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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD given here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q3rJX6vngQp0JCAX6g5W60teuooe5yaQ2D-iTlLFKeQ/edit?usp=sharing

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

On Con's arguments, I do not see how the call to reject political correctness is somehow dispositive of this debate. There was never any clear reason given to me as to why exactly political correctness is bad. At most, I get a vague statement that the "path of political correctness is frankly not one any healthy society should tread upon." But of course, I am still left asking *why* should no healthy society tread upon this path. Once I had some idea as to where Con was going with his opening statement, I thought it held potential as a novel approach to the topic. Yet, the necessary scaffolding to successfully launch this argument was never constructed. I am not sure why I should care that gay marriage is somehow politically correct, and so this argument has no oomph in the debate. I discount it as unweighable for lack of specified harm.

On the counterplan, I am uncertain as to how this is actually solving for all Pro's case without being Pro's case, specifically since some (though not all) of Pro's benefits hinge on the symbolic nature of the word "marriage." Benefits of the kind that marriage provides may not be as beneficial without the gravitas and legitimacy granted by the term marriage itself. I see this most clearly playing out in terms of the debate around stigma, both in how that affects LGBTQ+ couples and in how it impacts their children. That being said, the counterplan is certainly doing some work for Con, and does cancel out some of Pro's key claims regarding, for example, household stability. I just do not think it's doing as much work a Con thinks it is doing.

I did not think that Pro responded ideally to the definitional debate in his second round. I was surprised Con didn't make more of a big deal out of this, as it could have gained him desperately needed offense amidst his defense-heavy approach ("defense" might not be the right word, perhaps "response"). I do get a much clearer argument from Pro on this discussion in the final round, however. Frankly, I am buying all of what Pro is selling in his C1A of that last round inasmuch as Con's counterplan doesn't address the value in the symbolism of the term marriage and Con's rebuttal to the "sleeping around" argument was non-responsive to the essential claim Pro was making.

I can vote Pro right here on the weight of the offense, because (a) Con has no offense and (b) Pro does have offense. Con has no offense because he failed to explain why political correctness mattered in the context of this debate (i.e. he failed to impact this argument) and because his counterplan gains him no Con-unique benefits, which is to say that all the benefits of his counterplan would also occur in the Pro world. Conversely, Pro does have offense (as I outlined above), which of course outweighs. By failing to provide a more fulsome, positive argument in favor of his position, Con really situated himself for failure in this kind of equal burdens debate.

I could also vote Pro on Con's counterplan alone, for if, as Pro claims, it constitutes marriage, then Con has conceded Pro's point. Con does not offer a clear distinction between his counterplan and Pro's plan, so this is a plausible line of attack from Pro. Con tries to tell me that the plans are somehow different, but his plan struck me from the outset as rather nebulous. Certainly the bare assertion that "this notion that 'my plan is his plan' has no basis in fact" is not enough to really count as an argument; even if it were, what are the differences? That's just not made clear to me.

Finally, I could also vote Pro because offense has greater impact (in terms of real world outcomes) than Con's argumentation. Even if I had bought political correctness, I just don't see how those more theoretical impacts stack up against reduced prejudice and stigmatization of LGBTQ+ people.

While I could go through and do a written analysis of each and every argument thread in the debate, I find that would be entirely unnecessary and a waste of my time. That there are no reasons I can identify to vote Con, but at least three such reasons to vote Pro, is sufficient for the purposes of this vote. The detail in this RFD is, in my view, sufficient to justify why Pro has won this debate hands-down.

I will be posting a feedback portion of this RFD in the comments section of the debate. Good debate on both sides; it was civil and well-argued.