The Instigator
WriterDave
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Topic of the debate.

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 8 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Started: 3/12/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 946 times Debate No: 21928
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

WriterDave

Pro

Brief statement of rules.

Opening argument.
16kadams

Con

The topic is:

"The US should legalize gay marriage"
I am con
you have the BOP
we know all the definitions don't troll with them
no semantics with the resolution


The States interest in Marriage

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 courts have held that the only reason they are involved in the SSM debate is because the states interest in marriage is to ensure the future of the human race, and a procreative-type union. [1, 4] It is common to hear the arguments of the benefits of SSM. In a court case, Goodrich v. the department of health, the department of health recognized there was economic benefit to the gay couples if SSM was legalized. [5, 6] Goodrich claimed the only thing marriage was was 2 loving people with economic benefits. The State differed saying marriage is a union of procreative type couples, and therefore the state had no reason to legalize SSM, and they didn't. [5, 6] The government wants married couples to make biological children or create procreative type unions to help further society and states interests. [7, 8, 9]


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 government 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.

Wait, isn't marriage about love?

Their refutation to the procreation argument is that marriage is about love. It the government 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.

---> Conclusion
The State has no reason to confer the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples as they do not fulfill the states interest. Marriage is not about love as pro Gay marriage advocates claim. As there is no reason to confer the benefits of marriage to homosexuals, then I urge a CON vote.



[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF)
[2] Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271
[3] THE CASE AGAINST “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" Margaret A. Somerville
[4] Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195
[5] Goodrich . Dep't of Health (Mass 2003)
[6] "Marriage In Its procreative Dimension: The meaning of marriage throughout the ages" By Dr. Charles J. Reid p. 31
[7] "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
[8] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school, p. 2
[9] "One Man, One Woman: Defending Traditional Marriage" By Tim Hsiao, Florida State University.
Debate Round No. 1
WriterDave

Pro


Dismissal of Con's statement as irrelevant.

Notation that topic of the debate is "Topic of the debate."

Restatement of opening argument in favor of that topic. Notation that it has not been addressed.

16kadams

Con

My opponent seems to have made a spam debate with little clarification and seems to be refusing to do so.

By posting a spam debate you are technically breaking TOS rules. [http://www.debate.org...]. (section R) Now, one must first define spam. In this recent debate, this troll had many un certifiable and useless debates, and that was considered spam. [http://www.debate.org...].

In my recent PM I asked this makes no sense, please clarify. He said "Clarification of topic of debate, and nature of debate" I will post a link, although it may be blocked. [http://www.debate.org...]

He is obviously trolling as well. A troll posts things that either cause emotion or off topic material that disrupts normal conversations. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] The majority of the time people post these debates the contender chooses the subject and proceeds. As he has given no clarification, is acting temporarily like a troll, and has spammed I already deserve to win the debate,

Now, the TOS states no cuss words. When one makes a worthless debate that is spam it may invoke this language. "Will not use the Service in any way that violates the terms of this Agreement, or that aids, encourages, or purports to authorize anyone else to violate the terms of this Agreement." [http://www.debate.org...] As this encourages the behavior it violates section R of the TOS.

Conclusion:

My opponent:

a. Has acted like a troll
b. hasn't clarified the debate
c. has spammed the website
d. and broke section R in the TOS

I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
WriterDave

Pro

Refusal to dignify opponent's accusations with a response.

Notation that "silly" and "joke" debates are far from unprecedented on DDO.[1] Lamentation that the instant open challenge was not accepted by someone with a sense of humor.

Restatement of opening argument. Observation that neither that argument nor the topic of the debate, which is "Topic of the debate," have been addressed by Con.

.

[1]Footnote pointing to one instance of such a debate: http://www.debate.org...
16kadams

Con

"Notation that "silly" and "joke" debates are far from unprecedented on DDO."

The debate you cite was considered a spam debate. [http://www.debate.org...] Also it is a spam debate as, well, the resolution is not arguable, just like this one.

"Observation that neither that argument nor the topic of the debate, which is "Topic of the debate," have been addressed by Con."

I already choose a topic. Your just trolln'.

Arguments he dropped:

TOS violations
Him not clarifying here or in a PM
That he is a troll
That this may encourage cuss words, which break the TOS
Debate Round No. 3
WriterDave

Pro

Reminder that the topic of the debate is "Topic of the debate," not "The US should legalize gay marriage" nor "WriterDave is a troll." Denial of Con's right to change topic by fiat.

Dismissal of all of Con's first three statements as irrelevant. Pre-emptive dismissal of Con's final statement for same reason.

Restatement of opening argument. Submission that topic has been established in the absence of counter-argument.

Expression of gratitude to readers for their attention. Request for their votes. Apologies for my opponent being completely missing the point of this debate. Promise to find someone with a sense of humor next time.
16kadams

Con

"Reminder that the topic of the debate is "Topic of the debate," not "The US should legalize gay marriage" nor "WriterDave is a troll." Denial of Con's right to change topic by fiat. "

a. As the resolution makes NO sense, I deserve arguments as I at least attempted to have them
b. Your trolling, denying to explain the resolution mean I should get conduct
c. Your breaking of the TOS should be a automatic win

"Dismissal of all of Con's first three statements as irrelevant. Pre-emptive dismissal of Con's final statement for same reason."

a. You should be dismissed due to your spamming and trolling and failure as a instigator to make a debate with no clarification and refuse to do so

"Expression of gratitude to readers for their attention. Request for their votes. Apologies for my opponent being completely missing the point of this debate. Promise to find someone with a sense of humor next time."

a. This wasn't a debatable resolution with any clarification.

Vote CON as he was trolling, spamming, breaking the TOS, not explaining the debate, and well wasting my time.

I am bored here's this.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

http://www.google.com...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

http://www.google.com...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

http://www.google.com...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

http://www.google.com...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..

.
.

http://www.google.com...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..

http://www.google.com...

.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
http://www.google.com...

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 1 year ago
InVinoVeritas
Ahhhh! I see what you did thurrrr!
Posted by WriterDave 2 years ago
WriterDave
Announcement to 16kadams that I have created a debate on the topic that he WANTED to debate: http://www.debate.org...

Advisory that it's a public debate, so he'd better hurry if he is going to accept before someone beats him to it.

(Parenthetical that he is not accepting private messages or debate challenges, so I cannot challenge tell him this directly.)
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I lost my second debate, I'm doing ok
Posted by WriterDave 2 years ago
WriterDave
Observation that if I do lose this debate, it's just as well -- if I start out my career here with a perfect record, I'll feel so nervous about losing it with every debate that I have.

Expression of hope, nonetheless, that people appreciate what I was trying to do here.
Posted by WriterDave 2 years ago
WriterDave
Exclamation! Expression of pleasure that SOMEONE realized what I was trying to do here.
Posted by RougeFox 2 years ago
RougeFox
This reminds me of http://consc.net...
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
this makes no sense
Posted by famer 2 years ago
famer
Does Con propose a resolution that will be argued for this debate?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
WriterDave16kadamsTied
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: Pro made a stupid debate "topic", and shouldn't complain when it gets derailed.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
WriterDave16kadamsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Notation that Zaradi's RFD is correct. Observation that the debate is self referential. Further comment that this could have been deduced from the R1. Confirmation that the topic was not Gay Marriage and a side-note that Pro's "argument" was never addressed. Expression of amusement at the nature of the debate. Finalization of RFD through a comment of the vote going to Pro.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
WriterDave16kadamsTied
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: I thought this was pretty funny but there was no resolution to affirm or negate so the debate can't be judged based on that. As instigator and Pro, it is clear that he had the BoP to provide some kind of argument which he failed to do. The bottom line here is that Con made an attempt to debate, Pro who had the BoP didn't so victory to Con seem to be the only reasonable option.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 2 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
WriterDave16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments from the CON were just more well-developed in general, and he did provide plenty of sources in order to validate his arguments. My vote goes to him in this debate.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 2 years ago
RougeFox
WriterDave16kadamsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never stood against "Topic of Debate." He simply declared rules and debated a different topic. I saw what pro was doing here. If you don't understand, see the comments.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
WriterDave16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll debate.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
WriterDave16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Well-hidden troll debate was well-hidden. 16k fell right into it and mistaked what it was talking about. The resolution was "Topic of the debate" and con didn't argue in negation of "topic of the debate". Pro had only topical argument for it, so he gets the arguments. But conduct to con. Really? A troll debate like this? Really?
Vote Placed by vmpire321 2 years ago
vmpire321
WriterDave16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: God. I almost cried. It's quite obvious who won - Con was the only one who made any valid arguments.