The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The State (the goverment) has no compellig reason to legalize SSM.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,095 times Debate No: 21246
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (3)

 

16kadams

Pro

My opponent accepts that this is not about benefits, rather the states interest in marriage. My opponent has 60% of the BOP as the state bars SSM for a reason, I will state it in my arguments.

8000 characters
1 week vote time
1st round acceptance.

Also I would like round 2 to have no refutations, just presenting my arguments.

Definitions

"Same-sex marriage (also known as gay marriage) is marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or gender identity."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I await the debate, it seems fun.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I accept terms and definitions. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

Firstly before we continue we need to define 2 major things:

1. What is marriage exactly?
2. Why should the state allow SSM? (SSM = Same sex marriage)

This argument will define marriage, and prove there is no reason to allow SSM in the governments eyes.

What marriage is to the goverment, why it is this way, and how it relates to SSM:

Firstly, the institution of marriage is one about procreation and child rearing. [1] Marriages goal is to create an climate for the continuation for society, aka procreation. This is why the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. Homosexual couples will never be able to create or have a relationship type relating to procreation. Procreation and child rearing are essential to making society move on, and if one of those is missing there is a problem. Only can a man and a woman create children, and or have a procreative type relationship.

The anatomy of a homosexual relationship doesn't come close to this. They can neither produce children nor have a relationship of this type. As the heterosexual couples have the ability to further society the state ought to give them recognition over homosexual ones. Couples that do not revolve around a procreation type core, in the states eyes, is useless as they cannot advance society in the way the goverment wants them too. As the state only recognizes you if you have this type of relationship they will define marriage as in a man and a woman. Allowing SSM would get rid of the heterosexual... whats the word... special recognition.

IS marriage about love? NO! THAT IS NOT A STATE INTEREST!

In this debate my opponent will have to find a reason the goverment should recognize SSM. Most pro SSM arguments revolve around equality, and if he uses that I will refute it, and what is known as love. Their refutation to the procreation argument is that marriage is about love. It the goverment cared about love, then wouldn't they regulate other relationships? A boyfriend/girlfriend scenario may have lots of love, but as they cannot raise a child effectively much of the time it is not regulated, and not in the states interest. [2] If marriage is only about love, then if a man and other 5 men went to get married would the state recognize them? Well if marriage is about love then what grounds do they have? As they deny them this right on a certain ground, the ground is procreation if you haven't figured this out, then only people who are in the states interest can marry. You are probably against bestiality, yet if marriage was about love couldn't this be allowed? My point is marriage in the states eyes cannot and will never be love, and it is almost impossible to say it is.

Is a ban on SSM discrimination? No:

A common argument, and one that will likely be stated, is that banning SSM is discrimination. Actually, as marriage is about procreative type relationships then it isn't discrimination based off of sexuality, but rather nature. [3] The states interest in marriage is the ability to raise children, and have a procreative type relationship. As Homosexuals can never produce children and/or have a procreative type relationship, then it is not discrimination as we bar them this right through nature. [3] Marriage in culture is usually viewed as a male and a female + children. As marriage is a large part of this culture, banning SSM is popular to common marriage stereotypes. [3] Further more for it to be in discriminating in effect is must be a right, as discrimination to a privilege is just. [3] Aristotle saw this as what you deserved, not what is given. [4] As you must prove in the states eyes they deserve this ritual/legal "right" then my argument on rights is void, if you cannot prove in the states eyes they deserve this then you have lost.

Conclusion:

I have proven in detail how the state has no compelling reason to allow gay marriage. As the state has no interest in allowing marriage, and marriage is based off of what you deserve, then technically the state has no reason to legalize Same sex marriage. So as my final thought: The state has no GOOD reason to legalize Same sex marriage, and I have fulfilled my 40% BOP, I urge a PRO vote.


Sources:

William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF) [1]
Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271 [2]
THE CASE AGAINST “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" Margaret A. Somerville [3]
http://www.debate.org... [4] (If you see whose in the debate it's a credible source)
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Greetings, I thank my opponent for giving me a chance to debate this topic, and I also would like to thank the members of Debate.org for following this debate. I will be arguing that the state has very good reasons for allowing SSM to occur. I hope you all enjoy this debate.

SSM is Constitutional!
My first point will be based on the fact that Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional.

The closest parallel in our legal history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s. These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks. Hannah Arendt, a journalist and intellectual of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, is quoted by Andrew Sullivan in “Why a civil union isn't marriage [1]," argued against the miscegenation laws, saying:

“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' ... and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.”

Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, goes on to say:

“Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people — to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? Not a close call.”

This being said, can we deny that the right to marriage - to whomever one might choose is constitutionally guaranteed?

Keeping gay marriage illegal also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union [2]:

“The law (against same-sex marriage) discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one's ability to marry depend on one's gender.'

With this being said, I will like to point out that every government official swears an oath that begins with the words: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States' [3] And with this presented I will make it clear that the government has every reason to support the constitution that not only governs the people, but also the government itself. Since SSM is constitutional the government is intitled to support it and legalize it.

SSM would help state and federal governments economically.
This next point will be based on monitary gain that would help the state as a result of the legalization of SSM. It is estimated that the wedding industry would experience a windfall, and there would be an immediate gain in revenue of up to 17 billion dollars (it would also be good to know that the wedding industry is a 70 billion dollar a year industry) [4].

Also, the William's Institute released a report stating:

"Total spending on wedding arrangements and tourism by resident same-sex couples and their guests will add an $88-million boost to the Washington economy over the first three years. This spending is likely to generate $8 million in tax revenue for state and local governments.

The figures in the report draw upon data on average wedding expenditures in Washington and tourism reports from 2010, along with data regarding marriage expenses by same-sex couples in other states.

The report considers that couples in existing registered domestic partnerships might have different spending patterns from couples that do not have that status. Even if there was no new spending by the 7,518 couples currently in registered domestic partnerships, the state would see an estimated increase in spending of $18 million and a tax boost of $1.6 million." [5]

I don't know about anyone else here but 88 million dollars worth of economic boost to one state is a very good thing especially since the entire country is going through a bit of a financtial crises. If legalizing SSM would help Washington this much, certainly it would help out the rest of the states in our union.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to say again that it is the job of the state to defend the liberties of the American people, and since the basic humans rights of all people are that of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and that by banning SSM the government would not be doing it's proper job, that means the state has a reason to legalize SSM. And the very fact that the state could make a great deal of financtial gain the state should legalize SSM.

Thank You for reading I will now await my opponents response.

~~Sources~~
1. http://igfculturewatch.com...
2. http://essayblog.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.marketwatch.com...
5. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

Rebuttals:

R1: SSM is constitutional

My opponent to start of his argument falsely links banning SSM to banning interracial marriage. My opponent needs to know why we ban SSM. I already addressed this last round. The reason the state prohibits SSM is because of procreative type relationships. In Massachusetts the courts ruled the primary purpose of marriage in the states eyes is procreation. [1] My opponents argument is fairly odd, the reason SSM is banned in the governments view is because they are not in procreative type unions. A interracial couple can form these relationships, the reason they where prohibited is because the lawmakers in those areas where totally racist. So, race can fulfill the state interest of procreative-type relationships, whereas homosexual couples cannot. So, the reasons the two where banned is incomparable, apples-oranges scenario. So, race =/= nature as homosexuals will NEVER be able to fulfill the states interest.

Then my opponent includes the pursuit of happiness. My arguments counter this as this debate is about the Government's views on marriage. So this doesn't relate. But this argument also implies that marriage is about love and happiness, well not in the states eyes it's not. The most heavy weight reason the state is in marriage is because of procreation. [2] Washington's state courts also held that the reason the state has interest in marriage is due to procreation and child rearing. [2] The ninth circuit federal courts also denied gay marriage as they will never produce offspring. [2, 3] In Vermont the states argument for banning SSM was they wanted to ensure the link of marriage and procreation. [2, 4] My opponents argument here actually relies on the fact that marriage is about love and happiness, but as this debate is only about the state then his argument is fully false.

My opponent now argues it violates the 5th amendment.

"The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure." [5]

Banning SSM does not in any way shape or form violate this. They still get the same procedure, they murder him they get a trial. They get habeus corpus etc. It only violates this clause if the state deprives them a right. [6] The argument on your side is the racial comparison. As I have stated that is like comparing apples and oranges. Also before we can claim it violates the law, we first must have what marriage is, and what the states interests are. [6] To actually make SSM violate the 5th amendment we have to actually change the legal definition of marriage. [6, 7] Also the argument fails as it assumes any distinction is actually discrimination. [6] If this was true then then bestiality would be unconstitutional and be legalized, yet would you argue the same on their grounds? NO! It would also mean incestuous marriage would be allowed, would you argue here? Therefore an SSM ban does not violate this clause.

R2: Would help the goverment economically

My opponent states a normal economic argument, not one about the state, he must prove this benefits the state before it is a valid argument. My refutation will prove it would actually harm the state:

All marriages get governmental and tax benefits. The governmental benefits include social security, medicare, and disability benefits. [8] The tax benefits include filling a joint tax return, and being able to divide a tax between family members. So what you owe is divided by how many people live in your house. This may seem good, but if we allow more people to get married then more people will be on entitlement reforms (S.S. Medicare) and more people paying less taxes (divided by amount of family members). This would raise goverment debts and lead to higher taxes and more doubt which never is good for the economy. Allowing SSM would increase entitlement spending. [9] As it would raise deficits which woudl create doubts, and when deficits rise the states first reaction is to raise taxes, then it would in turn actually hurt the government and the economy. A NY lawmaker claims that allowing SSM will harm NY's budget, if it harms their single state then it harms the whole union is allowed too. [10]

Conclusion:

I have refuted his case, and my argument prove the state has no compelling reason to allow SSM. His case sometimes doesn't even relate to the state. He has 60% of the BOP, he agreed to that, and he has no fulfilled it. My opponent has to do this:

1. What is marriage exactly?
2. Why should the state allow SSM?

We both have different views on 1, and that part is based off of what laws, and in the states eyes as I have proven it is man + women, he basically just says opposite, but still he answers it. But 2 is where it gets tough, why should the state allow it? He has provided no compelling reason to allow SSM from the states perspective, whereas I have proven their interests lie in procreation. Therefore I urge a PRO vote.

-Side note

I ask Voters to vote based off of reliability of our sources and not the quality. Mine come from credible schools of thought. ( Harvard avia maria law one of them is also Princeton) I would like to point out his 2 source is very biased as it uses the ACLU, read it to find out.



~~~sources~~~

Carlson, Allan, “Marriage and Procreation: On Children as the First Purpose of Marriage,” The Howard Center. [1]
William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF) [2]
Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 73 n.8 (Haw. 1993) (Heen, J., dissenting). [3]
Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, 881 (Vt. 1999) [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]
Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271 [6] (harvard)
Cara Mia DiMassa & Jessica Garrison, Why Gays, Blacks are Divided on Prop. 8,
L.A. TIMES, Nov. 8, 2008. [7]
http://www.nolo.com... [8]
"Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage" synopsis of the new book by Dr. James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire. [9]
http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com... [10]
Deathbeforedishonour

Con




I thank my opponent for his response , however I would like to explain away my opponents claim about my sources. Yes I will agree that we should look at the validity and the soundness of the logic used more then the places we find our sources. I will now point out in both my defense and rebuttels how my opponent's arguements are nothing when compared to mine, and that how I am ultimately right.

D1: It's Constitutional

My opponent begins his refutation with a claim that my interracial marriage bans were no equal to the SSM bans. However, he did not get the point of this contention, in the 50's the bans on interracial marriages were considered 'unnatural', now inspite of what our Constitution and the Declaration of Independece said about issues such as these he wishes to continue his ignorant arguments based on the lie that the people serve the government, when it is the exact opposite. In the Declaration of Independence it says :

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed'

This basically says that the duty of the government and all governments is to protect the rights and liberties of it's people. So I would like to ask my opponent this simple question: How are people supposed to pursue happiness if they can't even marry the person they love, and how is banning SSM protecting the liberties and fundemental rights of the people? The answer is quite clear: THEY CAN'T and NO IT ISN'T! The most important reason for the government's very existence is so that it may do the job of protecting it's people's rights and liberties. This is the reason why they should legalize SSM. It is not the government's duty to protect society, it is there duty to protect society's rights!

Next I will like to drop my case for the 5th ammendment, and replace it with another proof that SSM bans are unconstitutional. They violate the 14th Admenment. The admendment goes as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to Articla 1 if a State decides to go into the benefit-granting business it has to distribute those benefits in a way that respects constitutional mandates of equal protection and guarantees of substantive rights. In the case of same-sex marriage, the argument is that none of the asserted state interests justify giving same-sex couples and their children fewer benefits and protections than are provided to opposite-sex couples.

And my last point in the defense of my first contention is that I will like to go over what the government is actually for and what it's job is. My opponent again and again says that the state has a interest in marriage souly on a procreative bases, however our constitution and the princibles of our nation and it's government will tell otherwise. Though I have mention this in my contentions I will affirm it again. That our government's job is too defend the rights of the people. Since, marriage is a fundemental right and people marry only because they are in love (not because the government tells them too!) the government has a very big reason to legalize SSM: BECAUSE THAT IS JOB OF OUR GOVERNMENT!

D2: Would help the goverment economically


My opponent then tries to refute my second contention by stating that it would hurth the economy by increasing governmnet spending on benefits that are given to the couple that get married. He even brings up a case that was brung up by a NY lawmaker that was brought up before the legalization of SSM was actually declared in NY.

Actually in NY it is quite different. At the rate in which profits from weddings, tourism, jobs, and liscence fees are going up. It is estimated that an extra billion dollars a year will be made for the next few years. Which is quite a lot of money for a very key state in our union's economy.

Massachussettes has also received and extra 37 million dollars a year since it legalize SSM[4].

These are just two of the proofs that the economic benefit that the state could get from legalizing SSM is great. If one takes a look carefully if SSM is legalized in all fifty states then the government could receive billions of dollars that could very well help out our economy. The Pros outway the Potential cons. This is a great reason why the Federal and State governments should legalize SSM.

R1: What marriage is to the goverment, why it is this way, and how it relates to SSM:

I will now start my refutation my opponent's claim. My opponent says:

Firstly, the institution of marriage is one about procreation and child rearing. Marriages goal is to create an climate for the continuation for society, aka procreation. This is why the state gives benefits to heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. Homosexual couples will never be able to create or have a relationship type relating to procreation. Procreation and child rearing are essential to making society move on, and if one of those is missing there is a problem. Only can a man and a woman create children, and or have a procreative type relationship.

Obviously my opponent is ignorant to the fact that a couple does not need to be married to have children, and the very institution of marriage is becoming obsolete with 50% of all marriages in the U.S. ending in devorce and many people choosing not to get married, Also, my opponent's definition of marriage is quite unconstitutional. It violates the constitution's 14th admentment's Article 1 (which is deplayed up above). This includes the due process clause The essence of the due process clause is surmised well in the following excerpt, "Due process alternatively due process of law or the process that is due, is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state." Given this understanding the illegality of gay marriage would be unconstitutional because it denies a certain group of people their legal right to marry. People have the right to life, liberty, and property under the due process clause and one does not have liberty if one is not allowed to marry the person of their choice. Therefore, it is clear that SSM bans are unconstitutional. Since, I have already proven that the soul reason for even having our governmnet in the first place is to protect the rights and liberties of the individuals under the the banner of our great country. The government is not only to support the Constitution, but the Constitution governs the government itself. This reason is the biggest reason why the government should legalize SSM.

(Continued in Comments at opponets permission) (Sorry ) :(
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

I would like to point out a flaw: rule 8000 characters, my opponent broke this rule, hence I call for a conduct point.

~~Refutation time kids!~~

^lol.

R1: Constitutionality

My opponents response is odd, as we are not debating the nationality of marriage. Also, banning based off of race is well, bad, but not so with sexuality. Banning interracial marriage is about someones race, and SSM is not always about sexuality. [1] Marriage in my opinion, and the states, is about procreation and furthering the human race. [2, 3] Banning SSM is a ban due to nature, and the arguments for interracial marriage is purely this is odd. I have never argued this argument here, also as I have stated governmental bans are due to procreation. Comparing race to homosexuality and procreative unions are well laughable as there is no comparison. [4] As I have proven, the state wants children, and procreative type unions, interracial couples provide this, however homosexual ones do not, hence there is no comparison.

My opponents next argument: marriage does not need children, is correct, but a misinterpretation. The goverment has no requirement to having children, they want procreative type unions that usually create children. Heterosexual couples much of the time create offspring, and are always in a procreative type union. As homosexuals can never do this, then well they are now disqualified to the governments interest. All heterosexual unions, sterile or not, are in procreative-type unions, therefore are qualified.

My opponents next argument is marriage is obsolete. This isn't a refutation, as the heterosexual couples will still be in temporary procreative type marriages that still will likely create offspring. They are still in procreative type unions, and other relationships, like a boy friend girl Friend, I garentee to have higher break-up rates then a marital divorce, yet this is a good relationship. Divorce rates are well not relative to the given resolution.

His next argument is about breaking the 14th amendment. As he dropped the 5th amendment argument I extend that one. My next part:

"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. " [5]

So now we must determine what is marriage, and well why the state has it this way:

Currently, marriage is an institution only recognized to men and women, in most states. Also, in arguing there is discrimination you are implying that there is a right. As you now pose the question: Why? If the state had no reason for this, then there is no real discrimination, then not breaking the 14th amendment. His argument now fails on a constitutional ground, and he has to prove they have/deserve this right. Also out of 20 cases as of 2008 only 3/over 20 cases involving SSM actually hinder it unconstitutional. [6] Also the US court of appeals holds that no SSM ban breaks any constitutional amendment, hindering your argument false. [7] As it does not break this amendment, I extend.

Also, my opponent claims I gave him permission to post in the comments, this is false as when he asked I basically said what?!?! Then when he went along and did it he broke the 8000 character rule, and well basically this means as all comment arguments are invalid I must EXTEND MY WHOLE CASE. So, based off of his break of the rules I deserve conduct, and as he lied about my permission that is reason #2. Now, I will add onto my case about procreation:

~More kids, kids, and well more kids~
^ I am trying to be a little creative.

Marriage between two unrelated heterosexual people is likely to result in children. [8] Married couples get many benefits, [8, 9] and the state well then must have an interest in the marriage business. [8] Allowing more people to be created is essential to marriage, and society, and for this reason the state restricts marriage to couples not likely to produce or enter procreative type unions. [8] All sterile couples form procreative type marriages, and the state does not really go super specific on what they ban you from. In this case it is divided into mainly procreative, and never procreative. As the heterosexual group as a whole usually can create children, the state allows heterosexual relationships. So a sterile couple refutation is faulty as generally speaking heterosexuals can create offspring, and a sterile couple can still be in procreative type unions. I am gonna also do a refutation for the second time against my opponents argument of interracial and homosexual races:

"Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. " [8]

Back to sterile couples, the courts said that sterile couples do not effect procreation as there are so few of them, and well this doesn't interfere with procreative type unions. [10, 11]

"The court characterized the interest as“providing a ‘favorable setting for procreation.’” [10]

This means a procreative type union. A heterosexual, sterile or not, is a procreative type. And having marriage represent this is well logical. The states interest in marriage is about procreation, and other relationships either rarely sprout kids, or well cannot. A boyfriend girlfriend for example create children less often then marriage. Also they rarely can raise children effectively, so their disqualified as being used in your argument as well. These relationships may sprout kids, but they break apart easily and well are rarely enough to raise a child in, so in this case usually younger unions do not apply. The homosexuals are the opposite, they may be able to raise the child well, but will never be able to create offspring. Only heterosexual married couples can fully fit in the states interest.

Conclusion:

My opponent really has not brought up 1 compelling reason the state should legalize SSM, his only argument is the constitution but this is really flawed and was refuted. The states interest in marriage are procreation, procreative type unions, and child rearing. A homosexual couple fails to fit into these interests, as he needs to be in all, hence there is no reason for the state to legalize SSM, I urge a pro vote.


sources:

http://www.nationformarriage.org... [1]
Round 2 of this debate. [2]
Round 3 of this debate. [3]
http://www.the-alternative-conservative.com... [4]
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 [5]
Monte Neil Stewart, "Marriage Facts" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 31: 365 (2008) [6]
Jon C. Bruning v Nebraska, 8th circuit, A PDF file. [7]
http://tech.mit.edu... [8]
http://www.nolo.com... [9]
"The States interest in marriage" Avia Maria law review. [10]
Goodridge v. Dep’t of Pub. Health [11]
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 2 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I hate the state so I don't really care. ^-^
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
yes!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 2 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
The comments part=half my argument
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
The comments part was!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 2 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
What would have been the point if half my argument was considered in valid?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 2 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
What would have been the point if half my argument was considered in valid?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
You FFd?!?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Yes that is the refutation as your argument is a misinterpretation of the argument. The argument of procreative types is well correct.
Posted by ahopele 2 years ago
ahopele
I thought your response to sterile couples was pathetic. Procreative types, really? You still ignored what I said in my first comment. Just because a couple is homosexual, that doesn't stop the gay males from paying for a surrogate mother or the gay females from going to a sperm bank. What is your response to this?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
@a

My arguments here address sterile couples.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by chainmachine 2 years ago
chainmachine
16kadamsDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought pro had better conduct because of cons forfeit.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 2 years ago
jimtimmy
16kadamsDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct for forfeit. I will read the debate later for other points.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamsDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF