When in conflict, moral arguments should be valued over practical arguments.

"Moral argument: An argument that shows the morality or immorality of a certain position. Examples: Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a human being; gay marriage should be legalized because gays deserve equal rights; tobacco should be banned since it is harmful. " Mostly agreed, except for one thing: gay marriage is immoral. It is not right. They already have equal rights (. http://www.Debate.org......). They don't deserve more rights. I agree on abortion and tobacco. "Practical argument: An argument that shows the practical benefits or detriments of a certain position. Examples: Abortion is acceptable when childbirth is dangerous to the mother; gay marriage should be illegalized because intercourse between homosexuals can spread STDs; if we legalize tobacco, the government can make money by taxing it. " Your homosexual argument is still strange. Heterosexuals can also transfer STDs, but it would be entirely impractical or intelligent to ban that. "I think this is an interesting and important topic, and it's about time someone settled it. I don't feel very strongly about either side, so I will be debating PRO. " So this would have been better as a forum topic, not a debate. Why are you debating something when you don't feel strongly about either side? It makes for a weaker debate. "The resolution is meant to imply that the moral arguments and the practical arguments are roughly equal in significance. " Wrong. Your resolution is that moral arguments are more important. My argument can be either that they are equally important, or that practical arguments are more important. "Contention 1: Morality is timeless. Morality is morality. It may be dependent on the situation, but it is still timeless, in a way. What is moral in some situation now will still be moral in another thousand years. " Way back when, it was considered immoral for a woman to even show her heels. Obviously, times and morals have greatly changed. "Contention 2: The ends do not justify the means. We may be able to reap benefits from practical issues, but that does not make them right. We cannot do something simply because there are practical benefits: we developed public airlines because of WWII, but that does not justify the war. No, we cannot base our decisions solely on the outcome. " The ends can very well justify the means. WWII was to fight the evils of the Holocaust and Communism. If we didn't fight that war, thousands more Jews could have been killed, and we would have been further attacked by the Japanese. They would have taken Hawaii. It was necessary, so in this case practicality was more important than morality. "Frequently, committing an immoral act for the practical benefits leads to unseen side effects. This can be avoided by weighing morality more highly than practicality. " Frequently, acting impractically can lead to doom, death, and destruction, as in being unconditionally pacifistic. This can be avoided by weighing practicality more highly that morality. "I affirm that when in conflict, moral arguments should be valued over practical arguments. " I affirm that when in conflict, practical arguments should be valued over moral arguments.