Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Forumfor16kadamstorationallydefendsantorum

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:49:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:45:43 PM, bobington wrote:
We'll start off with an easy one - why are you against gay marriage?

There are mutiple reasons against Same Sex Marriage. The Main one is the secular case against gay marriage, which indicates there is no reason to allow gay marriage, and the benefits given upon them would be unnecessary and unjust.

Examples:

http://tech.mit.edu...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:49:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

Read one of his hundreds of gay marriage debates?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:49:16 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

Read one of his hundreds of gay marriage debates?

I tole her to do this....
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:50:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:50:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:16 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

Read one of his hundreds of gay marriage debates?

I tole her to do that....

fixed
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
bobington
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:50:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:49:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:45:43 PM, bobington wrote:
We'll start off with an easy one - why are you against gay marriage?

There are mutiple reasons against Same Sex Marriage. The Main one is the secular case against gay marriage, which indicates there is no reason to allow gay marriage, and the benefits given upon them would be unnecessary and unjust.

Examples:

http://tech.mit.edu...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

1. That is not in logical syllogism format
2. stating there exist multiple reasons in and of itself is not a reason and is more an ad populum than anything
3. Stating "the secular case" is not a reason either.

Try again and this time preferably in a logical syllogism.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:51:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What about the Catholic theocracy he wants?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:50:03 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:16 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

Read one of his hundreds of gay marriage debates?

I tole her to do this....

Sorry for repeating then, if that's what you're getting at.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
bobington
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:52:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM

P1 If the reason for marriage is procreation we should rationally illegalize all marriages where a child is not immediately procreated within at least a year we should also ban all infertile couples from marrying one another
P2: The state has no reason is not a reason in and of itself
C: This entire argument when followed in its entirety is not logical unless you seriously advocate that marriages should only be for procreation.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:52:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:52:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What about the Catholic theocracy he wants?

I am agnostic. Who is he?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:54:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:52:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What about the Catholic theocracy he wants?

I am agnostic. Who is he?

Santorum said that our laws must comport with his Gods laws. i.e. the bible
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:55:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:52:43 PM, bobington wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM

P1 If the reason for marriage is procreation we should rationally illegalize all marriages where a child is not immediately procreated within at least a year we should also ban all infertile couples from marrying one another
P2: The state has no reason is not a reason in and of itself
C: This entire argument when followed in its entirety is not logical unless you seriously advocate that marriages should only be for procreation.

P1: This is a misinterpretation of the argument. They want procreative type unions not necessarily the effect, so a environment of procreation is formed.
P2: Yes, it is. Marriage comes with benefits, correct? Well no taxes for anyone has benefit, but there is no state interest in doing so. There is no reason to confer them these benefits.
C: Extend

I am sick of SSM, and really if you wanna argue debate me. I hate forum arguing.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:56:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:54:48 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What about the Catholic theocracy he wants?

I am agnostic. Who is he?

Santorum said that our laws must comport with his Gods laws. i.e. the bible

His views fit in with biblical views, yes, but so do mine. I am not a theocracy advocate.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
bobington
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:57:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
An additional caveat - what if lesbians get married and via artificial insemination have a child each. Shouldn't that make them doubly married than all other couples as they are procreating at twice the rate?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:57:12 PM, bobington wrote:
An additional caveat - what if lesbians get married and via artificial insemination have a child each. Shouldn't that make them doubly married than all other couples as they are procreating at twice the rate?

That's not procreative type.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:57:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:52:43 PM, bobington wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM

P1 If the reason for marriage is procreation we should rationally illegalize all marriages where a child is not immediately procreated within at least a year we should also ban all infertile couples from marrying one another
P2: The state has no reason is not a reason in and of itself
C: This entire argument when followed in its entirety is not logical unless you seriously advocate that marriages should only be for procreation.

That's not really a syllogism either. There's no flow of logic from the premises to the conclusion. I had trouble with this early on too. Take the most famous example:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Try making the premises more concise, with one statement, and the conclusion be their natural product.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:51:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM


16k, I am opposed to gay marriage so don't take this as an attack, just as helpful advice.

Your syllogism is invalid. P2 does not follow from P1. Your argument should be as follows:

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce
P3: Therefore, homosexuals should not be able to marry.

I don't have enough information to help you with a syllogism for the state not having any reason to allow SSM, but that is a different argument in and of itself.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:58:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:56:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:54:48 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What about the Catholic theocracy he wants?

I am agnostic. Who is he?

Santorum said that our laws must comport with his Gods laws. i.e. the bible

His views fit in with biblical views, yes, but so do mine. I am not a theocracy advocate.

What do you're views have to do with anything? Santorum says that our laws must comport with the bible. That's textbook theocracy.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:57:55 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:51:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM


16k, I am opposed to gay marriage so don't take this as an attack, just as helpful advice.

Your syllogism is invalid. P2 does not follow from P1. Your argument should be as follows:

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce
P3: Therefore, homosexuals should not be able to marry.

I don't have enough information to help you with a syllogism for the state not having any reason to allow SSM, but that is a different argument in and of itself.

k
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2012 11:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:58:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:56:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:54:48 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What about the Catholic theocracy he wants?

I am agnostic. Who is he?

Santorum said that our laws must comport with his Gods laws. i.e. the bible

His views fit in with biblical views, yes, but so do mine. I am not a theocracy advocate.

What do you're views have to do with anything? Santorum says that our laws must comport with the bible. That's textbook theocracy.

?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:00:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:57:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:57:12 PM, bobington wrote:
An additional caveat - what if lesbians get married and via artificial insemination have a child each. Shouldn't that make them doubly married than all other couples as they are procreating at twice the rate?

That's not procreative type.

it is kinda funny though ^.^
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
bobington
Posts: 76
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:01:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:55:39 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:43 PM, bobington wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow SSM
C: We should not legalize SSM

P1 If the reason for marriage is procreation we should rationally illegalize all marriages where a child is not immediately procreated within at least a year we should also ban all infertile couples from marrying one another
P2: The state has no reason is not a reason in and of itself
C: This entire argument when followed in its entirety is not logical unless you seriously advocate that marriages should only be for procreation.

P1: This is a misinterpretation of the argument. They want procreative type unions not necessarily the effect, so a environment of procreation is formed.
P2: Yes, it is. Marriage comes with benefits, correct? Well no taxes for anyone has benefit, but there is no state interest in doing so. There is no reason to confer them these benefits.
C: Extend

I am sick of SSM, and really if you wanna argue debate me. I hate forum arguing.

P1: How is a procreative environment beneficial if the end result is not procreation. How can there be a procreative environment if one partner is infertile? Are you implying that the world is underpopulated and that procreation bears some societal benefit? If so what is your logical justification that the world would receive a societal benefit from procreation. Also please address the lesbian issue.

P2: The tax benefits of marriage depend upon the respective incomes of both members of the marriage. For higher income individuals there is a detrimental affect tax wise. Regardless of this affect, how can you possibly use: The state has no reason to, as a reason not to?

C2: Still have failed to give any logical reason.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:01:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/6/2012 12:00:42 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:57:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:57:12 PM, bobington wrote:
An additional caveat - what if lesbians get married and via artificial insemination have a child each. Shouldn't that make them doubly married than all other couples as they are procreating at twice the rate?

That's not procreative type.

it is kinda funny though ^.^

What is? Her not understanding the procreative argument?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:02:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:51:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:49:46 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:47:33 PM, bobington wrote:
Also I'm requesting your response be in logical syllogism format.

P1: The reason for marriage is procreation
P2: The state has no reason to allow marriage that is not for the purpose of procreation
C: We should nullify marriages that do not bear children within a given amount of time
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2012 12:02:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/5/2012 11:59:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:58:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:56:23 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:54:48 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/5/2012 11:52:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
What about the Catholic theocracy he wants?

I am agnostic. Who is he?

Santorum said that our laws must comport with his Gods laws. i.e. the bible

His views fit in with biblical views, yes, but so do mine. I am not a theocracy advocate.

What do you're views have to do with anything? Santorum says that our laws must comport with the bible. That's textbook theocracy.

?

Not sure how to make that any clearer.
The law shouldn't be based on one religion.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler