Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

RFD - Zarro vs 2-D - Gay Marriage

FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 6:44:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't vote on debates much but I like the gay marriage issue, so I decided to vote on this one.

Resolution

The resolution is: "in a just society, gay marriages would not be permitted." The meaning is straightforward. Pro is advocating a ban on gay marriages. Pro also accepts the burden of proof. Pro doesn't tell me what the burden actually is, so I'll apply a preponderance standard: Pro must show that it's more likely than not that gay marriages wouldn't be allowed in a just society.

R2

Pro argues that gay couples are distinguishable from straight couples in key ways, that marriage is fundamental to society, that gays can't procreate which then leads to lack of any genetic connection with their children, that gay couples are less stable than straight couples, that gays are fvcked up mentally, and therefore that gay couples make worse parents than straight couples. Putting all this stuff together, Pro concludes that gay marriage is distinguishable from straight marriage in critical ways, so a just society needs to distinguish between the two.

I don't find any of these arguments especially convincing. I'm having a hard time seeing how I can vote Pro at this point, based on Pro's acceptance of the proof burden. The underlying premise to Pro's entire argument is that marriage is solely about procreation. If I don't accept that premise, the entire argument crumbles. But Pro tragically doesn't even defend the premise; she just asserts it without any substantiation. Why is marriage, as a term or institution, reserved solely for procreation? Besides, gay couples adopt and raise children. And tons of straight couples don't procreate, don't adopt, and don't raise children. So even if that's the case, and even assuming gay couples make worse parents, why distinguish between straight marriage and gay marriage by simply relabeling gay marriage as a civil union? Is that going to make less gay couples become parents? Will it encourage more straight couples to marry and become parents? I don't see any connection between Pro's "impacts" and the resolution itself, which requires banning gay marriage whiel extending gays the right to a civil union. By resting the entire debate on a bare assertion, and failing to connect her impacts to the resolution, Pro's hasn't met her proof burden, at least as I interpret the debate.

Con hits back with a few points, mostly weak, but a couple decent ones. For the record, the constant reference to "special pleading" isn't doing much for me. Con argues just because gay couples make worse parents doesn't mean we should deprive gays of marriage benefits, that marriage isn't about procreation since lots of straight couples don't have children, and that a formal adoption process ensures children are placed with competent and stable gay couples. Con also notes that Pro's requirements for marriage would exclude not only gays but other groups, too, and that Pro's requirements are therefore unreasonable. These points, while relevant to the topic, aren't particularly strong, because they don't get at the underlying premise in Pro's argument, which is that marriage is solely about procreation. Of the lost, the adoption point helps mitigate Pro's impacts, but I thought Con could have been much more direct about the issue. Pro's impacts simply don't connect with the resolution. Con needs to focus on the stuff that matters. All the rest of it is just distracting, and it makes it harder to pick out the arguments that actually doom Pro's case.

Con's strongest point is noting that Pro fails to show any negative impacts from gay marriage. This point alone dooms Pro's case unless Pro can respond to it. I think Con's focus at times on denying marriage benefits wasn't needed and almost took away from this argument, because it's not clear that Pro's argument requires depriving gays of anything except gay marriage as a label (she suggests giving them civil unions). Pro's argument is vague, and perhaps a vagueness criticism would have been appropriate. I dunno. The argument convincing me is the lack of any negative impacts from gay marriage, and I think keeping a focus on that point would have strengthened Con's arguments. Con focuses on the impacts from denying gay marriage, when the focus needs to be on the lack of negative impacts from permitting gay marriage. This is especially the case because Pro has the proof burden, so if Pro doesn't show any negative impacts, Con wins. Admittedly, Con says enough to show me that Con failed to uphold that burden, but the argument could have been much more direct and focused on the stuff that matters.

R3

Pro argues countries would not exist without heterosexual marriage. I'm not buying that hyperbolic statement from the numbers she gives. Nor do I see how that affects her argument or the resolution. Pro clarifies her position a bit, that gay couples can have some benefits associated with marriage but not the benefits associated with child-rearing or procreation. Pro also argues that the government would waste money by helping gays raise children, since gays are worse parents. This is the closest Pro has come to upholding her proof burden, as it's the first actual harm to society from gay marriage. Pro also suggests marriage isn't just about the benefits, it's about something else too (which Pro doesn't really clarify or address), so that's not very compelling or convincing.

Con gets distracted by Pro, focusing his arguments on stuff that I don't really think is necessary, like the fitness of gay couples to parent and on adoption. I think Con's argument would have been much stronger by focusing on the fact that gay couples are still going to have children even if they don't have access to gay marriage, and on showing children are better in gay marriages than in gay couples outside marriage. The debate isn't about straight marriage vs gay marriage. Pro wants to make the debate about that, but that's not what the resolution is about. It's about gay marriage, period. Pro doesn't give any reason to show how gay marriage itself harms anyone, and that's what Con needs to focus on, not on a comparative analysis of gay marriage and straight marriage. This is unfortunate, because Con loses sight of the one thing that clearly wins him the debate: Pro fails to show how gay marriage itself harms anyone. Con hits on that point in R2 but by R3 he's barely touching on it. Keep focused on the resolution.

R4

I think both sides in this debate miss the forest for the trees. Before even reading R4, I'm already siding with Con, as Pro hasn't met her proof burden. And R4 doesn't change that. There's almost no argument that allowing gay marriage itself harms anyone, or that gay marriage is immoral or unethical. Gay marriage seems permissible based on the fact that Pro hasn't shown any harms from gay marriage at all.

Pro continues to argue that distinguishing gay couples from straight couples is necessary in a just society. But I still don't see why that's the case. Pro certainly hasn't explained how that distinction would benefit anyone. Nor has Pro given any reason to believe allowing gay marriage would harm anyone. Pro's biggest problem is linking her arguments -- that gays are inferior parents -- to the resolution. I'm never told why inferior parenting compared to straight couples means gay marriage should be banned, but gays should still be allowed to have some marriage benefits. At this point, Pro has simply failed to uphold her burden.

Con keeps pushing the "special pleading" argument, which as I said, isn't doing much for me. Con is right that Pro has failed to uphold her burden, but he could address that much more directly and clearly. Again, the biggest issue for both sides is the comparative analysis of gay couples and straight couples, when that's a minor tree in the forest. The issue is whether gay marriage is net harmful. Pro hasn't shown that it's net harmful. Con points that out
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:06:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 6:44:18 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Wow. What a biased RFD. You spent the whole time to write (just to obfuscate the lack of content) that when all you say "Pro didn't fulfil the resolution", even though I showed why marriage is a child-rearing institution (because it doesn't make sense/have any real purpose otherwise), and then went on to show why gays are inferior/damaging at child-rearing. Typical moving of the goalposts.

But I expected this from someone like you. I remember I attacked you for that debate where you wanted to legalise a harmful drug. You are obviously such a weak man that you couldn't handle that. I could easily go and strategically vote on your debate that you're winning by only 3 points (and with a couple of hours left), but I'm not an emotionally-frail snake like you who exists to bring people down and waste the rest of his time playing useless Mafia.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:11:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 6:52:18 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Also, sorry if I come off like a dick. Just trying to give honest feedback that is actually helpful to you guys.

Lies. You hate me because I told you off before. There is no doubt that this was to get back at me because your RFD waffles on about irrelevancies.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 7:57:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.

I argued that virtually every argument you brought up did not support the resolution which I see as indefensible any way. Maybe you supported a case such as, "gay marriage comes with unique challenges but did not establish why that requires a label change and a reduction of rights. I get that your frustrated but you have been rude like this for each of the few times we have interacted. this isn't a conversation that's worth having.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 8:04:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 7:57:52 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.

I argued that virtually every argument you brought up did not support the resolution which I see as indefensible any way.

My arguments cumulate to make the case. I specifically said that by themselves, they do not affirm the resolution. If you're actually sincere about your disagreement, then that is what you didn't get, as evidenced by your counter-responses attacking my singular arguments as if they affirmed the resolution.

Maybe you supported a case such as, "gay marriage comes with unique challenges but did not establish why that requires a label change and a reduction of rights.

Which would be distinct from heterosexual union, hence justifies a difference in terms. And "unique challenges" is a very nice way of saying that they are inferior parenting-units.

I get that your frustrated but you have been rude like this for each of the few times we have interacted. this isn't a conversation that's worth having.

Those who are right are always eager to, at least initially, prove that they are so. You're just a weasel like this 4trouble person.
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 8:19:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 8:04:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:57:52 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.

I argued that virtually every argument you brought up did not support the resolution which I see as indefensible any way.

My arguments cumulate to make the case. I specifically said that by themselves, they do not affirm the resolution. If you're actually sincere about your disagreement, then that is what you didn't get, as evidenced by your counter-responses attacking my singular arguments as if they affirmed the resolution.

I know that you asserted this but I don't agree. How would I attack multiple arguments as a unit? They were presented individually and then lumped together. I also demonstrated that other married couple's shared arguably more severe marital challenges but you did not apply the same standards to others. Why should your trifecta of problems not apply to all married couples? You were not able to answer.


Maybe you supported a case such as, "gay marriage comes with unique challenges but did not establish why that requires a label change and a reduction of rights.

Which would be distinct from heterosexual union, hence justifies a difference in terms. And "unique challenges" is a very nice way of saying that they are inferior parenting-units.

No and your research compared married couples parenting to the 'other' category with various groups including the overly represented single parents. I don't agree that gay parents make worse parents or that this is at all relevant in supporting the resolution. I was referring to other challenges such as emotional health. I think, although they choose less often to be parents, they most certainly make fit parents.

I disagree that this impacts the resolution as the rfd points out.


I get that your frustrated but you have been rude like this for each of the few times we have interacted. this isn't a conversation that's worth having.

Those who are right are always eager to, at least initially, prove that they are so. You're just a weasel like this 4trouble person.

No, I think the resolution is terrible and wouldn't even make a good noob snipe with the Bop. It was organized, well researched but a swing and a miss with respect to the resolution.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 8:25:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 8:19:21 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:04:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:57:52 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.

I argued that virtually every argument you brought up did not support the resolution which I see as indefensible any way.

My arguments cumulate to make the case. I specifically said that by themselves, they do not affirm the resolution. If you're actually sincere about your disagreement, then that is what you didn't get, as evidenced by your counter-responses attacking my singular arguments as if they affirmed the resolution.

I know that you asserted this but I don't agree. How would I attack multiple arguments as a unit?

That's your problem, not mine. The fact that you're conceding that you don't know how to attack them as a whole, proves that there is significant strength in my argument as a whole.

They were presented individually and then lumped together. I also demonstrated that other married couple's shared arguably more severe marital challenges but you did not apply the same standards to others. Why should your trifecta of problems not apply to all married couples? You were not able to answer.

I answered this. Homosexuals, as I showed, have relationships that are *far worse* than any of the ones you mentioned. Yes, other ones are bad too, but I demonstrated in the debate that homosexual unions are the worst for marriage.


Maybe you supported a case such as, "gay marriage comes with unique challenges but did not establish why that requires a label change and a reduction of rights.

Which would be distinct from heterosexual union, hence justifies a difference in terms. And "unique challenges" is a very nice way of saying that they are inferior parenting-units.

No and your research compared married couples parenting to the 'other' category with various groups including the overly represented single parents. I don't agree that gay parents make worse parents or that this is at all relevant in supporting the resolution.

This is why you should have lost. You're purely playing semantics if you think marriage should be about anything other than child-rearing in the best possible environment.

I was referring to other challenges such as emotional health. I think, although they choose less often to be parents, they most certainly make fit parents.

This was discussed at length, in the debate. They have some positive aspects to their ability to parent, but they are drowned in the negatives.


I disagree that this impacts the resolution as the rfd points out.

Which is why you should have lost.



I get that your frustrated but you have been rude like this for each of the few times we have interacted. this isn't a conversation that's worth having.

Those who are right are always eager to, at least initially, prove that they are so. You're just a weasel like this 4trouble person.

No, I think the resolution is terrible and wouldn't even make a good noob snipe with the Bop. It was organized, well researched but a swing and a miss with respect to the resolution.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion.
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 8:31:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 8:25:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:19:21 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:04:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:57:52 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.

I argued that virtually every argument you brought up did not support the resolution which I see as indefensible any way.

My arguments cumulate to make the case. I specifically said that by themselves, they do not affirm the resolution. If you're actually sincere about your disagreement, then that is what you didn't get, as evidenced by your counter-responses attacking my singular arguments as if they affirmed the resolution.

I know that you asserted this but I don't agree. How would I attack multiple arguments as a unit?

That's your problem, not mine. The fact that you're conceding that you don't know how to attack them as a whole, proves that there is significant strength in my argument as a whole.

You were not able to establish that they were a unit or that this was necessarily. Addressing them separately accomplishes the same thing. 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

They were presented individually and then lumped together. I also demonstrated that other married couple's shared arguably more severe marital challenges but you did not apply the same standards to others. Why should your trifecta of problems not apply to all married couples? You were not able to answer.

I answered this. Homosexuals, as I showed, have relationships that are *far worse* than any of the ones you mentioned. Yes, other ones are bad too, but I demonstrated in the debate that homosexual unions are the worst for marriage.

No, you did not. The only way you could establish this is to apply consistent criteria to all marriages. Again it's subjective to say that gay marriage is the worst and I was able to counter your points with respect to divorce, child rearing and infidelity.


Maybe you supported a case such as, "gay marriage comes with unique challenges but did not establish why that requires a label change and a reduction of rights.

Which would be distinct from heterosexual union, hence justifies a difference in terms. And "unique challenges" is a very nice way of saying that they are inferior parenting-units.

No and your research compared married couples parenting to the 'other' category with various groups including the overly represented single parents. I don't agree that gay parents make worse parents or that this is at all relevant in supporting the resolution.

This is why you should have lost. You're purely playing semantics if you think marriage should be about anything other than child-rearing in the best possible environment.

That's ridiculous and your own subjective bias. Myself and the voter concluded that this is a separate issue especially when gays must go through a formal process to adopt.

I was referring to other challenges such as emotional health. I think, although they choose less often to be parents, they most certainly make fit parents.

This was discussed at length, in the debate. They have some positive aspects to their ability to parent, but they are drowned in the negatives.


I disagree that this impacts the resolution as the rfd points out.

Which is why you should have lost.



I get that your frustrated but you have been rude like this for each of the few times we have interacted. this isn't a conversation that's worth having.

Those who are right are always eager to, at least initially, prove that they are so. You're just a weasel like this 4trouble person.

No, I think the resolution is terrible and wouldn't even make a good noob snipe with the Bop. It was organized, well researched but a swing and a miss with respect to the resolution.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion.
Thanks.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 8:37:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 8:31:49 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:25:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:19:21 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:04:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:57:52 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.

I argued that virtually every argument you brought up did not support the resolution which I see as indefensible any way.

My arguments cumulate to make the case. I specifically said that by themselves, they do not affirm the resolution. If you're actually sincere about your disagreement, then that is what you didn't get, as evidenced by your counter-responses attacking my singular arguments as if they affirmed the resolution.

I know that you asserted this but I don't agree. How would I attack multiple arguments as a unit?

That's your problem, not mine. The fact that you're conceding that you don't know how to attack them as a whole, proves that there is significant strength in my argument as a whole.

You were not able to establish that they were a unit or that this was necessarily.

Says you (without evidence, you hypocrite).

Addressing them separately accomplishes the same thing. 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

Hitchens wannabe.


They were presented individually and then lumped together. I also demonstrated that other married couple's shared arguably more severe marital challenges but you did not apply the same standards to others. Why should your trifecta of problems not apply to all married couples? You were not able to answer.

I answered this. Homosexuals, as I showed, have relationships that are *far worse* than any of the ones you mentioned. Yes, other ones are bad too, but I demonstrated in the debate that homosexual unions are the worst for marriage.

No, you did not. The only way you could establish this is to apply consistent criteria to all marriages. Again it's subjective to say that gay marriage is the worst and I was able to counter your points with respect to divorce, child rearing and infidelity.

Your counter-points were not based on a single entity, but rather multiple. The fact that blacks have the same problem as gays for this part, and then whites for this, and then the religious for that, doesn't mean that *overall*, gays are not the most inferior, and nor does this mitigate against the problems that gays do have.



Maybe you supported a case such as, "gay marriage comes with unique challenges but did not establish why that requires a label change and a reduction of rights.

Which would be distinct from heterosexual union, hence justifies a difference in terms. And "unique challenges" is a very nice way of saying that they are inferior parenting-units.

No and your research compared married couples parenting to the 'other' category with various groups including the overly represented single parents. I don't agree that gay parents make worse parents or that this is at all relevant in supporting the resolution.

This is why you should have lost. You're purely playing semantics if you think marriage should be about anything other than child-rearing in the best possible environment.

That's ridiculous and your own subjective bias. Myself and the voter concluded that this is a separate issue especially when gays must go through a formal process to adopt.

Marriage exists for child-rearing. If it doesn't, then we need another term for an institution for child-rearing. Your counter-argument is purely semantical.


I was referring to other challenges such as emotional health. I think, although they choose less often to be parents, they most certainly make fit parents.

This was discussed at length, in the debate. They have some positive aspects to their ability to parent, but they are drowned in the negatives.


I disagree that this impacts the resolution as the rfd points out.

Which is why you should have lost.



I get that your frustrated but you have been rude like this for each of the few times we have interacted. this isn't a conversation that's worth having.

Those who are right are always eager to, at least initially, prove that they are so. You're just a weasel like this 4trouble person.

No, I think the resolution is terrible and wouldn't even make a good noob snipe with the Bop. It was organized, well researched but a swing and a miss with respect to the resolution.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion.
Thanks.
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 8:45:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 8:37:36 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:31:49 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:25:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:19:21 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 8:04:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:57:52 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:31:01 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:27:18 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:20:59 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:02:34 PM, 2-D wrote:
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback as I haven't been challenged like this recently and this was not one of my stronger cases. For the most part I agree with you. I think special pleading is a clear way to state that her requirements for marriage are inconsistent without reason but I did harp on this a lot. Same with non sequitur but I just was at a loss as to how her case led her to the resolution. I strongly agree that Pro was not able to connect her points to the final resolution and I could have established this more clearly.

Con is the stronger debater but the resolution is virtually indefensible imo.

You know full-well his RFD doesn't make sense. You're only agreeing with him because it advantages you. Spineless.

No, I agree with his RFD which provides fair criticism for both sides. Insulting me doesn't change that or support your position.

Liar. He basically wrote that my argument didn't fulfil the resolution - damn everything else. Insulting you fulfil the burden of proof of accurately describing your conduct, but you don't seem to understand what fulfils a BoP.

I argued that virtually every argument you brought up did not support the resolution which I see as indefensible any way.

My arguments cumulate to make the case. I specifically said that by themselves, they do not affirm the resolution. If you're actually sincere about your disagreement, then that is what you didn't get, as evidenced by your counter-responses attacking my singular arguments as if they affirmed the resolution.

I know that you asserted this but I don't agree. How would I attack multiple arguments as a unit?

That's your problem, not mine. The fact that you're conceding that you don't know how to attack them as a whole, proves that there is significant strength in my argument as a whole.

You were not able to establish that they were a unit or that this was necessarily.

Says you (without evidence, you hypocrite).

Addressing them separately accomplishes the same thing. 'That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'

Hitchens wannabe.


They were presented individually and then lumped together. I also demonstrated that other married couple's shared arguably more severe marital challenges but you did not apply the same standards to others. Why should your trifecta of problems not apply to all married couples? You were not able to answer.

I answered this. Homosexuals, as I showed, have relationships that are *far worse* than any of the ones you mentioned. Yes, other ones are bad too, but I demonstrated in the debate that homosexual unions are the worst for marriage.

No, you did not. The only way you could establish this is to apply consistent criteria to all marriages. Again it's subjective to say that gay marriage is the worst and I was able to counter your points with respect to divorce, child rearing and infidelity.

Your counter-points were not based on a single entity, but rather multiple. The fact that blacks have the same problem as gays for this part, and then whites for this, and then the religious for that, doesn't mean that *overall*, gays are not the most inferior, and nor does this mitigate against the problems that gays do have.

Blacks share nearly identical challenges, check the debate. I think these groups I pointed to actually have more challenges just not exactly the same select set that applies to gays. You could not demonstrate that their problem set was more severe.



Maybe you supported a case such as, "gay marriage comes with unique challenges but did not establish why that requires a label change and a reduction of rights.

Which would be distinct from heterosexual union, hence justifies a difference in terms. And "unique challenges" is a very nice way of saying that they are inferior parenting-units.

No and your research compared married couples parenting to the 'other' category with various groups including the overly represented single parents. I don't agree that gay parents make worse parents or that this is at all relevant in supporting the resolution.

This is why you should have lost. You're purely playing semantics if you think marriage should be about anything other than child-rearing in the best possible environment.

That's ridiculous and your own subjective bias. Myself and the voter concluded that this is a separate issue especially when gays must go through a formal process to adopt.

Marriage exists for child-rearing. If it doesn't, then we need another term for an institution for child-rearing. Your counter-argument is purely semantical.

The other term is child-rearing. Why do you equate this with marriage? Again, Gays are less inclined to have children and go through an adoption process that is not required for biological straight children. As I pointed out 5% of straight couples do not have children and 13% struggle with infertility while gays only represent around 1.3% of the population. Why are you so biased against gay couples?


I was referring to other challenges such as emotional health. I think, although they choose less often to be parents, they most certainly make fit parents.

This was discussed at length, in the debate. They have some positive aspects to their ability to parent, but they are drowned in the negatives.


I disagree that this impacts the resolution as the rfd points out.

Which is why you should have lost.



I get that your frustrated but you have been rude like this for each of the few times we have interacted. this isn't a conversation that's worth having.

Those who are right are always eager to, at least initially, prove that they are so. You're just a weasel like this 4trouble person.

No, I think the resolution is terrible and wouldn't even make a good noob snipe with the Bop. It was organized, well researched but a swing and a miss with respect to the resolution.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion.
Thanks.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 11:24:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To be fair, if homosexuals are allowed to redefine marriage, then heterosexuals should be allowed to also.
I want to marry YOU Zarroette! The laws in my state are essentially a requirement for 2 consenting adults of the opposite sex. Now I want to change that to 1 consenting adult (me) and someone who is at least 17 of the opposite sex.(you)
Look, Zarroette, consider all the things about you that a man would find appealing. Compare yourself to the kind of woman who would consent to marry me. .......It's fairly obvious that I must have you and I just can't take no for an answer!
My problem is I'm not gay* so they won't let me redefine marriage.
The fact is the majority of people whom the state won't give a marriage to are straight ,i.e. people who are already married or too undesirable to get consent.
This situation is integrally unfair, but the news business is run by gays, so you only hear about why gays should tell the rest of us what a marriage is.

*I'm miserable! I need you Zarroette! I could fill my head with thoughts of you and be totally happy!
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 11:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 7:06:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Wow. What a biased RFD. You spent the whole time to write (just to obfuscate the lack of content) that when all you say "Pro didn't fulfil the resolution", even though I showed why marriage is a child-rearing institution (because it doesn't make sense/have any real purpose otherwise), and then went on to show why gays are inferior/damaging at child-rearing. Typical moving of the goalposts.

As I pointed out multiple times in my RFD, showing that gays are "inferior" doesn't show that gay marriage is "impermissible." Your burden was to show that gay marriage is impermissible. You didn't even clarify what standard to apply for your burden of proof, and I was generous enough to apply a preponderance standard. If I had applied a higher standard like reasonable doubt (what's applied in criminal trials), you'd have been totally fvcked. Eithe way, you failed to uphold your burden. Showing that gays are inferior doesn't show that gay marriage is impermissible. It's that simple. You didn't connect your impacts to the resolution. This has nothing to do with my bias. It has to do with that actual arguments made in the debate.

But I expected this from someone like you. I remember I attacked you for that debate where you wanted to legalise a harmful drug. You are obviously such a weak man that you couldn't handle that. I could easily go and strategically vote on your debate that you're winning by only 3 points (and with a couple of hours left), but I'm not an emotionally-frail snake like you who exists to bring people down and waste the rest of his time playing useless Mafia.

I couldn't care less about you, what you said to me, winning/losing debates, or any of the sh!t you say. The RFD was intended as something to be helpful for both debaters. It's a topic I enjoy, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about, especially with the recent Supreme Court decision, so when I saw a debate on it from two folks who I thought were decent debaters, I decided to read it and give ya'll some feedback. But you're obviously not interested in feedback, so I won't do that for you anymore. I was doing you a favor. Feedback is how you improve. I thought you wanted to be the best debater on DDO. But I guess you're not interested in feedback. I won't waste my time helping you out in the future.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 11:32:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And to be clear, I was very critical of both debaters. It's not like I said Pro sucked and Con was awesome. I said both Pro and Con made massive errors in this debate. But the burden was on Pro, so ultimately, Pro loses as a result of those errors. If the burden had been shared, the debate would have probably been a tie. As I said in my RFD, I thought Con could have done a much better job. Like Pro, Con also missed the forest for the trees. Put simply: Burdens matter. If you accept a proof burden, I'm gonna hold you to it when I evaluate the debate.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:28:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 11:28:28 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 7/9/2015 7:06:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Wow. What a biased RFD. You spent the whole time to write (just to obfuscate the lack of content) that when all you say "Pro didn't fulfil the resolution", even though I showed why marriage is a child-rearing institution (because it doesn't make sense/have any real purpose otherwise), and then went on to show why gays are inferior/damaging at child-rearing. Typical moving of the goalposts.

As I pointed out multiple times in my RFD, showing that gays are "inferior" doesn't show that gay marriage is "impermissible." Your burden was to show that gay marriage is impermissible. You didn't even clarify what standard to apply for your burden of proof, and I was generous enough to apply a preponderance standard. If I had applied a higher standard like reasonable doubt (what's applied in criminal trials), you'd have been totally fvcked. Eithe way, you failed to uphold your burden. Showing that gays are inferior doesn't show that gay marriage is impermissible. It's that simple. You didn't connect your impacts to the resolution. This has nothing to do with my bias. It has to do with that actual arguments made in the debate.

Ahha! There's the problem! If you really are genuine (which I sincerely doubt), I did argue impacts. I argued that having these inferior parenting units harms children and the gays involved. I argued how it destroys society by lowering/disregarding the standards of marriage. My line of argument which showed that homosexuals were inferior doesn't affirm the resolution (as it's only relative comparison, which is what you are getting at). However, I showed that the real impacts (the atrocious infidelity rate) is seriously harmful in an objective sense. THIS is what makes homosexual marriage impermissible, NOT *purely* the fact that the qualifiers involving marriage (i.e. ability to raise) is inferior to heterosexual marriages.


But I expected this from someone like you. I remember I attacked you for that debate where you wanted to legalise a harmful drug. You are obviously such a weak man that you couldn't handle that. I could easily go and strategically vote on your debate that you're winning by only 3 points (and with a couple of hours left), but I'm not an emotionally-frail snake like you who exists to bring people down and waste the rest of his time playing useless Mafia.

I couldn't care less about you, what you said to me, winning/losing debates, or any of the sh!t you say.

Cared enough to respond.

The RFD was intended as something to be helpful for both debaters. It's a topic I enjoy, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about, especially with the recent Supreme Court decision, so when I saw a debate on it from two folks who I thought were decent debaters, I decided to read it and give ya'll some feedback. But you're obviously not interested in feedback, so I won't do that for you anymore. I was doing you a favor. Feedback is how you improve. I thought you wanted to be the best debater on DDO. But I guess you're not interested in feedback. I won't waste my time helping you out in the future.

You need to get rid of this attitude you have wherein you think that you're objective decider of what is and isn't right in a debate. You are not a God. Stop being so arrogant and don't bother voting on my debates until you sort this attitude out. I, and no one else on this site, wouldn't give a f*ck if your apparently prestigious self voted on his/her debate. I'm interested in feedback, not someone trying to worship himself through an RFD.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:30:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 11:32:15 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
And to be clear, I was very critical of both debaters. It's not like I said Pro sucked and Con was awesome. I said both Pro and Con made massive errors in this debate. But the burden was on Pro, so ultimately, Pro loses as a result of those errors. If the burden had been shared, the debate would have probably been a tie. As I said in my RFD, I thought Con could have done a much better job. Like Pro, Con also missed the forest for the trees. Put simply: Burdens matter. If you accept a proof burden, I'm gonna hold you to it when I evaluate the debate.

You blindly arrogant idiot. I have done 120 debates on this profile, and you don't think I know what burden of proof means? Get f*cking real, you poser.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 5:26:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
-quirks a brow reading all this, idly munching some popcorn-

Hm.

-munch-

Awful lot of friction for one vote, and it was one vote that was well explained. I am not reading a bias there, the RFD asks pointed questions that he feels were not answered in order to up hold the resolution, or specific points were made that were tangential to the resolution rather than about the resolution itself.

From what I read, Zarro ties marriage to child rearing, and asks what else could marriage possibly be for. This is an assertion, pretty much the only argument in Zarro's arsenal that isn't cited, and I think is assumed to be axiomatic. Because of that, this is an argument hung low, slow, and right up the middle. 2D doesn't quite knock it out of the park, but tees off on it pretty well by questioning how it ties in to the resolution as defined.

Zarro's facts and figures are appropriate... for remarrying couples. The suggestion of abuse and all the cited works are great, but miss what 2D points out: the person being married is not the from the marriage kid. That was/is a byproduct of the arrangement. Homosexual adoption on the other hand, is the direct and immediate desire for a child. Genetic similarities is a great cover, but expressed and obvious desire is a better one. The mental stability statistics while I have no doubt are correct are applied backwards, 2D I feel rebutted it enough to be irrelevant by citing other groups immediately identified whom have mental stability/drug/etc pitfalls, which pretty much makes this line of argumentation moot.

Stability in relationships falls to the same situation, its a problem being used indiscriminately against one cross section of society while others are given a pass.

I think your current voter has nailed it. "Forest for the trees". Yes, it all works together to make a case as you state, Z, but is it the right case? You made a bang up case inadvertently for whom marriage should be denied to outright, but had no specific information about homosexuals currently screwing up the kids they adopted. That should have been a centerpiece to your argument. Instead, it was circumstantial statistics that .... might(?) apply.

Since I know it might come up:

Then FJ, what is a marriage for? What is the purpose of a marriage?

FJ, why thanks for asking. A marriage is the union of two peoples whom are dedicated to each other's well being and desires on all fronts. This union's purpose is then for whatever those 2 people feel like.

But FJ, why should the state care?

Because, FJ, its the dedication between those 2 peoples that is the ends, not specifically their offspring. It takes dedication to create offspring and rear them properly, it takes dedication to keep your partner healthy and happy, and it takes dedication to ensure you are both financially sound, and it in that dedication you and yours are productive members of society to whatever ends you might feel. THAT is why the marriage is encouraged and given benefit. The dedication to the cause is the bedrock of society, and it is through that dedication to mutual benefit that MORE benefit may follow.

But, one man's opinion and all.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 5:26:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Zarro, your so-called "impacts" only show one thing: that gay couples are worse parents than straight couples. But showing that gay couples are worse parents doesn't show that gay marriage is impermissible. You don't argue for a ban on gay parenting. Gay couples still raise children in your world. So what's the harm of allowing them to enter into marriages?

What are the impacts of using a different label for gay couples and straight couples? Who benefits? How do they benefit? You never answer these questions. And to meet your burden, you needed to answer those questions. Your problem is failing to connect your arguments to the resolution.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:43:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am pretty sure that the laws regarding marriage in Australia are derived from Christianity and the laws of ancient Judea, as are laws in America, being both derivative of English Common Law.
Ancient Jewish law contains lots of ancient wisdom. The Jews lived crowded into small villages where privacy was limited. Their laws were something that enabled these people to live in peace and harmony.
The main goal of Jewish law is to reduce hostility that neighbors may feel towards one another, so even if it is 5000 years old the advice is still valuable.
Now if you and I lived in ancient Judea and were married Cassandra, I would think of you as a gift from God. I would show my appreciation by doing a good job when defending and taking care of you and our children. I would stop thinking of myself a person, and think of myself as half of a married couple called Mr. and Mrs. xus00HAY.

n.b. this is a theoretical situation, I realize that were we together in real life, you could do way better than me. I don't mean to imply that you would have to settle for me, so don't feel insulted.
What is important is you or I would not have sex with other people. I am not saying that we would.....' Y'Know "be doing the horizontal mambo" but any baby you would give birth to, would have me as the biological father. This would create an emotional bond between me and this child that would be similar to the bond between mother and child. Our relationship would not just be my fascination with your beauty, and that would develop into an obsessive desire to schtupp you., It would involve a merger of our families ( its ok Cassie, my family are middle class Christian, and we are not only white, we are of Northern European Ancestry.)
Our family trees would merge. You may not be impressed with the Americans you are now related to thru our child, but there is nobody that you would really be embarrassed with either. Were I ever called upon to defend you and our child, I would prevail or die trying.
Now you may have read that the lesbian supreme court judge that Obama hired talked the other judges into finding that we can only have the same rights as a couple of ******s, well that would be a gay marriage, what we would have is a real marriage.
Remember here in the USA all sick people are not equal, We have the upper class, i.e. people who have health insurance provided by their employer, lower class i.e. people who are covered by medicaid or medicare and a middle class, if they cannot sue someone for their injury, they have to pay for medical care with their own money, they even have to pay for the ambulance.
Gay Americans who have a permanent sex partner who has health insurance provided by his employer, can do a phony marriage with this person* and then the insurance company has to cover them. This is good because there are less uninsured people.
In ancient Judea, I would ask your father if I could marry you, and hope he thought I was a mensch who was good enough for his daughter. He would not be thrilled with the idea of us sharing a bed, but he would be an older man than I, so you would need a man to take care of you after he got old and died, therefore he would accept that I was hot for you, and let me marry you.

*this person could be the top or the bottom.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:31:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 5:26:55 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
Zarro, your so-called "impacts" only show one thing: that gay couples are worse parents than straight couples. But showing that gay couples are worse parents doesn't show that gay marriage is impermissible.

They *also* have impact in the sense that the statistics are dreadful; there is no necessary mutual exclusion with comparatively bad and objectively bad, AND I argued both.

You don't argue for a ban on gay parenting. Gay couples still raise children in your world. So what's the harm of allowing them to enter into marriages?

That's it's better if children are raised by homosexuals than left alone in an orphanage or if the child were to live on the street. Homosexual parenting is still bad, though. It should absolutely not be promoted, and the heterosexual union should be preferred and given the term "marriage" to denote this.

What are the impacts of using a different label for gay couples and straight couples? Who benefits? How do they benefit? You never answer these questions.

Nonsense. It means children are far less likely to suffer from the Cinderella effect because gay child-rearing units are not promoted. It means that tax-payer money is not funnelled into the feeble homosexual unions which serve the state little/no benefit. It means society doesn't degrade as the institution of marriage is weakened. If you having trouble finding these arguments, I will gladly point them out because your vote is wrong.

And to meet your burden, you needed to answer those questions. Your problem is failing to connect your arguments to the resolution.

No. You didn't read the debate correctly. You've essentially moved the goalposts, in terms of resolution conception.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:33:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:43:39 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
I am pretty sure that the laws regarding marriage in Australia are derived from Christianity and the laws of ancient Judea, as are laws in America, being both derivative of English Common Law.
Ancient Jewish law contains lots of ancient wisdom. The Jews lived crowded into small villages where privacy was limited. Their laws were something that enabled these people to live in peace and harmony.
The main goal of Jewish law is to reduce hostility that neighbors may feel towards one another, so even if it is 5000 years old the advice is still valuable.
Now if you and I lived in ancient Judea and were married Cassandra, I would think of you as a gift from God. I would show my appreciation by doing a good job when defending and taking care of you and our children. I would stop thinking of myself a person, and think of myself as half of a married couple called Mr. and Mrs. xus00HAY.

n.b. this is a theoretical situation, I realize that were we together in real life, you could do way better than me. I don't mean to imply that you would have to settle for me, so don't feel insulted.
What is important is you or I would not have sex with other people. I am not saying that we would.....' Y'Know "be doing the horizontal mambo" but any baby you would give birth to, would have me as the biological father. This would create an emotional bond between me and this child that would be similar to the bond between mother and child. Our relationship would not just be my fascination with your beauty, and that would develop into an obsessive desire to schtupp you., It would involve a merger of our families ( its ok Cassie, my family are middle class Christian, and we are not only white, we are of Northern European Ancestry.)
Our family trees would merge. You may not be impressed with the Americans you are now related to thru our child, but there is nobody that you would really be embarrassed with either. Were I ever called upon to defend you and our child, I would prevail or die trying.
Now you may have read that the lesbian supreme court judge that Obama hired talked the other judges into finding that we can only have the same rights as a couple of ******s, well that would be a gay marriage, what we would have is a real marriage.
Remember here in the USA all sick people are not equal, We have the upper class, i.e. people who have health insurance provided by their employer, lower class i.e. people who are covered by medicaid or medicare and a middle class, if they cannot sue someone for their injury, they have to pay for medical care with their own money, they even have to pay for the ambulance.
Gay Americans who have a permanent sex partner who has health insurance provided by his employer, can do a phony marriage with this person* and then the insurance company has to cover them. This is good because there are less uninsured people.
In ancient Judea, I would ask your father if I could marry you, and hope he thought I was a mensch who was good enough for his daughter. He would not be thrilled with the idea of us sharing a bed, but he would be an older man than I, so you would need a man to take care of you after he got old and died, therefore he would accept that I was hot for you, and let me marry you.

*this person could be the top or the bottom.

You need to cut-down on drug intake.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:34:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Feedback is how you improve. I thought you wanted to be the best debater on DDO. But I guess you're not interested in feedback. "

Y'know Zarro, if you really want to be the best debater, you should listen to what this man has to say, He is a Master Debater.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:38:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you want to get serious about debating this issue Zaroette, you would do better to get some more information than the liberal run media allows you to see.
Might I suggest the gay marriage thread that is on the forum at www.okcupid.com.
Although the gays may have won because the gay marriage thing got far more votes, The straights kept battling them on every facet of this issue and wouldn't stop until all the points of the pro-gay marriage argument were completely ridiculed. The gays that manage this site had to put an I P ban on all of the straights participating in the debate. They removed the link to this forum from the main page, and made the forum hard to find.
TRY www.okcupid.com/forum or try to get in using google.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
the Gay Marriage issue is a way you can say you are in favor of sexual promiscuity, without saying that you lack morality.
I assume what the majority of people really think is if 2 people both want to **** it's their business not yours.
In some states it is actually illegal for certain couples to have intercourse until after they are married, and this marriage is like a contract that neither person will ever have sex with any other person. ,Well people want to get laid and they don't think that is a crime, nor do they think one should ask for a third person's permission first.
When a same sex couple marries they are saying to their society " your not the boss of me".
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:38:16 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
If you want to get serious about debating this issue Zaroette, you would do better to get some more information than the liberal run media allows you to see.
Might I suggest the gay marriage thread that is on the forum at www.okcupid.com.
Although the gays may have won because the gay marriage thing got far more votes, The straights kept battling them on every facet of this issue and wouldn't stop until all the points of the pro-gay marriage argument were completely ridiculed. The gays that manage this site had to put an I P ban on all of the straights participating in the debate. They removed the link to this forum from the main page, and made the forum hard to find.
TRY www.okcupid.com/forum or try to get in using google.

Look if you have sources which will help my argument, of which I cannot find readily, please feel free to link them to me. If they've removed the thread from the site, I am not sure how searching for it on the site is going to find it.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 6:54:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:34:31 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
"Feedback is how you improve. I thought you wanted to be the best debater on DDO. But I guess you're not interested in feedback. "

Y'know Zarro, if you really want to be the best debater, you should listen to what this man has to say, He is a Master Debater.

Haha sure. Even I have a better record than him.