Homosexual Marriage

[quote] Do you readers see what is going on? In this previous round, the Skeptic has made no debate arguments of his own. Even in the first round, all he did was attempt to rebuttal my arguments. Debate is supposed to be an engage when BOTH sides present cases. [quote] By refuting your arguments, I HAVE presented my case. The entire point of a debate is to pit arguments against each other. You present an argument, and I refuted it with another argument. I suspect that you are only saying this because you don't have an adequate argument to refute my position. [quote]Also... readers don't be swayed by the way he keeps saying everything is a "fallacy" and the way he tries to sound intelligent and overreaching to make himself seem knowledgable[quote] So my opponent accuses of me "[trying] to sound intelligent" when he, apparantely, doesn't even know the fallacies themselves? My opponent attempts to say that he knows more about debate than I do, and he doesn't even realize that knowing your logical fallacies is VERY important to debate. I called you out on your logical inconsistencies and you say I'm being pompous? It is you, sir, who should step down from the pedestal and actually refute my arguments. [quote] He just skimmed through my points and then just wrote about how I was wrong and what fallacy I was contradicting or whatever. He really gave no proof or the other side of the argument, hence the vote should go to con. [quote] How you were wrong and what fallacy you were contradicting or "whatever"? So you don't care if you commit a fallacy?! That is quite position - one that isn't embraced in the debating community. You then go on to say that I have no "proof" or "arguments". Are you kidding? Have you even READ my arguments? You say that marriage doesn't include gay marriage, I argued this is a red herring and that the definition SHOULD. You say gay marriage leads to polygamy and incest, I argued that this implies polygamy and incest are "bad" things; I thus argued that polygamy and incest should also be legal forms of marriage. You say heterosexual marriage helps prevent society from going into decay, I argued that marriage is already become scarce, and yet the crime statistics show that society is NOT going into decay. You say that gays can't reproduce, but I argue that this is committing the appeal to nature fallacy - that it doesn't matter if something is natural or not. You argue that gays should just not get married, I argued that marriage gives right so there IS a benefit. You argue that society is against gay marriage, I argued that this is a red herring unless you are a cultural relativist. Tell me. How did I NOT present anything but cogent counterarguments? [quote] I GAVE REASONS AND SUPPORTED WHY I BELIEVE GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG, AND MY OPPONENT DID NOT GIVE ARGUMENTS TO HIS SIDE, HE ONLY DISREGARDED WHAT I TYPED OR JUST ASKED A QUESTION THAT I ALREADY ANSWERED. [quote] This statement his ridiculous and a lie. How so? Just look up to my brief summary. ========== Conclusion ========== Voters, my opponent has conceded this debate. He has not given any new arguments (except to regurgitate past arguments). It's ironic. He has accused me of being ignorant and not giving any arguments when it is in fact HIM who is the culprit. He has only agreed to disagree, and nothing else. If it is true that I didn't give any arguments, then why doesn't he go through each of my responses and show how they weren't really arguments? My responses weren't monotonous and didn't consist of "I disagree, I disagree, I disagree". If he was so sure of himself, then why didn't he go through each of my argument (or in his mind, just disagreeing sentiments) and show the flaw in it? It's because he can't. It's funny, because his response mirrors exactly what my mom said yesterday. Let me give you an example: Opponent: I argue X is wrong because of Y Me: Okay, well I argue Y is a false reason because of Z, therefore X is not wrong. Opponent: You gave no reasons! No arguments! I win! Me: ...*twitch* He probably realizes that my rebuttals hold weight, and he resorted to this. That is the only tenable explanation I can think of, besides assuming he doesn't understand my arguments. Either way, it is I who has rightfully won this debate.