The Instigator
adrianaesque
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Contradiction
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Same-sex marriage should be federally legal in the USA.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 8 votes the winner is...
Contradiction
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,909 times Debate No: 17416
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (183)
Votes (8)

 

adrianaesque

Pro

***** "legal" definition: of, based on, or concerned with the law *****

I first begin my argument with a religious pretext.

The following are citations from the US Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
-First Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-Tenth Amendment

The first quote shows us that government cannot establish laws that respect any religion. The second quote shows us that the powers not specified in the Constitution are given to the states. The first quote already specified, however, that government cannot make a law that respect an establishment of religion. Therefore, states cannot do this. However, states have and continue to behave unconstitutionally by having legislation that bans same-sex marriage. This legislative ban respects an establishment of religion, and therefore is unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state, hence the phrase "separation of church and state."

Example of violations of the separation of church and state:
• "in god we trust" on USA currency
• public schools opening events, like graduation, with prayer
• judges hanging the Ten Commandments in their court room

I recognize that freedom of (and from) religion is guaranteed in the founding documents of the United States of America, and is a notion that has continued to be upheld sine the founding. However, governmental issues must preside with influence from legality, not religion.

The United States of America is not a Christian nation. It was not founded as one, and it is not one to this day. There is no official religion of the country. Furthermore, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Christian beliefs may have influenced notions in the nation's founding, but this does not lend a hand to proclaim that the United States of America is a Christian nation. Refer to the following quote:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1976, Article 11

If Christianity is allowed to influence politics, then Islamic Sharia law should be able to as well. However, we all know that Sharia law is not allowed to influence politics or law, thus Christianity or any other religion cannot, either.

Marriage can be holy to those of religious denominations, but ultimately in the eyes of government marriage is a legal issue. It gives the correspondents over 1,300 legal rights. A priest, pastor, or any other type of religious figure is not required to be legally married. There is no legal argument one can make against same-sex marriage. There are only religious arguments. But, since religion cannot be endorsed by the government, same-sex marriage should be federally legal.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

The following is my argument with a scientific pretext, specifically against the notion that "homosexuality is unnatural."

There are over 450 known species that engage in homosexual behavior, including but not limited to:

• African Buffalo
• Amazon River Dolphin
• American Bison
• Adelie Penguin
• Gray Squirrel
• Red Deer
• Black Bear
• Grizzly Bear
• Gray Whale
• House Fly
• Red Fox
• Reindeer
• Gorilla

(See "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity," 1999, by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD; or: http://borngay.procon.org...)

Homo sapiens sapiens DNA is over 98% identical to gorilla DNA. Note, then, that homosexuality is present in one of our most closely-related relatives. It is relevant to compare homo sapiens sapiens to the rest of the animal kingdom because homo sapiens sapiens is a mammal, thus is part of the animal kingdom. Our DNA is made of the same four nitrogenous bases of every other organism--adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. The same relative percentages also exists in every organism of Earth, regardless of species.

Just because homosexuality is not of the general majority status quo, it cannot be deemed "unnatural" biologically. Painting nails, piercing body parts, and cutting/styling hair are all "unnatural" biologically, though they are accepted today because of culture.

Some say that homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against survival, since the sex organ of a male and that of a female is required to produce offspring. Note, however, that the majority of homo sapiens sapiens are not homosexual, so survival is inevitable, and that many other species also engage in homosexual behavior. Nonetheless, whether it is "against survival" or not is not pertinent to this debate, because this debate concerns that same-sex marriage should be federally legal. If federal law were based on survival, then many current activities such as mass oil drilling and consumption would not be federally legal because it is an unsustainable practice that ultimately is against survival.

Furthermore, if marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage.

• • • • • • • • • • • •

The following is additional argument without religious or scientific pretext.

Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970.

Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974's Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause."

There are multiple benefits to same-sex marriage. It brings financial gain through things like marriage licenses and higher income taxes. It makes adoption easier and more widespread. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support." Legalizing same-sex marriage does not harm "family values." In fact, Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.

Lastly, homosexuals are not sub-humans. To be qualified as a homo sapien sapien, you must been certain biological standards. Homosexuals are able to reproduce, and they share every single other biological requirement heterosexuals do.
Contradiction

Con

I will be defending the contention that there are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage. This is because heterosexual marriage provides a framework in which both procreation and child-rearing can take place. The state has a vested interest in protecting this relationship because it is essential to both the production of virtuous citizens and the continuation of society. Because neither are intrinsic to same-sex relationships, the state should not recognize them as marriages. I will be defending the following argument, as formulated by philosopher Jim Spiegel:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. [1]

Heterosexual marriage provides a framework under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm/egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that these notions are crucial for the maintenance of a healthy society. Thus, since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.

Is Marriage About Love?

Same-sex marriage advocates usually view marriage as a relationship between two parties which is centered around love. But this fails to understand what marriage is and why it is regulated by the state. Why is the state in the business of regulating marriage to begin with? After all, the state doesn't regulate friendships or other nonmarital romantic relationships. It's a peculiar thing, considering upon entry into a marriage relationship, a couple finds themselves bound by obligiations which decidedly nonromantic in nature.

The very reason the state has an interest in regulating marriage is because it recognizes that marriage is essential to the production of citizens and therefore the continuation of society. The state does not regulate nonmarital romantic relationships precisely because it has no compelling reason to do so.

This is not mitigated by the fact that procreation is possible from outside a marital framework. The difference between a marriage and say, a boyfriend/girlfriend having sex is that the former is a contractural agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. The state does not regard the latter as a marriage because there are no contractural obligations involved. Since traditional marriage provides the environment necessary for both the production and raising of the state's future citizens, it should be afforded protection under the law.

The Antimiscegenation (Interracial) Analogy

Opposition to same-sex marriage is sometimes compared to opposition to interracial marriage. However, the analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender.

While race is irrelevant to procreation, gender most certainly isn’t. Race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, hence the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.

Are Infertile Couples Excluded?

It may be objected that such reasoning prevents sterile heterosexual couples from marrying due to the fact that they are unable to procreate. But this objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect.

Response to Pro: Establishment of Religion

The argument I have offered is wholly secular, and hence her criticisms on the basis of the establishment clause simply do not apply

Response to Pro: Homosexuality is Natural

As far as the naturalness of homosexuality is concerned, this is utterly irrelevant to my argument. Suppose that homosexuality is natural -- what would follow? In terms of public policy and law, nothing. That something is natural gives us no reason to confer legal recognition of it.

Response to Pro: Due Process, and Benefits

The debate over SSM is fundamentally over what marriage is. One cannot invoke notions of discrimination or denial of equal rights without first presupposing a certain answer to this question. As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson note:

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition.
So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]

In arguing that homosexual couples are being unjustly denied the right to marry, Pro presupposes that there
is such a right. Only if there is this right will the discrimination argument work to begin with. In doing so, however, she begs the question by presupposing a conception of marriage in which this right exists. If there is no such right to begin with, then notions of Due Process simply do not apply.

The same argument applies to the facts that there may be benefits to legalizing same-sex marriage. Supposing that legalizing same-sex marriage would confer benefits on homosexuals, why should that be indicative of legal recognition? That something may be good does not mean we should automatically extend legal recognition. The challenge to Pro is therefore this: What are the state's interests which warrant extending legal recognition to same-sex couples? For if marriage is heterosexual by nature, then same-sex couplings do not qualify as marriages regardless of whatever benefit might be reaped from its legalization.

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
Debate Round No. 1
adrianaesque

Pro

First allow me to thank Contradiction for accepting my debate. I realize that I should have set ground rules in the beginning, for Con formulated a new argument, rendering my own useless. Con has the advantage being he has two opportunities to refute my arguments while I only have one to do the same to his.

My opponent attempted to belittle my argument by deeming it irrelevant to his argument. However, my argument came first, thus Pro had no preconceived notions of what the Con's response would entail. Said irrelevancy is itself irrelevant.

Additionally, Con's explanations of marriage and love and how advocates of same-sex marriage often view this matter is an assumption and irrelevant to the argument Pro presented. The same applies to Con's interracial analogy argument, which is irrelevant to Pro's argument. Pro did not make reference to the said analogy. Pro agrees that the analogy is irrelevant.

In this second and final round, Pro will make rebuttals to her opponent's statements.

Con's opening statement stated that "the state has a vested interest in protecting this relationship because it is essential to both the production of virtuous citizens and the continuation of society." Same-sex marriage does not endanger "this relationship" (heterosexual marriage), so said protection is not needed.

Same-sex marriage does not interfere with heterosexual marriages, just as the marriage of one couple doesn't affect the marriage of another. Same-sex marriage produces "virtuous citizens" just as heterosexual marriage does, and has been proven to perform better than heterosexual marriages. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004 and had the lowest national divorce rate in 2008, declined 21% from 2003 to 2008. Alaska prohibited same-sex marriage in 1998, and saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. Same-sex marriage also can guarantee the continuation of society, explained within the remainder of this argument.

Pro encourages the audience to weigh the notion that marriage is a legal institution in the eyes of government, as explained in Pro's first round. Con explains that the 1000+ rights correspondents of marriage benefit from is provided by the state "for the maintenance of a healthy society," for Con explains that "heterosexual marriage provides a framework under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union is possible under this type of relationship." Con concludes that marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for, an essential part of sustainability.

Con fails to recognize that whilst this is true, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike can adopt to care for citizens. Same-sex marriage will give homosexuals the legal rights that make adoption and said care more easily feasible, thus improving society's efficiency and increasing sustainability.

Con uses Jim Spiegel's six-step argument to form the foundation of his contention. The first clause outlines what heterosexual union is—the joining of sperm and egg. The fourth clause states that "civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions." However, Con fails to realize a hole in the argument.

To understand this hole, the audience must first take into account what Con is sustaining in his argument: marriage is a vessel through which heterosexual union occurs, producing offspring. However, marriage is not essential to produce offspring; only heterosexual union is (with the present limitations of technology). Arguing that same-sex marriage rejects the "special value" of heterosexual marriage (which is created by heterosexual union, according to Con) is invalid because marriage is not defined by heterosexual union. (In fact, Con already concluded that marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for. It is not a vessel of producing offspring.) Pro explained that adoption is an option available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus, same-sex marriage does not "constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions." Additionally this is so because the 1000+ rights bestowed upon heterosexual marriage can be transferred to same-sex marriage in which adoption is an available option, which actually honors and benefits heterosexual union through caring for and nurturing offspring.

Con argues that "since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex." First, Pro would like to point out that the debate is on a basis of the powers of the federal government, not state government.

Con argues that because "marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with," then the exclusion of sterile couples from marriage is irrelevant. Pro points out that this argument of Con is not in accordance with Con's previous argument that marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for by 1000+ rights granted by government. This is not affected by the reproductive ability of the married correspondents. Thus, those that are sterile and homosexuals alike can fulfill the definition of marriage.

This sustained fulfillment is kept consistent through, again, adoption, which is available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and those who are sterile. Furthermore, Con offers no proof that marriage is based "on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with," which is ironic when Con previously concluded marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for. Whether the married correspondents can procreate or not is irrelevant.

On a different note, the United States of America Constitution guarantees freedom, equality, and liberties to every citizen. Denying homosexuals the right to marriage, which is a liberty granted to heterosexuals, is unconstitutional and not in correspondence with the law, or legality. Jim Spiegel's argument that Con is defending is thus irrelevant, for the debate is centered in legality, not the supposed "special social value" that is instilled or detracted from either side by the opposition.

Pro will now answer Con's challenge: "what are the state's interests which warrant extending legal recognition to same-sex couples?" Con then goes on to presume that "marriage is heterosexual by nature," though offers no evidence. Marriage has been heterosexual sexual not by nature, but by cultural 'definitions,' which really are paradigms. Anyhow, marriage cannot be argued to be of either sexuality by nature, because government is concerned with legality. The federal government's (not the state) interest in extending legal recognition to same-sex couples is that of which Con stated himself: caring for citizens through the 1000+ legal rights to married couples.

In the eyes of government, a legal institution, marriage is purposed for the beneficiaries to receive aid to assist in the care of citizens, a statement of Con. Pro reminds the audience that government may only look at this issue legally, for it is the only thing possible within its powers. The debate is based on legality, as stated in the Pro's opening round. Thus, government may view marriage according to the Pro's view but not that of the Con, since the Pro's view focuses on the legal 1000+ rights given to married correspondents while the Con's view focuses on definitions and foundations of marriage and "special social value" which are not legally recognized and which Pro previously addressed and disproved. (Con actually flip-flopped his argument, but ultimately took the latter view.)

In conclusion, Pro urges the audience to see the contradictions and double standards as well as the hole in Spiegel's argument which Con defends, and the benefits of same-sex marriage, and to vote favoring the instigator (pro).
Contradiction

Con

I find it odd that my opponent charged me with "belittling" her argument by pointing out that it's irrelevant. The goal of a debate is to cogently argue for a certain conclusion while refuting the arguments of the opposition. In my last debate, I used a thoroughly secular argument against same-sex marriage. This had the virtue of being completely immune from Pro's opening arguments, as her main arguments were directed toward religious-based arguments. One might be unhappy about this, but this is hardly objectionable given a debate setting where this is expected. Perhaps the fact that Pro's arguments were easily deflected (To her own admission) indicates that she should have used better arguments.

Responding to Pro

Nowhere was it argued that same-sex marriage endangers the institution of traditional marriage. Indeed, my claim was only that by recognizing same-sex marriage as being equivalent to heterosexual marriages, one denies the special social value of heterosexual union. This is not the same thing as endangering the institution of marriage. Consequently, her argument here is simply a strawman. Her statistics, though interesting, are faulty. For one thing, correlation does not imply causation. Rate changes could have been due to a variety of factors -- not SSM. Second, in many of those states, the trend in the divorce rate was pre-existing and thus not a direct consequence of legalizing same-sex marriage. [1] These statistics have also been shown to fluctuate.

Now recall the argument I made:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Pro responds to this by arguing that since heterosexual union and heterosexual marriage is logically distinct, premise four fails. Unfortunately, her response fails. Heterosexual union and heterosexual marriage are indeed logically distinguishable, but this is relatively trivial. She writes,

"Arguing that same-sex marriage rejects the "special value" of heterosexual marriage is invalid because marriage is not defined by heterosexual union."

This attacks a complete strawman. Consider premise four, which reads "Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions." According to my argument, recognizing same-sex marriages as being the equivalent of heterosexual marriages denies heterosexual union of its special social status -- not heterosexual marriage.

I hereby extend my argument. The contention that legally recognizing same-sex marriages would detract from the special social value of heterosexual union therefore remains. Since heterosexual union is the sole means through which society exists, it deserves special social value in the form of legal recognition and protection. This is known as a marriage. By elevating homosexual marriages to the same status as that of heterosexual marriage, one detracts from the fact that heterosexual union has special social value. One is in effect saying that the fact that heterosexual union is the sole means through which society is advanced is inconsequential, which is surely mistaken.

The State's Interest in Marriage

Pro writes that "marriage is a vessel through which citizens are cared for by 1000+ rights granted by government."

This is rather vague. What is marriage, and why does the government even care about it? If marriage is a mere emotional union of persons, then what business does the state have in intruding into the private lives of its citizens by extending legal recognition to their relationships? Why should the state legally recognize a mere emotional union of persons? As the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, the state has no business in this domain of public life. Thus, an overly broad conception of marriage does not make sense of why the state grants these rights or even why its in the marriage business to begin with.

However, if marriage is understood in terms of procreation, then the state's very presence in regulating marriage becomes easy to see. Since the state has a compelling interest in responsible procreation, the state therefore sets laws on who can marry and the rights that are associated with marriage. Now, since the state's interest in marriage is in procreation, it should recognize as marriages only those relationships which are naturally apt to procreation. Because homosexual couples cannot by nature procreate, their relationships are simply not marriages.

Contrary to what Pro says, then, the state's interest in marriage is not merely to dispense aid, otherwise we would have to grant marriage rights to all sorts of relationships, which is absurd. Moreover, this is not merely a legal debate, as Pro would like us to this. When one says that SSM should be legal, they are saying that the law should be a certain way. This can only be established by appeal to extra-legal evidence. This will invariably involve philosophical notions of what marriage is and what the state's interest should be.

Pro brings up adoption. This is more or less irrelevant. I could grant that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. I would not follow from this that therefore they should be given marriage rights. After all, anyone can adopt -- one person, two people, three people, four people, etc... should we then give those types of couplings marriage rights? Of course not, that would be absurd. So adoption is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The purpose of adoption, moreover, is to place a child in an environment that mimics the natural family as close as possible. This would in fact serve to argue for the heterosexual conception of marriage, rather than detract from it.

Constitutionality

Pro charges the traditional conception of marriage as being unconstitutional. However, as I pointed out before, this is circular reasoning. The debate over SSM is fundamentally over what marriage is. One cannot invoke notions of discrimination or denial of equal rights without first presupposing a certain answer to this question. As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson note:

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition.
So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]

In arguing that homosexual couples are being unjustly denied the right to marry, Pro presupposes that there
is such a right. Only if there is this right will the discrimination argument work to begin with. In doing so, however, she begs the question by presupposing a conception of marriage in which this right exists. If there is no such right to begin with, then constitutional arguments will not work.


Sources

1. http://www.infoplease.com...
2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
Debate Round No. 2
183 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
It must suck to be you reformed I mean seriously how do you come to the computer each day, I mean what if your computer turns into a soul swallowing demon and swallows your soul, you can't prove they don't exist so it is very possible, and if you assume they exist it becomes likely that it could happen right?
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
I absolutely love though, that is the aliens example you were caught red handed demonstrating that you understand the burden of proof, at least internally, you are just to intellectually dishonest to accept it with god.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
The moose example is also ridiculous, given the money for travel expenses the person claiming the moose exists could easily go demonstrate this, plus the person has been exposed to good pictures of the moose and could research dna samples of the moose, no such things exist for god or bigfoot, the existence of the moose has been demonstrated by evidence, not god or bigfoot.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Typical ignorant christian conflating common knowledge with absolute certainty, I am not claiming absolute certainty, you or I cannot be absolutely certain we are not part of some alien video game and are not in control of our lives, but in our day to day lives it is functional and rational to live as if we are not and reject that claim on lack of evidence.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
The example was perfect,it goes completely with your claims, god exists a general big claim, where as god rose a zombie up in 1st century Palestine is the small claim. Your first argument with bigfoot is still a joke, its funny you need the argument with aliens where you actually provided evidence based on probability to the contrary proving my point, you felt the need for the person claiming existence to throw in the probability concept.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
This is a basic epistemological issue.

We cannot know that something does not exist without complete knowledge of all things. There is no way to know that on some planet millions of light years away that there is not a creature that correlates to a Bigfoot, so unless we can observe and know all possible locations in all possible universes, we cannot know conclusively that a bigfoot (or a unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster) does not exist as it is possible that they exist in one of those locations or universes that we do not have knowledge of.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Again, you show you are incapable of basic reading and rationality. There is a huge difference between proving that a bigfoot doesn't exist in your yard, and proving that they don't exist anywhere.

Tony: What stole your garbage?
Jim: I don't know, but I know it wasn't a Bigfoot.
Tony: Really, how do you know that?
Jim: Because they don't exist.
Tony: Oh, you know that for sure?
Jim: Yes, I do.
Tony: What proof do you have that they don't exist?
Jim: I've never seen one.
Tony: I've never seen a moose, does that mean they don't exist?
Jim: Well, no...
Tony: So you have no proof that they don't exist.
Jim: I guess not.
Tony: So you can't know they don't exist.
Jim: I guess not.

People do the same thing when talking about Aliens

Tony: I don't believe aliens exist
Jim: Why not?
Tony: Because we have never seen them and have no signs that they exist
Jim: Well, the universe is so huge that it's almost impossible that there isn't some form of life somewhere else in the universe.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
I would hope in the context of that conversation you see how retarded you sound?
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Here is your retarded argument in another context( I don't know why I bother you are clearly retarded and incapable of rational thought) but here goes: Tony: Bigfoot stole your garbage can
Jim: Don't be ridiculous bigfoot doesn't exist.
Tony: you can't prove that, it makes perfect sense if you believe a bigfoot lives in your area.
Jim: well prove there is a bigfoot in my yard
Tony(retardedarsenal plays this part): No you're the one making the claim that bigfoot doesn't exist, thats your burden of proof.

Sorry that is retarded, just like your argument.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I'm not shifting anything, in a debate when you make an affirmative statement you must prove it, plain and simple. I could easily tear apart someone in a debate who made the affirmative statement that Bigfoot does not exist and didn't prove it.

Besides, more and more "rational" atheists are becoming convinced that Bigfoot does exist, so if you still want to be trendy with all your friends you should rethink your position.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Meatros 5 years ago
Meatros
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's charge of belittling was ill-founded (conduct). Con showed Pro's initial arguments to be irrelevant and produced superior arguments which Pro couldn't catch up with.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con answered pro's questions and defended his own. Pro also beggednsome questions
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 5 years ago
ExNihilo
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
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: Question begging.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con begins by effectively refuting Pros case. Pro responds with some good rebuttals but also many irrelevant ones and fails to provide an answer Cons basic premise which was about what marriage is and why the state regulates it. On that note her few effective rebuttals do not succeed in countering Cons argument. Pro appeals to the fact that she did not have an equal opportunity to counter Cons argument, but as instigator it was her responsibility to set the debate structure.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear win to Con. Pro seemed to put a lot of weight in hoping that her opponent would use religion to argue against SSM and seemed really caught off guard. Also izbo's bomb was countered so I'm just going to say that dimitri voted for the both of us.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Adrianesque failed to establish proper laws within the debate and failed to realise that there are secular arguments against same sex marriage which defeat her position this debate. Counter vote bomb of Izbo, as well.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering izbo's votebomb.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
adrianaesqueContradictionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: easy one