"Resolved: Gay marriage should be okay in the united states"

"I don't see how my opponent does not understand my cities, and yes they were relevant to the debate." No they weren't. They did not provide any evidence for me. They had nothing to do with the contents of your arguments. "I did give my opponent the evidence they asked for." No you haven't. You said: "most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional." I asked you to provide evidence for this, and you have failed to do so. This weakens your case. "The bible is not irrelevant." Yes it is. This is not a religious debate. This is a debate about same-sex marriage being legal. In a secular state such as America, religion has no sway over laws. "I would like to ask how is same sex not harmful?" It's not harmful because it does not cause harm to anyone. If it did, there would be evidence of this. If there was evidence of this, surely you would have provided some? "HERES AN EXAMPLE THAT NOT ALL STATES WANT GAY MARRIAGE" It does not matter what certain individuals believe. As I have established before, it is bigoted discrimination to not allow same-sex couples to marry. It does not cause any harm. "Id like to say that my opponent failed to attack my case!" Of course I did. I dissected every facet of your case in my second round. "See, I think that's the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children." The burden is 50-50 here. We each need to prove why same-sex marriage should be legal. I have proven my burden, you have not proven yours. "They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society." I do not have to prove that it would benefit society as a whole. I just need to prove that it would not harm society as a whole. I have done this. In fact, looking back at my second round, you can see that I provided an example of how this would benefit society. I argued that allowing same-sex marriage would mean more homosexual couples could adopt children. Surely it is beneficial for homeless children to be adopted. "They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children - nothing." The absence of incriminating evidence would suggest that there is quite simply, nothing morally wrong with same-sex marriage. Once again, I must ask: How does same-sex marriage affect religious liberty? This question has still not been answered by my opponent. The next big portion of my opponent's argument is irrelevant altogether so I won't be addressing it. " Isn't it better that they be legally married to each other, if for no other reason than for the benefit and the welfare of the children? The answer is no - because of the consequences to society as a whole." What consequences? You have failed to provide evidence of any existing or potential consequences, so this premise is dropped. "We know it's best for children and for society that men and women get married. We know it's healthier. We know it's better for men. We know it's better for women. We know it's better for communities." No evidence. No argument. "Do you feel confident that if same-sex marriage became the norm in our society that we would get less traditional marriage? The answer is yes, because marriage then becomes, to some degree, meaningless." Marriage would not become meaningless. It would still be performed for the same purpose that it does today, except now same-sex couples would be allowed that same opportunity. "We have, in fact, seen a decline in the number of marriages, a delay in people getting married, more children being born out of wedlock and higher rates of divorce." Once again, no evidence. I can not simply take your word for this. "Well, the laws in this country are built upon a certain worldview, and it is the Judeo-Christian worldview." This is demonstrably false for many reasons. First of all, looking again at the first amendment, we can see that our legislators are not legally permitted to make laws that respect religion. Some of the more prominent founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists[2]. Additionally, in the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams writes, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[3]." So in summation, I see no other ballot than that of the pro. I have provided credible sources to back up my claims and I have made arguments based on the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Treaty of Tripoli. All very important American legal documents. My opponent has provided no evidence for any of her claims regarding same-sex marriage being harmful, so her case can not be taken seriously. Furthermore, she has not addressed my case, nor has she addressed my attacks on her case. Her case is dismantled, and mine stands strong. Not only that, but her arguments from her 2nd and 4th round were simply copied and pasted from another source. She is not even attempting to argue with me. Most importantly, my opponent has not established that same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional. This was important because the topic is referring specifically to the United States. For these reasons and more, I strongly urge a vote for pro. Thank you. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources 1)http://www.pewforum.org... 2)http://www.britannica.com... 3)http://www.stephenjaygould.org...