The Instigator
induced
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Kwhite7298
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

the government should only recognize straight marriages

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 2 votes the winner is...
induced
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,241 times Debate No: 31798
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

induced

Con

rules:
-you will argue that the government should only recognize straight marriages (no gay marriages).
-you have the burden of proof.
-list and number (1, 2, 3, etc) all your arguments in the first round. no new or modified arguments allowed in the following rounds, only rebuttals.
-dropped arguments count as concessions.
Kwhite7298

Pro

I would like to officially thank my opponent, induced, for starting this debate, and I would like to start off with sort-of a disclaimer:
I do not intend to offend anyone, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or any person or party that has strong opinions relating to this topic. I am here to propose arguments as to why the government should only recognize straight (one male, one female) marriages.
Let's begin by defining a few terms:

gov"ern"ment [guhv-ern-muhnt, ‐er-muhnt] - (noun) the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. [1]

rec"og"nize [rek-uhg-nahyz] - (verb) to perceive as existing or true; realize: to be the first to recognize a fact. [2]

Therefore, in order to prove that the government should only recognize straight marriages, we need to realize that the term "government" was not specified in the original post, therefore, for argument's sake, we will be discussing the FEDERAL government. Marriages that are not straight, for this purpose, will include but will not be limited to:
marriages between male partners
marriages between female partners
polygamous marriages

The arguments in favor of the resolution presented during this round will be as follows:
1) The people are not ready to accept change
2) Gay marriage would have worsening economic effects

Contention 1: American people are not ready to accept change:
When Americans think of gay marriage, the most prevalent obstacle that comes to mind as to why the government has not passed it is simply religion. Specifically, the bible speaks out against it. [3] The bible is defined by dictionary.com as "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion...". [4] Base-christian communities are those that follow the statements set forth in the bible and study it as such. [5] Approximately seventy percent of our country is Christian, and therefore, agrees with the principle of the Bible. [6]
Since American politics are based on a majority-rule system, and the majority of America follows scriptures that do not support non-straight marriages, the government should only recognize straight marriages because it is in the intent of the majority of the people.

Contention 2: Gay marriage would have economic effects:
The United States deficit is currently $16t. [7] The United States spent $15.6b in 2008 alone on the war against AIDS. Therefore, if it continued at this rate, $156b would have been spent by 2018 -- something that does not help our deficit. We don't have the economic wiggle-room to spent such money. I'm sure you're thinking, what does this have to do with marriage? Unfortunately, homosexual couples make up the largest AIDS statistic in the United States. [8] It should be obvious that allowing gay marriage would increase the number of gay relationships. Therefore, the amount of AIDS cases and the tax dollars spent to fight this disease would increase.

Sources cited:
[1] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] - http://blog.al.com...
[4] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] - http://www.theradicaltruth.com...
[6] - http://www.gallup.com...
[7] - http://zfacts.com...
[8] - http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
induced

Con

1. your first argument boils down to "most people are against it, therefore it shouldnt be recognized by the government".
i'd like to first point out that this month, the polls show that "53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal".
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
also, even if most people were against it, that wouldnt mean that it should be banned. a majority of people can be wrong. besides, allowing gays to legally marry will not harm anyone else, and can lead to good things like more children being adopted. even if you disagree, you should still concede that your argument is void, since most americans support gay marriage.


2. as for your second argument, it relies on 5 things that i disagree with

-first, it relies on the expectation that AIDS will spread more. if anything, it would have the opposite effect. the percentage of gay people isnt going to change, but married couples are less likely to have numerous sex partners, so there would be less spreading of AIDS if gays could marry, because most of them would only be having sex with their spouse. i'd like to see your proof that allowing gay marriages will somehow cause more people to have AIDS. many states have already legalized gay marriage, and i dont see any dramatic increase in AIDS rates in those states. Vermont and New Hampshire were the first states to legalize gay marriage, yet they have the lowest or are at least among the lowest AIDS rates in the country
http://www.statehealthfacts.org...

-second, it implies that banning something is justified as long as it will do some good or save the government money. by that logic, you could justify banning almost anything; pets, straight marriages, cars, alcohol, knives, sidewalks, etc.
Total expenditures of the federal budget are $3.8 trillion for 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org...
how does that compare to $15.6 billion? that would only account for 0.004%. even if allowing gay marriage would double that number, is treating people like second class citizens really worth it? gay people pay taxes too, and their tax money goes to disproportionately help straight peoples interests and rights. why shouldnt gays get their share of benefits too? and straight marriages cost the taxpayers a lot of money too, so why not ban straight marriage?

-third, it relies on the assumption that the government would have to spend more money on AIDS, if AIDS was more widespread. even if AIDS rates went up as a result of gay marriage being legal, that doesnt mean that the government would absolutely have to spend more. they could always cut back, but i think the bigger issue is people getting AIDS, not the money it costs the taxpayer, and would you really ban straight couples from getting married, if they had higher AIDS rates than gays?

-fourth, you make an exception for straight marriage, so why not for gay marriage? many straight people have AIDS too, so by your logic, why not ban straight marriage too? also, why not ban blacks from getting married too, because they have a high rate of AIDS? is that really the type of society you want to live in, where we discriminate against an individual based on an over-generalization? many gay couples dont have AIDS.

-fifth, you're forgetting lesbians. lesbians have a very low AIDS rate, so you have no reason to ban lesbian marriage based on facts about gay men.
Kwhite7298

Pro

1. your first argument boils down to "most people are against it, therefore it shouldnt be recognized by the government".
i'd like to first point out that this month, the polls show that "53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal".
http://www.cbsnews.com......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
also, even if most people were against it, that wouldnt mean that it should be banned. a majority of people can be wrong. besides, allowing gays to legally marry will not harm anyone else, and can lead to good things like more children being adopted. even if you disagree, you should still concede that your argument is void, since most americans support gay marriage.

I don't mean to go attacking sources here, but CBS is not a legitimate source. Wikipedia can be contributed to by anyone. If you're going to back up something with sources, please use strong, reliable, primary sources. Neither CBS nor Wikipedia is a fair source and should not be misconstrued as such. Therefore, you have not proved that most Americans support gay marriage. I have proven that, contrary to your statements, most Americans follow teachings that oppose gay marriage. Society is not ready for gay marriage. [http://www.nytimes.com...]

2. as for your second argument, it relies on 5 things that i disagree with

-first, it relies on the expectation that AIDS will spread more. if anything, it would have the opposite effect. the percentage of gay people isnt going to change, but married couples are less likely to have numerous sex partners, so there would be less spreading of AIDS if gays could marry, because most of them would only be having sex with their spouse. i'd like to see your proof that allowing gay marriages will somehow cause more people to have AIDS. many states have already legalized gay marriage, and i dont see any dramatic increase in AIDS rates in those states. Vermont and New Hampshire were the first states to legalize gay marriage, yet they have the lowest or are at least among the lowest AIDS rates in the country
http://www.statehealthfacts.org......

Here is another flaw -- you stated that passing gay marriage would not increase the number of open gays, which is completely untrue. You stated that passing gay marriage would change society's view of it, which is true. From there, it can be implied that this changed view would result in a more accepting world. This is true, but now is not the time. A more accepting world leads to more open gays -- more gay marriages, and more gay sexual relations. This, unfortunately, leads to an increase in AIDS. Also, "statehealthfacts.org" is not a legitimate source. I cited a government website which stated that gays do have a higher percentage of AIDS. This is a fact.

-second, it implies that banning something is justified as long as it will do some good or save the government money. by that logic, you could justify banning almost anything; pets, straight marriages, cars, alcohol, knives, sidewalks, etc.
Total expenditures of the federal budget are $3.8 trillion for 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org......
how does that compare to $15.6 billion? that would only account for 0.004%. even if allowing gay marriage would double that number, is treating people like second class citizens really worth it? gay people pay taxes too, and their tax money goes to disproportionately help straight peoples interests and rights. why shouldnt gays get their share of benefits too? and straight marriages cost the taxpayers a lot of money too, so why not ban straight marriage?

Again, sources please! Wikipedia is not a legitimate source, so your argument is void. Cars are paid for by the person who buys them, not everyone else. Pets are paid for by their owner, not everyone else. Alcohol is paid for by the purchaser, not anyone else. Do you see the pattern? However, the Affordable Health Care act forces the "everyone else" to pay for the health care of everyone -- including the gays, which have a higher percentage of AIDS than straight Americans. Why should you use your tax money to pay for the fault of someone else? It is impossible to make sure every American is practicing safe sex, therefore, we cannot expect everyone to pay for the minority that does not comply.

-third, it relies on the assumption that the government would have to spend more money on AIDS, if AIDS was more widespread. even if AIDS rates went up as a result of gay marriage being legal, that doesnt mean that the government would absolutely have to spend more. they could always cut back, but i think the bigger issue is people getting AIDS, not the money it costs the taxpayer, and would you really ban straight couples from getting married, if they had higher AIDS rates than gays?

The government would have to spent more money, this is not an assumption. The Affordable Health Care act requires every American, government or non-government, to pay taxes to pay for health care. Additionally, we need to focus on today's topic: we are not debating straight marriage, but if you would like to, invite me and we can.

-fourth, you make an exception for straight marriage, so why not for gay marriage? many straight people have AIDS too, so by your logic, why not ban straight marriage too? also, why not ban blacks from getting married too, because they have a high rate of AIDS? is that really the type of society you want to live in, where we discriminate against an individual based on an over-generalization? many gay couples dont have AIDS.

More homosexuals have AIDS than straight Americans.

-fifth, you're forgetting lesbians. lesbians have a very low AIDS rate, so you have no reason to ban lesbian marriage based on facts about gay men.

Lesbians are a minority. The fact is that there are more gay men than lesbian women. [http://igfculturewatch.com...]
Debate Round No. 2
induced

Con

my sources are fine, and are nearly identical to every other source ive looked at. also, wikipedia uses external sources, so you can see where exactly the information came from. since you insisted on other sources, i will use the same sources you did. you have used gallup and the new york times websites, so here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.gallup.com...
both those sources show that more people support gay marriage than oppose. every single recent poll i have found says the same thing, and you havent provided a source that says otherwise, even though you are supposed to be the one with the burden of proof. can we drop this silly myth now?

moving on...
"you stated that passing gay marriage would not increase the number of open gays"
no i didnt
"You stated that passing gay marriage would change society's view of it"
no i didnt
"I cited a government website which stated that gays do have a higher percentage of AIDS. This is a fact."
-i dont deny that gay men have higher AIDS rates, but you have not shown sources that prove your assertion that AIDS rates would significantly go up as a result of allowing gays to marry. if you dont believe my sources, look it up for yourself...Vermont and New Hampshire have had legal gay marriage for longer than any state, and have among the lowest rates of AIDS.
but since gay marriage hasnt been around for long in the united states, let's look outside the united states. the Netherlands was the first country to allow gay marriage in 2001. adult prevalence of AIDS that year was 0.2, and as of year 2009 it is still around 0.2 (among the lowest of other European countries)
http://www.indexmundi.com...
before you attack that source, i will point out that they got their information from here:
https://www.cia.gov...
since you implied that government sources are reliable, you shouldnt have a problem with cia.gov, and if you do, please provide sources that show that the Netherlands have had a dramatic increase in AIDS rates since they legalized gay marriage in 2001.

-cars, pets, straight marriage, alcohol, etc, do cost the taxpayers money. we pay for roads, police enforcement, animal control, etc, and we have to make up for tax breaks that married straight couples get.
"The fact is that there are more gay men than lesbian women"
-you have to show that we should ban ALL gay marriages, including lesbian marriages, that is what you agreed to. gay men having high AIDS rates does not justify banning gay women from marrying, who have much lower AIDS rates than straight people. why not ban only gay men from getting married, but allow gay women to marry?
Kwhite7298

Pro

my sources are fine, and are nearly identical to every other source ive looked at. also, wikipedia uses external sources, so you can see where exactly the information came from. since you insisted on other sources, i will use the same sources you did. you have used gallup and the new york times websites, so here you go:
http://www.nytimes.com......
http://www.gallup.com......
both those sources show that more people support gay marriage than oppose. every single recent poll i have found says the same thing, and you havent provided a source that says otherwise, even though you are supposed to be the one with the burden of proof. can we drop this silly myth now?

Here's where you're wrong -- they don't. In the 8th paragraph of the NY Times article, it states that most Americans who attend religious services (identify as religious) oppose gay marriage. As proven by my previous source, 70% of Americans identify as religious. The fact of the matter is that fewer Americans support gay marriage than those that oppose.

Neither of those polls is valid, either. We need to realize that the NY Times article is based on the poll from Gallup polls. It hyperlinks it right in the article. Second, Gallup did not post a raw data table. They state that the sampling was done by phone calls -- ALWAYS a biased method, because those who do not support gay marriage may feel uncomfortable expressing it, especially after the recent movements (red = and supreme court).

moving on...
"you stated that passing gay marriage would not increase the number of open gays"
no i didnt

"The percentage of gay people would not increase." When you accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments, please, make sure that I'm not correct first.

"You stated that passing gay marriage would change society's view of it"
no i didnt

"is that a society we want to live in, where we discriminate...?" Again, please don't accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments. Here, you imply that society needs to change, and gay marriage would change society away from discriminating against gays.

"I cited a government website which stated that gays do have a higher percentage of AIDS. This is a fact."
-i dont deny that gay men have higher AIDS rates, but you have not shown sources that prove your assertion that AIDS rates would significantly go up as a result of allowing gays to marry.

I don't need sources, it's basic principles. I have proven that passing gay marriage would increase the number of gays, and therefore, there would be a higher AIDS rate.

if you dont believe my sources, look it up for yourself...Vermont and New Hampshire have had legal gay marriage for longer than any state, and have among the lowest rates of AIDS.

That's nice, but we need to realize the country as a whole, 50 united states, would not benefit from allowing gay marriage.

but since gay marriage hasnt been around for long in the united states, let's look outside the united states. the Netherlands was the first country to allow gay marriage in 2001. adult prevalence of AIDS that year was 0.2, and as of year 2009 it is still around 0.2 (among the lowest of other European countries)
http://www.indexmundi.com......
before you attack that source, i will point out that they got their information from here:
https://www.cia.gov......
since you implied that government sources are reliable, you shouldnt have a problem with cia.gov, and if you do, please provide sources that show that the Netherlands have had a dramatic increase in AIDS rates since they legalized gay marriage in 2001.

I don't have a problem with those sources, but I would like to point something out. Here in America, the millionaires pay about 20.4% tax [1]. The netherlands pays, ON AVERAGE, 52% tax. My point here is not that AIDS would increase. My point is that there would be economic catastrophe by forcing Americans to pay for the increase in AIDS. The taxes would lower AIDS, which is something you see in the Netherlands.

-cars, pets, straight marriage, alcohol, etc, do cost the taxpayers money. we pay for roads, police enforcement, animal control, etc, and we have to make up for tax breaks that married straight couples get.
"The fact is that there are more gay men than lesbian women"

Almost every American uses roads. Almost every American uses police enforcement. Almost every American relates to Animal Control. Almost all Americans are straight, and therefore, should not have to pay for the economic effects from gay marriage.

-you have to show that we should ban ALL gay marriages, including lesbian marriages, that is what you agreed to. gay men having high AIDS rates does not justify banning gay women from marrying, who have much lower AIDS rates than straight people. why not ban only gay men from getting married, but allow gay women to marry?

You stated, "is this a society we wish to live in, where we discriminte...?. You implied that you are for gay marriage because not allowing it is discrimination, but you suggest discriminating against gay men? I think you're crossing arguments here.

My opponent has failed to negate my points. My opponent failed to provide legitimate polls and sources backing up his claim that most Americans support gay marriage. I, on the other hand, have proved that most Americans support beliefs that do not approve of gay marriage, enforcing my first point that America is not ready for this change.

My opponent cited the Netherlands as an example, stating that the AIDS has gone down since allowing gay marriage. This is not because of gay marriage. Instead, this is because the Netherlands pays (on avg) 52% income tax. To put it in perspective, the wealthy of America, making over $1M a year, pays 20.4%. Gay marriage would increase AIDS in America because, as my opponent said, it changes society's view. Therefore, there would be more gays and as I have proven, AIDS runs higher in gay men. There are more gays than lesbians, which is why I didn't focused on them.

VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
induced

Con

"The fact of the matter is that fewer Americans support gay marriage than those that oppose."
no, that is not what those sources said. they said the opposite
look here: http://www.pollingreport.com...
that page shows dozens of recent polls from different organizations, all of which confirm that more people now support gay marriage. and even if most people did oppose gay marriage, then too bad for them. it is their own fault for being a bigot. the real victims here are gay people, not the bigots.

"I have proven that passing gay marriage would increase the number of gays, and therefore, there would be a higher AIDS rate."
-no, you have not proven either of those things. people are either attracted to the same sex, or they are not. it has nothing, or at least very little to do with what other people think. if straight marriage were banned, i wouldnt all of a sudden lose my attraction to women.

anyway, what you're advocating for is insane. when did taking away someones rights become a go-to method to protect society by intentionally suppressing and demonizing groups of people? it's like saying, "there are too many unwanted pregnancies, so let's make straight people second class citizens, so that there will be less people involved in straight sex, and therefore we would have less unwanted pregnancies! and is obesity becoming accepted? deny fat people marriage so that people wont be encouraged to be fat! are there too many alcoholics? dont let them marry! single pregnant women? stigmatize them by banning them from marrying so that there wont be more unwed mothers! dont like the KKK? deny them marriage!"

also, you might as well deny gay people the right to vote as well, since your goal is to have gays be less accepted in order for AIDS to not spread as much. and why stop there? let's take away their right to own a firearm, and their right to a trial, and their right to free speech.

"That's nice, but we need to realize the country as a whole, 50 united states, would not benefit from allowing gay marriage."
you are just going to ignore that AIDS rates dont go up when legalizing gay marriage? that fact is detrimental to your argument.

"My point is that there would be economic catastrophe by forcing Americans to pay for the increase in AIDS. The taxes would lower AIDS, which is something you see in the Netherlands."
AIDS rates are inevitably leveling off all around the world because people are wising up to the fact that they need to be safer when it comes to sex. and like i said before, as far as percentage of taxes, AIDS related expenditures account for an insignificant amount, hardly showing any imminent economic catastrophe like you think. also, the Netherlands dont pay higher taxes as a result of legalizing gay marriage. they have a consistently small AIDS rate. you really think that in a country with such a small AIDS rate, that they spend way more on AIDS than the US does? you are going wayyyy against what the facts indicate to try to support your bigotry. enough is enough, just accept the facts. gay marriage is not detrimental to anything. the sky is not falling.

"Almost all Americans are straight, and therefore, should not have to pay for the economic effects from gay marriage."
what?! so you think it's fair for minorities to subsidize the majority? that is not fair. the majority gets all the breaks. let minorities have their fair share for once.

"There are more gays than lesbians, which is why I didn't focused on them."
for you to win the debate, you have to prove that lesbian marriages should be banned. you havent even specified whether or not you support lesbian marriage
Kwhite7298

Pro

"The fact of the matter is that fewer Americans support gay marriage than those that oppose."
no, that is not what those sources said. they said the opposite
look here: http://www.pollingreport.com......
that page shows dozens of recent polls from different organizations, all of which confirm that more people now support gay marriage. and even if most people did oppose gay marriage, then too bad for them. it is their own fault for being a bigot. the real victims here are gay people, not the bigots.

Again, you have failed to provide an unbiased source. ALL OF THESE ARTICLES HAD THE POLLING DONE BY PHONE, WHICH LEADS TO BIASED RESULTS. ALL OF THESE POLLS ARE BIASED, AND THEREFORE, NOT ACCURATE.

"I have proven that passing gay marriage would increase the number of gays, and therefore, there would be a higher AIDS rate."
-no, you have not proven either of those things. people are either attracted to the same sex, or they are not. it has nothing, or at least very little to do with what other people think. if straight marriage were banned, i wouldnt all of a sudden lose my attraction to women.

No, however, we have the issue with "in the closet" gays, which severely reduces the amount of gay sexual relations. The truth is, an increase in gay marriage results in a changed society, less closeted gays, more open gays, and more sexual relations between gays. Therefore, there is a higher AIDS rate, and as my opponent gladly brought up, the Netherlands fixed this problem by taxing citizens at an average rate of 52%.

anyway, what you're advocating for is insane. when did taking away someones rights become a go-to method to protect society by intentionally suppressing and demonizing groups of people? it's like saying, "there are too many unwanted pregnancies, so let's make straight people second class citizens, so that there will be less people involved in straight sex, and therefore we would have less unwanted pregnancies! and is obesity becoming accepted? deny fat people marriage so that people wont be encouraged to be fat! are there too many alcoholics? dont let them marry! single pregnant women? stigmatize them by banning them from marrying so that there wont be more unwed mothers! dont like the KKK? deny them marriage!"

You're missing something. This debate is about whether the government should only recognize straight marriages, not whether society should. Since elected officials are concerned with getting reelected, they should not pass it because they realize that society is not ready and to prevent AIDS from increasing, they need to raise tax to ridiculous amounts.

also, you might as well deny gay people the right to vote as well, since your goal is to have gays be less accepted in order for AIDS to not spread as much. and why stop there? let's take away their right to own a firearm, and their right to a trial, and their right to free speech.

Gay people voting doesn't increase AIDS, doesn't increase taxes, and society has accepted.

"That's nice, but we need to realize the country as a whole, 50 united states, would not benefit from allowing gay marriage."
you are just going to ignore that AIDS rates dont go up when legalizing gay marriage? that fact is detrimental to your argument.

I said that either AIDS would go up or our taxes would. With the Affordable Health Care act, both would.

"My point is that there would be economic catastrophe by forcing Americans to pay for the increase in AIDS. The taxes would lower AIDS, which is something you see in the Netherlands."
AIDS rates are inevitably leveling off all around the world because people are wising up to the fact that they need to be safer when it comes to sex. and like i said before, as far as percentage of taxes, AIDS related expenditures account for an insignificant amount, hardly showing any imminent economic catastrophe like you think. also, the Netherlands dont pay higher taxes as a result of legalizing gay marriage. they have a consistently small AIDS rate. you really think that in a country with such a small AIDS rate, that they spend way more on AIDS than the US does? you are going wayyyy against what the facts indicate to try to support your bigotry. enough is enough, just accept the facts. gay marriage is not detrimental to anything. the sky is not falling.

Gays still have the highest AIDS rate.

"Almost all Americans are straight, and therefore, should not have to pay for the economic effects from gay marriage."
what?! so you think it's fair for minorities to subsidize the majority? that is not fair. the majority gets all the breaks. let minorities have their fair share for once.

"There are more gays than lesbians, which is why I didn't focused on them."
for you to win the debate, you have to prove that lesbian marriages should be banned. you havent even specified whether or not you support lesbian marriage

I fully support gay marriage, but I don't think that the government should. It's either allow both or allow neither. Because it's the gay marriages that are causing problems, we need to realize that allowing only lesbian marriage is sexist.

SUMMARY:

My opponent has failed to prove that allowing straight marriage would benefit the government. I fully support gay marriage and I think society should, however, this topic is about the government. The government should only recognize straight marriages because, with the concern of being reelected, we need to realize that society (WHO ELECTS THE OFFICIALS!) is not ready for gay marriage because of the ties to religious beliefs (70%). Additionally, nobody likes taxes, and nobody wants AIDS. Allowing gay marriage would increase AIDS. It's a cycle: as my opponent said, allowing gay marriage changes society. More accepting views result in less "closeted" gays. Less "closeted" gays results in more relationships. More relationships results in more sex. More sex = more AIDS.

Since I have proved that the government should only recognize straight marriages,

Please VOTE PRO on all topics
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kwhite7298 4 years ago
Kwhite7298
The first vote was clearly biased. Next time, please specify why you vote for one side over the other.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
straight is nature.
straight is best.
Posted by Kwhite7298 4 years ago
Kwhite7298
For Round 3:
Netherlands tax -- http://www.taxrates.cc...
America tax -- http://www.cnbc.com...

Sorry I forgot to post this in my argument
Posted by Kwhite7298 4 years ago
Kwhite7298
Alright, I'll start it off then
Posted by induced 4 years ago
induced
No thanks, this debate is about whether or not your arguments justify banning gay marriage, so I have to hear your arguments before offering rebuttals.
Posted by Kwhite7298 4 years ago
Kwhite7298
Hi induced,
Thanks for starting this debate. Before posting my official argument, I was wondering if you would prefer I post an irrelevant first round since you did not introduce arguments in your first post.

Please let me know so I can post within time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Enji 4 years ago
Enji
inducedKwhite7298Tied
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's first argument was that the majority of Americans are against gay marriage, citing a statistic showing that 70% of Americans are Christians. Con showed that this claim was false using numerous sources showing that the majority of Americans are not against gay marriage. Pro's second argument was that gay marriage would have economic effects and would increase the spread of AIDS. Con argued that this is not true, citing the Netherlands and various other places which have legalised gay marriage examples. Pro criticises this on the basis that the Netherlands have higher taxes, however this doesn't support his claim that taxes and would increase on account of legalising gay marriage. Arguments to Con. Pro was rude and made many unjustified attacks on Con's sources so Conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
inducedKwhite7298Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to con for not misrepresenting his sources. Conduct to con; pro both misrepresented sources and outright lied about their content. Convincing to con, as pro did not meet his burden of proof for his claims that, particularly that letting gays get married would increase the spread of STDs.