OVERVIEW: It's game, set and match in terms of substansive debate in this round. Delorted CONCEEDED both the Dublin and the Tatchell evidence which means two things.
This is becoming really annoying. Can you stop putting words in my mouth? Thanks.
I know your tricks - you were bragging about them before. Find a block of text, and dump it in front of me. For me to begin to want to read those LUMPS of text, you need to be fair and format it in such a way that's easier on the eyes and more concise. It's simply proper debating etiquette. Also, can you stop refering to me in the third person? Speak to ME. You are debating against ME.
State your points at ME. None of this "he completely ignores..he concedes..his language infers.." etc.
ONE - as per Tatchell, life will be better post-plan because as gays become more accepted in society it spurs a cultural revolution; because gays offer a unique approach to the norm of a male/female dichotomy, this opens up new avenues to solve global conflicts because of gay rejection of the cult of masculinity and violence that characterizes collective political violence. Thus, the plan is able to cause a paradigm shift - once the US recognizes the rights of a major minority, we could possibly regain our human rights credibility and ultimately our policies would be modeled globally, emancipating humanity from forms of oppression on a global scale. His ONLY answer to the entire Tatchell article is "what a load of sensationalist bull****" - but even if his criticism is true, the warrants of Tatchell's argument are still there, meaning that you default this advantage to the affirmative because it is a straight up concession.
You realize the outcomes you just came to were hypothetical. Congratulations on calling me on something you continue to do yourself.
And yes, I'm sorry. THE NEXT HOLOCAUST? HOLOCAUST. Are you sure you wish to use that word? HOLOCAUST. COMPLETE DESTRUCTION. BY FIRE. Do you think there will honestly be death camps for gays? Gay methodical extermination? OF COURSE NOT. What you said was clearly a huge exaggeration. So yes, it is complete and utter bull**** what you posted. Never will such a travesty occur on American soil.
No, I'm not conceeding. Never will I conceed, so stop putting words in my mouth.
TWO - He completely ignores the Dublin evidence which means you can sign the ballot for the affirmative right now. Because silence is compliance, he agrees that you should always evaluate systemic harms above forecasted harms because forecasted harms are subject to the values of the 'prophets' who make them - in this case, people who are against gay marriage and come up with ridiculous negative impacts that bring out the worst in us, making us behave in narrow, selfish, self-defeating ways. Denying gay marriage on the basis of predicted (and non-unique) impacts is narrow minded, a selfish ideal to keep marriage in the hands of heterosexuals, and as per Tatchell will only serve to reify the oppression of the status quo. Also he conceedes that every action must be taken to combat homophobia if we ever want to be rid of it in society - in order for that wall to come down we must smash it by legalizing gay marriage.
---
Wow, just wow. Silence != compliance. First of all, I posted that at school, during my 2nd period spare, and I was running out of time. Second, it had nothing to do with gay marriages! All it was was insight on to people who make forecasts. It was a ridiculous generalization, DoH, and you know that. As I've said for the third time now, you're hearing what you want to hear, believing what you want to be believing, and applying knowledge from outside sources which were not intended to be used the ways you are using them, and a lot of times have no meaning or base into this topic.
Take global warming. Are you telling me to completely ignore the forecasted harms before we completely solve the systemic ones first? Like seriously, foresight is key in elements to every debate, issue, topic, etc.
Now on to the line by line.
me said:
It surely can be called legitimate. Can it be called fair? You say probably not, and then I point to the polygamists in the crowd who cry the same as you. Why are you ignoring this? You cannot have it both ways. Just because homosexuality is now more generally accepted, that still doesn’t mean you aren’t in the same boat as those who have different sexual preferences when it comes to this issue. If you try to make the US government legitimate in your terms, you have to acknowledge the fact that others will still call it illegitimate.
At the point in which the USFG is in the middle of such a giant performative contradiction that is its foreign and domestic policy it can no longer be considered a legitimate institution on the issue of human rights. With one hand it spreads democracy while divsively splitting the country with the other. US legitimacy worldwide is on the decline as our hegemony decreases and the world shifts towards a multipolar world rather than a unipolar one.
Your langauge clearly indicates a totalizing position - you lump everyone who falls outside of the norm of heterosexuality into one boat; you put the gays, polygamists, practicioners of incest and beastiality all into one group because we're different. This is just a manifestation of otherization where you group us together as a common threat to the status quo to deny our individual struggles - I'd say it's you who has the bias here. I'm passionate about this because I want to secure my right.
Sorry if you took my previous boat statement the wrong way. The boat which you are all in, is none other than the S.S. Can't Marry. The groups mentioned all currently cannot marry.
I'm not casting all the non-heterosexuals into a boat due to fear of them, or due to threat. Moving on.
Also this isn't even an offensive position, so even if you won it there would not be a reason to negate.
You take "winning" a paragraph to be the end all and be all of this debate. Slow your roll.
Me said:
First of all, are we allowed to speak directly to the judges like that? Anyway:
You call it a tyranny, I call it being utilitarian. But you might say that for it to be truly utilitarian, then gays should be allowed to marry. Right, that would make sense. But allowing gays to marry will spark much of what I mentioned before, causing the attempt at being utilitarian to become cancelled out, due to the outrages of the straight community. Because remember, opening up the definition for marriage must encompass everyone with your arguments, DOH. It’s sad, but it’s true.
The judges are tabula rasa - blank slates. We direct the debate and they decide.
Try to stick to a more easily accessible and less arrogant debate system then, kay? What's the meaning of posting your entire argument in font that fills my screen so I have to continue scrolling like a beast? Why the tiny font sized paragraphs? You have to be fair to me.
First off, the negative makes several mistakes here. He conceedes that it's not just our central advocacy, but what that type of advocacy justifies as well. This means that his utilitarian arguments are void because he falls into the trap of the tyranny of the majority. But also he conceedes that my advocacy of gay marriage would win out in a utiliatarian framework - big mistake.
Never once did I ever say that. I'm speaking to YOU, remember that. "But you might say that for it.." - A preemptive statement. I don't conceed. I'm simply going along with your instinctual thought process, ending with the "Right, that would make sense."
Because he never gives you any warrant or reason as to why I have to encompass polygamists, etc, I'm never going to justify any other forms of marriage (I'll get to this later in the line by line) which means not only do I win in both a policy and a rights based framework, but also this framework of utilitarianism...hat trick for DoH. Also, cross apply Dublin to here as well - you're not even going to evaluate his impacts.
Haha - I never give you a warrant why you need to encompass polygamists, etc? Okay. Here's one. Oh wait, why don't you say it? You've been saying it all along.
Why do you deserve to marry, DoH?
Now I know this is hard DoH, but you'll have to take that juicy bit of emotional reasoning and apply it to the other groups in question. Because you see, they have the
exact same reasoning as you do, and failing to recognize them as a group nullifies your entire arguments on rights and freedoms - You can't expect to get equal rights and freedoms and then deny them to others. Stop this hypocritical nonsense. I've been saying this all along, so stop saying I haven't given you substantial warrant or reason.
I'm only responsible for direct results of plan – I'm not morally culpable for intervening actors.
What?
Gewirth, Edward Carson Waller Distinguished Service Professor, Philosopher, 1982 (Alan. Human Rights, p. 230 )
The required supplement is provided by the principle of the intervening action. According to this principle, when there is a causal connection between person A's performing some action (or inaction) X and some person C's incurring a certain harm Z, A's moral responsibility for Z is removed if between X and Z, there intervenes some other action Y of the person B who knows the relevant circumstances of his action and who chooses to produce Z or who produces Z through recklessness. The reason of this removal is that B's intervening action Y is the more direct or ultimate cause of Z and, unlike A's action (or inaction), Y is the sufficient condition of Z as it actually occurs. An example of this principle may help to show its connection with the relavist thesis. Martin Luther King Jr. was repeatedly told that because his demonstrations in support of civil rights, he was morally responsible for the disorders, riots. and deaths that ensued and that were shaking the Republic to its foundations. By the principle of the intervening action, however, it was King's opponents who were responsible because their intervention operated as the sufficient conditions of the riots and injuries. King might also have replied that the Republic would not be worth saving if the price that had to be paid was the violation of the civil rights of black Americans. As for the rights of the other Americans to peace and order the reply would be that these rights cannot justifiably be secured at the price of the rights of blacks. It follows from the principle of the intervening action that it is not the son but rather the terrorists who are morally as well as causally responsible for the many deaths that do or may ensue on his refusal to torture his mother to death. The important point is not that he lets these persons die rather than kills them, or that he does not harm them but only fails to help them, or that he intends their deaths only obliquely but not directly. The point is rather that it is only through the intervening lethal actions of the terrorists that his refusal eventuates in the many deaths. Since the moral responsibility is not the son's, it does not affect his moral duty not to tortue his mother to death, so that her correlative right remains absolute.
Don't even get me started. You know this is confusing and you're doing it on purpose. If you want to summarize that for me, go ahead, because as it stands now you cannot under any circumstances expect me to read that in its entirety. I would literally have to draw a flow chart to understand this in its current form. I should not have to do that.
And you know, I'm not afraid to say that I found it confusing. I think by now people don't see me as an idiot, so don't try and fool me, DoH. I just think its sad you have to resort to that. Hopefully the judges will see that, too. Quoting large blocks of texts and acting like you adopt and understand it all will only get you so far..and it doesn't inherently make you sound smart and/or correct.
Second, even if it is possible to accurately calculate the consequences of our actions, each potential world is an entirely unique package of results that’s impossible to weigh – his impact scenarios are will fail regardless.
Says who?
Next, a consequentialist analysis has no bright line to determine which of the infinite potential consequences of an action we should consider – this creates paralysis and makes action impossible.
Individual dignity outweighs all consequences – sacrificing dignity for survival is a Pyrrhic victory. A better alternative is to find a way to ensure survival that doesn’t treat individuals as a means to an end - in this case, the end being sustaining the cult of heteronormativity by refusing to recognize the rights of gays. This logic of extreme utilitarianism - exemplified by his 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' comment - can lead to genocide, slavery, and possibly extinction.
Want to tell me how it could lead to those outcomes? Hypothetically, of course. Oh wait ...
(did you see what I did there, DoH?)
Callahan ’73 (Daniel, Director of the Institute of Society, Ethics, and Life Sciences, The Tyranny of Survival, p. 91-93)
The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs. During World War II, native Japanese-Americans were herded, without due process of law, into detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsuv. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of survival, the government of South Africa imposed a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights... it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival with a “tyranny of survival.” There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. The potential for tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values. Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a destructive singlemindedness that will stop at nothing...To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage the need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so. Either way, then, would represent a failure, and one can take one’s pick about which failure would be worse, that of survival at the cost of everything decent in man or outright extinction.
The Callahan evidence serves as a complete impact turn - if the negative wins, then we risk sacrificing everything decent about humanity to maintain oppression, and all the advantages the plan can confer serve as disadvantages to the status quo.
This is why I call you sensationalistic. You act as if denying gays the right to marriage is the end of humanity as we know it. You actually, ACTUALLY, made a reference to the Holocaust! What's next? Bush is Hitler? What the hell are you talking about?
Me said:
Root word: Nature.
You’re saying that homosexuality is natural, not nurtured. Why are you denying this? It makes no sense. I’m not saying either. But you cannot actually tell me that you aren’t saying it isn’t about nature vs nurture. Again, you’re hearing what you want to hear, and believing what you want to believe.
You're not saying either...therefore there's no argument here, nor an offensive position you could win. At the point in which you're not going to pick a side and defend it, the judges default to the affirmative on presumption since I'm the only one offering a context for evaluation.
Haha. There's no argument. I'm not going to pick a side, because I'm on the fence - there's evidence on both sides. But that in itself is a side.. just as being an agnostic is a side in the main trifecta of views on God. (Theism, atheism, agnosticism)
me said:
You would HAVE to allow them because then you would be contradicting yourself.
Why? Why? Why? You can't tell me why because you have NO warrant to this claim because it's not true.
Stated above.
Each of these individual adjustments have to have individual justifications for them. Also the number of people that support gay marriage is astronomically larger compared to those that support polygamy. You're not taking population into account in your statements, just making a fallcious argument that has ZERO basis in reality and is empirically denied. Gay marriage is legal in your own country, do you have people marrying dogs, doors and dozens of women in Canada? NO.
Haha. Nice try. You see, in Canada, gay marriages were only up until recently banned as well. The thing you have to remember is that the full effects of social changes often take generations to manifest themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3004930.stm
Only a matter of time, DoH.
Take a look at some of these cases..all recent years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage
The reason is because a) there is 0 public support for your kind of alternative marriages, and b) your slippery slope argument has no independent warrants.
Lollllllll. Stated above.
Me said:
Irrelevant. They could sign a document them forcing them not to procreate, but still enjoy the social benefits of marriage. (Forcing them not to allow kids would inherently anger Joe Hillbilly and his lovely sister as well.)
Yes, gay incest is probably pretty **** rare. But it’s probably happened. Anyway, incestuous marriages are not detrimental to society. How are they? If they aren’t having kids, there’s no problem. Why can’t I say that gay marriages are detrimental to society?
Legalizing gay marriages will cause so much internal conflict within the US that I, at least, don’t see it as being that constructive.
The impacts of not granting equality and giving into the tyranny of survival outweigh this claim. Also you conceeded Dublin - your hypothetical impacts have no weight in this round. Outside of 'well the gays can do it,' what independent justification does incestuous marriage have? NONE.
HAHA. Tell me something DoH, what outside of "well the straights can do it", do you have in the ways of independant justifications? THE VERY SAME OF THE OTHERS! You are no better than the polygamists, etc. They have just as much right as you do, if you do!
Also you never articulate a reason why gay marriage itself is bad - this combined with Gewirth's theory of intervening actors means that my advocacy of gay marriage is not responsible for any legalization of detrimental forms of marriage. Also if you look at it from a realistic standpoint, incestuous marriage would never be legalized by any court.
How come? How can the courts actually stand there and fully contradict themselves? I fully see it as a realistic possibility that only gets more possible with each day.
Me said:
If people can leave their entire will (house, riches, bonds) to their CATS, (yes, this has happened. Woman dies, leaves her entire fortune to her cat(s).) they can get married to them. Only in the US.
Wrong again. Marriage is a completely different form of a contract that requires mutual consent (not to mention legal standing) from both parties. Sorry Fluffers, you can't marry me because you're a cat. But I'd really think that Fluffers would rather eat and then sleep on a pile of newspapers than get married.
That's funny. The gay guy all of a sudden is trying to define marriage rather than leave it open ended? Wow. Too bad for Fluffers.
Me said:
Why does it have to be two? Why does it have to be unrelated? Why does it have to be PEOPLE? Questions that will be asked.
You're begging the question sir - why should it be more than two? Why would they be related? Why would it be inhuman?
Even if these questions are asked, they still don't carry independent weight enough for validation in a court of law.
Sure they do. They carry the same amount of weight as yours.
You see DOH, the US is an extremely litigious society. That is to say that if someone has an opportunity to sue someone just for the money, they probably will.
Coffee cup not labelled properly. A fine example. I’m willing to bet that once the marriage laws are open, people will take advantage of that and attempt to sue the country for inequality or some other lame reason like that, ruining it for straights and gays who just want to get married. And they can’t say no, because they just allowed the gays to marry, which would be a double standard on top of the previous double standard.
Call my argument a slippery slope, but it is inevitable. Slippery slopes are not inherently flawed – they are mainly for sophistic purposes. Yes, my arguments are hypothetical, but so are yours, if you really look at them. You can’t be that optimistic that allowing gays to marry will be all rainbows and sunshine.
Not only is your slippery slope argument inherently flawed because you have no internal link (supported by evidence or logic) as to why gay marriage would lead to these other impacts you claim, but it's also empirically denied - look at other countries that have legalized gay marriage, such as your own, Canada. Yet again, I ask you why there aren't polygamists flocking to Canada to fight for their 'right' to marry multiple people. You say the US is a lot more litigious than other nations, but it is also more conservative - not only would your impacts never come to fruition, but their proponents would never even get to a high court.
I have answered every element in this paragraph somewhere in this beast of a post.
My arguments are not all hypothetical - there is an injustice being perpetuated right now in the status quo; that impact is systemic and concrete. Once again cross apply the Dublin evidence; my status quo harms outweigh any hypothetical arguments you can offer.
Cough* So you're saying you're better than those weirdo freaks who want to marry their sister! Right on! 'Cause like, marrying sisters is ****ed up guys.
Me said:
It’s not inherently bad. I don’t think homosexuality is wrong. Why would I say you are a freak, or a bad person, or anything of the such? I’m no bigot, I’m just saying the detrimental, and imminent effects of legalized gay marriage.
Yet you offer no evidence of how these impacts actually would happen. Funny thing.
Could you give me substantial evidence that legalized gay marriages would go over smoothly?
Again...not really an argument since you don't offer a warrant. I can make baseless claims all day too if you want but that would get us nowhere. How do I contradict myself?
Enough with this warrant business..
I'm biased? Duh. This debate is extremely personal to me because I am arguing on the behalf of my own people. Not only is gay marriage one of the top two most divisive political issues in the nation (along with abortion), but it also affected the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, certain races in the 2006 midterms, and also was the subject of a proposed amendment to the US constitution in both the House and the Senate. All of your other issues have clear answers but no real solutions - global warming, terrorism, racism, violence are all bad things but we can't answer them with a simple piece of legislation or Executive Order or court decision. At the point in which we can answer this question through the courts, since they have historically been the protector of rights, then I see no reason why we shouldn't. If you don't think gay marraige is an important issue, then why are there 3 topics on it this round of the tournament and why is our topic the one round with usually the highest number of views?
Well, here's where we pat each other on the back. In the main matchup thread, people were expecting this to be a good debate - and it has been, no hard feelings at all - it has the most views because it's probably one of the more interesting ones out of the topics. And we're just super awesome Peach players who wtfpwn at debating.
But again, you're saying we can end your "suffering" if a simple piece of legislation is passed with a few more words tacked on to the marriage definition. And I'm saying that that might not go over so well in your country, so it *might* be best to leave it be.
Sometimes, it's better to stick with the devil you know than the devil you don't.
UNDERVIEW:
Judges, this debate comes down to two things; impacts and in what framework to evaluate them in. At the point in which delorted has conceeded the Dublin evidence, you're always going to evaluate the systemic harms that the affirmative can solve (discrimination, governmental legitimacy, reaffirming the wall of separation between church and state, and breaking down a mindset that legitimizes violence against those who are different) above the forecasted harms the negative supplies.
I haven't conceeded anything.
Also, he's not giving you any warrants for his claims or any form of impact analysis - he's not telling you why polygamy could arise in world where gay marriage is legal (especially since it hasn't been an issue in the 6 countries that it is, including his own) or even why specifically polygamous marriages would be bad. In short, the negative is simply not doing enough work to create an offensive reason to vote for him.
Do I have to spell it out for you? I can imagine SO many court cases, like some insurance company not granting Spousal Life Insurance due to the fact that they don't recognize incestuous marriages to be real. That's just one example. Can't you think of plenty other court cases that would clog your judicial system? Most likely the courts would eventually cave and force everyone to accept these different marriages to be real, which in turn would anger so many people!
The straight couple will argue that the man-dog couple does not have equal rights as them, etc.
What about violence? You seem to forget that your country is still dealing with racism, especially in the south, which is where I imagine most of these ridiculous marriages to begin. Can't you see repeats of people getting out pitchforks to go kill the local pig-****er?
Like I said.. give it time. It's foolish right now, for both of us, to assume any outcomes..because trying to predict the results of signifigant social change say, 50-100 years down the line, can be a fool's game. One which we are both playing, you saying it'll be fine, me saying it probably won't.
With that all said, judges, I want you to sincerely look at my position when facing DoH's posts - they are intended to be confusing to read and hard to follow, so it's easier to catch a slip-up, as he did with me "conceeding."
I ask that you think why he needed to resort to such tactics, and why he can't just simply give a fair debate, and that you don't inherently side with DoH because of the impressive looking quotes.
