Instigator / Pro
7
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1984

Gay marriage should be allowed.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Fruit_Inspector
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
11
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

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.

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:

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.

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: 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.