Resolved: Same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States
Debate Rounds (4)
Based on my analysis with the topic at hand as well as my own personal proclivity with this subject, I am obliged to affirm the resolution and state that same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States. Before, continuing, I must make observations on the topic at hand, and the main definition for this debate is the following:
Ought: [a term] used to indicate duty or correctness; used to give or ask advice
With this clear distinction on the resolution's text, it is obvious the arbiter toward the analysis of the debate at hand: the correctness or duty of the United States whether it be moral or practical. With considerations that the United States is a parameter in this resolution, we must also make judgement based on the Constitution and the governmental style described and established therein and upheld by the government.
Now, to my contentions:
Contention 1: Legalization of SSM benefits society
It is both morally and practically correct to make improvement to society through the utilization of moral methods, and by legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, we would be doing exactly what the government is required by society and make improvements on it as such. The main improvement to society lies within the betterment of the population with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals in relation to homosexuals as well as economically.
Sub 1a: Acceptance of same-sex marriagereduces negative statistics in the homosexual population, homophobia, and other negative acts as a result of homophobia.
The affirmative understands the conditions at which homosexuals are subjected under when it comes to the question of health in the gay community. The rates of HIV and AIDS as well as alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community have been known to have been larger than the amount in the heterosexual counterpart of the society. By reducing these numbers, we would be in a way benefitting the community, and thus showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be correct. The following evidence shows that the high statistics in the gay community are strongly connected with homophobia/rejection of homosexuals and that same-sex marriage aids to the improvement of the gay community.
"HIV, AIDS, and Young Gay Men"-- Avert;http://www.avert.org......#
"The development of support networks for families plays an important role in increasing acceptance. Feeling accepted and supported as a young gay man is very important in terms of self-acceptance and self-esteem. Having high self-esteem among young gay men has been shown to have a positive impact on confidence about negotiating sexual relationships and practising safer sex. Permissive laws which equalise the rights of gay men with others in the population can help normalise sexual differences and restrictive laws can be widened to make sure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is treated as are other forms of discrimination."
"Tolerance and HIV"--Francis and Mialon, 2009 (Emory University, Department of Economics)--http://userwww.service.emory.edu......
"We empirically investigate the effect of tolerance for gays on the spread of HIV in the Unitedv States. Using a state-level panel dataset spanning the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, we find that tolerance is negatively associated with the HIV rate. We then investigate the causal mechanisms potentially underlying this relationship. We find evidence consistent with the theory that tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate."
"Gay Teens Turning to Drugs and Alcohol."-- Teen Drug Abuse, 2011 http://www.teen-drug-abuse.org......
"A study by Dr. Michael P. Marshal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center revealed that LGBT teens are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens, and that the usage rate is even higher among certain subgroups...
Marshal, whose team analyzed data that had been collected during 18 studies between 1994 and 2006, attributed the spike in drug and alcohol use among LGBT teens to the considerable societal pressures faced by the members of this demographic group. “Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people,” Marshal said in a March 25, 2008 press release that was posted on the Addiction website. “History shows that when marginalized groups are oppressed and do not have equal opportunities and equal rights, they suffer. Our results show that gay youth are clearly no exception.”"
Sub 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage is economically beneficial
Alongside the betterment of the homosexual counterpart of society is the betterment of the economic status of the society as a whole, meaning that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be beneficial to the community as a whole.
"The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget"-- Sears and Badgett, 2008--University of California(http://www3.law.ucla.edu......)
"This analysis estimates the impact of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision to extend marriage to same-sex couples on state and local government revenues in California. Using the best data available, we estimate that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in approximately $63.8 million in revenue over the next three years."
"The Economic Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Vermont."--Ramos, Badgett, and Sears, 2009--University of California (http://www3.law.ucla.edu......)
Contention 2: Legalization of SSM is moral because it provides justice and community benefit
As I have explained in my previous contention, we must also benefit the community in a moral fashion, and morality must be judged as well in order to show the correctness in the government legalizing it as such. In this contention, I will prove that the legalization of same-sex marriage is moral. The main source of the morality for same-sex marriage lies in the fact that not only does it benefit the community, but also provides justice.
Sub 2a: Legalization is better than civil unions
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals in the American society 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.
Sub 2b: Supreme Courts have ruled that SSM denial is unconstitutional
Supreme Courts across the country have made evaluations over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and the denial thereof, and the most recent rulings show that Supreme Courts rule that the denial of SSM is unconstitutional, and thus, the establishment of SSM would uphold constitutionality. Court rulings upholding SSM are the following:
Perry v. Schwarzenneger (California 2008)
Baehr v. Miike (Hawaii 1993)
Varnum v. Brien (Iowa 2009)
Contention 3: Majority opinion now supports SSM.
In addition to the obligation to uphold the country, we must uphold the governmental style of the United States: a democracy dedicated to the people. A democracy must uphold what is both moral/practical and most supported by people in order to be valid to be upheld by the government. The following recent polls show that the new majority of people support SSM.
Legalized marriage is unjust and certainly not economically beneficial. It is a significant contributor to our byzantine tax structure where it inevitably injects bureaucratic regulations into the calculations made by people in their relationship decisions, and often discriminates against single people, it reduces pressure to have a fair system for hospital visitation and the like (which should be basable on lists made before an injury, not merely blood or marriage), and there is no particular need for having the legal ramifications categorized separately from any other type of contract.
If we assume as the studies do that tolerance for gays decreases their likelihood of spreading AIDs, this is no reason to favor the expansion of the institution of marriage when the result can be just as easily achieved by blanket derecognition of marriage by the law.
Your source (which is a broken link) on the "economic benefits" of expansion of legal marriage is false extrapolation, it speaks primarily of tourism from other states to those states that recognize it in the hopes that the home state will be therebound. There is no such money coming in from other states when same-sex marriage is equally legal throughout the United States as your resolution advocates, and hence no economic benefit happening throughout the United States. The mere fact of purchasing wedding related goods does not significantly impact overall economic health, as money that would be spent on wedding related goods is presently spent on other goods-- certainly not enough added motive power to outweigh the drain of a byzantine tax structure on the economy.
Being "Better than civil unions" is not a recommendation, "civil unions" is no more valid an institution for the government to grant special recognition to than marriage.
Appeals to majority opinion or a court are flatly fallacious (Ad populum and ad authoritatem respectively).
I'd like thank my opponent for his response to me, and I apologize in advance for any broken links that have come up in my case structure. In my rebuttal, I will make explanations and elaborations of the evidence that I have provided as well as provide any additional information that may be required in the defense of my case. Now, to my opponent's rebuttal and case:
My opponent starts his address on my case with my first contention with a statement that tolerance alone will be enough to reduce the AIDS rates among homosexuals, but when we look at the high amounts of AIDS rates among homosexuals in the United States so far despite all of the movements in modern America to spread tolerance, the AIDS rates continue to be high. The viewers may ask for an explanation in all of this, and this is elaborated in my study from Emory University provided in Subpoint 1a: In the study conducted, Mialon and Francis had made an analysis between the 1970s and 1990s. During this time period, while a rise in tolerance decreased HIV rates among the people by 1 case per 100,000 while bans in gay marriage boosted HIV rates by 4 per 100,000. My point here is further shown from the following statement from the actual report: "According to estimates, the incidence of HIV in the US decreased considerably during the 1990s, as attitudes towards gays liberalized. Nevertheless, HIV incidence remains high.There are an estimated 1.2 million people living with HIV/AIDS today, and 40,000 new infections per year in the 33 states with confidential name-based reporting (CDC, 2005; Glynn and Rhodes, 2005)." What this proves in totality is that tolerance, while it is beneficial and should be promoted, is not enough to aid to the reduction of HIV rates. The study also shows exactly how gay marriage affects HIV rates, which is why they came to the conclusion that a constitutional ban on gay marriage would also increase the rates by 4 per 100,000 cases in the United States. Furthermore, in my argument, I stated that we must evaluate this case through the correctness of the action suggested today, and when gay marriage is allowing for the reduction of HIV rates and bettering society, it is correct and thus, permissible to be legalized and fully suggested as well.
From there, he makes an argument against my economic benefits resolution in my statement where he draws a comparison to tourism as being the sole reason as to why there was an increase to the amount of money in the economic systems of the states. Although, yes, tourism has something to do with the amount of net revenue generated by the states themselves, the evidence that I have posted in my subpoint 1b not only points to tourism, but the generation of new economic activity in order to fuel business and stimulate the economy. Take for example the state of California in the study by the UCLA in their previous acceptance of same-sex marriage, where the report stated: "Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost California’s economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years." Massachusetts in their adoption of same-sex marriage was projected to have over $100 million in revenue by the UCLA up until the government brought forth a 1913 statute that made out-of-state gays not applicable to marriage there. Another report also states that same-sex marriage nationwide could generate 2 billion dollars for the economy. Bottom line: gay marriage creates commerce...and tourism, thus stimulating the economy.
The arguments against Contentions 2 and 3 are quite easy to knock down.
My opponent's argument against Subpoint 2a wasn't even an argument. It said nothing about civil unions not being less or more than marriage. I'll reiterate my point that the mere existence of civil unions specifies a move for society toward recognizing same-sex couples, but it is not enough because it does not provide the same benefits, thus being unequal. My opponent doesn't really argue against it, so you can definately extend it across the flow.
Then, we move to my opponent's final two arguments against the entirety of my Contention 3 and Subpoint 2b. By calling my contention 3 a logical fallacy via Ad populum is actually a logical fallacy of its own (strawman) considering that I was in no way arguing that same-sex marriage is good because the majority of the people support it. I clearly stated in my case that a decision has to be moral/practical and supported by the majority in order to uphold the governmental structure of what is a democracy (as I have stated as one of my parameters should be considered in this debate, which my opponent did not argue). I had to prove that gay marriage is moral/practical before we take it to the majority opinion, and based on what the judges see in this rebuttal and from what I argued in my original case, I have clearly shown that same-sex marriage is moral and practical, and with this validated, we can now look toward the majority opinion, which agrees that same-sex marriage ought be legalized.
And finally, there is his argument against my subpoint 2b, but my opponent has no grounds to argue against this subpoint because of his no response to my parameter that we must look toward the American Constitution, which clearly states that the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution and we must follow it as such. Thus, my opponent cannot knock this subpoint down.
Now, we move on to his case. I'd like to ask for the evidence he has in support of his arguments to be placed in the next round for cross-examination and rebuttals as well.
It was your study that declared tolerance reduces AIDS rates, if you deem "tolerance alone" has gone as far as you can go, this rebuts your study, it does not support your position.
As the link to your study is broken the claim that it shows "Exactly how gay marriage" affects it cannot be rationally analyzed, and it is unlikely it considered any other marriage-equal solutions including abolition of lawful marriage.
" "Spending by resident same-sex couples on their weddings, and by out-of-state couples on tourism and their weddings, will boost California’s economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years." "
As I said earlier, the non-tourist money is merely substitution-- it would otherwise be spent on something else. It is the problem of the seen and the unseen, spending on a particular category may APPEAR to grow the economy, but only because one does not see what else they would have spent it on. The economy is about production, not spending, at its fundament. It doesn't matter if there is a buyer of widgets unless there is a seller.
I didn't have to say anything about civil unions being more or less than marriage, as I did not advocate civil unions as an alternative, your argument regarding them has no impact whatsoever unless I do so.
" I clearly stated in my case that a decision has to be moral/practical and supported by the majority in order to uphold the governmental structure of what is a democracy"
This only matters if we assume upholding a democracy is a good thing. The assumption without further argument is EXACTLY the ad populum fallacy, you have not rebutted my claim of ad populum but rather supported it.
Notably, the Constitution is not democratic, but republican-- it explicitly attempts to limit the extent of democracy as much as it can manage.
"I have clearly shown that same-sex marriage is moral and practical,"
False, you have only shown that marriage equality is. You have done nothing to distinguish the legalization of SSM from my proposed alternative of delegalization of all marriage, which results in just as much marriage equality.
"as I have stated as one of my parameters should be considered in this debate,"
Please quote the exact place where you stated "Do not take this debate unless you are a democrat" or the equivalent.
"And finally, there is his argument against my subpoint 2b, but my opponent has no grounds to argue against this subpoint because of his no response to my parameter that we must look toward the American Constitution, which clearly states that the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution"
"Looking towards" the Constution and agreeing with it are two different things. Your parameter only specifies the former. It is no one's fault but yours if your parameters did not bar as much as you thought they would. Furthermore, THE Supreme Court has never ruled on same sex marriage, it is various STATE Supreme Courts which you cited, which are completely irrelevant to the Constitution of the United States.
My arguments are logical, not empirical, you seem to expect me to have some sort of source for them. This is flatly unnecessary. You ought have evaluated them as they stand in this past round. Do you need a citation for the claim that SSM is just or unjust? No. You need an argument. The act of citing something in regards to a moral argument is fallacious.
Yes, my study shows us that tolerance shows to reduce AIDS rates among the homosexual population, but there's a distinction between tolerance alone and acceptance of homosexuals. Tolerance is simply sucking your teeth and trying to get along with homosexuals whereas acceptance is some kind of acknowledgement that there really isn't anything wrong with homosexuality, and while tolerance is a great thing and helps our society a lot, it's not as effective as acceptance, as you can clearly see from my study from Emory University. Tolerance is great, but acceptance, including gay marriage, is better as far as the statistics are concerned. So, my contention about the gay marriage health effect still stands as far as I'm concerned.
Before talking about the economy, let's talk about my opponent's argument on civil unions. What my opponent argues is that he doesn't even need to talk about civil unions because he doesn't support that as an alternative. However, as far as civil unions in this arguments are concerned, it's not about who supports them and who doesn't. What really matters is that they are acknowledged by the country in some way. It doesn't matter whether my opponent doesn't support them, considering that I support them as well and here I am arguing against them and the fact that the country in some way is providing an alternative, but the said alternative is not as good as the marriage itself. Therefore, we must talk about it in this debate regardless: because it exists.
A republic, by the way, is a type of democracy: a representative democracy. Yes, it doesn't extend to the people as much as a direct democracy would, but the main idealism is still more or less the same: "by the people, for the people." In fact, the Constitution has been changed throughout the course of time to better accomodate that standard, whether it was to provide more rights for blacks and women to allowing elections for senators in order to put a people's voice. Therefore, it's a tacit obligation for the government to look at the society's perspective on when it comes to a social matter. As I said earlier in my argument, we must look at the duty and the correctness of the action, and based on what I've proven to my judges in my case, not only would it be correct to uphold democracy in this sense because we are upholding something good, but the government would also be fufilling its obligation to the people.
Then, we move on to the economic benefits. An economy is not only dependent on production. It's dependent on commerce in totality, and when we increase the amount of same-sex marriages, we're generating more commerce. Sure, if it's not spent on tourism or the marriage itself, it would be spent on something else, but the question is: how much would be spent on something else? We can also acknowledge that they would be spending on something else AND make spending for same-sex marriages, which would only supplement my case. In addition, this is a report made from a university-level analysis, and not to condescend my opponent or anything, but it's the university professor's word against his, and my opponent hasn't posted any evidence contrasting my economics case. So my economics case still stands.
As for the evidence that I asked for in his debate, it was more to try to clarify his position considering that we never really put forth a cross-examination, so I guess I should do so in order to make more clarifications:
1.) You stated that same sex marriage is a contributor to the tax structure and puts more regulations. Are you saying that gay marriage is unfair because it raises taxes? If so, how much would it raise it by?
2.) What exactly do you mean when you stated that it reduces pressure for fair hospital visits? How does gay marriage do that? Do you have any reports explaining that or evidence explaining that and how significant it is?
Expansion of lawful marriage is not a moral sanction, it does not constitute generalized acceptance but rather legal subsidy. Hence, acceptance is irrelevant.
The entire point of debate is to convince others to support or oppose a thing. If it doesn't matter that I am opposed to civil unions because they are "acknowledged by the country in some way," then it logically follows that it doesn't matter that you support gay marriage because it is not thusly acknowledged. QED, take back that line of reasoning or nothing you have said in this debate matters.
As for "because it exists--" giraffes exist too, that doesn't mean we have to discuss them here.
"A republic, by the way, is a type of democracy: a representative democracy. Yes, it doesn't extend to the people as much as a direct democracy would,"
There is no such thing as "the people." Yet democracy is phrased as an absolute-- if something does not "Extend" to this nonexistent being or the actual beings for which that construct stands in in conversation, then it is not a democracy.
There is and can be no "representation" of the people.
"In fact, the Constitution has been changed throughout the course of time to better accomodate that standard, whether it was to provide more rights for blacks and women to allowing elections for senators in order to put a people's voice. Therefore, it's a tacit obligation for the government to look at the society's perspective on when it comes to a social matter. "
This argument simply does not follow. Past behavior does not create an obligation unless it is a contract. The US government has interned Japanese in concentration camps in the past, this does not mean it is obligated to do so now, yet applying the line of reasoning you have applied here would mean it was.
Then, we move on to the economic benefits. An economy is not only dependent on production. It's dependent on commerce in totality, and when we increase the amount of same-sex marriages, we're generating more commerce. "
No, we are substituting commerce for commerce.
"how much would be spent on something else?"
Exactly as much as their production would bear-- the same amount. The only things they can do with their production are spend it, or invest it, itself a form of spending, and one that leads to more spending in the long run.
"We can also acknowledge that they would be spending on something else AND make spending for same-sex marriages,"
We cannot simultaneously acknowledge substitution and a net increase on spending from spending on same-sex marriages in a world where marriage has no legal effects.
(Notably, if marriage has no legal effects, anyone can still spend money on a wedding for social reasons).
"In addition, this is a report made from a university-level analysis, and not to condescend my opponent or anything, but it's the university professor's word against his, and my opponent hasn't posted any evidence contrasting my economics case"
This is the ad authoritatem fallacy quite plain. I have posted as evidence a principle of economics which you have not adequately disputed.
Furthermore, if you would like the word of authorities as evidence despite the fallacy of doing so, have a look at Jean-Baptiste Say's law, or Bastiat's parable of the broken window, for corroboration of my position on the economic utility of mere spending. Either author has more gravitas than a random "university professor."
"1.) You stated that same sex marriage is a contributor to the tax structure and puts more regulations. Are you saying that gay marriage is unfair because it raises taxes? If so, how much would it raise it by?"
I am not a tax lawyer, and circumstances vary-- for some couples filing jointly can be a negative, but married people can file jointly or separately so properly advised, the only ones who file jointly will benefit. According to this, those beneficiaries average about $1100 a year per couple.
It would be unjust for a single penny to be taken from singles (and ineligible marriages) to subsidize eligible marriages.
2.) What exactly do you mean when you stated that it reduces pressure for fair hospital visits? How does gay marriage do that? Do you have any reports explaining that or evidence explaining that and how significant it is?
It does not take any "reports" to notice that the only significant discourse on reforming hospital visitation law is primarily motivated by (and will frequently mention) desire for gay couples to be allowed to visit one another. If gay marriage is recognized, all that discourse goes away, gay couples join the system, and anyone else with problems with the system is left out in the cold.
By contrast, if heterosexual marriage is derecognized, people have to craft a system not based on marriage, which will pretty much inevitably have to allow people to write who they want allowed to visit somewhere before they get ill (any system more stringent, in the absence of a heuristic like legal marriage, would exclude so many people that outcry would be inevitable).
Well, seeing how the main arguments against one another have been made, let's wrap this debate up.
As you can see, I have efficiently maintained my position on my subpoint 1a about the correlation between gay marriage and the betterment of the society. The only finishing argument that my opponent makes against the matter is that the acceptance of gay marriage would not equal acceptance, which isn't totally true considering that a social legislation truly does speak in some way, and the acknowledgement of same sex shows us that the government acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual and allows marriage between them as such. With that said, even if gay marriage legislation does not equal acceptance, my opponent does not argue the information provided for the said argument, and because he cannot completely knock down this subpoint, it doesn't knock down my first contention, which in turn does not knock down my second contention either because I acknowledged therein that one of the reasons why gay marriage was moral was because it aids to society in some way. So, because he didn't knock down that subpoint, my first and second contentions are still sustained.
"If it doesn't matter that I am opposed to civil unions because they are "acknowledged by the country in some way," then it logically follows that it doesn't matter that you support gay marriage because it is not thusly acknowledged." This logic really doesn't make sense. When I meant acknowledged, I meant acknowledged as legal, and because the condition exists that the country in some way acknowledges same-sex couples under the law, it is a moral obligation to make things equal. That is where civil unions come into the equation: because they are upheld in the country in some way, but still don't provide equal benefits of a traditional marriage. Yes, it exists, and it is relevant to the discussion because it discusses the affairs of gays, so this argument my opponent tries to make about the giraffe is totally irrelevant. Bottom line: the condition exists that gays are acknowledged by the government in some way through civil unions, and the fact that civil unions do not provide equal benefits but marriage does shows us that to present a sense of equality, we must legalize same-sex marriage.
When it comes to the argument about democracy, there indeed IS such as thing as the people, as in the people who live in the country as a whole. The people of the country elect their representatives in order to stand for their collective ideals, thus showing to us that the people truly do have a voice and should be listened to as such. At least, that is what a democracy, direct or indirect, would ask of us. Therefore, the people's word have to be taken into account in this debate.
The main problem with my opponent's argument against my economics argument is that it's all so unfounded other than the economic theories that were put in place with his own. When it comes to making an analysis on sociology and economics and other such kinds of professional fields, we need a credible analysis from a stronger source in order to a credible argument for or against the said topic. Besides, I can argue that Say's Law, as he quoted in his rebuttal, actually supports my case because gay marriage does not spend alone on one product, as Say's Law describes. The photography, the flowery, the clothing, the rental spaces, and many other things associated with wedddings. With gay marriage in the equation, businesses would have more competition and would increase demand for their supply. Thus, his evidence actually supports mine. As for his second piece of evidence, he would have to prove of the unintended consequences, which can actually be shown to be positive and is more of a theory than an actual law.
Then, we move on to his argument. When it comes to the argument about the tax structure, it shows to be more of a fallacy against the tax structure rather than gay marriage itself. To apply his words, the increase to the taxes would be more of an unintended consequence because at the end of the day, that's the structure's fault, not gay marriage's. It is clear because based on my opponent's description, this is something that occurs with all marriage, not just the same-sex ones, and it means that same-sex couples would likely be to be subjected under this conditions as well. If taxes do rise, blame the tax structure, not gay marriage just because we want to level the playing field. The same goes for his second argument. In essence, he's blaming one thing for the fault of another, and it just means, if this is truly something that is unfair and inefficient, that we need to make changes to that rather than abolish same-sex marriage. To put it quite simply against his argument, it's not gay marriage's fault.
So with this said, judges, please vote pro.
Legislation speaks on the position of the government. The same preaching will be heard in churches, the same rejection rate of those coming out by their families, regardless of the position of the government
If X does not equal Y, and Y is what you need for Z, Z is knocked down when X is.
". When I meant acknowledged, I meant acknowledged as legal, and because the condition exists that the country in some way acknowledges same-sex couples under the law, it is a moral obligation to make things equal. "
This simply doesn't follow. The granting of a present subsidy is no cause for obligation to grant a future, greater one.
"the fact that civil unions do not provide equal benefits but marriage does"
Equality and subsidies cannot both exist, you're still discriminating against single people either way, expanding the favored class just makes it harsher on the rest. The only proposed state of marriage law favoring equality is the one I have proposed-- abolition.
"When it comes to the argument about democracy, there indeed IS such as thing as the people,"
When it comes to reality, there isn't, hence your idea of democracy can never be concretized in reality. In reality there are only individuals-- we are both people, but we cannot be a "The people," and we cannot both rule, as we disagree.
" as in the people who live in the country as a whole."
This sense is precisely the problem. There is no "whole" consisting of people living in the country.
"The people of the country elect their representatives"
Only the majority does that, sorry (elect means choose, remember, and the minority's say holds not the least sway, thus, they do not choose).
"in order to stand for their collective ideals,"
There are no collective ideals, there are only ideals that someone disagrees about.
"At least, that is what a democracy, direct or indirect, would ask of us."
Well, such a request cannot be granted. Therefore, worry about the things that can be granted, not democracy.
"The main problem with my opponent's argument against my economics argument is that it's all so unfounded other than the economic theories that were put in place with his own. When it comes to making an analysis on sociology and economics and other such kinds of professional fields, we need a credible analysis from a stronger source in order to a credible argument for or against the said topic."
This is an argument from authority, straight up and undiluted.
"Besides, I can argue that Say's Law, as he quoted in his rebuttal, actually supports my case because gay marriage does not spend alone on one product, as Say's Law describes. The photography, the flowery, the clothing, the rental spaces, and many other things associated with wedddings."
You don't seem to know what Say's Law is because that sentence was completely irrelevant, and Say's Law has no requirement of only applying to "Scenarios where one product is in question," such a requirement would mean it applied to nothing.. Say's Law is that, in general, production makes its own demand. As weddings are not production, they are irrelevant according to Say's law-- if flowers are cheap enough you will buy them for your girlfriend over time instead of spiking purchases on a wedding day, but you will purchase about the same amount (Or some florists will switch professions and then something you want even more will become cheap enough!).
"With gay marriage in the equation, businesses would have more competition and would increase demand for their supply. Thus, his evidence actually supports mine."
The only thing that makes demand according to Say's law is suppliers. When you qualify that suppliers do market research, it makes perfect sense. Gay unmarried people are just as productive as gay married people (Perhaps more-- they'll never have divorce-related frictional costs!) hence they will seek the same overall standard of living-- all purchases that would be wedding-related are substituted with something else.
"As for his second piece of evidence, he would have to prove of the unintended consequences, which can actually be shown to be positive and is more of a theory than an actual law."
The unintended consequences (I assume you're referring to Bastiat's Window) here, which one should assume always exist, are, obviously, that spending is merely shifted from other goods and perhaps in time, not increased (as it can't be increased, there's no increase in production).
Then, we move on to his argument. When it comes to the argument about the tax structure, it shows to be more of a fallacy against the tax structure rather than gay marriage itself. "
When declaring a fallacy, you have to name it, or you are assumed to be merely venting frustration. Perhaps you meant "argument?"
"To apply his words, the increase to the taxes would be more of an unintended consequence because at the end of the day, that's the structure's fault, not gay marriage's. "
Legal recognition of marriage consists entirely of the production of these "unintended" consequences-- subsidies from single people to married people. And what of it? You just say prove unintended consequences, here you go.
"In essence, he's blaming one thing for the fault of another, and it just means, if this is truly something that is unfair and inefficient, that we need to make changes to that rather than abolish same-sex marriage."
Abolishing same-sex (and different-sex) marriage as far as legal recognition goes is the only way to make changes to that, furthermore, if changes are made to that, legal recognition of marriage no longer has a purpose. You wanna profess your love publicly, you can have a wedding without a certificiate you know, the only reason to get a certificate is for the subsidies.
" It is clear because based on my opponent's description, this is something that occurs with all marriage, not just the same-sex ones,"
Yes, and IF YOU'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION, the alternative policy proposal I have is to abolish legal recognition of marriage. As you clearly acknowledge the problem, and you offer no solution for it aside from mine, and your original resolution stands in contradiction to that solution-- well, that's pretty much a concession of defeat right there.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses the spelling and grammar for the formatting and link issues. Arguments go to Con for two reasons. A) Pro's argument boils down to a Causation vs Correlation fallacy. Just because AIDS rates are decreasing and tolerance is increasing does not prove cause. We would also see that awareness is increasing and many of the "first gen" homosexuals with aids from the 80's are dead. In addition, Pro did not overcome the delegalization of marriage in general as an alternative solution.