Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage

My opponent failed to address my arguments on the affirmative basis so he has not upheld the con's burden of rejoinder, therefore, he automatically loses the round. In addition, he has failed to foliow the framework laid out in Round 1 Pro section meaning that he has no framework for his arguments at all except a shell of an advantages/disadvantages case. Because of lack of structure and logical progression my opponent does not deserve to win the round. In addition he resorted to ad hominem and other argumentative fallacies. Moving on: he was fallacious in his defense of his own points and made numerous concessions that proved my arguments valid. 1. "Men and women are historically similar according to this scientific argument" Neuroscience is an extremely ambiguous and tentative branch of biological science that is extremely difficult to understand. An argument appealing to universal differences in brain chemistry only supports and upholds the belief that ALL human brains are different, which you can cross over as a point for the pro in this argument. Brain chemistry and hormone chemistry are intertwined and can be attributed to that same difference in chromosomes outlined in Pro 2. The roles in society that my opponent refers to are in no way interrelated to the issue of brain chemistry, rather, they are historically linked to social patterns founded on basic biology- Men have typically held positions of power because due to genetics they are bigger and stronger. The main fallacy in this argument is its failure to reference the concept of gay marriage whatsoever. My opponent has lost sight of the issue at hand and resorted to trying to debate 5 topics at once rather than making a focused attempt to debate whether the United States Federal Government should pass legislation legalizing gay marriage. For this, he diminishes his already weak case. 2. Concedes that humans are natural because of our further brain development as related to other species. Provided a definition of unnatural with no source for his definition. And the definition once again factors into the affirmatives contention that human beings are unnatural because we are abnormal in comparison to other species. He then references nature in the fact that almost no animals are homosexual. This is attributed to argument I have stressed over and over again stating that only human beings inherently desire to form civil unions. The entire concept of nature is Unnatural so by the merit of my opponents own argument civil unions, society and institutions of law are all inherently wrong because they do not follow the natural course of nature. This argument is fallacious and filled with holes as there is no logical progression and no attempt to adhere to the normal methodology of debate. 3. My opponent completely disregards the merit of my argument and merely states that it is HIS belief that children should not watch social media. This is an absolutely pathetic attempt to justify a belief. MY opponent assumes that because HE believes this that it is true for every member of society. This holds no burden of rejoinder and generally lacks any factual basis relevant to society and instead founded on my opponent's belief that since he read something on an internet website that everyone believes the same as he does. This argument is lost and should be dropped my opponent at this point in the debate. He also fails to connect the issue to the resolution which indicates that my opponent lacks the ability to make the correlation between the issue under discussion and the issue of adoption. 4. Once again my opponent has only his belief to back up the issue at hand. He believes that church and state should not be separated and irrationally expects the remainder of society to listen to his utterly inconsequential opinions. This once again has nothing to do with gay marriage and should be dropped/tossed out of the debate. 5. My opponent misunderstands my statement and responds through a series of inflammatory remarks and a fiery loyalty to a political PARTY rather than a political Ideology. Liberalism does not equal the United States Democratic Party just as Conservatism does not equal the United States Republican Party. Princeton.edu (reputable source) defines liberalism as: a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution. This definition exactly correlates to the points that I made in my debate. The Republican party of the United states was formerly the liberal party and had an inherent belief in the ideology of liberalism which lead to the change in legislation. In the mid 20th century the democratic party became the more liberal party and enacted legislation. No where in my original statement did I reference democrats or republicans. So my opponent has once again failed to comprehend my arguments and has failed in his burden of rejoinder. Just to remind the audience: My opponent failed to address any of my arguments so those still stand under the affirmative burden of proof. Following the framework I set for the debate in round one I will be analyzing gay marriage from the viewpoint of Social/Political factors: Value: Pragmatism (Same Definition as in first stage of argumentation) Voting Criterion: Manifest Humanism Humanism: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason (Merriam-Webster) Manifest: The belief that something is inherently obvious and predetermined(Paraphrased from Merriam-Webster) Contentions/Flow of Argumentation 1. Establish the practicality of passing gay marriage as a necessary part of the advancement of mankind and even of our nation. The social contract is the belief that all members of society cooperate for shared social benefits. If we are to act as a civil society than we must realize that continuing to argue an issue as irrelevant as gay marriage is in direct violation to the ideas of this social contract. While the nation is enthralled by this issue their is rampant poverty and a bureaucracy embedded in a system that disempowers the voters ability to remove these men. The issue of gay marriage needs to be addressed in short time so that these real issues can be addressed. By upholding my value of pragmatism we must pass this legislation simply so we can advance to society's real problems and fulfill the social contract. If we hope to continue our reign as the dominant species we must realize that since the homosexual population of the nation will refuse to concede any points in regards to the legitimacy of their civil union- the only logical end to this issue is for the United States federal government to approve the legislation to make this issue a federal one and then to pass the legislation to make Gay marriage legal. Only then can we concentrate on the real issues. I am kicking the argument for the 2nd part of my societal-political framework because the topic has already been significantly addressed in the discussions over my opponents 5th contention and the true definition of liberalism. To rehash, affirming this legislation gives the United States the unique opportunity to be a forerunner on what should be an international question over the legitimacy of homosexual civil unions or "marriages". The United States government could use their increased devotion to civil rights as a springboard to make a real splash in the international community and shore up relations with first world countries such as those in the European movement. In addition the increased diplomatic leverage we gain by become obtaining a more legitimate advocacy of civil rights may make us more credible to the various second and third world countries where we are trying to institute a system of democracy. This would be a benchmark to add to our reputation.