The Instigator
Stokesmarv1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
zachrkhs
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

The United Stats Federal Government Should permit Marriage to all!

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 879 times Debate No: 10460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Stokesmarv1

Con

While their rights haven't changed or increased to the rights of Heterosexuals, Homosexuals are becoming ever so populous in the United States of American. Are Homosexuals entitled to marriage or are they over stepping their boundaries? Should the law prohibiting Gay Marriage Be overturned?

Okay this will be our first Debate so go easy on us Debate.org community!

Affirmative: Zach
Negative: Marvin

Resolution is the Topic!
zachrkhs

Pro

Hey Marvin. Thanks so much for allowing me to debate. I hope we'll learn more about this website and how this all works!

I'd like to start off the debate by this: Our founding principles were that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator some unalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". This statement applies to ALL people, regardless of race, culture, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. Why WOULDN'T we allow the free rights for others that we enjoy ourselves?

Regardless of your political standing or religious philosophy, this is a moral issue.. and it's more than that. It's an AMERICAN ISSUE.. and American value. Our nation was founded on these principles: that we accept one another and stand strong as a powerful force for good. This applies to ALL of our nation's people.
Debate Round No. 1
Stokesmarv1

Con

Topicalty
A. Interpetation: Marriage refers to the state of, or relation between man and woman who have become husband and wife.

B.Violation: The affirmative is saying that man and man can be married as husband and husband. This adds a material qualification on who can get married. The affirmative can avoid negative links.

C. Standards: there is an unlimited number of conditions the USFG could put on all who can be married.

D. Vote Negative- topicality is a priori jurisdictional voting issue, if the plan is not topical the affirmative has failed to justify plan.

Counter Plan: The USFG should give the same rights to the Gays but title it something different.

Solvency: Even If we allow gay people to be married, that doesnt solve the mindsets of the people. And as we all know the peope are the govenment. Since they are the government this will be surely overturned due to the majority of the population being heterosexuals.

Disad Darwin: Allowin Gay marriage would be tampering with survival of the fittest because two males or two females cant produce offf spring. This leads to extinction.

Disad Immigration and some Mathus: The more rights we give Americans, the more people will want to come to America! This leads to overpopulation in the US. Overpopulation causes extinction
zachrkhs

Pro

TOPICALITY
Counter Interpretation/Definition: Husband/Husband and Wife/Wife relationships also include marriage. See our Prinston '09 definition that says that "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)".

Counter-Standards: Prefer OUR DEFINITION because it comes from the Princeton college of law, so it's a better definition because debate is topic centered around law.

Vote Affirmative: Topicality is not a voting issue, it's only a time suck.. Also, this is NOT a valid Topicality argument because we are debating the resolution, which INCLUDES the debate over marriage between homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Don't grant the Con team any offense because we are simply debating the ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.

COUNTER-PLAN
First of all, they provide no Counterplan solvency; how do we know their CP will solve? However, by giving the same rights to Gays but titling their marriage as something different isn't marriage is OTHER-IZING them, which leads to Dehumanization, which eventually leads to Genocide. You cannot allow this to happen.

SOLVENCY
My opponent says that if "we allow gay people to be married that doesnt solve the mindsets of people".. however when you allow Gays to be part of the group of those who are married, you are giving heterosexuals a way to get to know homosexuals.. and eventually lead them to be more accepted by society.

Also, he says that the government "will be surely overturned due to the majority of the population being heterosexuals." However, an August poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 57% of all Americans agree with equal rights to homosexuals, including marriage. (http://www.pollingreport.com...)

DARWIN DISAD
Under no circumstances are we promoting homosexuality. The plan is only giving equal rights, including marriage, to be given to ALL PEOPLE, no matter what sexual preference. TURN: Homosexuals can get sex-change operations, so their impact won't happen. They also provide no Uniqueness.

IMMIGRATION DISAD
Your impacts should have happened already. Since the late 1800s, immigration has increased in America rapidly. Also, recently there have been an influx of illegal immigrants from around the world and there is no overcrowding in America's cities.

Also, it is the JOB of the GOVERNMENT to improve the "rights we give to Americans".. failure to do so isn't government at all.

AFF OFFENSE TURN
Not doing anything about equal rights would mean that we shouldn't have done anything to protect their rights of African Americans, Native Americans, or even Americans at all.. the colonists rebelled from Britain because lack of basic rights. This is against our nation's principles.. and our history.
Debate Round No. 2
Stokesmarv1

Con

Stokesmarv1 forfeited this round.
zachrkhs

Pro

Hooray. I win. :P
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MaddieJBudnyRKHS 7 years ago
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
Just something to Marvin--
Letting homosexual peoples get married does't cause less heterosexual behavior, so therefore no less children, therefore no malthus. :)

One of you guys should debate me.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
"Vote Negative- topicality is a priori jurisdictional voting issue"

You're justification for topicality being a voting issue is that it is a voting issue? Just a little circular...

I voted PRO in arguments on the Otherization turn on the CP debate

I voted PRO in conduct for the forfeit
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by zachrkhs 7 years ago
zachrkhs
Stokesmarv1zachrkhsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MaddieJBudnyRKHS 7 years ago
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
Stokesmarv1zachrkhsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Stokesmarv1zachrkhsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06