The Instigator
ockcatdaddy
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

homosexuals should have the right to marry

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
emospongebob527
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,579 times Debate No: 27644
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (10)

 

ockcatdaddy

Pro

rules:
first round is for acceptance
second round is for rebuttling
third round is for closing not another arguement
please dont bring religion into this debate

definition of homosexual:
ho"mo"sex"u"al*ˌhoʊ məˈsɛk ʃu əl(adj.)
1.
attracted sexually to members of one's own sex.

Category: Medicine

2.
of or pertaining to homosexuality.

Category: Medicine

3.
(n.)a homosexual person.

Category: Medicine

* Usage: See gay.

Origin of homosexual:

1890"95

"homosexual." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. .

definition of marry:
mar"ryˈm"r i(v.)-ried, -ry"ing.
1.
(v.t.)to take as a husband or wife; take in marriage.

2.
to perform the marriage ceremony for; join in wedlock.

3.
to give in marriage; arrange the marriage of:

married off all their children.

4.
to join or unite intimately.

5.
to gain through marriage:

to marry money.

6.
(v.i.)to take a husband or wife; wed.

7.
to unite closely or agreeably; blend:

This wine and cheese marry well.

Origin of marry:

1250"1300; ME marien < OF marier < L marītāre to wed
"marry." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. .

"homosexual." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2012. <http://www.definitions.net...;.
emospongebob527

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
ockcatdaddy

Pro

first off homosexuals are very kind and are human beings just like the bisexuals and heterasexuals. alas i am only refering to the homosexuals in this debate not the bisexuals. i believe that homosexuals should have the right to be in a commited relationshiop that can lead to marraige. if the United States passe the gay rights law then the gays may not revolt which is possible but not probable.
emospongebob527

Con

first off homosexuals are very kind and are human beings just like the bisexuals and heterasexuals.

Nice ad hominen argument, just because homosexuals are nice doesn't mean they should have the right to marry.

alas i am only refering to the homosexuals in this debate not the bisexuals. i believe that homosexuals should have the right to be in a commited relationshiop that can lead to marraige.

I hate it when people use the "I believe" argument in debate, let's debunk this;


A group of numerous people believe in different things, if one persons beliefs were correct, everyone's elses beliefs have to be wrong, unless you contend you are right 100% of the time.

if the United States passe the gay rights law then the gays may not revolt which is possible but not probable.

Ad hominen, cannot address this.


Debate Round No. 2
ockcatdaddy

Pro

Abusive ad hominem

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

you have not provided a proper rebuttal as in the rules you have only rebuked me for my personal opinions. as I have clearly stated in the rules that the second round is for debating and you have not debated anything with me why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. therefore you automatically lost the debate now please follow the rules and use the third round for what it is really for...closing as I have also clearly stated in the rules.

therefore I conclude that homosexuals should have the right to marry each other and live in happiness and harmony. also I conclude that no one not even my opponent has a proper reason why homosexuals should not be wed regarding religious reasons. voters please do the right thing and vote for the real winner.
emospongebob527

Con

I do realize now that I got my terms mized up and my opponent was not really playing abusive Ad Hom.

Pro is being very abusive and shows extremely poor conduct, he makes bare assertions, attempts to shift the BOP to me, claim false victory, and never fulfills the BOP.

Cross Examination-

you have not provided a proper rebuttal.........................

You are correct in saying I have not provided the proper rebuttal......... What do expect me to do!? Pull rebuttals out of thin air and address a case you didn't even make, I couldn't have possibly provided the correct rebuttals because you never provided a well grounded case; You show disgusting conduct by positing your own beliefs and dressing them up as "proper evidence", without actually making a case, that is bad conduct, My my my.


as I have clearly stated in the rules that the second.................

Pro is now pulling fantasy arguments out of thin air and throwing them around like he's high or something.......... You NEVER EVER said R2 was for debating, you said it was for REBUTTLING! You said and I quote;
second round is for rebuttling

You then go on to say I must prove that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, that posits we have a shared BOP, you never outlined such a credential in R1, if you do no such thing, the BOP rests on you, which you never fulfill. You then go on to claim I have lost the debate, I have done no such thing, you outlined R2 for rebuttals, therefore all I had to do was rebut your case....... Oh, wait! You didn't make a case! Now until you address anything relevant to this debate, you are the one who loses.


therefore I conclude that homosexuals should have................

You cannot possibly conclude this, you are making bare assertions with absolutely no warrants or proper implications and until you do so, your constant semantic attacks, lawyering, BOP shifting, and claiming victory with no proper reason will lose you conduct.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
He doesn't have to. You had the burden of proof. You had to make an argument before he could refute it.

Do you think there are any reasons to allow homosexuals to marry? (Besides the ridiculous theory that they might revolt?) If so, and if you had stated those reasons in the debate, then Con would have to refute them. But, if you don't give reasons, then he doesn't have to refute anything.
Posted by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
i opponent didnt even offer a valid reason why they should not marry
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Ron Paul,

We had two votebombs for Con, and only one for Pro. Why did you counter the one for Pro rather than one of the ones for Con? If you change your vote to counter one of the votebombs for Con, then the votebombs will offset each other, and the vote will be fair.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
I am very secure in my sexuality and do not like gays. That does not mean I hate them. I do not hate any group of people that do not inted harm on others. I simply have no need to know gays or be friends with someone who believes so opposite of me. I do know a couple of gays but I would not consider them friends. I don't think that churches should marry gays and district justices should not be forced to. I do believe though that gays do have a right to become a couple especially for insurance purposes. Call it union or some other name but a marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. It is not fair that gays are excluded from things like being on their significant others insurance policy or be able to collect their partners social security when they die. If the fem is taking care of the home for 40 years and their partner makes the money why should they lose out on the SSI?

To the pro who said gays are nice people you need to do a little research The top six U.S. male serial killers were all gay:
" Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky;
" John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard;
" Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways;
" Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois;
" A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and
" Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he "made love" with their corpses).
Lesbian Aileen Wuornos laid claim in 1992 to "worst female killer" with at least 7 middle-aged male victims. She singlehandedly topped the lesbian nurse team of Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, who had killed 6 convalescent patients in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexual
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 4 years ago
morgan2252
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con because pro created the rules, but when con followed them, pro was very rude and claimed that he deserved better conduct. Pro had very poor spelling and grammar. Both sides had little proof to back up their arguments. Pro had a few sources, but con had none.
Vote Placed by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was abusive.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that if gays are not allowed to marry, they may revolt. So, he concludes, we should allow them to marry. It's an extremely weak argument. In fact, it's so weak that Con didn't bother to refute it. Pro met the burden of proof (barely) and was not refuted. Con elected to attack Pro's conduct instead of debating the topic. Con engaged in abusive ad hom even while disparaging such behavior. Conduct: Pro. Persuasion: Pro.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Failjob for Pro.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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: Counter.
Vote Placed by mandmandmbaby 4 years ago
mandmandmbaby
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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: Pro has a better argument and opinion.
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 4 years ago
DebaterAgent
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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: Poor job by ockcatdaddy. he couldn't prove anything
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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 messed himself up
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP but did not prove his case.
Vote Placed by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
ockcatdaddyemospongebob527Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not offer any solid evidence that could possibly be used to support his assertions. Con managed to rebut some points that Pro made, but he did not offer any evidence to advance his argument either. I vote for Con for his better conduct.