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

It is true that there were two sections of the parenting argument. I do think the second part was refuted, which is why I did say he did partially refute the parenting argument. Dealing with the first subpoint, it is important to mention that the Cinderella effect relates to supporting it regardless of the cause behind it, but does not fully encompasses point of biological parents.1. Biological Parents argument was not refuted. Firstly, this argument was totally in context unlike how my opponent falsely claims. In fact it was a whole subpoint dedicated to this argument in general. Even my opponent realizes this "Pro's [Zarroette's] argument is an argument against non-biological parents in general, not specifically against gay parents" [1]. The main point of the parenting argument had two supports, which both needed to be refuted to say that the parenting argument has been refuted. I noted that the second support was refuted, but never refuted the first subpoint which can fully carry the argument. Most of the debate under the first subpoint was about the cause of the Cinderella effect. That is important because they both agreed that the effect exist, this is why my opponent did offer an alternative theory of the cause which you would not do if you didn't think the effect was real. However, because both think the effect is real then this does support Zarroette's parenting argument that biological parents do better than non-biological parents. 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. "Finally--and very importantly--I rebutted Zarroette's entire argument with my overview. I wrote: "Gay parenting will happen in either world, so this point is non-unique, meaning that these harms will occur whether or not gay marriage is permitted. "This does not refute the argument since the argument was about the promotion of the best environment for raising children, not about banning gay parenting. This is why Zarroette opening line was "Part of the problem with homosexuals raising children is that they are not the biological parents. " Like my opponent recognized it not against gay parents specifically, but non-biological parents. "For Zarroette to successfully show that gay parenting was relevant in a debate on gay marriage, she needed to show that gay people would only parent or parent noticeably more frequently if given marriage rights. "Actually, all she need to show is that biological parents do better than non-biological, which same-sex parents would be non-biological. Like I said it about the promotion of the best environment for raising children which non-biological parents are not. Concluding, the argument that biological parents raise children better was not refuted, but actually affirmed by my opponent. 2. Marriage is about children argument was not refuted. This is not needed for me to win the debate, but in general this is about defending my RFD of the debate, and this is relevant to that. First, my opponent said he refuted it by showing marriage was not always about children, but it matter what it is today not what it was. So, to show historically it has not always been that way has no weight on that argument that marriage currently about children. If 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. Second, my opponent claims he refute the argument by showing the other benefits of marriage. First, his argument compares married to unmarried, but not those that government recognize and those that government does not. In fact he failed to show that government recognition of the marriage did anything about physical health, or social and economic stability. For that argument to have any impact on this they must have compared life-long unions that government recognizes to that of non-recognized, which none of that evidence does, so it should not count. 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. Her Job was just to negate the resolution like she said. "I am not defending 'the status quo' (i. e. divorce and re-marriage). I am defending the idea that homosexual marriage ought not to be permitted (i. e. the resolution)" [1]. However, to 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. That is why you can have procreation be an extrinsic than intrinsic. Also, also said "Pro focuses so much on procreation she seems to forget what follows. As I stated last round: 'procreation alone is not sufficient if a couple refuses or is unable to raise a child. ' Why should the purpose of marriage just be procreation, and not child-rearing? Surely, parents should do more than just produce bodies; they should make productive members of society. " Zarroette does realize that child-rearing is very important which is why she made the argument that biological parents raise children the best. The inclusion of infertile couples would not break any intrinsic link of marriage, and is not comparable to same-sex couples. Fourth, my opponent argued that allowing same-sex marriage would not prevent opposite-sex marriage from procreating. While this is true, it does break the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation. That is why my opponent correctly asked "why must the state become involved with this? " because now there is no link to children, because we are people to marry that have no means of a biological child, as Zarroette mentioned in round 4, no promotion of the best environment for raising children, and "In allowing anyone to marry on such fondles grounds [happiness], marriage will eventually degenerate into meaninglessness, thereby destroying itself" [1]. While Zarroette does not give the strongest example of what could happen to marriage the 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. It also important to point out both side of that debate used a slippery slope. My opponent used it when he mentioned that infertile couples can't procreate, and should not be able to marry then under Zarroette's thinking. The inclusion of same-sex marriage would fundamentally change what marriage means. Sources[1] . http://www.debate.org...