Support same sex marriage, endorse incestuous marriage just the same.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
This was a really weird debate to read because Con completely misinterpreted what the debate was about. Pro was trying to make the case that homosexual marriages and incestuous marriages can be supported by the same arguments. However, he did not make this sufficiently clear, leading Con to think that the debate was about whether such marriages should be legal, rather than whether they can be supported by the same arguments. The result of this confusion was that the majority of Con's arguments had nothing to do with the topic.
Pro argued that both homosexual and incestuous marriages can be supported by the argument that people should be allowed to marry whoever they love. Con's first contention that incest leads to genetic problems in the offspring does succeed in attacking the resolution that homosexuality and incest can be supported on the same grounds, because that isn't a problem for homosexuality. His second contention that familial and sexual love might contend with each other illustrates another difference between homosexuality and incest, although it isn't backed by a source and is therefore weaker. His third contention fails to attack the resolution because it attempts to refute the idea that people should be allowed to marry whoever they love. That is irrelevant because his BOP was to show that homosexuality and incest can't be supported by the same arguments. Whether or not those same arguments can be refuted is irrelevant here; what matters is whether they apply to both homosexuality and incest. After that, Con spends the rest of the debate attacking the wrong resolution. None of his later arguments come close to relevancy.
Pro does offer a refutation to Con's first contention by arguing that incestuous couples could use contraception or abstinence to avoid having offspring, solving most of the genetic problem. Con concedes that is a decent point. Pro spends the rest of the debate vainly trying to get Con back on topic and doesn't make any more relevant arguments. Thus, the only relevant arguments left standing were Pro's contention that the argument that people should be allowed to marry who they love supports both homosexual and incestuous marriages and Con's contention that familial and sexual love might endanger family relations. I would have liked Con to support that with a source to show that it actually happens. Since there isn't a source, I consider Pro's point, which doesn't really need a source, to be slightly stronger. Arguments to Pro.
Sources: Pro had no sources to speak of, but didn't make any arguments that needed them. The only relevant sources Con had supported the point that he later conceded. Sources are tied.
S&G and Conduct: I'm going to penalize Pro for the all caps and repetition. They made it more annoying to read and were poor conduct because all caps are online shouting. I've listed this as an offense in both S&G and Conduct because it's relevant to both of them, but I will only penalize him on conduct. Although it was poor style, I don't think it was quite serious enough to penalize his S&G points because it didn't really make it any harder to read, although it was annoying.
Less than a day remains for voting.
A little feedback for the debaters:
I tried to get through this, but con's R1 conclusion about opposing same sex marriage via Kantian ethics, seemed to drift off topic. Then pro's R2, looked like it has been copy/pasted from another debate on the same subject, rather than replying to con's actual points.