Bsh1, in his debate with Zarroette, Failed to Refute her Parenting Argument

Thanks to Guidestone for accepting! I may quote him at certain points during the debate, in which case his remarks will appear in italics.PRO's CASE1. Refuting the Biological Parents ArgumentPro does remove it from the context, because he never discusses the impact Zarroette was attempting to make with it. Zarroettes argument was not only that non-biological parents were bad, it was also that because non-biological parents were bad, gay parents (who are non-biological) must also be bad.If I showed that what is true of heterosexual, non-biological parents is not true of homosexual, non-biological parents, then Zarroette's argument had no impact in the round. In other words, I would've refuted her argument.[B]ecause both think the [Cinderella] effect is real then this does support Zarroette's parenting argument that biological parents do better than non-biological parents."This statement disregards the nature of Zarroette's claim. Zarroette's specific claim was that non-biological parents were inherently worse due to considerations of evolutionary psychology. She wrote: "[The Cinderella effect] is a by-product of evolution." She also wrote: "Similarly, via the same evolutionary psychology, there will be tendencies towards neglecting or harming non-biological children." By contesting the argument that non-biological parents were not inherently worse, I did rebut her argument; resource theory also challenged her assumption that the observed abuse had to do with biology and not other factors. "In fact the claim that biological parents do better than non-biological parents was never refuted at all, and in fact my opponent implicitly acknowledge this."This is also a significant misrepresentation of my position. Resource theory did context that claim, and even if it didn't, I only ever conceded that heterosexual, non-biological parents didn't do as well. I always maintained that homosexual, non-biological parents did just as well, if not better. Remember what I wrote: "Gay Parents are highly motivated. Unlike stepparents, who may fall in love with their partner, but not their partner's children, gay parents seek out the child, whereas the stepparent does not necessarily do this. In fact, 'gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed, and more thoughtful parents than heterosexual couples. That's because they usually have to work very hard, and plan very far in advance, to become parents, and so rarely do so by accident'...So, what may be true of stepparents is not necessarily true of gay parents." Pro seems to think that there is no relevant distinction between heterosexual and homosexual non-biological parents. He seems to think that if I conceded for one group, I conceded for both. But that is just not the case. Even if heterosexual, non-biological parents aren't as good, that is not necessarily the case for homosexual, non-biological parents, because there are significant differences between the two groups. Essentially, SOME TYPES of non-biological parents might not be good, but not ALL TYPES are not good. Zarroette never showed that homosexual parents were bad, because she never was able to successfully show that what was true of heterosexual stepparents was true of homosexuals."[bsh1's overview] does not refute the argument since the argument was about the promotion of the best environment for raising children, not about banning gay parenting."But this is EXACTLY my point. The debate was never about gay parenting, and Zarroette never showed that she was promoting the best environment for raising kids because she still allowed gay parenting to occur. If she allows gay parenting to occur at all, she cannot claim to be ensuring the best child-rearing environments for children, and so she incurs the very same harms she accuses me of. It's hypocritical of her.Pro DROPS the following points I made last round:1. That I rebutted the Daly and Wilson study by noting a methodological flaw2. That I illustrated in the debate that gay couples would likely be more motivated parents2. Marriage is about Children"f someone looks at the restrictions on marriage they all relate to procreation. Only two people can have a child. Only and man and women can have a child. Two people of close genetic relationship have a higher chance of birth defect. Marriage today is about children."These were not arguments Zarroette made in the debate. Pro is basically saying that he voted for the side he believes in because he is using his own opinion instead of Zarroette's words to justify his RFD. More to the point, I noted in the debate that there were important benefits of marriage that had NOTHING to do with child-rearing, particularly spousal privilege. This goes to show that society recognizes the utility of marriage towards societal cohesion as well. And, if marriage placed such a huge emphasis on the ability to "have a child" why were infertile couples included?"[H]is argument compares married to unmarried, but not those that government recognize and those that government does not."Not only is Pro's argument here totally incomprehensible (if a couple is married, then that union is recognized by government), but it is another instance of Pro voting based on his own opinion rather than what occurred in the debate. Zarroette NEVER made those arguments. In fact, she completely FAILED to rebut them in any fashion whatsoever. My evidence clearly showed that there were tangible, concrete benefits to the health and welfare of the married couple as well as benefits to societal cohesion, thereby providing an alternative justification for marriage besides procreation."Third, my opponent claims to have refuted by mentioning infertile couples. Just to point out she does not have to defend the current law that allows that."Even if she didn't, she chose to do so, and once she did that, she had to resolve that problem/conflict in her advocacy for her points to remain logically consistent."[T]o test for fertility before marriage or mandate procreation would be a gross unconstitutional invasion of privacy to even enforce such a law. Also, most infertiles can procreate with a surrogate to have biological children. They are totally different than a same-sex couple."Again, Pro is inserting his own opinion into his RFD rather than voting based on the arguments that were presented in the ext of the debate. Zarroette never mentioned constitutionality, which was probably wise since this resolution was about any "just society," not the United States in particular. She also never mentioned that most infertile couples can use a surrogate, and in fact, if they are infertile it strongly implies that they could not have a biological child together. There is a difference between infertility and inability to conceive on their own. And, more importantly, if infertile couples have to resort to surrogacy, they are not producing "intrinsically" according to Zarroette, and so they should not be allowed to marry in the first place.Finally, regarding child-rearing, my argument was that rearing a child mattered more than simply having a child. So, even if gay couples couldn't procreate, they could still link into the more important good of parenthood. All I needed to do then was to rebut the idea that gay people couldn't parent well, which I did, and I won this point."[T]he point is still stands because my opponent only attacked the absurdity of the examples and not the point itself. There could have been better examples such as plural, and affinity marriages."Zarroette cited the possibility that were gay marriage allowed, people could marry spiders and the like. Clearly, that is an extreme example. If Zarroette had said plural marriages instead, she would've needed to explain why those were bad, since those can still be intrinsically procreative in nature. Regardless, this is not an argument Zarroette made, and I pointed out that allowing gay marriage would never cause marriage to fall that far. That was sufficient to rebut the claim Zarroette made.Pro never disputes that I rebutted the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy when I said: ""Firstly, how does an infertile, heterosexual relationship have an 'intrinsic link' to procreation. The intrinsic link argument asserts that heterosexual marriage is moral because it is ordered towards procreation; but surely, if procreation is so special, would we not exclude infertile couples to even further order the institution toward that goal?...Secondly, why must the link be intrinsic vice extrinsic? If procreation is our goal...it is not sufficient that a union can procreate, but that they actually procreate. That means that extrinsic procreation...is also key."CONCLUSIONPro either misunderstands my points or inserts his own biases into the debate rather than voting off of what was actually presented in the ext of the debate. Thus, the resolution is clearly negated. Vote Con!Source: (see prior links)