Gay marriage should be allowed.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
So this is a debate. The topic is on the title position. Religious conservatives and homophobes are not encouraged. Personal feelings are to be inferior to social samples and anthropological evidence.
Argument: Pro stepped into weeds by stipulating an argument having naught to do with the proposed debate, to wit, "Childless women." Con not only disassembled this argument, but also made better argument that was on point and beyond by successfully rebutting the argument that gay marriage can offer a well-rounded education of a child as well as a hetero marriage because the child has no reference to experience with the opposing parental gender, and the statistic offered by Pro that gay marriages have a lower incident of divorce. Points to Con
Sources: Pro sources [some as noted by Con, were inaccessible. All con sources were accessible. Point to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Tie.
Pro: rather than argue for, sets up a pre-emptive defense. A dangerous opening that may cost them... however, in the end, it does not.
Con manipulates the stats. Claiming by deduction 60% of women view reproduction as a priority for marriage. A made-up stat by Con. Tsk Tsk. We are through Round 1 with no real arguments.
In Round 2 Pro starts to split the concept of marriage and reproduction (a round too late I think?). Pro spots Cons stats manipulation…. Nice catch. Pro then flips the BOP. Why can’t they marry?
Con makes some statements of fact without support or reference.
“The government helps maintain the population by offering marriage licenses as an incentive for couples to produce and raise children. “
-and-
"If this is true, the marriage incentives become an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer."
But Con just said that the incentives are for reproduction. Con is not making sense here.
Con scrambles for some references that show heterosexual couples raise better kids in gender centric roles., then argues through citations that gay parents leed to gay children, then as a complete red herring tries to tie HIV and early death rates to the debate…. Losing credibility here.
Pro says, fewer divorce rates (round three is the first time divorce got brought up. A huge problem in this debate. Pro says love is the primary source behind marriage, not procreation. Pro also says properly that Con did not prove why gay marriage should not be allowed. New arguments in the final round by Pro. tsk tsk.
Con tries to play semantics about the term allowed. The title is Gay marriage should be allowed. Semantics games won’t work for Con in their last gasps of air trying to salvage a victory in this final statement. However, Con was put in an unfair position here. Pro should not have launched new arguments in the final round. Con did a good job casting doubt on the divorce stats. Con also highlights the misuse of Pros religious-based arguments.
Con reminds the readers that there is a burden of proof on both sides, and questions did Pro meet it. Well, Con did not meet theirs,,, Did Pro?
Argument: PRO. I say in the balance of the discussion Pro met the very basic BOP because they successfully challenged the assumption that marriage is for reproduction. Notwithstanding the fact that Con clearly manipulated stats and made up a very false statement of fact without source.
Conduct: CON: Pro brought up arguments in the final round, and deviated from the secular agreement. While making up stats and statements are not cool in this judge's eye, it is a debate tactic, and not egregious for conduct detriment.
Sources: TIE: I would have slightly voted Con (because of the religious nature to a Pro source) here, but con made statements without attribution, and Pro was already penalized for the nonsecular references, so I give it a tie.
S&G. unremarkable.
Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful objection.
In your objection, you point out how you deduced the number. The issue I had was that you attributed your deduction to those woman in a marriage.
You actually state "meaning that a majority of women do view reproduction as a priority in marriage." While you did qualify this at the beginning as a "lets say," it is still an appeal to science based on fraud. You imply that is an actual number. Perhaps your objective was to show there are two sides to the coin.
I read it as a deliberate misdirect, based on fake statistics. I may not have gotten your idea, so the only thing I could say it watch out for how your terms could be referenced :)
I do really appreciate how civil your objection was. Thank you;.
I just want to quick address a statement in your judgment:
“Con manipulates the stats. Claiming by deduction 60% of women view reproduction as a priority for marriage. A made-up stat by Con. Tsk Tsk.”
I think it is wrong to say this was a stat manipulation or a made-up stat, not as a matter of opinion but of fact. I first pointed out how the stat was completely irrelevant to the debate. Then, I made a hypothetical argument (led by the statement “Just for the sake of argument though, let's say that 40%...”) showing how even the falsely inflated number worked in my favor because that still means 60% of women have children, leaving a majority who prioritized reproduction. Even my opponent agreed with this assertion in round 2, I quote:
“I will agree that more than 60% of the women want to reproduce”
I deduced this number because if 40% of women are childless, it seems self-evident that 60% would have children. If both me and my opponent agree upon the truthfulness of the assertion then I do not see how I can be guilty of manipulating the statistic - which was irrelevant and misleading in the first place - or of making one up.
I mostly point this out so that any future potential voters might allow this defense of my argument. You are entitled to your opinion on your judgment and I actually appreciate you taking the time to vote, even if it is not in my favor.
Bump to encourage voting.
Looks like this might end up as a tie 0-0....
I'll refrain from arguing from a religious perspective for the purpose of this debate, as I think there is compelling evidence from other sources as well.
"Not encouraged" doesn't mean "discouraged". If I like the color black it doesn't mean I hate the color white.
People who study biology and social structure.
"Religious conservatives and homophobes are not encouraged," who else is likely to accept?
I don't want a user who just FF's and feed me points. Give me some somewhat-worthy debaters.