Instigator / Pro
14
1535
rating
7
debates
64.29%
won
Topic
#100

Governments should legally recognize same-sex marriage

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Tejretics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1491
rating
6
debates
41.67%
won
Description

(1) I'm Pro; my opponent is Con.

(2) Burden of proof is shared.

(3) No new arguments in the final round.

(4) Character limited to 10,000 characters per speech (i.e. Pro gets 10,000 characters in Pro's R1, Con gets 10,000 characters in Con's R1, and so on) -- anything above 10,000 characters should not be considered by judges; if a speech exceeds 10,100 characters, it is an auto-loss for the debater whose speech exceeded that amount. Characters include spaces.

(5) Judges should award a tie on "sources," "conduct," and "spelling and grammar" points.

(6) For judges, DDO standards for "select winner" judging apply and RFDs are required for all votes. The standards are accessible here (http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/68208/).

(7) This debate does not take place in any particular country; however, neither debater is required to argue for or against this policy in extreme circumstances. I expect this debate to be a reasonable debate rather than one where the semantics of this topic are exploited (e.g. Con can't make an argument that says "Pro's plan would be harmful in North Korea").

(8) Con's advocacy has to be that opposite-sex marriage is permitted while same-sex marriage is not, while I'll argue that same-sex marriage should be permitted. In other words, both Pro and Con assume that opposite-sex marriage should be permitted; Con has to explain why same-sex marriage, and same-sex marriage alone, should be illegal, while I have to argue for marriage equality.

(9) Pre-fiat kritiks, theory shells, and "tight calls" are not allowed.

-->
@Moeology

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Moeology // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: Pro's entire arguments presuppose utilitarianism which despite being commonly supported is far from obvious. Perhaps, some of the audience like myself could be proponents of divine command theory under which the whole paradigm of utilitarianism and what produces the most happiness is useless. So some argument for utilitarianism was necessary. I also thought that some use of terms on the part of pro was uncharitable. "Marriage equality" gives off the wrong signal that skeptics of gay marriage are somehow antithetical to equality which is not true since if their case succeeds and gay marriage should not be legalized, then homosexuals would not deserve the same rights in which case, it would not be unequal.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently explain why they awarded argument points. The voter must examine specific arguments and counterarguments, must weigh those arguments, and must not factor in reasoning external to the debate itself. The voter insufficiently explained conduct points by failing to justify those points at all.
************************************************************************

-->
@whiteflame

That makes sense.

Thanks for the detailed RFD and the feedback, I appreciate it :)

-->
@Tejretics

Admittedly, I'm a little biased (since it's my style), but I like the format for your R3. I'd spend a little less time on the line-by-line, though, and focus more on the comparison of impacts. Weighing arguments is something I'm always looking for in a final round, and usually the side that does it more earns my vote for a reason.

-->
@Logical-Master

I'd suggest replacing "gays" with "gay people" or "gay and bisexual people" or "LGB individuals."

-->
@bsh1

I have one question, not about the RFD but about my speeches:

What did you think about the way I structured my R3 (i.e. the three questions/points of crystallization I identified)? It's an unconventional structure, and I've only ever seen Whiteflame do it on DDO, but the reason I did it is I wanted my R3 to not be pretty much the same speech as R2 and I wanted it to have a different push (i.e. R2 was filled with turns and extensions and identifying voting issues, so I wanted R3 to have a retrospective tone as if it were an RFD of the debate). Do you think that worked?

If no, what do you think my R3 structure should have been?

Thanks.

-->
@bsh1

Thanks so much for the vote and the feedback. It's very appreciated.

Typos! Corrected version:

This debate didn't mirror beliefs aside from the fact that I do believe political correctness is problematic for society. For example, you just referenced the term LBGTQ. In my experience, most transgender men and women aren't interested in same-sex relationships and thus I could see a transgender man/woman taking a offense at their inclusion into a topic about same-sex marriage. Even though your intent is not to offend and even though one can readily infer what you mean, they might call you the worst person in the world. I don't think that kind of discourse is healthy in our society.

-->
@bsh1

Appreciate the feedback.

Honestly, I felt 'gays' helped out with the character limit as opposed to saying same-sex over and over again.

This debate didn't mirror beliefs aside from the fact that I do believe political correctness is problematic for society. For example, you just referenced the term LBGTQ. I'm experience, most transgender men and women aren't interested in same-sex relationships and thus I could see a transgender man/woman taking a offense at their inclusion into a topic about same-sex marriage. Even though it's not to offend and even though one can readily what you mean, they might call the worst person in the world. I don't think that kind of discourse is healthy in our society.

The cockiness/arrogance is pure theatrics. As the comments show, I thanked tejretics for a fine debate and left it at that. Some people get put off by it. Some people have fun reading it. It's hit or miss.

[RFD: Feedback]

Something I did not factor in to my reason for decision, but which I found tremendously off-putting, was the overtly cocky and somewhat arrogant tone Con adopted throughout this debate. If the goal is to woo the voters, Con would be best served by adopting a more professional, or at least a more humbly convivial, tone. As someone who myself does not always implement my own advice in this respect, I can sympathize with Con (I can, on occasion, be a trifle brusque or snarky). Nonetheless, it is something worth being conscious of so that, hopefully, improvements can be made. The more stream-of-consciousness flow to Con's remarks made them harder to track. Also, as a gay man myself, I found it a bit demeaning that LGBTQ+ people were constantly referred to as the "gays" by Con. While I understand his desire to be politically incorrect, perhaps some political correctness might go a long way to establishing a good rapport with your voters. Again, I do not count any of this in my reason for decision, but I bring it up in order to make Con more mindful of the presentational and identification-forming elements of the activity.

In terms of notes for improvement, Pro, your medical evidence in your case felt like in belonged all together, and not spread out between contentions. I think I would also have preferred some explication of what justice and equality really are. I liked your flow and your concision; highly professional and dense prose. I am really impressed with how much you've grown as a debater since you first joined DDO.

============

Full Disclosure: I was asked to vote on this debate by Pro.

-->
@Logical-Master

[comment redacted - nevermind this]

I'd just like to remind all the judges of Rule 5, i.e. that they should only vote on the "more convincing arguments" points and not award points on sources, conduct, or S&G; this, as indicated by Rule 6, implies that you should vote on this as if it were a "select winner" debate on DDO.

Thanks :) This was fun.

And with that, I am off to marinate some ribs!

-->
@Tejretics

Same here! Doesn't matter to me who wins; this debate was fun and hearkened back a lot to my old days on DDO! Thanks for the debate and cheers for being a brilliant opponent!

-->
@Logical-Master

Thanks for the debate! Regardless of the outcome, this was fun, and I learned loads. I look forward to reading your R3.

-->
@Logical-Master

I'll try to limit myself to 8,000 but just in case I end up exceeding it, I'd like to have the flexibility to go up to 10,000, if that's fine with you.

Less of a chore for readers and to keep the debate nice and straight to the point.

-->
@Logical-Master

Why do you want the character limit to be 8,000?

Just for the record, this debate won't reflect my beliefs as I don't believe the government has any business in 'marriage' in the first place!

You know, I'll take this debate if you lower the character limit down to 8000!