EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
2421

That Gay Marriage should be legal

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
4 points
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
Gays should have the same rights as men and women when it comes to marriage. Why should it be illegal for all people to have the same rights? Why should gays be unable to marry?
Gays will provide good taxes to the government after they marry. Why should we not allow people to show their love to each other AND the government? 

Also, a majority of people approve of gay marriage.

Source: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/05/people_of_color_more_likely_to_support_gay_marriage_than_whites_abc_poll_finds.html

Majority rules. We'd be supporting the general public by allowing gay marriage.

There's simply no logical explanation for not legalizing gay marriage. It helps the government, and helps the people.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-06 01:15:12
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Disclaimer: I don't actually believe gay marriage should be illegal, so don't give me flak. I did here some good arguments from a Catholic I once knew, and I wouldn't mind testing them in a debate, and seeing how well they stand. I wont make any off topic arguments that don't directly involve marriage itself. 

Marriage in the 5 major religions 
There is a common religious trend world wide. Whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Polytheism. In every country, a marriage ceremony involves the dedication of individuals in a union under their god. This even exists in Animism, Shinto, and Chinese Traditional religion. Marriage has turned into a religious ceremony, and said religious ceremony is betrothed on religious people. 

Throughout history, marriage has always been a divine union. There are many who disrespect this principal. Atheists and Homosexuals have been getting married under Christian vows for decades, although they themselves are not Christian. 

Civil Unions: A loving union without religious ceremony 
In most nations where civil unions are legalized, gay couples get the full benefits of marriage. It is just done under a different name and without the religious ceremony taking place. The government claims gays should have the same rights as men and women when it comes to marriage. Well, with civil unions, they do. The government claims that gays should provide taxes that are contingent with marriage. Well, with civil unions they do. Finally, the government claims that homosexuals should have a right to ceremonially declare their love. Well, with civil unions they can.

Religious Homosexuals? 
They do exist, and although rare, I'm a believer it is up to god to determine whether such loving union is legitimate. Not the government. Therefore, I contend  that religious homosexuals should have the chance to be married under god. Why can't they do that with civil unions? Sure, it goes by a different name. Sure, it doesn't come with a religious ceremony. That isn't important. Homosexuals can still dedicate their union to their god, whether or not others accept it as legitimate. As I said, their god will judge the legitimacy of their marriage.

By allowing them to dedicate their love under a different name, homosexuals achieve the same benefits as marriage, without all the harms bigots and the religiously fundamental will bring them. 


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-08 21:48:09
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
1. Religious views
While within some religions homosexuality is immoral and sinful, things are looking good, changing for the better. The Roman Catholic Church largely supports gay marriage.
Younger us catholics more accepting of homosexuality
Source [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/]
Furthermore, religions are growing to become more accepting of gay marriage. Even though some religions remain thinking that gay marriage is a sin, their thinking and points of view about gay marriage have changed, as a featured speaker from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commision states, "we ... speak about the issue, largely because there was the sort of evangelical belligerence, often, in the last generation, that spoke, for instance, about the “gay agenda,” in which there was this picture, almost as though there is a group of super-villains in a lair, plotting somewhere the downfall of the family. That—I almost never hear that in evangelical churches anymore. Instead, issues of sexual morality are being addressed consistently across the board, recognizing that everyone in the congregation has gay and lesbian children or parents or neighbors or friends and that many of the people in our own congregations are same-sex attracted. That's changed quite a bit, as well as the understanding of—I almost never hear in evangelical churches anymore the sort of easy-conversionism, “reparative therapy” understanding of gay-to-straight, that sort of caricature. It's always more complex than that." This shows that, as time moves forward, even the religious people who used to hate gay marriage are now learning their point of view and learning to gradually accept gay marriage.

Civil unions:
Why do straights get to decide what gays want? Gays would rather marry than have civil unions! The Williams Institution finds that most gays prefer marriage to civil unions. [source: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Badgett-Konnoth-CO-FiscalAnalysis-Feb-2011.pdf ] You have to respect their minority rights! 
 Should we force straight people to have civil unions if they want to put their status into legality? Obviously we don't.

"As I said, their god will judge the legitimacy of their marriage." Exactly. And the only way to test the legitimacy is to legalize the marriage. If God doesn't like them, then God can destroy them the way he likes to.

Here's a new point:
Gays have to pay marriage taxes. They can benefit the economy and government with the health care investment and tax-collecting.
Furthermore, gays adopt children. There are . It is obvious that Gays not only offer benefits to the government, but also society in general. There is no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. There are over 101,000 kids waiting in the orphanages to be adopted. [source: http://www.ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=43]. Since gays are more likely to adopt than straights (because they can't create babies), with marriage we'll encourage them further to help the poor kids as well as pay up to the government.

As you can see merely religious arguments aren't enough to defeat me case. Gays benefit in a real sense, have rights  and religious views concerning their marriages have changed over time. I rest my case.
Back to you Plutarch.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-09 19:08:18
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Majority Opinion
The government repeatedly makes arguments that the proposal should be accepted, because a lot of people feel the same way they do. Just because something may be favorable with many, doesn't affirm the resolution. The opposition is of the belief that the majority are uninformed about why gay marriage is harmful, and would like to focus arguments solely on educating.

Roman Catholic Church Supports Gay Marriage 
This simply isn't true. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, to this day, refuses to marry homosexuals. The official statement of the RCC, is that homosexual attraction is an objective disorder. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church released a second statement saying that homosexual relations are morally sinful. It is even in the official doctrine of the RCC.

Pew Research Center 
The government quoted pew research center twice in the debate. Like Gallup, Pew Research is an online polling company, where only registrants to the site may vote on their opinions. Hence, the name "aggregate" accompanied in all their data. Polls released by pew research center don't reflect the majority opinion, as it c an be guaranteed less than 1% of Catholics or people in general voted on the first on second poll. 

Religious Acceptance
The only denominations that accept homosexuals into marriage union, are the Canadian Episcopal Church, and American Lutheran Church. Although both churches, like the Vatican, discourage homosexual relations. If homosexuality is as popular as the government claims, more than 17 countries would have it legalized. Even in the Czech Republic, where about 80% of the country is atheist, the majority of citizens are against gay marriage. 

Whose Role is it To Accept Homosexual Union 
Like previously contended, Homosexual unions are the responsibility of god to accept. What was also contended, is that homosexual Christians can get a civil union, dedicate their love to god in principal, without all the harms legalizing marriage would bring. Including bigotry, hate, and beliefs of disdaining god. Having  the ceremony called a marriage instead of a union is material. People shouldn't have to prove anything besides their love, and marriage instead of civil unions is doing exactly that. According to most religions, vainglory is a sin.

The idea is that most homosexuals aren't religious. As contended, it is disrespectful for homosexuals who don't believe in divinity to get married under religious vows. As also contended, there are homosexual Christians. They can still dedicate their love to god in a civil union. We just minimize the amount of non religious homosexual marriages by 90%. 

Taxes and Adoption
    In every debate I had on the subject, one side always makes an argument irrelevant to marriage itself. Homosexuals can still adopt without being married. Homosexuals still pay taxes under civil unions. In some countries, more than heterosexual marriage. This point is moot because it actually isn't affected by marriage. Therefore it has no influence on the resolution.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-12 00:51:00
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
Majority opinion
And how, exactly, is gay marriage harmful?

Roman Catholic Church Supports Gay Marriage
So one church doesn't support gay marriage. Your appeal to the church clearly goes against the separation of Church and State. People should have their minority rights everywhere, regardless of who they are. And religious churches does the exact opposite and challenges gay's rights. http://notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/ lists some very crucial rights the churches fail to give homosexuals:
  • Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church.
  • Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage.
  • Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families.
  • Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.

The site also notes the contradiction of God's justness. "Throughout, the New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion." The site states. If God was really just, he would have given man the free choice to love both men and women as they wanted to. It is especially the passage below that stresses the importance of love in our lives.

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments.... and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law —Romans 13:8-10"

Thus it must be concluded that in this sense of love, woman and men are equal, as are gays and straights.

Pew Research Center
I see, I see.

Religious Acceptance
It is evident that many countries throughout the world accept gay marriage.

[source: http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2012/02/02/ten-countries-that-were-ahead-of-washington-on-same-sex-marriage/1001]
And most of Africa doesn't count because Africa is either hungry children or largely an uneducated population.

Whose Role is it To Accept Homosexual Union
But without marriage, gays will lose many crucially important legal rights.

The big difference between marriage and civil unions or domestic partnership is the great advantages marriage has over civil unions and domestic partnerships:

  • Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
  • The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
  • Tax benefits available to married couples only
  • Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
  • Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

Source: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html

There's a reason why normal marriage is MARRIAGE and not a CIVIL UNION. Why force civil unions onto homosexuals when they can obtain more benefits from marriage? Within the system of utilitarianism, marriage is far better than a civil union due to its having of more benefits.

Taxes and Adoption

You are correct about this not really contributing to why gay marriage should be legalized. On the other hand, this argument DOES contribute to why gay marriage shouldn't be prohibited. You see, I am trying to prove that gays are moral in this argument, and that they contribute to society. If gays do more benefit than harm, then you first argument collapses.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-12 02:00:13
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Points to be refuted
  • Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
  • The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
  • Tax benefits available to married couples only
  • Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
  • Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance

Legal Recognition 
This debate isn't centered in the United States, but the world, nor does this argument make much sense. More countries have legalized civil unions than gay marriages. There is definitely more legal recognition from having a civil union than a marriage, and that gives the benefits of legal recognition throughout most of the western world. A sturdy, but superior alternative to marriage.

Ability to Divorce 
This would be the case in civil unions as well. The argument lacks relevance. 

Tax Benefits 
In certain countries, there are more tax benefits to being married than getting a civil union, but married couples also have to pay a large amount more in legal fees than people receiving civil unions. It more than offsets itself in the ends. This is a reform we can look towards to in civil unions, not marriages. Since there are some countries outside of the US that gives equal legal status to unions and marriages. 

Immigration 
Marriage visas are exclusive to the US immigration policy, but either way, the institution of them with civil unions are rare, because that means two people are married under a civil union with duel nationality. There might be 10 recorded cases of this in history, therefore the argument lacks much solvency. There hasn't been reform in this regard because it is entirely unneeded.

Federal Benefits 
Again, this is exclusive to the United States, but I can ensure there are no contingent benefits only available to married couples in this regard. Social security provides equal benefits to all citizens by US law, and health insurance is ran by corporations, and not influenced by the institution of marriage. 

Homosexuals are Moral 
Fair enough, and agreed, but since this argument was never contested, it is false to say it defeats a premise I never made. 
Otherwise that would be a fallacy, which you are indeed committing. I asserted that civil unions are disrespectful religiously and bring harmful baggage like bigotry and hate. These points, the actual premise, have been dropped. Therefore they should be considered affirmed. 

Summary
The governments argument shifted solely to proving there are more benefits from marriage than civil union. The opposition has effectively shown that civil unions and marriages are provided equal benefits, and any minor tolerances like "Marriage Visas" were so minimal that they didn't affect the resolution at hand. Likewise, the opposition has proven that civil unions can be given the same dedication to god, and the same effects of marriage, that what the government considers "normal" would offer.

The government has not proven marriage should be legalized when civil unions have proven themselves to be a safer and less harmful alternative, with none of the harms of same-sex marriage. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-15 01:39:41
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
Legal Recognition
My opponent is aware he has to rebut the actual positive points marriage has over unions before this point works. Good job.

Ability to Divorce
This would be the case in civil unions as well. The argument lacks relevance.
The key words are, "in any state". You wouldn't want to drive from California, your new home, to the old place you were married way up in Massachusets, no?

Tax Benefits
Either way, it's a win-win situation. Gays pay less in marriage than unions, good for them. They have to pay more, government gets more money.

Immigration
So what if it has only helped few people so far? It has the potential to help far more people than civil unions can.

Homosexuals are Moral
The religious people really are misinterpreting their own bible. 

If God was really just, he would have given man the free choice to love both men and women as they wanted to. It is especially the passage below that stresses the importance of love in our lives.

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments.... and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law —Romans 13:8-10"

Again, I stress this, when it comes to marriage, the only thing that matters is truly loving one another. Jesus has taught to love; that is irrefutable evidence. A sentence from a passage here justifies that love is the true purpose of God, if Christians really choose to believe in him:

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." (13:13)

From http://notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/ .
Thus it must be concluded that in this sense of love, woman and men are equal, as are gays and straights.

CONCLUSION
Gay marriage only has as much harm as civil unions. If people want to love each other, they should be able to have the government legalize their status. There is a reason why heterosexuals aren't forced to go into civil unions rather than marriage; and that gays want marriage more than civil unions. The gays really want to spread their love and stress the point that within modern society, being gay is now considered "okay".
Back to you.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-15 02:00:26
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
Legal Recognition 
There have been no positive points besides "the majority of homosexuals want it", which wasn't even reliably cited. Civil unions are recognized in more countries than marriage. This point is affirmed in the oppositions favor. 

Tax Benefits
This is a US only problem, but I indulged it anyways. It is a question of whether less taxes are a good thing or a bad thing. I would argue the abuse homosexuals earned over their lives should allow them less taxes. Therefore proving once again, civil unions are superior. 

Homosexuals are Moral
This was never contested, nor does it have a place in my rebuttals. I agree that Jesus said people should love each other, but three other sources in the bible say homosexuals should not engage in relations, as humanity should reproduce. Jesus didn't contradict the bible. It is fully possible to love another man without the relationship being intimate. 

I'm not even sure why this is being argued, because no one stated homosexuals are immoral.
I'm engaging in solely "non-religious" arguments. 

Why the Opposition Won the Debate
  • The government claimed that civil unions come with more harms than marriage, but there hasn't been a single argument advancing the point. Whereas the opposition contended civil unions are less harmful, and not only that, they come with the same benefits of gay marriage. The fact that the government couldn't successfully refute these are arguments, instead choosing to assert without rebuttal, shows that the BOP hasn't been fulfilled.

  • It should be noted that the government dropped many arguments, including equal benefits and the harms of bigotry. Later asserting that marriage is better. Dropping oppositional evidence while still affirming arguments isn't convincing. Dropping any arguments should make the judges review the debate with deep skepticism. 

  • The main arguments from the government were that gays have a right to love each other, dedicate their love to god, and the majority of people want marriage. The opposition proved that homosexuals can love each other in a civil union and without. The opposition proved that homosexuals can dedicate their love to god in principal, and avoid the sins of material namesake. The opposition finally proved majority opinion isn't something to affirm cases, as the majority of people may be wrong or uneducated on the truth. If every argument could be settled by majority opinion, then debate wouldn't exist. 

The resolution is negated, and we should definitely not institute gay marriage with the existence of civil unions. Hopefully you found my arguments short and sweet for a 4000 character debate. Feedback Note: I know counter arguments aren't a good strategy, but there is no logical argument outside civil unions.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-17 20:12:37
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
I thought the last round was leader reply, so I already summarized my arguments. I don't have anything to add or to refute, and I believe the case has been thoroughly negated. In the meantime, enjoy this picture of a cat looking at a mouse clicker.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-20 19:36:08
| Speak Round
9spaceking9spaceking (PRO)
Thanks opponent. 
Legal Recognition
If majority rules didn't work all the time, then my opponent's own point refutes his own. In addition, the countries cannot represent the gays. They may also have different policies that put other things, such as education or military, as priority before gay marriage. I am certain they will reach it sooner or later, gay marriage does have no real physical harm to anyone.

As for tax benefits, I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about. He cites nothing to suggest that gays are abused, so his assertion is quite fallacious.

Speaking of those passages that so called "condemn homosexuality", my opponent fails to cite these as well. In contrast, I proved that the Bible does in fact support love, and does not have apparent passages that go against homosexuality. Not only so, even if the bible does condemn homosexuality as my opponent proposed, I've shown that the Church should not have the authority over state laws. It is immoral for them to not give minority rights. The church can only reject their rights to atheists and agnostics who chose to not believe in the church; the church cannot reject religious homosexuals just because they are homosexual. 

In conclusion, I've won this debate, because gay marriage is awesome, and everyone would obtain equality through gay marriage, the best possible option, NOT civil unions, and my opponent has mere assertions without true sources to back his arguments up. 
I win, VOTE ME.

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-20 20:09:47
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
9spaceking9spaceking
actually.....I could take a try....>:3
Jack could try pulling it off as argument number 8..... >:D
Posted 2014-11-24 11:22:45
9spaceking9spaceking
And besides, Stag did show Gay Marriage received hate among the religious, and had barely any benefits over civil unions.
Posted 2014-11-24 11:08:00
9spaceking9spaceking
ohhhhhhh snap but I don't think even "Jack" could manage to do that. He just stuck with the regular arguments.
Posted 2014-11-24 11:06:25
9spaceking9spaceking
ohhhhhhh snap but I don't think even "Jack" could manage to do that. He just stuck with the regular arguments.
Posted 2014-11-24 11:06:20
adminadmin
I don't know nzlockie - at least once I ran the case that marriage should not be allowed for anybody (outdated institution etc), so gay marriage shouldn't be legal either. It's the sort of case you run when you want to piss off your opponent lol.
Posted 2014-11-24 05:57:20
nzlockienzlockie
I think most people would agree that if you take morality out of the equation, then it's pretty obvious that Gay marriage should be legalised. To not do so is pretty clear discrimination so a solid case would have be made as to why that discrimination were justified... which outside of an imposed morality would be pretty hard to do.
This is why this was a hard debate for you to lose. In the end, and only from MY perspective, you did so only because you did not argue your side as convincingly as con.
I'm not suggesting you actually change your mind on this issue in real life... if you think it'd help, I'll debate you on this resolution taking the Pro side so you can see what I mean - just let me know.
Posted 2014-11-24 05:11:05
9spaceking9spaceking
good debate. Seeing Nz's vote, I can't help but go back to NULL side on the Gay Marriage issue.
Posted 2014-11-24 02:11:46
BlackflagBlackflag
I can't fairly say, because I'm a bit biased towards the pro side.
Posted 2014-11-22 17:14:11
9spaceking9spaceking
BTW, who do you think won THAT debate?
Posted 2014-11-21 21:38:46
9spaceking9spaceking
okay.
Posted 2014-11-21 01:51:35
BlackflagBlackflag
You took things I wrote and put them on your site. I appreciate that you didn't use my name, but please ask permission next time. When doing a devils advocate debate on a controversial issue, I don't always want what I'm saying to be taken the wrong way elsewhere.
Posted 2014-11-20 22:15:02
9spaceking9spaceking
it must be noted that most of the arguments in this debate was written before THAT debate, so don't suspect I prepared beforehand.
Posted 2014-11-20 20:20:08
9spaceking9spaceking
just for reference, now that the debate is over, I can show you the same resolution debated against myself.
http://gaymarriagedebate.jimdo.com/
As con, I lost gas over time so I had to borrow some of your arguments. I hope you don't mind and that I paraphrased it well enough!
Posted 2014-11-20 20:11:29
9spaceking9spaceking
cool. Thanks. I'm glad you think so.
Posted 2014-11-19 20:34:31
BlackflagBlackflag
You did a good job here. I'm questioning the outcome.
Posted 2014-11-19 19:58:49
9spaceking9spaceking
interesting...this felt much easier than the gay marriage debate against myself, yet I can't help but feel that the opposition won, even though I completely obliterated myself in that other debate.
Posted 2014-11-19 15:18:53
9spaceking9spaceking
what a long username.
Posted 2014-11-12 21:36:18
BlackflagBlackflag
9space, I hope you'll see this debate to the end. It's only 4000 characters per round.
Posted 2014-11-06 01:08:11
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-11-23 22:49:31
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Blackflag
Reasoning:
CON has won this debate because he has convincingly met and negated each of PRO's contentions.
Formatting DID play a part in this, as I was able to follow CON's arguments much easier than PRO's. PRO's case actually started to gather some solidity once he adopted CON's layout.
Since debate is all about communication, this kind of thing is important.

To win this debate, PRO needed to demonstrate that there was either a great benefit to allowing Gay marriage, or that there was a great injustice being done by NOT allowing it.

The tax idea was a good one, unfortunately CON negated that one rather easily by pointing out that the difference was minuscule and any benefits were evened out by the fact Married couples pay more tax.

PRO kept pushing the injustice cart, but did so in a very clumsy way that just never hit home for me. In the final rounds, CON pointed out that his side had never contested the morality issue and he was right. PRO needed to be more clear about what the issue was here if he wanted it to score. There was plenty of meat to work with here so it came across as a little lazy when he didn't deliver it better.

There were several turns which PRO conceded that made his side appear weak. Bringing up the Catholic Church in the first round and then dismissing it as "just one church" when CON was able to flip it to his side looked bad, as did his concession on the validity of Pew Polls.

After all of this, I was looking for a knock out bunch from PRO and it just never came.


Feedback:
PRO: You attacked this debate with a lot of energy and you deserve to be applauded for that. Your thoughts have a tendency to look scattered and unorganised when you lay them out this way.
It looks to me like you have sat down to write your case and then posted it without re-reading it.
If this is the case, I would highly suggest you approach it differently.
Write your thoughts down as you've done, but then go back over them and edit them. Use headings and formatting to make your points stand out. Remove conversational text that doesn't help your case like, "I see, I see."
Try to avoid congratulating your opponent during the round, unless you are making it very clear you're being sarcastic. It makes you look weak and makes me trust him more. If you genuinely feel he has won a point, just drop it. That looks fractionally stronger to me. Better yet, don't drop it, even if you know you're wrong.
In this debate, inequality was your friend. You should have hammered that point hard. You brought it up but nowhere near as hard as you should have.
Don't read arguments into your opponent that he hasn't made. The morality of homosexuality, whether the church accepts it or should accept it was hardly relevant in this debate and yet you continually pushed it. If you're going to devote so much energy to this, link it back to the resolution somehow so that I know why it's important.
You should have stuck with the adoption angle more. It sounds like a couple in a civil union has as much chance of adopting as a married couple there, but this is definitely NOT the case in most of the world. Both officially and unofficially, civil unions are seen as second choice to married couples when it comes to adoption. I'm pretty sure that adoption is actually impossible in NZ unless you're married... (citation needed) it's one of the reasons my sister and her girlfriend got married.

I think you had some of the right points in this debate, I just don't feel you argued them clearly or strongly enough.

CON - in my humble opinion, this was one of your stronger debates. Each of your rounds took hold of the debate and I found myself constantly seeing you as the one taking the lead. That is the mark of a strong arguer.
Your final rounds were definitely your strongest ones. I've accused you in the past of making your points look like they were cut down parts of a larger whole - that wasn't the case in this debate. In most cases you used just the right number of words to make your points.

The key to winning this debate was always going to be deflecting the "injustice" argument. I think being brief on this was the right approach. All the points I made to PRO above helped, but I think you did a pretty good job on this one.
Nice work. Your feedback is all good. More arguments like this one!
3 users rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
BlackflagBlackflag
Wish there was more personalized feedback, but I think I gathered a lot from what you gave 9spaceking. Thanks for the awesome judgement.
Posted 2015-11-04 03:14:56

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 4 rounds
  • 4000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 3 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29