The Instigator
wingnut2280
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points

gay marriage: ya, another one

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
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: 12/12/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,116 times Debate No: 331
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (20)

 

wingnut2280

Con

I am against gay marriage. I have no social issues with gay people being together. I don't argue the church-gay conflict. My position is an economic one. The effect on our social programs would be devastating. Without getting into to much detail now, I don't see how someone could argue that gay marriage would not have a harmful effect on our already crippled government benefit systems.
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

I am for gay marriage, though I personally do not fully agree with homosexual love. It is however, not a recent act that has suddenly sprung up. Homosexuality has been around for generations. Some English rulers, such as James I, and Edward II, where gay, and lived in a time when homosexuality was punishable by excommunication or even death. Japan also shows evidence that homosexuality was a regularly practiced exercise in many a dojo. There are some fellow mammals, including dolphins and primates, the more intelligent animal species ( source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...). This leads me to believe that it is not simply choice, but a natural emotion, as odd as it may be. Yes, the feelings may violate the natural structure of the human body, but they are never the less as true as the deepest loves between male and female, and sometimes even more so. They have every bit as much right to love as the next man and woman. Should they choose to embark on the deepest symbol of human love, marriage, I say 'good for them" and let them do it.

I fail to see what crisis marriage could have on the government and social programs of the nation, nay, the world. If you will please elaborate so that I may present my next argument.
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Con

All those observations are great. They fail to address the argument though. I argue that the legalization of gay marriage would have negative effects on our social programs (welfare, social security, etc.)

I think we can all agree that our social systems are treading water (at the very best) and are, in most cases, drowning. Social Security will be in the red by 2012 and so on.

When straight couples get legally married, the spouses get new benefits and priveleges under each social system. Could you imagine the effect thousands of new beneficiaries would have on these already crippled insitutions?

Whether you morally agree with GM or not is entirely irrelevant. This economic issue is the one I argue, not the traditional moral one.
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

First off, it would have been stupendous if you had mentioned the specific social programs in your opening statement. It'd also be great if you could mention specific examples of how these programs would "go down the tubes"; in your words, the "negative effects". For all I know, this could mean social security cards around America will explode the second there is a gay marriage in the US. And what social systems are you talking about? Facebook? Myspace? Those are social systems. Are they really that close to crumbling because of gay marriage? Shame. I'd also love to know what benefits you think are going to really screw us all over should these marriages come into place. COuld you be talking about the many "Buy 1 get one free deals" that can now be used on their partner? I can only imagine all the toasters and cell phones that would be given away free. Horrible. How this will effect the economy is unclear to me, and I don't believe the last session space will be sufficient enough for me to sum up all my counter arguments even if you were to give me specifics. These should have been given at the beginning of the debate. We're not all quite as good as you are at reading your own thoughts. Clearly, this whole debacle of a debate should be restarted. I don't have nearly enough satisfactory information on what I should be defending to make a good point.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Con

First of all, I specifically mention in my opening statement the distinction between the socail and economic aspects of the issue I am arguing. It is not my fault you chose to ignore this and proceed with a lengthy paragraph on you personal views on the social worth of GM.

Second, anyone with any kind of rationality would realize that social programs in an economic sense would clearly mean ones like welfare and social security.

Third, I expected, when you read my opening statment and the topic and subsequently accepted the debate that you both understood it and had at least a sliver of knowledge on the topic.

Even if you thought my opening claim was unclear, it's not my problem you wasted your first two sessions crying about it, even after I clarified in my second post. This toaster and cell phone nonsense is clearly irrelevant as I refer specifically to welfare benefits and incentives. Any compitent debator would have been able to make relevant arguments based on my first claim (instead of blindly rambling) and then respond after I clarified (instead of whining and failing to make a single argument).

As all of my claims have gone unanswered let me reitterate briefly and elaborate.

The social justification of GM is irrelevant. These economic repercussions are what is important. As MOST know, and as I pointed out earlier, spouses recieve additional benefits from our government's social programs, such as social security, as opposed to single people. With these added benefits, combined with the terrible shape of the programs themselves, a flood of new gay marriages would kill an already wounded system leaving all social programs in shambles. The effects of these thousands of marriages, in and of themselves, is reason to keep GM illegal.

Had you responded to my arguments in the first place (as they were given), you wouldn't have placed yourself in this situation. Despite my clarifications you have failed to make any real response.
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Your argument was never explained in full. A "good debater" as you put it, needs to be able to put their argument into terms where someone who has never had any prior knowledge on the subject could have a clear understanding of the topic. I'll provide an analogy: I asked you for directions, and rather than giving me landmarks, road signs, and distances, you simply pointed your finger and said "It's over there" expecting me to have every bit of knowledge that you have on the subject. I will freely admit now that I'm not as well versed in what marital benefits are given and how they are exercised. I also have no clue as to what you may consider "an already wounded system".

The only conclusion I can come up with from the vast expanse of knowledge you've given me to work on is that gay marriage would have no more of a devastating economic effect on this "crippled system" than if every heterosexual couple where to get married. Therefore it is logical that the overall effect would be no different than something that could, in theory, already happen, and thus should be legalized.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tsmart1770 9 years ago
tsmart1770
wingnut2280, you had an interesting idea, which could possibly have been very persuasive, however i wish you had stated some facts to support, or qualify your statement. If you had done so, I would very much so sway this debate in your favour. However, since you did not do this, and since your etiquette was slightly rough, I'm passing my vote for Darth Grievo us 42
Posted by tennisboy4420 9 years ago
tennisboy4420
The argument that GM will cripple our social programs has no significant bearing on the public policy debate of GM. If it is true the GM would cripple our social programs (I have seen absolutely no evidence to indicate that it would), then we should adjust benefits, rates, taxes, and or whatever policy we need to adjust to remedy this possible collapse.

The reason the social program argument doesn't apply is because many people who have disliked many groups through history have made similar arguments. Did freeing the slaves cripple agriculture in the south? Did allowing interracial marriage overwhelm our social programs? If we were to restrict rights of individuals that they deserve on solid moral and ethical grounds simply because of economic worries, we would be an awful society. Suppose GM has been legal for many years, and our social programs begin to collapse, would you propose we ban it to save the programs?
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
I am not trying to make personal attacks. The last sentence of my opening statement defines the arguement fine. Your right, I do not come out with pages of evidence and list each and every government programs and how it is effected. Social programs are ones like welfare etc. THAT is the only assumption I ask him to make. I specify government benefits systems and that I am arguing the economic effects of GM. It is not my fault that he didn't notice this apparently unclear statement. I explain the process in both the second and third round more than sufficienty. Your right. I did not give intense statistical data to support this claim. But he in no way refutes my analytical arguments. Had he made ANY claims in ANY of the rounds, I would have been able to elaborate and repsond. The point is the pointlessness of the debate is due to his refusal to respond, despite my clear initial argument (though broad) and my later clarifications.
Posted by albachteng 9 years ago
albachteng
the con was not clear in his opening argument. in the final round, pro satisfactorily responded to the most logical interpretation of con's major argument - that gay marriage would have some sort of negative effect on welfare and social security because more people would be using the system. obviously, if more heterosexuals started getting married they'd be entitled to the same benefits - benefits, i might add, that con does not satisfactorily explain or expand on. give me specifics. therefore, there is no reason to believe that social security would collapse as a direct result of gay marriage.

the ranting about "any competent debater this, and any competent debater that," really gets on my nerves when I'm debating at tournaments. it's rude, and most of the time, judges are just going to vote for your opponent, who was nicer and more eloquent. just a friendly suggestion.

finally, no, a competent debater is not expected to make radical inferences from the unclear statements you've made. your opponent was quite right in calling you out for being vague. it was an interesting argument you posed, but you didn't support it or expand on it enough.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
I'm with Fenrir here. There's no reason to make personal attacks on Darth Grievous because he asked you to expand on your argument. It is reasonable that a 4 sentence opening statement might do a poor job of explaining exactly what you mean.
Posted by Voltaire2.0 9 years ago
Voltaire2.0
I would really like to know how wingnut thinks allowing gay people to get married will affect welfare or social security. Those programs are not dependent on marital status!
Posted by Mooskas 9 years ago
Mooskas
The affirmative said a lot or words with little meaning. Facts are everything.
Posted by Fenrir 9 years ago
Fenrir
"I specifically mention in my opening statement the distinction between the socail and economic aspects of the issue I am arguing"

"I have no social issues with gay people being together...The effect on our social programs would be devastating."

You really didn't take any clear position in your opening statement beyond that fact that you had some sort of economic opposition which you would not elaborate to any meaningful degree.

Your argument, as a whole, is pretty vague, and is not supported by substantial concrete facts, just approximations such as "I think we can all agree that our social systems are treading water (at the very best) and are, in most cases, drowning. Social Security will be in the red by 2012 and so on." Where's the data? Where's the evidence? True or not, you can't make claims such as that without backing them and still think your argument is solid.

Lastly, you're being extremely rude. This is supposed to be a fair, open, and understanding community, and your critical and immature comments are entirely unnecesarry. So your contender didn't understand exactly what your argument was; big deal. It's not like you laid it out clearly and distinctly. Seriously, you need to grow up a bit.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by HwangJongWon 9 years ago
HwangJongWon
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by tsmart1770 9 years ago
tsmart1770
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by FrontLineConservative 9 years ago
FrontLineConservative
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Fenrir 9 years ago
Fenrir
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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 
Vote Placed by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
wingnut2280Darth_Grievous_42Tied
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