Instigator / Pro
14
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#1028

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized Worldwide

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...

TheAtheist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

There is simply no reason not to let two consenting adults marry. Your religion or opinion of homosexuality does not mean you can control how others behave. Homosexuality and gay marriage don't harm anyone; they are fully consensual.

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:

Pro stars off his case quite straight forward. That there is no harm from Gay marriage, and that most objections are related to religion; which should not be used as a basis for the state to discriminate.

Con argues the state shouldn’t get in the way of some arbitrary behaviour - but this doesn’t mean the state needs to codify it.

Con also argues that homosexuality is harmful via setting bad examples. While I am willing to buy this arguments, con should quantify this.

Cons major argument is that the purpose of the state is to uphold relationships that help the survival of the state.

Pro points out the failure of cons argument - that the states in question aren’t simply allowing it, but not codifying it - they are outright making it illegal.

Secondly, pro rejects cons argument about the role of the state - that the goal of the state should be to serve its citizens.

Finally, cons argument here helps tie this one up for me; as he mostly undermines his resolution.

Con argues that homosexuals will not bring about the downfall of the state - and that its okay for the state to treat different types of relationship differently.

If I accept this; it does not provide any justification of why gay marriage should be illegal. The jump from simply allowing the state to promote one relationship over another to allowing them to make gay marriage illegal is too large not to be supported with justification.

From the second round, pro sets up the reason gay marriage should be legal, by stating the state should be supporting its citizens. From here con must provide a rebuttal showing a clear harm In allowing gay marriage to be illegal. As con doesn’t offer this tangible harm, I have to award this to pro.

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:

Pro defines legalized as "not illegal" and defined it first in the debate. Con does not object to the definition but still seems to be operating under the belief "legalized" means written into law to allow. It may be because of the confusion about marriage. Marriage does not need to be civil. It can be done with no authorities recognizing it.

Con does not object to the definition of legal or pro's argument that it harms nobody to remove laws making gay marriage illegal. Con argues that gay marriage should not be codified into law but that is not being argued here and pro seems to agree. Obvious win for pro