The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Same sex marriage

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,394 times Debate No: 24001
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (61)
Votes (1)




I am happy to debate such a well versed debater in this debate, and hope it is civil and non repetitive. Though that is bound to happen. In the comments we are arguing law, so make legal arguments (states interests, constitution etc.)

I do not know how long my case will be, but it will be mainly a secular case to homosexual marriage.

Secular case to Gay marriage

I. What marriage is

In this debate, it is essential to answer the following questions:

a) What is marriage?
b) Why should the state recognize marriage?

These may not seem like legal worthy arguments, but they are actually very relevant. The second one, as my opponent will agree, is relevant but he ay not understand the first. If he uses the right argumentation that will become relevant.

Now will break into what a traditionalist argues, and how it applies.

A traditionalist answers those questions in one swoop. Marriage is between one man and one woman and the states interest is in procreation. Now, marriage is a naturally heterosexual institution as it focuses on procreative type relationships that often, though not always, lead to the new generation of tax payers. Marriage and procreation are both vital parts of society, my opponent will likely agree. Procreation is vital so that society can thrive and continue living, and marriage using responsible procreation in principle will lead to a healthier society.

So to get to the point. Marriage as an institution revolves around two things: procreation and child rearing, both vital to society. Now this is the reason the state gives marriages legal benefits. Child rearing and procreation are both vital to society. As these are needed for society to exist, the state now has a vested interest in protecting/promoting these acts through benefits (marriage). But relationships that do not use this as a core are not really a foundation for society. Homosexuals DO NOT fit these states interests. They do not therefore deserve the recognition and benefits the government dishes out for marriage. Its like investing 1000 dollars into a stock that wont grow, if you know this you would say this is a waste of my time. In marriage we are giving gays 1000 benefits for no procreative type acts.

Now there are many court cases and other things that do support my claims, though many ignore these arguments actually suppressed them and focus more on the constitution. But to support my case I will cite one or two of these instances where state lawyers or the state themselves argued the same exact thing I am arguing above.

The most common discussed interest is indeed procreation, as it is a common argument against homosexual marriage. Now in Baker v. Vermont the state argued a procreative state interest in the marriage business. The state argued the heterosexual marriage laws where: "furthering the link between procreation and child rearing."[1]

Or Goodrich v. Department of health: "Recognizing that procreation is marriage's central purpose, it is rational for the Legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation."[1]


My case is short but simple enough. States interests is procreation. They have an interest if they are regulating it. So to win this debate my opponent must either answer the two questions and show that they are better then mine or just refute my case and show it as terribly flawed. I have never seen one refute this, if I am utterly wrong I will concede and change opinions. But lets see if my opponent can. Your turn.

[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)


1) Marriage Is ___?___

a) I agree that we are to define a) What is marriage and b) Why should the state recognize marriage. I immediately urge a Pro vote for conduct for the reason that Con accuses me of "not understand[ing] the first" of these questions. He then goes on to say that if I use the right (or correct) argumentation it will become clear. I would like to encourage Con not to use this kind of argumentation, as he it encourages the idea that he will win this debate no matter what argumentation I pose, because I do not understand what he claims to be marriage. This is just an attack on my intellect (apparently), and does not provide this debate with any reason to move forward.

b) Next I'll urge a S/G vote for Pro as Con's introduction to his next argument makes no sense grammatically. "Now will break into what a traditionalist argues, and how it applies" is what Con says, clearly meaning "we will" or "we'll" as opposed to "will." I do not like posing these arguments but, because most S/G votes go to tie because such mistakes are not noticed by the voters, I will.

c) Con then argues what a traditionalist views marriage as and what a traditionalist would claim the state's interest in it. I would like to ask Con why the state's only (or greatest) interest is procreation. If this was the case Mormonism would be the religion that is most often influenced in this nation, or we would adapt new laws that follow Mormonism. The fact is, if the interest in marriage was only for procreation for the sake of "a new generation of taxpayers," the state would not be focusing on this type of marriage. Mormonism, as I mentioned above, would be more effective, and would be highly influenced among the people if this were the case, as Mormonism allows marriage of one man to many women. This way, there would be more people, correct?

d) Con continues on this same argument, so you can cross-apply my Mormonism argument here. However, he then compares marriage to a $1,000 investment in a stock, claiming that a homo-sexual couple would not be a growing stack. However, I beg to differ. The law used to state that only married couples could adopt children. This obviously wouldn't have made sense if only hetero-sexual couples were thought of. Because homo-sexual couples cannot procreate, they "are not really a foundation for society," or so Con wants us to believe. Homosexual couples CAN adopt. If these couples can adopt and raise a child, Con's point about child-rearing still stands. They can raise the children (or tax-payers as Con wants to call them). Because homosexual couples can do this, they SHOULD receive the benefits of marriage.

e) Con cites a few court-cases that support his claim in this point, and it is clear that in SOME states, the interest is in procreation AND child rearing. Because I've already proven that homosexual couples are able to take part in child rearing (or parenting), this argument makes no sense. I've also stated my position on adoption, in that homosexual couples can adopt children to get them out of bad situations. This promotes a healthier life-style for these children, thus making them more crucial to the society. Even adopting from different countries helps the state, as it brings in more tax-payers as Con seems to like to argue. This is the same as procreation. It brings more children into the United States.

Now I will move onto my own case, and try to keep it brief with only a couple contentions, as the real debate is in the Con case.

1) Traditionalists v. Constitutionalists

a) Con likes to argue as a traditionalist, so I will counter by arguing what constitutionalists would. Constitutionalists would, naturally, turn to the constitution in arguments like these and note that the constitution claims equal protection for all who are members of this country. Now, onto the real point of this argument (the logic). Protection can come in the form of benefits, as we can all agree. Health benefits such as deciding what (health-wise) should be done for your partner in the position that they cannot make a decision is one of the main benefits/protections of marriage. An unmarried couple cannot make these decisions.

b) Clearly, if Con wants to make legal arguments, he will agree that this argument stands and that the constitution claims equal protection for all individuals. This is why, clearly, same-sex marriage would prove this to be correct, and any other argument would go against the constitution. This is the largest flaw with many of today's conservatives who claim to be constitutionalists. Anyone who claims to be one of the constitutionalists should not be able to claim themselves to be anti-SSM, as this is completely controversial to what the constitution promises.

2) Married couple gets tax deductions.

This is the same argument as I posed above. Married couples often get tax breaks. [] If homosexual couples cannot get married, they do not receive these benefits. I've already proved in my rebuttals that these couples deserve such benefits, and to not provide them with these forms of benefits is to be unjust and immoral. Is it the state's interest to be unjust and immoral? I would hope not.
Debate Round No. 1


1. What marriage is

a) That's not a conduct violation, if it was claiming your opponent is straw manning (example) would be a conduct violation. And asking for points in round one like that is poor taste, and therefore the "conduct vote" would cancel out. But that's up to the voters.

b) Abbreviating words is not a spelling and grammar mistake. Saying we'll is still proper grammar. This point is a moot and asking for points (other then vote pro/con) before the final round is again poor taste.

c) Why? It is quite simple, actually. Responsible procreation is vital to society, the family unit, etc. Unless we had this procreative union, society would cease to exist, and therefore whither away. Procreation is vital to society, so the government subsidizing marriage to preserve procreation seems a valid thing to do.

My opponents Mormon case is likely hunting towards if marriage is about procreation we should allow polymory, which is actually a misinterpretation of my case, a straw man. Marriage is not just about procreation, but also responsible procreation. Polygamous marriages cannot provide that, therefore they are unequal. Also if we assume marriage as a religious institution most texts have a vow to fidelity, and the government also only recognized sexual relationships that have vowed this as they are preserving responsible procreation, not mere procreation as my opponent is claiming.

d) My opponent agrees the analogy is correct, but adds gays do not fit in as they can adopt children. Procreation warrants legal recognition as it is required for society to exist! Adoption, however, is just a mere transfer of a child to one area to the next. And also as homosexuals can raise children does not mean they should also be allowed marriage, incestuous marriages can also raise children, yet are still not recognized. I am not comparing SSM to incest, just saying the adoption argument is a moot as it would also be used in those type of debates, and fails on a legal basis.

My opponent has also shown no benefit to the continuation of society through adoption. Further, procreation as stated is the more important part to states interests as continuing society is vital. Raising children can be done by homosexuals, but because they can do this does not warrant legal recognition. This means a single parent raising a child should get the same benefits marriage gives. Again merely child rearing is not what the state wants.

**Note my opponent is using shot gun argumentation**

e) My opponents only rebuttal is a few states interests is procreation, therefore does not apply. But this still fails as I have proven the state is interested in advancing society, and that responsible procreation is the most effective way to create good society, something homosexuals cannot do. Point being this point is merely a red herring and mainly dances around my point. Either way, my opponent forgets the federal circuit courts have ruled that way before. [1]

-My opponents case-

C1: Constitution

a) The single parent objection fails as the argument is about responsible procreation and a secure mother and father for the child. A single parent goes through many relationships therefore fails to meet the argument, a straw man argument.

b) Ah the old worn out equal protection clause, ah...

And again the SSM debate is fundamentally over what marriage is. One cannot simply claim to have a right to X without knowing what X actually is, and vice versa. As noted in the harvard paper:

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]

In arguing the equal protection he is assuming the right does in fact exist. And only if this right exists will there be discrimination. By doing this he begs an important question, though. Doing this he argues the conception of marriage covers homosexual couples. As the right of marriage does not apply to homosexuals, no illegal practice of discrimination is occurring. Further, this assumes all discrimination is unjust, and as my case proves a states interest it shows the discrimination is NOT unjust, therefore this point is a moot.

C2: Married couples get benefits

This is indeed a fact, we agree. But this case fails to prove why they should get these benefits. So let me ask, why should they get these benefits? Again, getting rid of taxes would help people and would be moral. But it is within's the states interest to tax people, as it is necessary for it to do so. It is argued taxes are immoral, but in this case states interest trumps morality of getting rid of taxes as a whole.

As for same sex couples, as demonstrated the states interests are in propagating society, mainly through responsible procreation one could argue again that a states interest trumps morality. The states interest is unjust and immoral in taxes, wars, and many upon many other reasons. So my opponents argument here is illogical and is mainly trying to stir emotions of immorality. Also morality is a driver of some laws, but not all. Meaning this point may actually be irrelevant.


My opponents case relies on false information, straw man fallacies, or mainly attempt to dance around the point of the debate. Vote con.

[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
[2] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)


1. a. Conduct
I was basically accused of being stupid before I laid down my arguments, this is why I urged a conduct vote.

1. b. S/G
You spelled "we'll" as "will" you did not abbreviate it, my point stands. The only reason I posed this argument is because the S/G vote is usually ignored because it's barely ever pointed out.

1. c. "The government subsidizing marriage to preserve procreation SEEMS a valid thing to do." Yes, we can all see how that might SEEM correct, but with a practically over-populated world, doesn't that seem amiss? More people are born on average than die, therefore, if marriage is only there to encourage birth, marriage itself would have no real benefit to society at all? Bringing in more people than there is money for, jobs for, food for, etc. I can understand the point about "responsible" procreation, but have I not already stated that adopting from other countries does practically the same thing? Homosexual couples can easily adopt from different countries and get the same result as responsible procreation, otherwise known as protected sex that DOESN'T conclude in a baby. Con confuses a few terms here that I will clear up now in order to provide a more clear debate.

Con also seems to think that I've confused Procreation with Responsible Procreation. We'll stick to his terms, for now, considering it would seem unwise to try anything else as I have already been accused of straw-manning. "Marriage is not just about procreation, but also responsible procreation. Polygamous marriages cannot provide that, therefore they are unequal." Con doesn't seem to realize that you can easily have responsible procreation in polygamous marriages. It's as simple as it is with monogamous marriages. Keep yourself safe. Keep your partner(s) safe. Have a reasonable amount of children. Case closed.

1. d. If Con wants to talk about procreation warranting legal recognition, I will not debate him. As he misinterprets my main point here. There are many factors that one could claim are necessary for society to exist. Is there a legal recognition of air for married couples? What about food, water, carbon, nitrogen, and every atom that is needed to keep society going? We can see that Con's point about procreation begging legal recognition is null and void considering if this was the logical approach, we would consider everything necessary for society a legal benefit/recognition of the people.

On a legal basis, says Con, my argument about adoption is moot. If he can ACTUALLY prove this, I will debate it. But, because he poses no data, I will explain this further, as if he's continuing to argue it, he must not understand, fully. Con says procreation and child-rearing are basically of epic importance in a marriage, and that is the government's (state's) interest in such legal recognition. However, I have already proven that homosexual couples can participate in child-rearing through adoption. Children that may develop to become a burden to society, as they have no official guidance from a blood-relative, and spend their child-hoods in homes that cost the government money to run, should be adopted. And if not by a couple that can have children, why not one that can't? A homosexual couple, as Con does not want us to forget, cannot procreate to have a child, thus, make the perfect parents to a child with none of his/her own. The state, if interested at all in the economy (as Con also says is vastly important) would recognize homosexual marriages because they are a benefit to the society in this way, as well.

**Note that my opponent uses his lack of response against me by accusing me of using shot-gun argumentation.**
**Note that shotgun argumentation is the purposeful posing of so many arguments that your opponent could not possibly answer them all**
**Note that my opponent had 1884 characters left of argumentation (almost 1/4 of the total allowed count) and could have responded, easily, to everything I said**

1. e. Yes, the courts have ruled that way before. However, Con fails to realize that the courts don't always rule in the way that they should. Take the O.J. Simpson trial. That's all that will be said. My point does not fail, because I have proven how homosexual couples benefit the society, and therefore deserve the recognition of marriage.

Now onto my case.

Contention 1. Traditionalists v. Constitutionalists
1. a. Con wants to call me a straw-man again. However, I beg to differ. Con calls me a straw-man debater to cover up for his own straw-man arguments.

Not once did I ever mention in this point a single parent. All of my point, therefore, stands. I will extend this entire argument until Con reads it well enough to understand that I am talking about unmarried couples, not single parents.

1. b. Con starts by insulting my argument itself, being that it's "worn out." However, if you want to see worn out argument, read Con's older debates on this very topic and try to tell me he has changed them significantly.

I will argue brief and to the point here, as not much argumentation is needed on this point. Homosexual couples can get married in certain states, correct? This is undeniable. Thus, they deserve equal protection under the law. It is clearly unequal rights if a homosexual couple in one state has more rights than a homosexual couple in another state JUST because one is able to marry, and the other is not.

Contention 2. Married couple gets tax deductions.
2. a. I never once mentioned getting rid of taxes as a whole. CON is straw-manning his arguments again. My point here was that the state's interest is unjust. So essentially, Con concedes to the general argument made in this point. However, I will elaborate a bit and cross-apply all arguments that prove that homosexual couples both benefit the society, and achieve the same end as heterosexual married couples. This applies to my adoption arguments especially.

My opponent continues to argue about me, and not my debate, therefore I will pose a few last points in order to sum up this debate, and not my opponent.

I have proven that homosexual couples are able to benefit the society.
I have proven that homosexual couples reach the same end as heterosexual married couples.
I have proven that homosexual couples should be granted marriage because it is unjust not to do so.
Con has spent more time arguing against me personally than he has developing his case. (This is clear though his arguments about my shot-gun approach, while he still has almost 1/4 of the total character count to write).

Vote Pro in today's debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Give my opponent conduct and S/G, I think ruining a good debate over minor things is a waste of time ;)

1. What marriage is

My opponents first objection is the world is overpopulated and therefore procreation might be a bad idea. Now, lets first take the scenario my opponent is correct. This proposition fails as it is still the institutions purpose. Whether or not the world is populated is irrelevant, as it still does not change the heterosexual nature of the institution. By institutionalizing marriage we put an emphasis on the procreation aspect of nurturing the next generation, whether or not we are overpopulated (as we would still need to have children, whether or not we are overpopulated). So putting an emphasis on RESPONSIBLE procreation would still lead some benefits to society. Marriage has been this way, even in times of regional overpopulation, a institution that upholds procreation [1]. So even my opponents argument fails if we assume his position is correct, as responsible procreation would still be needed for fertility of 1-1.9. (slow decrease in population). Now I would also like to note overpopulation in modern times is a myth. World fertility is on decline, meaning if we are overpopulated (90% of the world is empty, and food is not a problem) population will decrease anyway. See:

My opponent then again attempts to take a jab at the adoption argument, yet again fails to see the argument. In other words he is playing a straw man/is misinterpreting the argument, likely by accident. And this argument is a irrelevant counter argument, believe it or not. My argument is that the main reason for marriage in the legal world is procreation, not parenting. In other words, this is irrelevant to the secular case against SSM. And adopting from another country (or here even) is not the same effect as responsible procreation. It is merely moving the child from point a-b. And as stated the government wants procreative type unions, not procreative effect so to speak. The states interest is in procreation, this point is a moot.

My opponent then claims polygamous marriages can still obtain "responsible" procreation. This is false. Having a decent amount of children is not responsible, as having multiple wives still means he will likely have more children then planned. Having 3 wives, for example, and 2 kids each means you have 6 children. Now polygamous marriages will likely be more promiscuous. Having multiple wives already says things about ones character. So what may end up looking responsible to them is not responsible to the eyes of the state, and doing it right the first time is more beneficial to the family unit. With this in mind this is more or less a red herring.

Then my opponent posts multiple snid bits. I had no lack of response. All of your points have been defeated and destroyed.

My opponent then notes that courts do not rule as they should. My opponent is comparing civil and criminal court to constitutional courts. In other words he is comparing red to blue. Further more, this is a fallacy in itself. Because something is probable or possible, then arguing it is absolute is appeal to probability. Also, this is not even a major part of my case. The main reason I said this was a states interest was because responsible procreation is a public interest, as procreation is actually needed to advance society, then merely said this external source agrees. Also, you still ahve yet to show homosexuals are a benefit to society.

My opponents case:

C1: Constitution

My straw man arguments? How am I arguing contrary to MY position? I have been arguing marriage is a procreative type union, therefore my case above applies to everything I have stated. And the arguments I have stated here are not irrelevant, as 'same sex marriage' is not a right. Parenting (single parenting) is irrelevant to the resolution as the non married person is NOT worthy of the benefits as they are not procreating responsibly. And if they are they ought to apply for marriage with their partner. Being single is not a benefit to society, and raising a child is not intrinsically valuable. This is irrelevant in a legal debate. Also unmarried couples need to apply for a service to get it, just like you need to apply for a electricity to get the service, paying them is otherwise a donation.

Having a worn out argument means it has been refuted multiple times by legal scholars and is easy to meet. You take things so personally :p. Also my former arguments are not worn out as they are effective, and actually legally impenetrable.

My opponent then never refutes my premise on defining marriage, and how same sex couples can get married in one place but not the other. Arguing for equal protection still means (to make it valid legally) they are being deprived a right; a liberty. As stated, one must define marriage before arguing a right is being stolen. Marriage entails a man and a woman, and therefore does not apply to homosexuals. I will bring forth the quote again:

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]

C2: taxes

I am not getting conduct anyway; so I dont care. Have you ever heard of an analogy? An analogy is not a straw man. Benefiting people is all good, it is indeed, but to have benefits we must ask is there a reason to grant them. It would indeed benefit you if I conceded this debate because you are dancing around the point, but it would be deemed illogical as I have no reason to do so. So benefiting people is a failed argument on a logical and a legal basis. It would benefit people if the government ended taxes (former ANALOGY, not straw man, large difference) but it woudl not do so as it would hurt the state and they have no reason. This point is a moot, along with the other one which he may as well have dropped.


Its kinda obvious...

[1] Margaret A. Somerville “THE CASE AGAINST 'SAME-SEX MARRIAGE'” McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, April 29, 2003
[2] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)


whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Vote pro :)

Thanks con for your effort, so far.

I don't have much to say I wish I presented my r1 arguments better, but I defended the thesis and my opponent never refuted the basic idea.

I refuted his two points, one he didn't argue much at all (1) the other (2) he thought an analogy was a strawman and missed the point. Legally helping people is not a good reason. I showed how procreation (states interest) trumped legally.

My thesis: stands, works on a legal basis

His thesis:
(1) dropped my argunments mainly, ran around the point.
(2) fails on a legal basis

Vote for con!


I apologize for the absence in the last round. Seems like having a social life isn't quite a good thing anymore.

Vote Pro:
1. Con spent the majority of his time attacking me, not my points.
2. I've been accused of strawmanning, but only as an excuse for Con to get off point.
3. My points prove that legally, homosexuals should be given the benefit of marriage.
4. Until last round where I was unable to post my arguments I refuted Con's points instead of attacking him personally.
Debate Round No. 4
61 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 6 years ago
Wrong, actually. You were the first to mention child-rearing as one of the main intentions of marriage. Therefore, my point stands. Please leave it to the debate, and not the comments.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Analogy - a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
[in this case benefits of marriage to benefits of lower taxes, that is the right point]

Straw man - The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

For example you saying gays can adopt, when the point of marriage based on my argument is procreation not child rearing.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 6 years ago
An analogy is not different than a strawman when the analogy does not even argue the correct point. :P
And you saying it's not hard to read and comprehend the argument means nothing, as you wrote the argument.
And stop using the comments section to insult me, it's stupid.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
lol I dont have any in real life. And I argued benefits and mere benefiting people is not in the interests in the state.

Its not that hard to read the argument and comprehend. An analogy is different from a straw man.

I lost the coduct point so you being a brat means I can be a bitch all I want. >:)
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 6 years ago
No, the point here is, you argued NOTHING I said in that point. You argued something totally different. And please don't debate me in the comments section, and NEVER insult my debating skills when you truly have none in "real life." I'm not debating you in comments anymore.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Um why not? It is a logical process that is used to explain/write in other words. You obviously know little about debate. Anything is technically an argument, even if it is inherently poor. If you say X, and I say Y, then relate it to Z, it is an argument saying look at Y, and here is Z. It is another way of saying in other words dhs;ofjowirhgpjviscj.

So you are really just prancing around not knowing what to do.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 6 years ago
No, it doesn't. The point is, analogies are not arguments.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
So that leaves my assumption as correct
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 6 years ago
a similarity or comparison of two like objects. You're probably the most insulting person I've ever debated, how about you stop this. You're one of the people that believes them self so much that they think everyone else is absurdly dumb for not believing in the same thing, so you resort to this kind of argument in the COMMENTS.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
Now define analogy
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.