The Instigator
KnowItAll
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Contradiction
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The Great Gay Debate Regarding Marriage - Debunk

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,077 times Debate No: 16181
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

KnowItAll

Pro

The subject of this debate will be about the issue of gay marriage in the United States. The purpose of this debate will be to debunk the many issues involving gay marriage issues, specifically those my opponent will use to oppose gay marriage.

This debate will consist of 5 rounds. The 5th round will be used to summarize our positions. Please refrain from making new arguments in the last round.

I would like to thank my opponent in advance for debating this highly charged and controversial issue.
Contradiction

Con

My thanks to KnowItAll for initiating this challenge. May he with the best arguments win.

In this debate, I will be defending the proposition that marriage is exclusively heterosexual, and that the state should legislate according to this principle. Let me say from the begining that my arguments will be based entirely on non-religious premises. Thus, the argument rests on very few controversial premises.

The Argument

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]

Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. 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.

Ask yourself this: "Why is the state so concerned about regulating marriage to begin with?" Why doesn't the state, for instance, regulate friendships as well? Well, the state is not concerned with regulating friendships because there is no compelling reason to do so. On the other hand, the very reason that marriage law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage is about more than just love or attraction, a key part of its nature is centered toward the production of future citizens. It is for this reason why the state has a compelling interest in regulating marriages, but not other types of relationships (Such as friendships, aquaintanceships, etc...). This is also what sets apart a marriage from a mere friendship.

Some Objections Considered

I will now respond to several common objections against the traditional marriage position in hopes of preempting them in Con's opening argument.

1. Traditional marriage discriminates against heterosexual couples

A popular argument amongst proponents of same-sex marriage is that the traditional conception of marriage unjustly discriminates against homosexual couples by way of some moral or legal principle, such as the 14th Amendment. [1] This, however, is mistaken.

First, before we can claim that the traditional conception of marriage would discriminate against homosexual couples, we must first ask “What is marriage?” The charge of discrimination cannot be answered without first conducting an inquiry into what marriage actually is – for if the nature of marriage is such that homosexual relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, then no discrimination would be taking place. As Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson point out:

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.

It makes no sense to argue, for example, that fatherhood unjustly discriminates against women, for fatherhood is properly understood to be a role that is intrinsic to males. Since women cannot be fathers in principle, there is no discrimination taking place. Thus, when one argues that a specific institution discriminates against certain persons, they presuppose that said persons have a right to partake in said institution. But, unless we have settled the prior question as to what this institution actually is, then to use the discrimination argument as supporting evidence for a particular view that institution is to beg the question, since the argument presupposes what it sets out to prove.

2. Sterile couples are 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. [3]

3. Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage is the same thing as antimiscegenation

The analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to the purpose of marriage, gender most certainly isn’t. Since race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, 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.

Conclusion

Based on the arguments presented, it is reasonable to suggest that marriage is exclusively heterosexual. The state therefore should not recognize same-sex "marriages." I now turn it over to my opponent.

___________

Sources

1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...

2. For a recent example, see Perry v. Schwarzenegger 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N. D. Cal. 2010). California Proposition 8 was deemed unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U. S. Constitution.

3. 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

4. Robert P. George, "Same-Sex Marriage and Moral Neutrality", in Francis J. Beckwith (ed), Do the Right Thing: Readings in Applied Ethics and Social Philosophy (Wadsworth 2002) p.646-656

Debate Round No. 1
KnowItAll

Pro

A definition of union as well as the definition of union I believe Jim Spiegel refers to is the uniting in marriage; also sexual intercourse. [1]

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)."
Sexual intercourse between a man and woman is not absolutely necessary (indispensable) for humans to come into existence as artificial insemination also leads to human existence. What are indispensable are male sperm and the reproductive track of a female in order to create life.

2. "The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value."
As sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation is not indispensable it has no special social value.

3. "What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction."
As no special value exists no social recognition and sanction is deserved.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
As no special value exists there can be no rejection.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
Since no special value exists, it cannot be denied and is therefore not unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.
Therefore, gay marriage cannot be unjust.

Jim Spiegel's argument relies on the premise that sexual intercourse/heterosexual union is absolutely necessary (indispensable) for humans to come into existence. However, the procedure of artificial insemination proves this to be a false.

As my opponent is defending a philosophical argument I will use a philosophical definition of marriage as a lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created.

"Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition…."
The reasons people get married vary greatly and it's conjecture to state that the core of marriage is procreation. According to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau 46% of married couples do not have children. [2] Although the data includes children who have grown and left the family home and young married couples who do not have children yet, the number stands at 26,896,000 out of 58,410,000 married couples. There is no data available as to how many married couples never had children but even eliminating half of the 26,896,000 would leave 13,448,000 or 23% of married couples with no children. Of the married couples with children, there are no statistics available as to how many were married as a result of an unplanned pregnancy. However, one can conclude that if the primary purpose of marriage was for the purpose of procreation the percentage should me much higher, even when taking into consideration heterosexual married couples that are unable to conceive.

To further enhance my argument against procreation being the core of marriage take into account that approximately 50% of first time marriages end in divorce while length of marriage for these couples has an approximate average of 8 years [3] and 66% divorce without having any children. [4] Surely, if procreation is indeed the core of marriage why would 66% of married couples not have children within the 8 years of their marriages? Taking into consideration those who choose not have children, for personal or economic reasons, and those who could not conceive the percentages should be much lower if procreation is indeed the core of marriage.

"Why is the state so concerned about regulating marriage to begin with? Why doesn't the state, for instance, regulate friendships as well?"
When a couple enters into a marriage they are entering into a contract. As a person who enters into any contract there are requirements, stipulations and contingencies within the contract. There are also existing laws that have to be accounted for within the contract and whether or not the contract is legally binding in jurisdictions outside of the jurisdiction in which contract was entered. When a person enters a friendship there is no contractual obligation. One can cease a friendship at any time without legal consequence.

My opponents entire argument is based on the belief that marriage is grounded or centered on procreation. He discounts those who marry solely for commitment and companionship. As his entire argument is based on procreation he can just as easily attempt to use the accidental procreation argument.

Based on his argument it not reasonable to suggest that marriage is exclusively heterosexual and that states should not recognize same sex marriage. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C. allow same sex marriages and states such as New York, Maryland and Rhode Island recognize same sex marriages. The question that needs to be asked is why aren't more states recognizing same sex marriage, especially when there is growing support for the U.S. in allowing it? [5]

I now turn the debate over to my opponent.

SOURCES
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://surveysez.com...
3. http://www.census.gov...
4. http://www.divorcerate.org...
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Contradiction

Con

My thanks to KnowItAll for his reply.

In response to Spiegel's argument, Con chooses to attack the first premise. According to his counterargument, artificial insemination also leads to human existence, thus meaning that a male-female union is not intrinsic to the production of future citizens.

This argument, however, misses a glaring fact. Artificial insemination is only possible due to the prior fact that male-female complementarity is required for procreation. As David Orland writes, "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." [1] Far from constituting an argument against my position, this actually hurts Con's argument, for the act of procreation is always heterosexual in type. This notion is what Spiegel's argument is based on, as he writes:

"As for your point about the 'many' ways of making a child, all of the examples you give (and all that can be given) are heterosexual in nature. [Emphasis mine] In-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, etc. all involve a male sperm fertilizing a female egg. This is sexual reproduction, and it is essentially heterosexual. The phrase “homosexual reproduction,” in fact, is a contradiction in terms." [Emphasis mine] [2]

The argument presented here is not based on considerations of the agents involved, or even the effects, but on the intrinsic nature of reproduction. Henceforth, Con's attack on the first premise ends up strengthening the argument. Frank Beckwith agrees, writing: "[T]he argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as beings with a gender who have a purpose derived from that nature... This argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire, which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature." [3] Since procreation is possible only within a heterosexual framework, the state therefore has no compelling reason to allow homosexual couples the right to marry. As Spiegel has said, "homosexual reproduction" is a contradiction in terms.

Beckwith's response also is applicable toward Con's second strategy. He cites various statistics on out-of-wedlock births, married couples without children, divorce and so on, so forth. While the statistics he marshalled are impressive, they are an utter red herring. The argument is centered around what marriage is, not on how it's practiced. After all, even though there are a large number of car accidents, related deaths, drunk driving incidents, etc... It still remains true that the purpose of a car is that of transportation. Something remains what it is despite how society may treat or view it.

The point to be drawn from this is that despite the fact that marriage may be inconsistently practiced (This is due more to the responsibility of no-fault divorce laws), this does not in any way change the actual nature of marriage. Recall what Beckwith wrote, that "this argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire, which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature." [4] So marriage from how its practiced is a completely different thing from what marriage actually is. Even if all marriages ended in divorce, it has no bearing on what marriage is supposed to be. Con charges me with for discounting those "who marry solely for comitment and companionship." Not true. My argument perfectly accomodates the fact that some people marry for reasons other than procreation. It is concerned only with what marriage is supposed to be, not other uses for it which are not intrinsic to its purpose.

Con is actually commiting a common mistake in ethical reasoning, known as the "is-ought fallacy." Simply because something is a certain way does not mean that it ought to be that way. Thus, though it is true that many marriages end in divorce, you cannot infer anything normative from the nature of marriage from that.

In response to the analogy I draw between marriage and friendship, Con responds: "When a couple enters into a marriage they are entering into a contract. As a person who enters into any contract there are requirements, stipulations and contingencies within the contract."

But this misses the very point of the argument. Why is marriage considered a contract? If marriage is just simply about love, then why place contractual agreements on it? The very reason that family law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage as a relationship has the rearing of its future citizens as a goal. That is why the state legislates marriage. That is why family law exists. If marriage was just like some other type of relationship, then state would have no compelling reason to legislate on it.

Conclusion

Con's arguments either end up missing the point, or end up helping my own case. I now turn the floor over to my opponent.

________

[1] -- David Orland, The Deceit of Gay Marriage, http://www.boundless.org...
[2] -- http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...;(Comments)
[3] -- Gregory Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith, Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker 1998) p.123
[4] -- Ibid.

Debate Round No. 2
KnowItAll

Pro

I would like to thank Contradiction for continuing this debate.

I never disputed that a male and female are needed for reproduction. In fact, I stated the following in my response;

"What are indispensable are male sperm and the reproductive track of a female in order to create life."

I also defined the term "union" in my response as uniting in marriage; also sexual intercourse [1] which was not disputed by my opponent. As union is defined as uniting in marriage, also sexual intercourse, my position is that uniting in marriage is not a necessary component to procreation nor is the physical act of sexual intercourse, both which is central to Spiegel's argument.

"While the statistics he marshalled are impressive, they are an utter red herring. The argument is centered around what marriage is, not on how it's practiced."

I provided a philosophical definition of marriage in my argument by stating the below;

"As my opponent is defending a philosophical argument I will use a philosophical definition of marriage as a lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created."

It is my opponent's position that the central purpose of marriage is procreation which what he feels "what marriage is."

"The point to be drawn from this is that despite the fact that marriage may be inconsistently practiced (This is due more to the responsibility of no-fault divorce laws), this does not in any way change the actual nature of marriage."

No-fault divorce laws have nothing to do with why marriage is inconsistently practiced. Especially when you take into consideration that the average length of time a couple is married prior to divorce is 8 years. [2] No-fault divorce makes it easier for married people to divorce yet the average length of time is 8 years which makes my opponents argument weak at best. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and the nature of marriage and make up many times over the course of history. There were in fact various places and points in history where same sex couples received the same recognition as married couples. [5] I respectfully request that my opponent define the nature of marriage to which he is referring.

"Con is actually commiting a common mistake in ethical reasoning, known as the "is-ought fallacy." Simply because something is a certain way does not mean that it ought to be that way. Thus, though it is true that many marriages end in divorce, you cannot infer anything normative from the nature of marriage from that."

I am not the one committing "is-ought fallacy" but rather my opponent. My opponent's position is that the central point of marriage is procreation but since not all married couples have children they are not practicing marriage in the way intended. "As the central point of marriage is for procreation, they ought to have children or they're not practicing marriage the way it's intended."

"But this misses the very point of the argument. Why is marriage considered a contract?"

Marriage is considered a contract as that what the legal system has defined marriage to be. "A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife." [3]

The legal definition that states between free man and free woman and out to exist between husband and wife is at the heart of the gay marriage debate. The homosexual community is fighting that those terms should not be included in the in the legal definition of marriage and since it does they feel it's violating their civil rights.

The gay marriage debate is not what marriage "is" or what it "ought" to be but rather what the legal definition of marriage is. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defined marriage as "union exclusively between man and woman." [4] at the federal level and was recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal district judge in Boston as violating state rights and being discriminatory. The Defense of Marriage Act is currently on stay until it eventually makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

So why are homosexual couples fighting so hard for the right to marry? The General Accounting Office issued a report in 1997 identifying "1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor" In updating its report in 2004, the GAO found that this number had risen to 1,138 as of December 31, 2003 [4]

"The very reason that family law exists is because the state recognizes that marriage as a relationship has the rearing of its future citizens as a goal."

Obviously, if men and woman cease procreating, there are no longer citizens and society as we know it will cease to exist. However, if gay couples are allowed to marry how will this change the fact that heterosexuals will continue to procreate whether in marriage our outside of marriage? Just as not all heterosexuals marry, not all homosexual couples will marry. Gay couples will continue to adopt and Lesbian couples will continue to rear children through artificial insemination. Family law exists to deal with issues facing families such as child abuse, matters of paternity and adoption. One does not need to be married in order to be a member of a family.

Conclusion

My opponent has failed to recognize my position in my previous argument as I had to reaffirm my position in this round and argues that the primary purpose of marriage is for procreation. No-fault divorce for the failure of many to practice marriage as intended by nature while accusing me of committing a "is-ought fallacy" while actually committing it himself. I feel I have thus debunked his arguments.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.census.gov...
[3]http://www.lectlaw.com...
[4] http://docs.google.com...
[5] http://books.google.com...
Contradiction

Con

My thanks to Pro for his gracious response. In regards to my argument, he argues that heterosexual union is not a necessary component for procreation, since procreation may be accomplished in ways other than the uniting of a male and female in a reproductive-type act. The example he cites is artificial insemination. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that heterosexual union therefore does not have social value.

Unfortunately, Pro fails to engage with my argument at all. Artificial insemination itself involves the intrinsically heterosexual union of a male sperm and a female egg. The term "union" involves more than just a male and a female uniting in marriage -- it also refers to a procreative act. Indeed, this is how Spiegel uses the term. He uses "heterosexual union" to refer to a general type of act, not just the uniting of a man and a woman in marriage. Pro writes,

"What are indispensable are male sperm and the reproductive track of a female in order to create life."

But what Pro seems to miss is that this act is intrinsically heterosexual in nature. Consequently, there is nothing to be found here to support the introduction of homosexual unions into the definition of marriage. Moreover, Pro doesn't seem to engage the rest of my argument, so let me reproduce it here:

This argument, however, misses a glaring fact. Artificial insemination is only possible due to the prior fact that male-female complementarity is required for procreation. As David Orland writes, "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic [Emphasis mine] on heterosexual ones." [1] Far from constituting an argument against my position, this actually hurts Pro's argument, for the act of procreation is always heterosexual in type. This notion is what Spiegel's argument is based on, as he writes:

"As for your point about the 'many' ways of making a child, all of the examples you give (and all that can be given) are heterosexual in nature. [Emphasis mine] In-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, etc. all involve a male sperm fertilizing a female egg. This is sexual reproduction, and it is essentially heterosexual. The phrase “homosexual reproduction,” in fact, is a contradiction in terms." [Emphasis mine] [2]

The argument presented here is not based on considerations of the agents involved, or even the effects, but on the intrinsic nature of reproduction. Henceforth, Pro's attack on the first premise ends up strengthening the argument. Frank Beckwith agrees, writing: "[T]he argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as beings with a gender who have a purpose derived from that nature... This argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire,which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature." [3] Since procreation is possible only within a heterosexual framework, the state therefore has no compelling reason to allow homosexual couples the right to marry. As Spiegel has said, "homosexual reproduction" is a contradiction in terms.

Pro dedicates a section of his response to no-default divorce law. This is more or less irrelevant to the point the debate, and I only mentioned it in my previous response as an aside. Additionally, in the wake of my previous responses, Pro seems to have completely dropped his statistical arguments, noting that this debate is about the nature of marriage, not marriage as it is practiced.

Interestingly, Pro charges me with commiting the is-ought fallacy. Unfortunately, this is mistaken. I defended marriage as a normative concept. That is, it has a nature that is directed toward a certain proper function. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to infer an evaluative conclusion from descriptive premises. For example, if the proper function of my heart is to pump blood, then therefore my heart ought to pump blood. The difference between this and a fallacious instance of is-ought reasoning is that the former is based on normative premises.

Now, notice that Pro never actually responds to the charge that he comited the is-ought fallacy. He simply brushed it off and accussed me of it. This is a prime example of an argument ad hominem tu quoque.

In regards to the contractural nature of marriage, Pro argues that marriage is a contract because that is what the legal system has defined marriage to be. But this is a grossly naive legal analysis, and once again it misses the big picture. In order for the judiciary to have defined marriage as a contract, it must have had a compelling reason to do so. Pro, however, never actually attempts to elaborate on this reasoning, choosing to simply argue that "That's the way the judges have defined it." This is an incomplete analysis, for we have to know why judges have defined it in that way.

Pro argues that the definition of marriage as provided by DOMA and other legal statutes is discriminatory. But to say that some statute is discriminatory is to presuppose a view of what marriage is supposed to be. So the debate then is primarily over the nature of marriage. How else could one say that a certain statute is discriminatory unless there is a certain way that marriage ought to be. Legal definitions, after all, have to be based on something. As Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson point out:

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. [4]

As I noted in a previously it makes no sense to argue, for example, that fatherhood unjustly discriminates against women, for fatherhood is properly understood to be a role that is intrinsic to males. Since women cannot be fathers in principle, there is no discrimination taking place. Thus, when one argues that a specific institution discriminates against certain persons, they presuppose that said persons have a right to partake in said institution. But, unless we have settled the prior question as to what this institution actually is, then to use the discrimination argument as supporting evidence for a particular view that institution is to beg the question, since the argument presupposes what it sets out to prove.

Pro cannot simply assume that a certain conception of marriage is right and then argue that this is only a legal debate and exclude all philosophical arguments, for this would end up excluding his own argument. This would be self-defeating.

The state regulates the institution of the family because it recognizes that it has a special social value in that it leads to the flourishing of its future citizens. This is why the state regulates familial matters, but not matters between friends, roommates, etc... For the state has no compelling interest in either relationship. Of course, not all heterosexuals will marry, but the state is concerned with the common good, not the individual good.

Conclusion

Pro's arguments fail to stand up to rational scrutiny. He drops several of his previous arguments, and has not defended himself against the charge that he commits the is-ought fallacy.

I now turn it over to Pro.

____

Sources

[1] - http://www.boundless.org...
[2] - http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...
[3] - Koukl and Beckwith, Relativism, p.123
[4] - Girgis, George, and Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
Debate Round No. 3
KnowItAll

Pro

Thank you to Contradiction for his response.

"The term "union" involves more than just a male and a female uniting in marriage -- it also refers to a procreative act." - Sexual intercourse is the procreative act.

Although my opponent is now challenging the definition of "union" as used by Spiegel, after 3 rounds, I will still debunk Spiegel's argument.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. PROBLEM Procreation does indeed have the greatest social value as without it civilization would cease to exist. As my opponent has argued the union refers to a procreative act which is the cornerstone of marriage. What are the sanctions with regard to procreation? With the exception of state level incest laws and federal child abuse laws (the age of consent in which to engage in sexual intercourse), there are no sanctions with regard to procreation. No authoritative permission or approval is required for procreation. Consenting adults are free to procreate as they wish. To further enhance my argument, Spiegel dismisses this fact and makes the jump to his fourth statement;

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

Marriage is not a requirement of procreation nor is it an absolute that not all married couples procreate. My argument is corroborated by the statistics showing that unmarried mothers give birth to 40% of all children [3] My opponent refers to the nature of marriage as resulting in children. Spiegel is asserting that since procreation is what makes marriage deserving of special social recognition comparing it to gay marriage would be unjust. Procreation is not exclusive to marriage, it's a sub-effect of marriage. If my opponent's argument were to hold true, people would get married for the purpose of procreation. My opponent has corroborated my position by stating;

"My argument perfectly accomodates the fact that some people marry for reasons other than procreation. It is concerned only with what marriage is supposed to be, not other uses for it which are not intrinsic to its purpose." - According to my opponent, purpose = procreation as its intent by nature.

"But what Pro seems to miss is that this act is intrinsically heterosexual in nature. Consequently, there is nothing to be found here to support the introduction of homosexual unions into the definition of marriage." - There is nothing to be found that states that marriage is to result in offspring. The supposed nature of marriage "should" result in offspring is no different than stating that a sexual relationship between male and female should result in offspring.

"As David Orland writes, "[h]omosexual 'families' of whatever type are always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones." - Homosexual families leech off of heterosexuals yet no examples are provided. I kindly as my opponent to expand.

"Pro dedicates a section of his response to no-default divorce law. This is more or less irrelevant to the point the debate, and I only mentioned it in my previous response as an aside. Additionally, in the wake of my previous responses, Pro seems to have completely dropped his statistical arguments, noting that this debate is about the nature of marriage, not marriage as it is practiced."

I simply addressed no fault divorce as it was used by my opponent as an excuse as to why "marriage is inconsistently practiced." I agree that this is irrelevant to the debate. The statistical argument was already made.

The very definition of normative is "concern of how things ought to be." of normative is "how things ought to be." [4] Using my opponent's logic one can state that the function of marriage is to procreate, then marriages ought to result in children. I did not respond to the accusation of fallacy as I did not commit the is-out fallacy to begin with. I simply pointed to divorce rates and the percentage of those divorced to show a correlation between procreation and marriage.

I never argued that the definition of marriage as provided by DOMA is discriminatory. I stated the fact that the definition of marriage as provided by DOMA was ruled unconstitutional for being discriminatory by a federal district judge in the state of Massachusetts.[5] I never stated that other statutes were discriminatory; I simply stated that; "The legal definition that states between free man and free woman and out to exist between husband and wife is at the heart of the gay marriage debate. The homosexual community is fighting that those terms should not be included in the in the legal definition of marriage and since it does they feel it's violating their civil rights.

As I previously stated in my argument; "Marriage has existed for thousands of years and the nature of marriage and make has changed many times over the course of history. There were in fact various places and points in history where same sex couples received the same recognition as married couples." [6]

"Pro cannot simply assume that a certain conception of marriage is right and then argue that this is only a legal debate and exclude all philosophical arguments, for this would end up excluding his own argument. This would be self-defeating."

My opponent is yet again making an attempt to put words in my mouth. I never stated that this is only a legal debate. I stated that the legal definition of marriage is at the heart of the gay marriage debate.

The school of thought in the past is that marriage was integral to society. However as I mentioned earlier, "Marriage has existed for thousands of years and the nature of marriage and make up has changed many times over the course of history." We are entering a period in history where the nature and make up of marriage will change yet again. The overturning of proposition 8 in CA and increased public support bears support to my argument.

"One of Judge Walker's strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage "exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage," he wrote [7]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau estimates, 620,000 same sex couples lived together during 2010.[8] According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 601,209 committed gay couples.[9] Over a 10 year period an increase of less than 20,000 same sex couple relationships. Do these numbers indicate that if gay marriage were to be allowed it would prevent society from moving forward or threaten civilization in any way?

CONCLUSION
My opponent's position is that the nature of marriage is for the purpose of procreation while ignoring relevant data to the contrary. My opponent chooses to ignore that procreation is not exclusive to marriage while also attempting to put words in my mouth to strengthen his argument.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
[3] http://agtivity.com...
[4] http://www.boston.com...
[5] http://books.google.com...
[6] http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com...
[7] http://www.businessweek.com...
[8] http://gaymarriage.lifetips.com...
Contradiction

Con

My thanks to KnowItAll for his response.

In his latest response to me, Pro makes the argument that "no authoritative permission or approval is required for procreation." A boyfriend/girlfriend may, for instance, procreate without their relationship being called a marriage. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that marriage does not deserve special social value.

But this line of response fails. The state has no compelling interest in regulating the procreative acts of nonmarried heterosexual couples primarily because they have not entered into a contractural agreement to the welfare of both partners and any children that may arise as a result of the relationship. Therefore, the state does not confer special social value to their relationship. But, insofar as marriage is concerned, the state does have a compelling interest to regulate such relationships because both parties have entered a legal contract for the welfare of both spouses and any progeny that might be produced as a result of their marriage. This salient difference is why marriage should be afforded special social value, whereas procreative sex simpliciter should not.

Moreover, Pro's example actually works against him. Suppose that a nonmarried couple have sex and produce a child. At this point, even though they never agreed to the obligations entailed in a marriage contract, they are now bound by certain laws directed toward the welfare of that child. Should the father decide to leave the mother, child support laws obligate him to pay funds so that the mother may raise the child. Because the relationship now involves children, the state now has a compelling interest to regulate it. Marriage, because it involves a more substantive commitment to both parties and any possible progeny that might be produced, therefore ought to be accorded special social value.

Pro's next argument is that "marriage is not a requirement of procreation nor is it an absolute that not all married couples procreate." But recall my earlier statements that "the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as beings with a gender who have a purpose derived from that nature... This argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire,which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature." [Emphasis mine] [1]

So it doesn't matter that some married couples choose not to procreate. The fact that some people don't use their cars for transportation does nothing to change the fact that the purpose of a car is for transportation. Nowhere in my argument does not assume that parties must get married for the purposes of procreation. I am concerned, as Pro notes, with procreation being the purpose of marriage by its nature. This does not, however, entail that persons must get married exclusively for procreation. As stated earlier, the purpose of a car may be for transportation, but that doesn't entail that everyone who uses a car must use it for transportation. The argument is just a non-sequitur.

Pro writes, "Homosexual families leech off of heterosexuals yet no examples are provided. I kindly as my opponent to expand." This is rather self-evident, but I will expand. Homosexual families, whether they are established by the result of IVF, adoption, or some other means, are always parasitic upon heterosexual reproduction. In order for a lesbian couple to conceive through IVF, there must be a male donor. For male homosexuals, adoption is necessary. What becomes evident is that in both cases, the production of offspring is necessarily contingent on heterosexual reproduction.

Pro responds to the charge that he committed the is-ought fallacy by simply denying it. But on what grounds does he deny commiting the fallacy? He simply asserts it without any reasoning. In a previous post, Pro argued that because of certain statistics which highlight inconsistencies between the traditional conception of marriage and how it is actually practiced, that my argument should be discounted. His reasoning, however, is fallacious because how marriage is practiced has no bearing on what marriage is.

Pro also seems to adopt a social constructionist view of marriage. He argues that "Marriage has existed for thousands of years and the nature of marriage and make [sic?] has changed many times over the course of history." Additionally, he also cites Judge Vaugh Walker's arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

This, however, actually serves to hurt his argument. If marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it. If Pro affirms that homosexuals have a basic right to marry each other, then they cannot view marriage as a social construction. This is because social constructions have no normative structure to them, they are simply constructs that may be redefined at one's own whim. For example, there cannot be a right to life if "life" has no solid nature to it. One therefore cannot be unjust in denying homosexuals the "right" to marry if marriage is viewed as a social construction. So by arguing that homosexuals deserve the right to marry, he commits himself to a certain view about the nature of marriage.

Marriage, therefore, cannot be a social construction if Pro wishes to affirm that homosexualsh have the right to marry, for this ends up undercutting his own argument.

A Further Challenge

So far, Pro has been concerned only with refuting my arguments agains same-sex marriage. However, he has never actually himself elaborated on what criteria are necessary for marriage. What does Pro think marriage is? And on whateverh is understanding of marriage he may adhere to, under what grounds does he have to exclude, say, polygamous and incestious marriages? As Adam Kolasinki writes,

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another [or some other non-procreative concern], upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. [2]

Conclusion

Pro has not delivered adequate responses to the thesis that marriage is exclusively heterosexual and ordered toward acts that are reproductive in type. I now turn the debate over to Pro.

_______________

Sources

1. Koukl and Beckwith, Relativism, p.123
2. Adam Kolansinki, "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" The Tech (2/17/2004)
Debate Round No. 4
KnowItAll

Pro

I thank to Contradiction for his response, this debate and for affirming that marriage is indeed a legal contract.

"But, insofar as marriage is concerned, the state does have a compelling interest to regulate such relationships because both parties have entered a legal contract" My opponent further states; "Should the father decide to leave the mother, child support laws obligate him to pay funds so that the mother may raise the child. Because the relationship now involves children, the state now has a compelling interest to regulate it."

What my opponent fails to see is that should a married couple with children divorce, the father would be subject to child support laws as well. The compelling interest to regulate married couples has more to do with the fact that couple entered into a legal contract and as such there are responsibilities and legalities as a result of that contract.

"Pro's next argument is that "marriage is not a requirement of procreation nor is it an absolute that not all married couples procreate." But recall my earlier statements that "the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as beings with a gender who have a purpose derived from that nature... This argument is not based on a human persons's function, ability, or desire,which could each be inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature." [Emphasis mine] [1]"

My opponent has agreed that people get married for various reasons. My opponent also agrees that not all married couples procreate. However, he argues that this is inconsistent with how human persons ought to be by nature. It can therefore be argued that human nature is for man and woman to procreate. If it's human nature for man and woman to procreate, the nature of marriage in of itself could therefore not be procreation. If the nature of marriage in of itself is not procreation there is no special value to the institution other than the contract between the two parties.

Logically speaking, homosexual families are dependent on reproduction, not heterosexual families. This in itself makes David Orland's statement false as he states that "homosexual families are parasitic to heterosexual families."

To go a step further one can argue that a woman who cannot conceive through natural insemination is also parasitic on heterosexual reproduction. It therefore be argued, that if heterosexual reproduction is contingent for homosexual families to exist, homosexual families pose no threat to the continuation of our civilization as heterosexual reproduction can be achieved through other means exclusive of sexual intercourse such as IVF. For example, a homosexual male can donate sperm which can be used to impregnate a lesbian woman.

Is-ought fallacy

My opponent states that I have simply denied committing the fallacy without grounds. The grounds in this case with regard to is-ought fallacy is that the nature of marriage would have to be procreation in order for a fallacy to be committed. At it is my position that the nature of marriage is not procreation no is-ought fallacy has been committed.

"If marriage is a social construction, then there cannot be said that there are rights associated with it. If Pro affirms that homosexuals have a basic right to marry each other, then they cannot view marriage as a social construction. This is because social constructions have no normative structure to them, they are simply constructs that may be redefined at one's own whim. Marriage, therefore, cannot be a social construction if Pro wishes to affirm that homosexualsh have the right to marry, for this ends up undercutting his own argument."

Marriage is indeed a social construct, a social construct that has changed over the course of history. One only needs to look at the history of marriage over cultures and history to realize this. Admitting that marriage is a social construct in no way undermines my argument but actually solidifies my position that marriage is a legal contract, which my opponent has agreed. I previously stated that homosexual couples who wish to get married feel that "they" are being discriminated against. "They" feel that they're being deprived the right to enter into a legal contract due to the definition of marriage. Whether or not marriage should be regulated is a topic for another debate.

A Further Challenge

"So far, Pro has been concerned only with refuting my arguments agains same-sex marriage. However, he has never actually himself elaborated on what criteria are necessary for marriage. What does Pro think marriage is? And on whateverh is understanding of marriage he may adhere to, under what grounds does he have to exclude, say, polygamous and incestious marriages?"

I defined marriage previously using a philosophical definition of "a lifetime commitment to constantly provide emotional intimacy to your spouse, thereby uncovering your true self and, ultimately, your unique purpose for being created. as well as a legal definition of "A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife." [1]

I have been clear in stating that marriage is a contract between two parties while my opponent states that marriage is what the supposed nature of marriage is which my opponent feels is procreation. What is marriage? Marriage is bond between two people that involves, challenge, commitment, legalities and responsibilities. This is a concept of marriage has not changed over the course of time. What I feel the criteria of marriage is not the topic of this debate.

Polygamous and incestuous marriages have nothing to do with this debate. Perhaps if the topic of this debate were "If homosexual couples are allowed to marry why should polygamous and incestuous marriages not be allowed?" it would be relevant. However, since this debate is about debunking the arguments of those against homosexual marriage there is no need to delve off topic.

Conclusion

The purpose of this debate was be to debunk the many issues involving gay marriage issues, specifically those my opponent would use to oppose gay marriage as stated in my opening statement. The argument made by my opponent centered on the nature of marriage being procreation. His entire argument was based on the belief that since the nature of marriage is procreation those who marry who do not procreate are not practicing marriage as intended by nature. I believe that I have debunked this argument throughout the debate by showing that procreation between males and females is not exclusive to those who are married. I believe that I also debunked this argument by showing that marriage in of itself cannot be procreation as it's by nature that man and woman procreate.

Furthermore, my opponent argued that marriage could not be a social construct as the definition of marriage could change on a "whim." I countered this argument by showing that marriage is indeed a social construct and the definition and nature of marriage has changed over the course of history and stated that we are in one of those times in history where the definition of marriage may very well change again. I also showed that the definition of marriage is what is being argued over by the homosexual community that would like the right to enter into the contract that is marriage.

Last, my opponent attempted to take this debate off topic by brining incestuous and polygamous marriage into the debate which is not only irrelevant to the debate but in fact a new argument that was introduced during the last round. I believe that not only did I debunk my opponent's arguments but used better grammar and more relevant sources than my opponent and therefore have won this debate.
Contradiction

Con

I would first and foremost like to thank KnowItAll for initiating this challenge, and may the voters vote on the basis of who argued their case the best.

A word to voters: Be sure to read the entire debate, lest some points get misinterpreted or misconstrued.

~

Pro's first line of response seems confused. My example was not drawn from a marriage, but from a scenario in which an unwed father leaves the unwed mother and newborn. In such a scenario, the state obligates the father to pay child support even if the parents are not legally married because once children enter the picture, the state has a compelling reason to act.

To make the point clear: Notice that once children enter the picture, the state has a compelling reason to make unfaithful parents pay child support -- even if they have not agreed to a legal contract. So clearly the state is interested in the well-being of children -- for it has the power to make fathers pay child support even if the couple isn't married. Marriage, since it involves a more substantive commitment to both parties and any possible progeny that might be produced, therefore ought to be accorded special social value.

Similarly, another response from Pro also misses the point. He writes,

"If it's human nature for man and woman to procreate, the nature of marriage in of itself could therefore not be procreation. If the nature of marriage in of itself is not procreation there is no special value to the institution other than the contract between the two parties."

This is a non-sequitur. How does this conclusion even follow?

Recall that Pro argued that Spiegel's argument is unsound due to the fact that people get married for reasons other than procreation. I responded by pointing out that our personal reasons or desires in doing something are irrelevant to what that something is (Using a car as a plow doesn't negate its proper purpose of transportation). Similarly, that people get married for reasons other than procreation doesn't mean that the proper purpose of marriage isn't about procreation. Now Pro argues that "If it's human nature for man and woman to procreate, the nature of marriage in of itself could therefore not be procreation." But how does that follow? Can we not affirm that both human nature and marriage are ordered toward procreation as an end? What exactly is the probelm here?

Pro argues that Orland's response is false, for it confuses heterosexual reproduction with heterosexual families. But this too is confused. Homosexual couples can only "procreate" either through IVF or surrogacy. But notice that both of these procedures involve both heterosexual reproduction and are contingent on prior heterosexual families providing the agents for heterosexual reproduction to be possible. Consequently, Pro's response simply fails.

Is-ought fallacy

Recall earlier that I charged Pro's argument with commiting the is-ought fallacy. He now responds that this fallacy is only applicable from my point of view -- as if he is trying to deflect the accusation back on me.

First, this is an ad hominem tu quoque. Saying "You too!" doesn't absolve one of the charges levelled against his position.

Second, Pro still commits the is-ought fallacy. Recall that Pro's earlier argument was that because marriage is practiced inconsistently, that therefore it has no fixed nature. Here, Pro is moving from descriptive premises to a normative conclusion, which plays exactly into the hands of the is-ought fallacy! Pro has done nothing to absolve himself of this charge, rather he has simply hand-waved the issue.

Is Marriage a Social Construction?

Pro argues that marriage is a social construction, due to the fact that it has changed over the course of history. This is problematic for many reasons

1) This plays right into the hands of the is-ought fallacy again. Simply because peoples' views of marriage has changes throughout history does not imply that marriage itself has no fixed nature. Indeed, people have had different views on the shape of the earth throughout history, yet it by no means follows that the earth had no shape. Pro is attempting to infer a normative premise from a descriptive premise. This type of reasoning is characteristic of the is-ought fallacy.

2) I agree with my opponent that marriage is a legal contract -- however, I recognize it to be more than just a legal contract. Indeed, it has a fixed nature, and it is only on this latter view of marriage upon which rights can be properly based.

3) Even if we assume that marriage is a social construction, this ends up hurting my opponent's argument! . Presumably, Con is defending the position that homosexuals have a right to marry. But rights are only based upon things which have an unchanging nature. For instance, the right to life becomes vacous if the term "life" is something that is constructed. Jason Dulle writes,

"One cannot have a fundamental right to some X if that X does not have an objective, fixed meaning. We have a fundamental right to life, but only because “life” has an objective meaning that cannot be changed. If the definition of “life” was always changing, we would be bereft of anything fundamental to which we could attach a right, yet alone afundamental right. Likewise, for the right to marriage to be fundamental, marriage must be something fundamentally particular in nature." [1]

So Then, What IS Marriage?

Pro views marriage to be a "bond between two people that involves, challenge, commitment, legalities and responsibilities. This is a concept of marriage has not changed over the course of time."

But once we seperate marriage from procreation, why should this definition hold water at all? After all, the polygamist would argue that he is being "discriminated" against by limiting marriage to be between only two people, and that therefore the definition of marriage should change again. If marriage is not about procreation, the incestious couples could marry, since the state is not concerned about procreation as the purpose of marriage.

Clearly, the criteria for what consistutes a marriage is relevant to this debate. For if Pro's argument for same-sex marriage cannot logically exclude the polygamous, incestious, etc... from arguing for marriage "rights," then surely there must be something problematic about it and therefore it ought to be abandoned. So this is not an off topic issue.

Conclusion

Recall that I defended the followin argument by 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.

Pro's arguments have centered around the fact that people get married for reasons other than procreation, and other similar concerns. As I have pointed out in my rebuttals, however, this is irrelevant to how marriage ought to be. Pro has not advanced an argument which has been able to show that marriage is not ordered around procreation -- instead basing his argument on issues which do not entail their conclusions and which are not relevant to the issues being discussed.

Pro's argument that marriage was a social construction was countered by showing that even if it was true, it would in fact detract from his case. Moreover, arguments were presented to show that marriage is not a social construction. Therefore, Pro's argument fails either way.

I hereby urge a vote for Pro.

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com...;
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 3 years ago
Dimmitri.C
I really enjoyed this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
When Pro says he will "debunk" Con, I think he not only acknowledges he has the burden of proof, but claims that he will defeat opposing arguments conclusively. I think the debate was close, with Con having an edge in the arguments.

Pro's main weakness was not making a case as to the benefits to society of extending the concept of marriage beyond the traditional. Such a case could have been made along the lines of "marriage promotes having stable couple relationships" which might lead in turn to a "marriage vs. civil union" chain of arguments. That didn't happen.

Very few people are going to read such a long debate. It was a good debate overall, but with such a narrow range of arguments, both sides would have benefited from making their points in new ways. They might have used analogies, or cast the arguments in abstract logic, or used more quotes from experts. As it is, it's repetitious and discourages reading the whole thing.
Posted by KnowItAll 3 years ago
KnowItAll
Contradiction,

Congratulations on the upcoming graduation. I look forward to debating you in the future.
Posted by Contradiction 3 years ago
Contradiction
That's odd, I'll have to to change those settings.

I'd love to debate that, although I won't be doing any new debates for at least another week or two due to AP testing/finals/HS graduation.
Posted by KnowItAll 3 years ago
KnowItAll
As my opponent does not accept messages I would like to challenge him to a debate on how marriage is not inherent in nature. This is quite obvious but he seems to think otherwise. I kindly request my opponent to create the debate and send the challenge.
Posted by Contradiction 3 years ago
Contradiction
Wow, I'm off today. I referred to KnowItAll as "Con" while he is "Pro." Just a heads up.
Posted by Contradiction 3 years ago
Contradiction
Woah... another typo. "1. Traditional marriage discriminates against heterosexual couples" is supposed to read "homosexual," not heterosexual.
Posted by KnowItAll 3 years ago
KnowItAll
I think I'm good. Definitely not what I was expecting but I think this will be interesting nonetheless.
Posted by Contradiction 3 years ago
Contradiction
Okay, my citations are messed up (I tend to have a bad habit of doing this). Let me know if you need some clarification.
Posted by Contradiction 3 years ago
Contradiction
Slight correction: I cited [1] twice. The second instance is actually [2].
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering the invalid counter at cons request
Vote Placed by awatkins69 2 years ago
awatkins69
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Maikuru's vote bomb
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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: Wow, a single valid vote in 5. I will endeavor to read this thing soon but for now, I will simply counter ExNihilo's blatant votebomb.
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 2 years ago
ExNihilo
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is a bigot
Vote Placed by Willoweed 2 years ago
Willoweed
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: equal rights come on
Vote Placed by jewgirl 3 years ago
jewgirl
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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: T.L.D.R.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 3 years ago
Dimmitri.C
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro completely misunderstood the societal relevance and intrinsic nature of Contradictions argument.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
KnowItAllContradictionTied
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: See comments.