Marriage is a Civil Right.

I have read my opponent's case in full and I still maintain the Pro position. To sum up my case as I will not present new arguments since my opponent cannot respond: 1)My opponent, the instigator, presented a definition for civil rights. I accepted the definition. 2)My opponent's definition matched, to a letter, the definition of civil and political rights in a UN Covenant she referred to as legitimate on numerous occasions in her argument and one she proffered in the opening round. I agree the source is legitimate, I never contended otherwise; I did contend she misapplied the source. 3)The UN Covenant, by virtue of the preamble, enumerated many civil and political rights as ones that "[derive] from the inherent dignity of the human person" – marriage is listed as one of those rights. 4)We have an agreed upon, authoritative source supporting an agreed upon definition posited by my opponent. The Con position cannot stand as her definition and source, both adopted by Pro, rebut her position. 5)My opponent transposed a civil right with the civility of a right. I addressed this and no rebuttal was offered. This transposition was fallacious. R3 contentions from Con: 1)My opponent is pleased that I agree marriage is not universally defined. I stipulated this point in the first round. My opponent does not address my further point in R1: "My opponent appears to further the definition of a civil right to mean a universally agreed upon right, but I can find nothing to support such a restrictive definition to a civil right." (Pro R1, 2A) Con presented a positive assertion, was challenged, and never defended the statement. She had the opportunity to do so. Proving a negative is difficult and I can only say, in the absence of any source material showing otherwise, that my study of civil rights has not once provided a basis for this restriction or used this restriction in any capacity. I still do not accept this point as further defining a civil right, and my opponent never supported it. 2)My opponent states, "In fact, the very fact that marriage has to be defined AT ALL makes it little more than a product of human imagination. My opponent has offered no evidence to show that humans are genetically or biologically driven to marry." After reviewing the resolution and the agreed upon definition, I see no need to offer genetic or biological evidence for marriage and would not offer the evidence in order to define any other civil right. Again, I can find no evidence to support the proposition that a right must have a genetic or biological origin to be considered a civil right, and my opponent offered none. In addition, the need for definition of any object, idea, right, etc does not place the defined occurrence in the realm of human imagination; this statement is unsupported and does not apply to this debate. 3)If my opponent contends a right must be universally agreed upon in order to be a civil right, she provided no evidence to support the contention and our agreed upon definition does not support this contention either. 4)My opponent did not want to be forced into a decision pertaining to marriage as a civil or political right and described my argument as semantically driven. I made a joke about how legislation and covenants are written and took steps to clarify the document. My opponent took these steps as criticisms. I must say that once a source and definition is agreed upon, the ENTIRITY of the source document is vital – legislation more so than others. My opponent's contention cannot stand as she presented, and we agreed upon, the source; she cannot divorce herself from it in the final round. Who had better conduct? 1) Pro made a typo which con recognized and did not use as a contention. She saw it was a typo and continued with the debate - definite plus for Con. 2) Con started R2 with this statement, "due to the lack of research there are several reasons why my opponent's rebuttals cannot stand." When I evaluate the debates on this site, I look for statements like these and, unless sound, I count them as a negative. My distaste for such comments is due to their use when debating young adults. I do not do this when debating young people. My opponent has no idea what I have researched in my academic career. I saw nothing in my opening round suggesting I am not familiar with civil rights or quasi-legislative documents. I find statements like this presumptuous. I have used a similar statement one time during a debate with Sadolite, who insisted on ranting the whole time, all the while ignoring presented material helping with his misunderstanding. 3) Con reworded my argument in R2 claiming I was, "saying that the source is too broad for just one definition. However, Pro side, don't bend the wording." A review of my argument will show I did not ever say or imply this contention. Also, I did not bend any words; I took great care when dissecting the UN Covenant and did a very thorough job of it. I generally quote my opponent, not reword their arguments to suit me. I count these as negatives in my evaluations. 4)Other than these minor points, Conduct was pretty even. Spelling and Grammar. Nothing stands out – even. Convincing arguments. I stated my argument as clear as possible, and can add nothing more here. Voters will decide. Sources: The Pro position must win this one. Pro accepted Con's one source and both agreed on the definition. Pro had no need to add more as this one source was accepted and considered accurate by both sides. Con made a point to show that Pro presented no sources; however, Pro accurately applied and interpreted the one source better than the Con position and that one source was the basis for Con's position. The only poor aspect of this debate was Con's complete refusal to put forward the full definition from Black's Law Dictionary. I still do not understand this reluctance on Con's part. My request was not unreasonable. I even offered for the definition to be presented in the comments so as to not take up space. Two requests went unheeded, yet con still wrote of her two sources. Maybe Con can explain this in the comments as I am at a loss. This refusal alone should grant Pro the source advantage. I have never failed to accommodate reasonable requests from my opponents. Overall this was a good debate and I will debate with this opponent again. I enjoyed the topic.