Gay marriage

Right off the bat, I am already noticing some fatal flaws that hurt my opponent's case. Let's start off with the fact that my opponent has provided a definition much later than I did. Since it's also just the implementation of a definition, and is not a kritik on my definition, my definition of the word "sates" remains solid. Your so-called evidence does not prove my case wrong due to a major hole in your claim. I did not say that states are Asian dishes, I stated that SATES are Asian dishes. Those are two totally different words. Since your statement is not true, your rebuttal on my sates argument has collapsed entirely. I read your first argument carefully, and you said SATES. Hence your quote in Round 1: "I believe that Homosexuals should be able to get married in the United Sates Of America for a variety of reasons. " I would use this debate as a source, but anybody can just read your claim in Round 1 to know that you said "sates". Your argument is invalid. Your sex argument is not sound. I had to assume you meant that erections and sex are bad, since I don't know why else you would put that there. Your whole statement involves two points: 1) That erections and sex won't occur for gays 2) That being gay is not a choice and they cannot help it. First of all, you speak of these points as if they are in relation to each other. They are not. One point is about sex and erections, and another is about naturally being gay. You just say that gay people won't get erections and a lesbian would not get aroused with a guy. Are you trying to say that's a good thing? What is it about sex and erections that may be beneficial or not? You just state that gay/lesbians won't be attracted to the opposite gender without taking a clear position on the topic. What is it about sex and erections that is so important? And now that I have officially refuted your "states definition" argument, it's fair to say that any point of yours about it being wrong/right for gays to marry is invalid. Since we are discussing sates, I think it's wrong or immoral to cook (or at least heat up to extreme temperatures) a gay couple. You have not refuted that claim, thus, it stands strong. That's my point. I believe the real question is, what's your point? I am not trolling, you put the word "sates" in your first claim. You did not refute my definition quickly enough and have failed to refute my case as a whole. You only make the bare assertion that I am a troll. But by my definition of troll that can't be right. Troll-"a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills". I don't know why I would be debating online if I lived in the caves. I think you're the one who's being ignorant. And finally, for the final major flaw. So you're using the Supreme Court as reasoning for why gay marriage should be legal? You cannot piggyback off of the Supreme Court and treat that as your own argument. This argument would make sense if the topic was "Gay marriage will be legal". Since I would've been wrong about gsy marriage not being legal, I would have lost. But just because something happened doesn't mean it should be legal. People still debate about whether cigarettes should be legal, even though it's already legal everywhere. The "this is legal right now argument so it SHOULD be legal" argument is flawed. You need to specify WHY something should be legal, not that it is legal. Maybe if you could have used some points that were made in the Supreme Court case, then that would've made sense. But instead, you just decided to piggyback off of the Supreme Court and use that as an argument. Now please tell me, why would you assume that I "have nothing? " Are you simply underestimating me by assuming that this dull point actually refutes my argument? I would like to point out that my opponent hasn't fully rebutted my case, meanwhile, I have rebutted all of my opponent's points in his/her case. As a whole, my opponent's arguments fail, since he/she has not specified all of his/her points and did not fully rebut my case. I have refuted both my opponent's case and his/her rebuttals.