No Fault Divorce means there are no legal Marriages
Debate Rounds (3)
That contract is meaningless. It is not worth the paper it is written on. Furthermore, since the marriage contract is the basic building block on which government is based then there are no contracts of any real value. Even the Constitution of the United States is a worthless contract if there is No Fault Divorce.
A useful analogy is when a person swears to God that they will/won't do something. To an atheist, this means nothing, as they don't believe God to be real, but to a religious community this means a lot, as they do believe God to be real.
I am unsure as to how you reached the conclusion that the marriage contract is the basic building block on which government is based (and further how that invalidates the entire constitution), however that is not relevant to the question being debated, and there is no point addressing it until it is actually applicable.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman that leads to children. If by chance there are no children produced that does not void the marriage contract in and of itself.
Homosexual marriage is a lie. It cannot lead to children, therefore it is not a marriage. (But if someone wishes to believe in a lie that is no big deal. It happens all the time. Entire societies have been built on lies. It is no big deal.)
Please redefine the question more clearly and try to actually make relevant points, as I have now wasted my rebuttal outlining the irrelevance of both of your statements. Are you talking about legality, value or something else entirely?
1 The Dictator represses freedom.
2 The Dictator represses the freedom of movement.
3 The Dictator represses the freedom of movement from one marriage to another marriage.
The Product of all these No Fault divorces are not obligated to continue the farce because the Product has rights. The Product of all these No Fault divorces has the right to remove the form of Government that enforces contracts that have no foundation. The Product has the right to do this through the installation of the Dictator.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: The debate began with a very promising resolution but Pro descended into what I can only call gibberish. For this irrelevance, and for wasting Con's time (Con was clearly attempting to make sense of the nonsense in Pro's arguments) I award conduct to Con. Pro began talking about repression and dictatorships, which was weird. Also, Pro irrelevantly decided to deride homosexual marriage categorically, calling it an institution "based on lies". This was uncalled for, and this is part of why I award conduct to Con. Arguments of course to Con. Neither used sources. I wish both debaters luck in future debates.
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.