The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.

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 5 votes the winner is...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,318 times Debate No: 19784
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

This round is for acceptance only.
16kadams

Con

I accept, I may lose this debate as I dont know muh about marriage, but good luck. =)
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.
For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:

Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community.
The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." The following observations on homosexuality and AIDS rates/negative statistics concurs that intolerance is a main factor in the huge AIDS rates:
http://userwww.service.emory.edu............
http://www.sprc.org............
In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases. http://www.thebody.com.............

Sub-point 1b:
Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.
http://newsbusters.org............-
http://www.cbsnews.com............
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu............

Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.
Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:

Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.
The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.

Sub 2b:
Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.

16kadams

Con

I belive the BOP is on you because your making the argument for a new law.

"Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community."

How do you know that letting them marry would increase exception towards them, it would actually raise it. Many people like me think that the tradition of marriage is between man and a woman, and let's preserve tradition. I wouldn't become a hater, but I garentee those people would join hate rallies trying to scare the homosexuals into not marrying. So legalizing probably not affect the friendliness to them, and it is possible that it would increase it.

"Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce."

I do not see how that at all helps the economy. It may hurt it because then gays get tax breaks because their married, and that leads to large deficits then the economy goes down the tubes. (although we have mostly a spending problem lowering taxes because of a the marriage type isn't beneficial). Michael Steele claims that gay marriage bad for small business, the backbone to our economy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You didn't post any numbers, only a link, so I will just post the link.

"Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality."

1. Marriage is not a right in any international law, in any society, and even not in our constitution. Marriage is a privilege, those benefits come with the privilege, and since it is a privilege they DO have the same rights. Not the same privileges, but they have the same god given rights.

"Same-sex marriage promotes equality"

Already addressed above

"Civil unions are not a good alternative."

If you look at it is a great alternative. is exactly like marriage except they dont call it that, I know a gay couple that are civil union ed and they just call it marriage. The only difference is that you don't get the tax benefits, once a, those aren't a right, rather a privilege.

I will make my own contentions so make it harder for her to fill the BOP.

C1: It is not natural

IS sexual orientation determined at birth? NO:


A. Dean Byrd, PhD, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote the following statement in his May 27, 2001 article titled "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science," available on the The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) website Narth.com:
"There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined."


Timothy J. Dailey, PhD, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marriage and Family Studies of the Family Research Council, was quoted as having said the following in a June 26, 2006 article titled "Prenatal Effect Hinted for Some Gay Men," published by the AP Science Writer:
"We [Family Research Council] don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality. We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development. If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time."

So its possible at one time, but overtime through evolution it is impossible, now I must digress.

a. Evolution proves a gay not natural

People need to continue our race, and being heterosexual allows that. Being gay is a survival disadvantage because being gay means you can't create babies. So people evolved to get rid of the gay 'gene' so they had the survival advantage, being able to produce new humans. If everyone was gay we wouldn't have much of a race of animals, so we evolved to get rid of that disadvantage to survive. So even en explains this.

C2: The bible prohibits it

This is a fact. If legalized the Christians would be pissed etc. So this argument isn't a biggie. Becaus eits not much of a reason to keep it non- legalized.

C3: Would legalize marriage to a dog.

A big argument for the gay marriage crowd is 'it doesn't hurt anyone'. Well people that wanted to marry their dog have the same argument. People in 'love' with their dogs would say doesn't hurt anyone, and we want the same privileges as ya'll. So yeah.

C4: weaken the institution of marriage

We have a 50% divorce rate: http://www.divorcerate.org... . And allowing gay marriage would increase the number of friends just trying to save on tax dollars, that is happening right now, and allowing gay marriage would increasethat number. Marriage is a sacred institution, so why get rid of it?

C5: Gays live shorter

Allowing gay marriage may encourage the gay lifestyle. And that is bad for the reason above:

Early reports in the 1980's suggested that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years - more than 20 years less than the overall male population.

However, a Canadian study in 1997 found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population)

A third study, published in 2002, found that the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 years, while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 years.This latter study put the average life expectancy of male homosexuals nearly 30 years less than the general male population. Another study showed that, on average, ever-married men outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered by 23 years in Denmark

Ever-married women outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered in Denmark by 22 years

The U.S. FDA defines the criteria for blood donation. Many forms of sexual behavior prevent blood from being accepted through the Red Cross and other agencies. According to the standard questionnaire, "men who have had sex with another man even one time since 1977," are disqualified from donating blood because of risk of AIDS to the blood supply.

However, government statistics show that homosexuals are nearly 20 times more likely to be abused by other homosexuals than by heterosexuals.

SO THEIR PARTNER ABUSES THEM MORE THAN WITH STRAIGHT PEOPLE! Sorry caps

A scientific study in the Netherlands revealed that homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders. Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide.

http://www.godandscience.org...

I await your response =)
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting his argument. I'm going to address my opponent's debate and then move on to defend my case.
Offense
Rebuttal C1a: My opponent brings the standard of what is natural into this debate, but he makes no explanation as to why the condition of being natural (depending on whatever he defines natural to be, considering he didn't define that either) has any sort of relevance to marriage whatsoever. My opponent claims that homosexuality is not natural because evolution requires reproduction and the human race must be sustained. For one thing, I'm not really seeing where the point of reproduction comes in. I guess it implies that marriage requires reproduction in order to be viable, but that would be calling several married couples across the country and the world that either have problems with reproduction or simply don't want to reproduce unnatural as well. My opponent doesn't explain the connection here to marriage. Marriage or not, homosexuals are still going to exist, and the chances are that they will not reproduce either, so his connection of reproduction and the naturality of homosexuality and marriage seems to be almost nonexistent. Also, at the point where my opponent is saying where we need to keep our population going through the process of evolution, it clearly shows that my opponent doesn't have a very clear understanding of the environment. Sure, evolution exists, but every animal population, including the human one, has a carrying capacity, meaning that there is a maximum in every environment that animal populations can only reach. When carrying capacity is met, environmental factors biological or abiotic are going to eventually play in order to maintain the population at regulation, and if what my opponent is saying about homosexuals not being part of the reproductive process and whatnot is supposed to be some sort of argument about how they are absolutely not natural, at the point where they are supposed to be regulators for the population of the human race, they are doing EXACTLY what occurs in nature. If that's not natural, I don't know what natural is.
Rebuttal C2: My opponent even says himself that his second contention isn't even much of a reason to keep SSM illegal. Christians would be disappointed. Sure. Why does that matter? My opponent says nothing on this, and he even agrees that this argument isn't even that big.
Rebuttal C3: For one thing, this is a big slippery slope argument because it's taking a small reformation like same-sex marriage and turning it into an argument about how it will lead to this big reformation in the future. My opponent has provided no sort of evidence for this except for a blurb about how this is going to happen beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where has this happened before? We have six states that have legalized gay marriage, and there have been no movements on the part of the US to legalize any of this. Same goes for Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Iceland, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Sweden, who have all legalized gay marriage. If there IS a possibility that this could occur, what is the numerical data? What is the estimate? Furthermore, my opponent talks about how legalizing marriage to dogs and whatnot wouldn't hurt anyone and brings up an argument about marrying the dog, but why would that hurt anyone? Why is that going to in any way damage the American society? A man marries a dog. A man marries a man. Why is that going to affect the heterosexual couple next door?
Rebuttal C4: My opponent doesn't explain how many people, gay or otherwise, are actually just trying to save on tax dollars. If the judges look back at history, they will see that many marriages were born as a result of necessities, especially in rural regions. My opponent doesn't explain why marriage for necessity is a bad thing, and if marriage really is a sacred institution, he does not provide any evidence of the sort that homosexuals are engaging in the practice of necessity or that gay marriage will increase this.
Rebuttal C5: I have an entire contention explaining that gay marriage will actually reduce the negative stats in homosexual communities, for one thing. I believe that I have provided a study from Emory University about how homophobia causes these negative statistics and how the passage of gay marriage would promote tolerance and reduce HIV transmission by 1 per 100,000 as far as the gay community is concerned, supplemented only by a quote directly by the CDC explaining the same idea about homophobia and these negative statistics. My opponent doesn't seem to pay attention to any of this and just goes on to bombard the debate with all of these statistics. The entirety of his C5 reeks of correlation without causation. He states that by being part of the homosexual lifestyle (whatever that is), this immediately will lead us to all these negative effects without even considering the lurking variables of these studies, and this lurking variable is homophobia. It's not the direct condition of being homosexual that causes these negative stats, as my opponent implies. It is the stigma created by society and people acting out on their hatred of homosexuals that creates the reduction of self-image in homosexuals and drives them to these negative conditions. By promoting tolerance in the community through the proper administration of law, these negative statistics will come one step closer to being eradicated, in addition to promoting the monogamy needed to soothe the negative statistics.
Defense
Counter C1a: Please look back at my rebuttal against his C5 in order to compare this counter in case I missed anything. Not only this rebuttal another baseless claim with no sorts of evidence and has evidence to the contrary (as provided in my case), but it is frivolous at best, not to mention completely hypothetical. Again...where has it happened? To bring up a tangent, were we really going to deny blacks rights about 100 years ago when the KKK came to rise to intimidate them? We sure didn't. Justice should always prevail.
Counter C1b: It will help the economy because it increases demand for consumer goods for weddings themselves, adding revenue for business in charge. With the fact that government legislation has changed, it will also increase supply of the actual goods in question. This is just from my humble bit of knowledge from AP Microeconomics. Men wiser than I have written information about how gay marriage increased government revenue and inspired commerce in states that had legalized same-sex marriage in my empirical evidence. If the links are broken in any way, I'll be happy to write the information manually. All my opponent has is this quotation by a random man named Michael Steele that works more on theory rather than empirics and doesn't have any known knowledge of economics, as far as we are concerned. To put it simply, my evidence outweighs my opponent's. Further, tax breaks are sometimes needed so that Americans can make more economic decisions, thus expanding the private sector.
Counter C2a: Marriage is not a right anywhere? Like in Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Or perhaps in the Supreme Court decisions Turner v. Safley (1987) and Loving v. Virginia (1967), all ruling that marriage is a fundemental right? Furthermore, at the point even when marriage is only a privilege, that implies that there are conditions that one must have in order to attain this said privilege, and if my opponent is somehow trying to imply that being homosexual makes you ineligible for this said privilege, then that's nothing more than prejudice. Shouldn't Americans all have at some level the same access to the same privileges with morally relevant reasons?
Counter C2b: My opponent even concedes that there are no tax benefits to civil unions, and at the point where homosexuals are not applicable for these privileges simply because they're homosexual, that's just morally irrelevant discrimination (prejudice).






16kadams

Con

"My opponent brings the standard of what is natural into this debate, but he makes no explanation as to why the condition of being natural (depending on whatever he defines natural to be, considering he didn't define that either) has any sort of relevance to marriage whatsoever."

I will use the same font so the readers have consistancy. Naturality has a lot to do with marriage, iis unnatural to marry a car or a horse right? And doing that is illgal, and you probably would rather not see hybrid horse babies walking around and men (or women) kissing a horse on the street. So society looks down upon those acts, so why not gay marriage? Same naturality concept.

Natural:

existing in or formed by nature

http://dictionary.reference.com...

and nature once formed homosexuality, and nature blotted it out through evolution.

Yes my bible argument is a small one I agree

"For one thing, this is a big slippery slope argument because it's taking a small reformation like same-sex marriage and turning it into an argument about how it will lead to this big reformation in the future."

That is a liginamant argument. As a wanna be politician, son of a lawyer, you need to look at laws and their effects over time, and what they can lead to. If they found passing a deficit lw would force the goverment to nuke the world I bet they would't pass it, I bet if there was a law that would allow people to marry and rape (because the animal won't consent) their pets becae they want to marry it, that they shouldn't make that law because it leads to gross things later on.


"Same goes for Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Iceland, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Sweden, who have all legalized gay marriage."

Australia has too, and they had a case where this man tried to marry his dog, hence the above argument. AND HE SUCCEDED! ew...http://www.ktla.com...

"My opponent doesn't explain how many people, gay or otherwise, are actually just trying to save on tax dollars."

My proof is current marriage, straight people sometimes do this, and gays would too. So legilizing it would lead to more of these instances, compounding the issue. So my proof is crrent marriages (obviously a lower number)

"I have an entire contention explaining that gay marriage will actually reduce the negative stats in homosexual communities, for one thing."

you do, and I used logic to prove that in many states it would increase the amount of hate. Like texas would probably be up in arms, or arizona may be mad, missisipi would go bazerk. So in some instances it wold increase hate group size. Also your study links didn't work. They brought me to a questions page.

"Marriage is not a right anywhere? Like in Article 16 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Or perhaps in the Supreme Court decisions Turner v. Safley (1987) and Loving v. Virginia (1967)"


"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. UN article" 16
http://www.un.org...
It doesnt metion sexuality, only age, race, and religeon. SO you point doesn't relate to this argument.

"It struck down another regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, finding that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry. "

Turner v. safley
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Once again no sexual mentioned

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Sorry This was a copy paste from the link below, and the words were blue. Guess what, no sexuality mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org...

So your argument doesn't pertain to this point of law.

"My opponent even concedes that there are no tax benefits to civil unions, and at the point where homosexuals are not applicable for these privileges simply because they're homosexual, that's just morally irrelevant discrimination (prejudice)."

As I mentioned above, I want to be a politician, and the civil union laws could easily be changed. You could add the tax benifits to it, then many people would like the compromise, the conservatives (like me ;) would agree with it because it doesnt have the word marriage in it, why insist on using that word?

But depending on the state you get tax benifits, in new jersy if youin a civil union you can file marriage income taxes: http://www.lsnjlaw.org...

So a civil uniois a good compromise.

I wish you good luck :)
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I am going to go over my opponent's rebuttals and explain to the judges why I should win:
Rebuttal 1: My opponent himself agrees that his Biblical argument is small, and he doesn't really respond to anything that I've said about his point.
Rebuttal 2: A slippery slope is a fallacy when one does not provide any sort of evidence empirical nor theoretical probability showing that executing Action A will beyond a shadow of a doubt result in executing Action B. The only evidence that my opponent posts up is an article about Australia, which is flawed because not only does Australia not do same-sex marriages, but even if it did, my opponent would then have to prove the slippery slope from marriages between gays to marriages between man and animals, which he doesn't. We need to check what kinds of effects laws could have. That's certainly true, but at the point where my opponent tries to say that this law will beyond a shadow of a doubt lead to another law without providing any sort of reasonable evidence showing probabilities nor any empirics that this will actually occur, his analysis is still a fallacy. He also still doesn't respond to the question as to why marriage between man and animals would be in any way detrimental to society, so it's reasonable to say that my opponent only makes an implicit assumption that it will be bad.
Rebuttal 3: My opponent fails to answer the question as to why marriage for practical reasons is a bad thing, meaning that even if there is this large amount of gay people that want to marry for tax exemptions, there's no reason in my opponent's case as to why that should be stopped, running under another one of my opponent's assumptions that the gay population has a large amount of people that want to do this for those reasons. He states that straight people do this as well, but provides no estimated amounts of gays that want to marry for the reasons, showing that while shows that there may be a "problem," he doesn't show that this is a significant problem anyway.
Rebuttal 4: I apologize for the broken links; I will provide my references at the end of the rebuttal. The evidence provided shows that the reason that these negative statistics would be reduced because passing these laws would promote the ideals of tolerance within the community. It's the same thing that happened years ago with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. With the liquidation of segregation, the relations between African Americans and whites were able to improve because of the increased integration therein and government promoted the idea of equality. Hate did not stop the proper administration of justice. My opponent doesn't really respond to the idea about how his scenario is completely hypothetical and has no real sort of evidence. 6 states in America along with 10 other nations have already legalized SSM and don't really show to have these hate groups either, and my opponent doesn't really respond to the idea that SSM would actually reduce these negative statistics nor that his argument is mostly just correlation without causation, just extend those arguments as well.
Rebuttal 5: Right or privilege, my opponent does not respond to my idea about how denial of such attributes on basis of being homosexual is unjust, so you can extend that across the flow. The evidence I provided in my rebuttal are to show more that marriage is a fundemental right and not a privilege. If my opponent is really saying that the human right iterated by the UN is not applicable to homosexuals, it is clear that my opponent doesn't pay attention to the news considering that the UN added the protection of gay rights to their resolution only recently, including homosexuals in the scope of human rights.
Rebuttal 6: Civil unions are not a good compromise because the intention in their existence is to provide fewer benefits and less recognition than traditional marriages. At the point where my opponent is trying to just add the benefits, you might as well call it marriage considering that you're trying to give them equal recognition, in addition to the fact that civil unions are recognized as less than traditional marriages.
Rebuttal 7: The only response that my opponent makes to my question for the link between naturality and marriage is that he just says that naturality has a lot to do with marriage and nothing more (circular reasoning). His reasoning lies on the verge of an ad Populum argument, where his idea of natural is just what society believes is natural, so all he is doing is just appealing to a majority rather than making basis on biological and scientific facts about what is natural and what isn't. He still fails to provide the link. The only thing that has any sort of good support in his case is his definition of "natural," and that works against his favor because he doesn't respond to my argument about carrying capacity in nature and how that occurs all the time in order to keep populations in nature stable. At the point where he does not connect his argument to the definition of natural, it means that my opponent still upholds some sort of abitrary standard of what natural is, which is exactly what he is doing by saying that kissing horses or marrying cars is not natural. He doesn't explain why. Quickly going back to his information about NARTH and the Family Research Council, he doesn't really provide any sort of methodology of the experiment, only the conclusions, so his evidence there shows to be minimal at best.
Rebuttal 8: He also makes no counter to my economics argument, so extend that across the flow.
Reasons for voting PRO: The reasons why judges should vote PRO are poignantly obvious. My opponent responds to very little in my debate, what he does respond to is baseless at best, and the entirety of his argument is full of logical fallacies and pitfalls with no evidence. I've defended my case quite well if I may say so myself not just because I defended myself against what my opponent has said but because my opponent has said virtually nothing against my case except logical fallacies and claims with no evidence. If you go back through the rebuttal, you will see my case goes virtually untouched. Thus, your vote should go to PRO.
References:
Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <http://www.businesspundit.com...;.
Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <http://userwww.service.emory.edu...;.
Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <http://www.policyarchive.org...;.









16kadams

Con

Sorry but I'm on vacation in my mountain house so I would not be able to respond very well. So my Apologies, thanks for the wonderful debate. Judge my former arguments not this one. In in 2 debates as it is stressful to do this on my phone. So this concludes, vote con if you want
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
[off topic]
: inalienable rights, which means that they cannot be given or taken,

Inalienable rights can't be given, but they get taken all the time. If you can't alienate your estate because the eldest son is supposed to inherit in each generation, that doesn't prevent the Vogons from building a hyperspace bypass.
[/off topic]
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Continued from RFD...

What would have been better from Pro would be to say simply that marriage is not a right and not make any reference to any nation or law. So rather than saying, "Marriage is not a right in any international law, in any society, and even not in our constitution," you simply say "Marriage is not a right." Then, when your opponent brings up various laws and court hearings, you pull out that they are appealing to authority (just because the law says so does not make it right or true). If you want to be risky, you can point to the DoI referring inalienable rights, which means that they cannot be given or taken, they simply exist. That establishes that true rights are above any law or court. However, you run the risk of your opponent throwing an appeal to authority right back at you for using the DoI (you can avoid it by making the statement, and saying something like, "similar to how it is said in the DoI" so that it is not an Appeal to Authority).
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Con was hard, sometimes impossible, to understand. S&G point to Pro.

<em>Acceptance:</em> Pro says that people will be more accepting of gays if the government treats them the same as straights. Con says that would anger bigots in certain locals so they would be _less_ accepting of gays. While Con could be right about local short-term backlash, Pro seems right overall.

Pro says gay marriage helps commerce. Doesn't say how. Gives links I don't incline to follow. That is, he didn't make his argument himself, but left someone else somewhere else to make it. But he did make the claim, which Con failed to refute. Con says gay marriage should be prohibited so we can tax gays more than straights, as if that were a good thing. Then he suggests changing the civil union laws so that we don't tax gays more. Not only is that self-contradictory, but it misses the target. Pro claimed that gay marriage would help commerce, not government revenue.

Con claimed that marriage is not a right. Pro refuted this. Con's comeback was ineffectual, off target, as if he'd forgotten the context and purpose of his original claim.

Con says gay marriage is not natural, but never says how this is relevant.

Con made the slippery-slope, which Pro named and refuted.

Con said gays die sooner (etcetera) without making this relevant by saying it is caused by marriage. Pro turned this around, pointing out that gays may be dying young because they are discriminated against, by, just as an example, not being allowed to marry.

Victory: Pro.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
stop voting I have already lost!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
yay I'm losing!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
thanks, history... I will respond later. (tomorrow)
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Good luck to Con
Posted by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
looking forward to seeing this debate good luck to you two
Posted by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
looking forward to seeing this debate good luck to you two
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ok
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
ScarletGhost439616kadamsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The "right to marry" argument pretty much sealed it for Con. By arguing that it isn't a right, leaves him open to be proven wrong (as Pro did). Con tried to change it by suggesting that those laws and legal cases didn't talk about gay marriage, but that wasn't the issue for them. They were about establishing that marriage is a right. From there, Pro shows that because marriage is a right, gays should not be disciminated against.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
ScarletGhost439616kadamsTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins it's as simple as that
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ScarletGhost439616kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by rogue 4 years ago
rogue
ScarletGhost439616kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't understand the relevance of many things Pro brought up such as legal cases. He also ignored the research done by pro's sources. I gave conduct to Pro for posting in every round and gave spelling and grammar to Pro as well because Con's spelling and grammar was pretty awful.
Vote Placed by MasterKage 4 years ago
MasterKage
ScarletGhost439616kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the better arguments overall, as well as having better S/G overall.