Instigator / Pro
0
1352
rating
39
debates
12.82%
won
Topic

Support same sex marriage, endorse incestuous marriage just the same.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
0
1
Conduct points
0
1

With 1 vote and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
People
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1661
rating
39
debates
79.49%
won
Description
~ 859 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Quite straightforward, Take one with the other. It's a package deal. You can demonstrate the differences and we can put them to the test.
We can find out whether these differences have to stand in the way of happiness. Why not support these two types of marriages? What exception could there be?
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.

Round 1
Pro
You can support both of these types of marriages on the same grounds.
The most basic, the reason , the right to marry who you love. Amen, can I get a witness?

Con


BoP is on Pro, and if I type anything in this round I get the upper ground(That just rhymed). 

Since Pro did not make any clear points, I will. 

Same-Sex Marriage: One man marry another man, or one woman marry another woman. That should be clear. 
Incestuous marriage: A person marrying his/her relatives. 

I am in support of same-sex marriage, but not in incestuous marriage. Here is why.

1. Incestuous marriage must be activated by two relatives HAVING SEX. 
The link in Wikipedia shows that incest is two relatives having sex, and Incestuous marriage would be the two, who are related and had sex with each other, marry. Marriage results in kids, obviously. Most of the married couples have at least one child, according to this data[1]. Only 9% of couples have no children at all, and that is just in the US. the average fertility rate in the US is 1.7 children per woman[2] 

So, since Sex results in children(That shouldn't even need sources whatsoever), and most couples, no matter what type, have children, thus it is in question if the kids are healthy.

No, in fact, they aren't. According to this site[3], Incest-made kids are usually disabled due to their lack of variety in DNAs, and variety is good. There are examples in the good old days in which royal families in Europe, preventing having a king with the blood od a peasant, have sex with their relatives. Results are ugly, stupid princes and kings that are incompetent in the rule of the nation[4]. Again, This, everyone knows. 

Conclusion:
  • Children matters in marriages, in most cases
  • Incest-made kids are genetically less smart than other children. 
  • Incest-marriage is bad for the future of the family. 
Unless my opponent can prove that children are not important to marriage at all, my point remains stable. 

2. Same-sex marriage does not bring anything detrimental to the marriage itself. 

Research shows that children of gay families did almost as well as those in heterosexual households[5], and because of the broken condition of Gay rights, they behave in the same manner as those who were in poverty, etc...(Broken heterosexual households). So in conclusion, Homosexual marriage does not equate to a bad future for the kids if they are taken care of. 

Conclusion:
  • Homosexual and incestuous marriages are different and should not be treated the same way. The former is nowhere as bad as the latter. 
  • My opponent has to either prove that homosexual marriage is bad, or that incest is not bad in order to win this debate. 
Sources

Vote Con!

Round 2
Pro
I understand you want to do things conventionally with detailed outlines .

You shouldn't always expect things to be the same and done like everyone else. Don't try to fit in the norm, in a box with others. Stand out, don't fit in.

So I'm going to go at this simply with a straightforward inquiry.

Is it true that supporting both of these types of marriages for the same reason is supporting them on the same  grounds?

THE TOPIC STATEMENT HAS TO DO WITH SUPPORT, NOT WHAT'S GOOD OR BAD. PLEASE STOP CONFUSING THESE THINGS UP.




Con
Rebuttals

I understand you want to do things conventionally with detailed outlines .

You shouldn't always expect things to be the same and done like everyone else. Don't try to fit in the norm, in a box with others. Stand out, don't fit in.
Me standing out does not make endorsing incestuous marriage as if it were homosexual marriage good. I am not the president of the United States nor am I the Dictator of China. I do not have a direct say of what is the law and what is not. One person does not change everyone else's view, and hopefully my opponent understands.

And no. Incestuous marriage has heavy consequences for children directly(which, children are vital to over 85% of families!), whereas homosexual marriage DOES NOT. See R1 sources.

So I'm going to go at this simply with a straightforward inquiry.

Is it true that supporting both of these types of marriages for the same reason is supporting them on the same  grounds?
Moving the goalpost AGAIN. Yes, but SHOULD YOU? Nope. I have stated that incestuous marriage has the consequences that make it discouraging and my opponent refuted zero of it. Using the same template of logic, I can state that guns should be as legal as pens since using the firepower you could actually write. This is nuts. This is just not true. Again, homosexual marriage and incestuous marriage should not be supported on the same grounds because one brings many more consequences than the other.

THE TOPIC STATEMENT HAS TO DO WITH SUPPORT, NOT WHAT'S GOOD OR BAD. PLEASE STOP CONFUSING THESE THINGS UP.
But... If it is bad, then supporting it is also bad. Incestuous marriage is more immoral than homosexual marriage(or less moral, either way), so it is clear that they should not be supported on the same grounds. You should not support party poppers and anti-personnel mines on the same ground even if both involve an explosion. One is relatively harmless and the other is lethal. The consequences are different.

The title is:
Support same sex marriage, endorse incestuous marriage just the same.
So what PRO has to prove are:
  • To support gay marriage
  • Also to support incest like supporting gay marriage
PRO has not proven the latter. He just stated it should be possible, but he did not state why he SHOULD. Evidently, he shouldn't. 

I have presented why NOT support the two types of marriage on the same ground, and I have refuted my opponent's doubts. VOTE CON.

Round 3
Pro
"So I'm going to go at this simply with a straightforward inquiry.

Is it true that supporting both of these types of marriages for the same reason is supporting them on the same  grounds?



Moving the goalpost AGAIN. Yes, "

Stop right there. There goes the debate. The topic statement is about SUPPORTING THESE THINGS THE SAME. We both agree that this is not IMPOSSIBLE , SO THE TOPIC IS NOT FALSE .


"but SHOULD YOU? Nope. " YOU'VE ADDED THIS.

I want you to apologize for moving the goalpost to this. The words "you should support " are no where in that title,we all know it my friend.

This thing about offspring, does your argument for offspring apply to those that are sterile?

I guess you don't accept the fact that incestuous married folks are not required to produce offspring to make them what they are nor accept that they can engage in protected sex like same sex married people.

So with that being true, is the exception made with sterile situations? There's no problem there I'm sure.I don't think you're discriminating. You're trying to be as scientific as possible.

You can support that, no fussing, whining, screaming or crying.


"But... If it is bad, then supporting it is also bad. Incestuous marriage is more immoral than homosexual marriage(or less moral, either way), so it is clear that they should not be supported on the same grounds."

More immoral....what does that mean? What's your evidence on that? Who gave you the GROUNDS to dictate that?

There are many preachers today arguing about morality with same sex marriage. I'd advise you to stick with a scientific measure here. We get into morals, well, it can be shown exponentially how same sex marriage was viewed 20- 60 years ago . No that's a desperate argument pulled up out of nowhere. Leave that alone, none of that, no sir.

"You should not support party poppers and anti-personnel mines on the same ground even if both involve an explosion. One is relatively harmless and the other is lethal. The consequences are different."

Right , right ,so unlike platonic incestuous and same sex married folk that are in love, support in the name of equal rights, in the name of love. Just accept those who love who they love. No harm , no HIV , no gay bowel syndrome (archaic), no poor genetic offspring, nothing to warrant no support to them both.



"The title is:
Support same sex marriage, endorse incestuous marriage just the same.
So what PRO has to prove are:
To support gay marriage
Also to support incest like supporting gay marriage"

Supporting incestuous marriage in the name of equal rights is like supporting same sex marriage in the name of equal rights. Supporting with the same cause obviously and there's no need to avoid that. Don't try to do this coy dance around it. Nothing has been demonstrated so far to remain irrefutable that would make it not possible to support both the same.

I can't support a law abiding citizen and a criminal the same. The cause is in total contradiction. I can't do it in the same way.


"PRO has not proven the latter. He just stated it should be possible, but he did not state why he SHOULD. Evidently, he shouldn't. "

It must be proven, you agreed mutual support is possible, it's TRUE NOT FALSE. YOU NEED A "SHOULD" ARGUMENT AS YOU HAVE NO WHERE TO GO.

You have to cook up something else in order to stay in fight mode as oppose to just accepting to learning something new.

Show where I USE THE WORDS "IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE". YOU'RE SO QUICK WITH WORDS, YOU'RE GOOD AT PLANTING THEM.

I'LL REFRAIN FROM USING THE WORD "SLOW" BEYOND THIS POINT. IT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS TO SUPPORT THESE THINGS THE SAME, IF YOU CAN'T ADVOCATE OR WON'T, UNABLE TO , ETC. WHY NOT?

SO YOU ARE TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION TO NOT SUPPORTING THESE TWO THINGS IN THE SAME FASHION.

ONE EXPLANATION OR EXAMPLE I GAVE WAS EQUALITY. IT DOESN'T MEAN JUSTIFICATION. IT JUST MEANS A BASIS, A STARTING POINT. BOTH OF THESE TYPES OF MARRIAGES SHARE THE SAME BASIS. IF YOU CAN SHARE WITH US OF ONE TYPE BEING SO DETRIMENTAL, THAT IT DEFEATS EVER HAVING A SHARED BASIS, THEN YOU MAKE THE TOPIC STATEMENT FALSE . THAT MEANS THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR ONE LIKE THE OTHER . THEY CAN'T BE ONE IN THE SAME.

The word "should" has nothing to do with this. You won't find it in my points, when I'm making a point. You won't see it in the terms of the debate as described.

Con
Rebuttals

Stop right there. There goes the debate. The topic statement is about SUPPORTING THESE THINGS THE SAME. We both agree that this is not IMPOSSIBLE , SO THE TOPIC IS NOT FALSE .
This defeats naught. Remember, so the CON's job is to disprove the title, which reads:
Support same sex marriage, endorse incestuous marriage just the same.
So it became clear that I am opposed to supporting gay marriage and incest on the same grounds. I am not saying it is not impossible. When the conservatives are against Gay marriage on its own, they are not saying one half of it that gay marriage is not possible. They just think it is a bad idea. I know it is possible and you can do that, but I am generally opposed to supporting the two on the same grounds.

The topic is not a fundamentally self-refuting claim, but it is controversial and I am against it. Simply simple.

I want you to apologize for moving the goalpost to this. The words "you should support " are no where in that title,we all know it my friend.
I apologize for my wrongful statement, Instead of "You should support", it is better to put "It is right to support". Again, PRO must prove that it is justified to support the two on the same grounds to win, I think all Y'all voters can figure it out. So far it is my opponent moving the goalpost, from "It is okay to support the two on the same grounds" to "You could support the two on the same grounds regardless if it is just or not". PRO did not prove that it is justified to support the two the same way.

Even though the terms "It is right to support" is absent within the title, it is clearly implied that it is the way to go. There are various examples. For example, this one. There are no modifiers of whether fetuses as money is to be supported or to be opposed, but we can clearly tell that Tiwaz is trying to argue that "It is right to use fetuses as money", while Ragnar is opposed to using fetuses as money. This is similar to that situation in which if there are no modifiers to whether supporting both types of marriages should be on the same grounds, the person with the green flair around their profile pictures is obviously supporting said claim or think "It is right to", while the person with the red one is opposing the claim, or thinking "It is not correct to".

Then again, "It is possible to" is not within the title, so my opponent just stabbed his own feet with a brick. If this proves me false, then it also proves him false. My opponent is still indeed arguing "It is right to" instead of "It is possible to".

I guess you don't accept the fact that incestuous married folks are not required to produce offspring to make them what they are nor accept that they can engage in protected sex like same sex married people.
This is one quote, but I will drop everything similar to this one since I'd be tired and wasting time typing the same again and again. This section refutes everything of its likes.

I mean, I had given R1 sources that say that most parents give birth to at least one offspring, so it is not optimal to use the minority to represent the majority. This argument is saying that guns should always be allowed because as long people don't shoot one single ammo, the hood is always safe. This is also like saying crimes should be done because as long as you don't get caught, it is Okay! Sadly, the world doesn't operate that way. Most parents have biological children, and that argument is avoiding the problem. 

More immoral....what does that mean? What's your evidence on that? Who gave you the GROUNDS to dictate that?
Right , right ,so unlike platonic incestuous and same sex married folk that are in love, support in the name of equal rights, in the name of love. Just accept those who love who they love. No harm , no HIV , no gay bowel syndrome (archaic), no poor genetic offspring, nothing to warrant no support to them both.
So legalize pedophilia, zoophilia, etc? Again, love has borders. I have proven that incest has a very high risk. Love is only good if it doesn't directly harm anyone. Incest harms the offspring, pedophilia harms the kid, zoophilia harms the animal. None are good. Gay marriage does not directly harm anyone and should be allowed. Incest has a very high risk of harming the offspring and facts support it.

I can't support a law abiding citizen and a criminal the same. The cause is in total contradiction. I can't do it in the same way.
Exactly.

A law-abiding citizen does not directly harm anyone, whereas the criminal direct harms at least one person. Gay marriage does not harm anyone directly. The incest harms the offspring.

Show where I USE THE WORDS "IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE". YOU'RE SO QUICK WITH WORDS, YOU'RE GOOD AT PLANTING THEM.
You didn't, and that is why my opponent's argument is to be negated. His entire proof is uncalled-for. The title obviously asks PRO that it is right to support the two and he did not prove that, but something else.

Conclusions
  • PRO has still moved the goalpost
  • Incest still harms the offspring while Gay marriage does not
  • Love has borders and love that directly harms someone is not moral
  • PRO did not fulfill his BoP

Round 4
Pro
"So it became clear that I am opposed to supporting gay marriage and incest on the same grounds. I am not saying it is not impossible. "

The topic has nothing to do with your personal opposition. Please stop getting things confused so easily. Is the topic statement true?  With no impossibility, the statement is not false.  You have to prove it's false, show no way to be done, prove
not possible .

"Gay marriage on its own, they are not saying one half of it that gay marriage is not possible. They just think it is a bad idea. "

What in blue hazes are you talking about? Back to topic, back to topic.


"The topic is not a fundamentally self-refuting claim, but it is controversial and I am against it. Simply simple."

But not impossible. Now that's just plain and simple.

"I apologize for my wrongful statement, Instead of "You should support", it is better to put "It is right to support". Again, PRO must prove that it is justified to support the two on the same grounds to win, I think all Y'all voters can figure it out. So far it is my opponent moving the goalpost, from "It is okay to support the two on the same grounds" to "You could support the two on the same grounds regardless if it is just or not". PRO did not prove that it is justified to support the two the same way."

Why can't you stop planting words? Seriously why not just leave it how it is? "Right, justified, should", did I say that or are you saying all this? Tell the truth.


"Even though the terms "It is right to support" is absent within the title, it is clearly implied that it is the way to go."

"implied, implied, implied"


SIR , PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF WHAT YOU CALL IMPLICATION. HOW SUBJECTIVE IS THAT? TRYING TO EXCUSE YOUR YOUR YOUR PRESUPPOSITION WITH "it is clearly implied".   No it's clear to you.When semantics fail, you add things in lieu of dealing with text as is. Such a cop out. Instead of asking what something means which I extend the offer of each debate, assumption is taken .


" the person with the green flair around their profile pictures is obviously supporting said claim or think "It is right to", while the person with the red one is opposing the claim, or thinking "It is not correct to"."

This is where you go wrong with the assumptions. Thinking things apply to everyone. I haven't told you what is right or wrong. I made a statement that's either true or false. It can't be false when it's not impossible. So now you do this ad hoc tactic to avoid being invalidated.


"Then again, "It is possible to" is not within the title, so my opponent just stabbed his own feet with a brick. If this proves me false, then it also proves him false. My opponent is still indeed arguing "It is right to" instead of "It is possible to"."

We just agreed it's not impossible. What's the opposite of IMPOSSIBLE? Prove what you're calling implication. It's what you're reading into it. I'm not arguing possiblity when we just agreed to no impossibility. The ad hoc tactic continues.



"I mean, I had given R1 sources that say that most parents give birth to at least one offspring, so it is not optimal to use the minority to represent the majority. This argument is saying that guns should always be allowed because as long people don't shoot one single ammo, the hood is always safe. This is also like saying crimes should be done because as long as you don't get caught, it is Okay! Sadly, the world doesn't operate that way. Most parents have biological children, and that argument is avoiding the problem. "

Continue to ignore this :

I guess you don't accept the fact that incestuous married folks are not required to produce offspring to make them what they are nor accept that they can engage in protected sex like same sex married people.

Maybe you just don't understand or don't accept this.
We'll agree to disagree regarding our points around this, basically.

"The evidence speaks for itself."

An argument ,yours by the way and you can't speak for it. Would you speak for it if you were sure it could hold up? Not being confident in explaining something is a bad sign , just saying.

"So legalize pedophilia, zoophilia, etc? Again, love has borders. I have proven that incest has a very high risk. Love is only good if it doesn't directly harm anyone. Incest harms the offspring, pedophilia harms the kid, zoophilia harms the animal. None are good. Gay marriage does not directly harm anyone and should be allowed. Incest has a very high risk of harming the offspring and facts support it."

Topics for other debates. By you setting the criteria so broad with love and harm, that's all any of these cases have to prove is no harm. Same sex and incestuous marriage can result in no harm. The ones that don't, you turn a blind eye as the truth can be bothering and uncomfortable. I mean incestuous married folks that are sterile, are you still going to say it's a problem with offspring? Just come off it already.


"A law-abiding citizen does not directly harm anyone, whereas the criminal direct harms at least one person. Gay marriage does not harm anyone directly. The incest harms the offspring."

That includes the infertile ones too. You can't accept an abstinent couple or couple that uses protection. You probably can't accept that a baby can come out pretty healthy by chance. So by removing the whole reproductive ability, the analogy is completely non-parallel to that. Both types of marriages, non-reproductive , harmless, no contradiction.
Where as the analogy demonstrates contradiction.

"You didn't, and that is why my opponent's argument is to be negated. His entire proof is uncalled-for. The title obviously asks PRO that it is right to support the two and he did not prove that, but something else."

You're using the word "obviously" here as a guise for you excusing yourself for moving the goalpost. You have no place to go other than what I say.
I'm not proving something I never SAID I was to do. Whatever it is that is can be obvious to you all day. The foundation isn't the text but in individual interpretation which isn't fixated outside of that.
With a fixated aim here, talking points influenced by individual thought processes negate the objective. Text taken at face value, is empirical, actual, objective, not changing.

"he did not prove that, but something else"

That "something else" is what?

"PRO has still moved the goalpost"

I can't move the goalpost by you reading things into this. I didn't add anything not in accordance. You admit to going by what you think is being implied.

"Incest still harms the offspring while Gay marriage does not"

Prove sterile incestuous married couples bring harm by not having offspring. That's an incestuous marriage that has just as much harm as a same sex, not gay, this is men and women, same sex marriage.

"Love has borders and love that directly harms someone is not moral"

1. You're entitled to your opinion of morality (non -scientific)
2. Due to morality being of your personal belief system, it is nothing of the debate.
3. Keep it out.

"PRO did not fulfill his BoP"

We fulfilled it together when we agreed the topic statement is not impossible.

I do declare we've reached the end of the road.
Any final closing words....go ahead.

Con
"So it became clear that I am opposed to supporting gay marriage and incest on the same grounds. I am not saying it is not impossible. "

The topic has nothing to do with your personal opposition. Please stop getting things confused so easily. Is the topic statement true?  With no impossibility, the statement is not false.  You have to prove it's false, show no way to be done, prove
not possible .
My opponent moved the goalpost. From "It is right to support the two the same" to "It is possible to support the two the same". His initial argument is as follows:
You can support both of these types of marriages on the same grounds.
The most basic, the reason , the right to marry who you love. Amen, can I get a witness?
Summary: My opponent believes it is just to support the two the same because they are fundamentally just examples of love and love should not be denied. I know that my opponent said "You can", but his second sentence clearly demonstrates why he thinks it is correct to do so, which translates to "It is correct to support the two the same". My opponent has shown traces that he has one resolution but then moved to another. Fallacious and weak this argument is.

There are points that my opponent didn't even successfully refute and still stand. I will not go into that because it will be more a burden to do so repeating what I have said last time.

This is where you go wrong with the assumptions. Thinking things apply to everyone. I haven't told you what is right or wrong. I made a statement that's either true or false. It can't be false when it's not impossible. So now you do this ad hoc tactic to avoid being invalidated.
This would mean "Crashing car is safe and you should do it" is undoubtedly true. It is NOT. Just because it is possible doesn't mean it is right. It is common sense that crashing a car is bad and you should not do it, even if ONE person came out of the car undamaged and safely.

Possible ≠ right. Get it right.

I guess you don't accept the fact that incestuous married folks are not required to produce offspring to make them what they are nor accept that they can engage in protected sex like same sex married people.
Oh yeah, so owning guns is totally OK because people are not required to use them! If no shoot the hood safe! ...No. Although it is possible, most examples of incest are implied to have children, and there is a very high risk of the child to be deformed or stupid. Minority should not represent the majority. They should be supported differently: Gay marriage should be supported fully due to harming no one, while Incest should be supported less due to the potential of harm of the offspring.

Topics for other debates. By you setting the criteria so broad with love and harm, that's all any of these cases have to prove is no harm. Same sex and incestuous marriage can result in no harm. The ones that don't, you turn a blind eye as the truth can be bothering and uncomfortable. I mean incestuous married folks that are sterile, are you still going to say it's a problem with offspring? Just come off it already.
So as long as it can do no damage, it is Ok? No. Then within this logic Nukes should be fully allowed to be used in any extent because they can just be exploded in the ocean and cause no harm. However this passed law will result in world destruction as nukes are fully allowed. 'Sterile', Moving the goalpost. You didn't specify this from the start.

Sure, the baby can come out healthy, but it has a MUCH higher risk it won't. Meanwhile Gay marriage result in 0% of disabled children, because they literally can't reproduce and can adopt.

I am done for rebuttals, Everything else are my opponent's effortless attempts at disproving me that didn't work.

  • I shall make conclusions.
  • By incest, not all cases are infertile and my opponent gave no evidence of anything. Moving the goalpost.
  • My opponent used the minority to represent the majority, which is a fallacy upon itself.
  • Gay marriage and Incest should be supported differently: One has a VERY high chance of directly harming the offspring, whereas the other one does not.
  • Not only that, Incest is morally discouraging consider people are not meant to be attracted to their siblings, whereas there is nothing morally wrong with gay marriage.

Round 5
Pro
*My opponent moved the goalpost. From "It is right to support the two the same" to "It is possible to support the two the same". His initial argument is as follows:
You can support both of these types of marriages on the same grounds.
The most basic, the reason , the right to marry who you love. Amen, can I get a witness?
Summary: My opponent believes it is just to support the two the same because they are fundamentally just examples of love and love should not be denied. I know that my opponent said "You can", but his second sentence clearly demonstrates why he thinks it is correct to do so, which translates to "It is correct to support the two the same". My opponent has shown traces that he has one resolution but then moved to another. Fallacious and weak this argument is. "


You're ad hoc tactic continues with adding things I did not say. When you say "clearly" this, "obviously" that, that's your subjective interpretation backed by no evidence. Again , you can't take my points at face value. You have no argument if you do that .


We agreed it's not an impossible statement, therefore it's not false. You were to prove it was.



"This would mean "Crashing car is safe and you should do it" is undoubtedly true. It is NOT. Just because it is possible doesn't mean it is right. It is common sense that crashing a car is bad and you should not do it, even if ONE person came out of the car undamaged and safely.

Possible ≠ right. Get it right."

You don't even deny the ad hoc fallacy you're in. Prove where I ever stated possible means right. When you don't find it, apologize for lying.

Again , because I'm not wrong about this statement being not impossible, you have to plant something to refute. Such a cop out.

"Oh yeah, so owning guns is totally OK because people are not required to use them! If no shoot the hood safe! ...No. Although it is possible, most examples of incest are implied to have children, and there is a very high risk of the child to be deformed or stupid. Minority should not represent the majority. They should be supported differently: Gay marriage should be supported fully due to harming no one, while Incest should be supported less due to the potential of harm of the offspring."

Whether small or large, is no excuse. You know full well that not ALLLLLLL  INCESTUOUS MARRIED COUPLES WOULD HAVE CHILDREN. DON'T DISCREDIT THEM BECAUSE IT HURTS YOUR ARGUMENT.

YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO FACE THE FACT THAT THERE CAN BE NON-HARMFUL INCESTUOUS MARRIED FOLKS .

"So as long as it can do no damage, it is Ok? No. Then within this logic Nukes should be fully allowed to be used in any extent because they can just be exploded in the ocean and cause no harm. However this passed law will result in world destruction as nukes are fully allowed. 'Sterile', Moving the goalpost. You didn't specify this from the start."

Is your argument for harm or not for harm? What are you talking about "as long as it can do no damage"? Is your argument for damage?

Your analogy, illustration, whatever strangles itself to death. You start off with no harm,then  end it in destruction. Are you for harm or against it?

When I stated "incestuous marriage", was I not broad?Who do you think I'm talking about? Likewise when I stated "same sex marriage", do you think I'm only referring to homosexual people that are not sterile?

I can come up with different scenarios at anytime during this debate. If they don't contradict the topic, they don't contradict. You just don't have an argument for this. You thought you had everything prepared but probably forgot about the infertile scenario .

When someone says "married people", they're not specific.They could be talking about anybody and everybody who is MARRIED. YES THAT WOULD INCLUDE INFERTILE PEOPLE TOO THANK YOU.

"Sure, the baby can come out healthy, but it has a MUCH higher risk it won't. Meanwhile Gay marriage result in 0% of disabled children, because they literally can't reproduce and can adopt.

I am done for rebuttals, Everything else are my opponent's effortless attempts at disproving me that didn't work."


I hope you learned that incestuous married folks don't have to have a baby. I don't know why you want them to have a baby so bad. Just to make your argument work I guess, morbid .

"By incest, not all cases are infertile and my opponent gave no evidence of anything. Moving the goalpost."

So I move the GOALPOST because I was broad when I mentioned marriage which can or does encompass infertile people.

GOALPOST, you stop using this word. You don't know what it means. What is your argument for infertile people in an incestuous marriage? None, they get a pass I know. You concede to that.

"My opponent used the minority to represent the majority, which is a fallacy upon itself."

So is this saying because you give a pass to some, give a pass to all?

You can make that argument, I don't. I don't invalidate some on the basis of others. Each individual case must have warrant for penalty or invalidation.

"Gay marriage and Incest should be supported differently: One has a VERY high chance of directly harming the offspring, whereas the other one does not."

Incestuous and same sex marriages are not required to result in having children. Surrogacy is not required for same sex marriage and contraception/sexual abstinence is not required to be restricted in incestuous marriage.

I know you want to not count the exceptions but if they fall under the title INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE, THEY COUNTTT BUDDY.


"Not only that, Incest is morally discouraging consider people are not meant to be attracted to their siblings, whereas there is nothing morally wrong with gay marriage."

AGAIN WITH THESE MORALS ACCORDING TO YOU.
THE SAME THING WAS SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS IN SAME MARRIAGE.

STILL TO THIS DAY, MANY PEOPLE SAY IT'S ABOMINATION, IMMORAL AND SINFUL.

YOUTUBE ANY SERMON AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE.

A MAN IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LAYING, SEXING WITH A MAN.  BUT ACCORDING TO WHO?TO WHAT?

THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK. YOU CAN USE IT TO MAKE ANYTHING LOOK WRONG.

I THOUGHT YOU WOULD JUST STICK TO SCIENCE AND BIOLOGY. YOU'LL PULL ANYTHING OUT PRETENTIOUSLY TO ATTEMPT TO REFUTE.

We agreed this topic statement is not impossible so it is not invalid to make,this is nothing truly to debate about as witnessed.


Con
At this point, Pro and Opp are just dragging in endless circles. Upon inspection, Opp declares that all of Pro's points in Round V can be refuted by Opp's Round IV arguments. As a result, Opp extends his argument due to none of his arguments are really being destroyed.

After that Opp extends his argument, it is clear that due to this being the last round of this civil discussion, and that there are no new points introduced, it is most rational for Opp to conclude his debate.

Going even more "savage", Opp would contain everything needed to defeat Pro's points in this conclusion alone, due to the abundance of evidence on the Con side.

Conclusion for all five rounds of the present discussion

  • Incest should not be supported on the same grounds as homosexuality
    • Con side means that Con is opposed to this claim, which deals nothing with whether it is possible or not. It is possible but it is not the most right to do so.
      • Pro has failed to define the terms, razor off the irrelevant resolutions, and construct relevant scopes necessary. Pro did none of those and then changed resolutions, from "It is right to" to "It is possible to", which is a fallacy and may or may not lose conduct on the behalf of Pro.
      • Pro has instead stuck to the altered resolution all the way to Round V, which would mean Pro failed to fulfill his Burden of Proof consider upon the original creation of the debate, Pro constructed null regarding what the resolution means, and that leaves the Opposition party to construct the Burden of Proof that has not to existed till Opp's Round I argument. Pro's argument did not match the original resolution and that means he did not fulfill the BoP.
      • Opp asserts that the resolution maker bears the BoP, so if Pro failed to fulfill his resolution, he thus loses this debate.
    • Everything below has little to do with BoP and manipulation. They are plain old statistics.
    • Incest has a much higher risk of a defected child when born.
      • Opp asserts that family's purpose is to continue to live, and having defects means undesirable genes, making them less likely to survive and thrive.
      • Due to that incest is undesirable for a family to survive in the long-term. It thus is highly discouraged.
    • Morality suggests that incest is in fact, immoral and humans evolved to not deal with coitus upon their immediate family. Religions have discouraged incest and billions of people believe in them. 
    • Pro has suggested that as long the act of Incest and the relationship within is protected, the danger is negated.
      • However, Pro is negating the potential danger of said act. Not doing said act does not mean the potential of danger ceases to exist.
        • Using an analogy: If an atomic bomb is exploded in the deep deserts with no person living it within 1000 miles of radius, roughly no one is harmed. However, permitting all usage of atomic bombs due to the harmlessness of the act would lead to world war.
      • Even if one example has no danger attached to it, it is impossible to ensure that 100% of the total population practice things that way. Especially if every other occasion has that the danger is still active.
      • It is true that most couples have sex, and it is implied that most cases of incestuous marriage will result in children consider sex is done and sex leads to children.
        • Pro is using a minority population to represent the entirety of the population, which is fallacious. Pro is also avoiding the inquiry of that incest being potentially dangerous, as avoiding the problem does not make the problem solve itself.
    • Thus, Incest is considered potentially dangerous and immoral based on both feelings and facts.
  • Both Pro and Opp agrees that Homosexual marriage isn't wrong or dangerous in any way, so if one is potentially dangerous and the other one is not, the two should not be treated exactly the same.
  • Opp's argument is completed.
  • If by any chance, voters are being convinced by Opp's argument, he/she/they/it should vote the Con side of the debate.