spend quality time with it, whereas mother earth represents the entire planet earth; which means that is not present in one specific place.

The third link [I'd highlight that they're all from the same website] shows a woman who married the Berlin Wall. Once again though, this simply fails due to the fact that the Berlin wall *was* entirely different to mother earth. As with the train example, it is a specific object that is exclusive to one place.

Perhaps the strongest rebuttal to Pros argument is that all these cases have occurred with man-made "objects". Both a train and a wall are created and established by men alone. Whereas mother earth is wholly natural and came into existence without any involvement from human beings--obviously, IT existed before us. It is not something that one is able to build or replace; which is precisely what trains and walls are.

The exact same applies to a man marrying a picture of himself, a photographic frame with someone's picture placed inside it is nothing like "mother earth". For the same reasons as given above: a picture is a specific object, and it is man-made.

Regarding source five, this is merely the same as link three. In this round alone Pro has made two separate serious errors with his "sources", including linking a Google search and then using the same one twice.

This in turn places his sources down to three. Additionally, the website "Ranker" is primarily used for entertainment and is generally opinion-based. Therefore it shouldn't exactly be considered "credible" or placed above any of my sources. In my main argument, I used four separate links that all direct to proper articles.

The Cornell University Law School in particular gave a clear and reliable description of what constitutes an actual "marriage". And the last two sources used provide specific reasons on as to why laws exist in the first place and how they are to protect freedom instead of undermine it, which is basically what Pro argued in round two.

**Concluding Argument**

Ultimately Pro has failed to fulfill his (shared) BoP and outline a full and logical argument for why he should be "allowed to marry mother earth". Instead he's stated his opinion in a few small sentences, and made some rather large inaccuracies. As well as not giving any real arguments himself, Pro has also not responded to any of my points properly or given any rebuttals to them. Unlike Pro, I've given a full case and elaborated on each of my contentions--and used more valid sources that verify my argument directly.

Therefore, I advise that you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3


rafalaf forfeited this round.


Emilrose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
"Mother Earth" is a deity. It's a personified version of natural occurrences (Examples: Earthquakes, Rain, Tsunamis). You can't marry earth/weather, so why even bother making it officially legal and recognized to public? You'll most likely be made fun of it, though.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Lsumichiganfan// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: This wasn't the best debate in the world if Pro rebutted anything that con said that it may have been a close debate but, sadly this is a blowout. Pro gets conduct points because she laid out her setup very nicely and carried her claim out she was also the only one who rebutted something. Pro has better spelling and grammar because con frequently didn't capitalize his "I's" among other things. Con gets argument points becuase pro didn't rebut a single one of them while Con did rebut her arguments were longer and made much more sense. Con gets points for better sources because Pro used "Wikipedia" as one of their sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter oscillates between Pro and Con in his RFD, but only allocates points to Con. (2) The argument points are not clearly explained. Having longer arguments and "ma[king] much more sense" doesn't justify the decision, nor does the lack of rebuttals. You need to point to specific arguments. (3) Conduct is not explained in any way that justifies the vote. Formating differences and a lack of rebuttals do not justify the point allocation. (4) Merely failing to capitalize letters at the start of each sentence is insufficient justification for the S&G point. Unless their S&G is such that it interferes with your comprehension of the arguments, it doesn't warrant giving the point out. (5) The source point insinuates that there's something inherently wrong with Wikipedia as a source without explaining why. You need to justify the weakness of the source.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
YES all voters, do what rafalaf says...
Posted by rafalaf 1 year ago
Attention all voters... give conduct to Emilrose since I forfeited by accident, and I told her to forfeit on purpose.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
ok just wntd 2 kno
Posted by rafalaf 1 year ago
You can't.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Np, can I still not post for round 4?
Posted by rafalaf 1 year ago
Sorry about the FF. Couldn't do anything about it.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
"last online 3 days ago"...*wonders if you've been kidnapped by PUTIN*
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Lol, handicap is the perf word xD

But it's not going to make much difference.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote Con on grounds of the burden of proof. Con argues that marriage is *only* with consent, and non-consensual marriage is immoral. Pro *drops* this argument, and says "since gay marriage is allowed, object marriage should be". That is a weak argument, since Pro fails to establish any proper links/impacts. It fails an impact analysis simply because it does not establish any link between gay marriage and marriage of Earth. Con's argument still stands, and is clearly sufficient to negate. Pro's second argument on object sexuality is thoroughly refuted by Con since it doesn't establish a link either -- how is it proof of Pro's side? While I consider the BoP shared as this is a normative resolution, Pro entirely fails to fulfill BoP, while Con's sole argument is sufficient to negate. Con's misconduct accusation is very weak, since saying an argument is "weak" is not misconducted. Both sides forfeited once, so conduct tied. Ergo, arguments to Con.