Resolved: Same-Sex Marriage ought be legalized in the United States

Alright ladies and gentlemen, it's pretty much time to wrap the debate up and tell you why you should vote for me rather than my opponent and affirm the resolution that same-sex marriage ought be legalized in the United States. Not once in the course of this entire debate did my opponent rebut anything said about my subpoint 2b other than where he said that he could argue that the denial of same-sex marriage could be constitutional, which doesn't really hold much ground based on its reasoning, as I've explained earlier, so you can extend my subpoint 2b across the flow. Not once, also, did my opponent make an argument against my rebuttal of his case except where he tells the judges to just disregard the flaws in his case. He doesn't make an argument against anything I said, really, so extend my argument across the flow. The main point that you should also extend across the flow in this debate is Subpoint 1a. My opponent has made no real rebuttals against this point. I've shown you that the spread of acceptance and tolerance, or what my opponent would call "promoting the gay lifestyle," actually reduces these negative statistics in their community. Acceptance provides morale and self-esteem for homosexuals, moving them away from a life of promiscuity, drug and alcohol use, STDs, and other negative things that only debilitate them more. Of course, don't take my word for it. Take the word of the three respective pieces of evidence, including the study from Emory University referenced and explained, that tell you the exact same thing I'm arguing right now. What's my opponent's only response to this contention? Just a simple denial of my evidence's argument along with an obscure, almost phantom study on homosexual domestic violence where my opponent doesn't tell us the exact amount of homosexual domestic violence rates, how much they will go up by, and when trying to find the study, it doesn't show up anywhere. I asked my opponent to explain the evidence he had because I didn't have any luck finding it, and surprisingly enough, he doesn't post anything that will be of aid. At that point, my Subpoint 1a still stands, thus Contention 1 still stands because my opponent didn't knock down its entirety. That means that my Contention 2 stands as well because I argued that same-sex marriage is moral because it betters society and provides equality, so extend that across the flow as well. As for my point about civil unions, he didn't argue my defense of my point about marriage being better than civil unions. As I said, I do affirm of civil unions and states moving in that direction to have them legalized, but civil unions are more of a first step than a permanent solution. I'm arguing here that marriage provides more equality and that it should be considered over civil unions. Civil unions are good, but marriage is better. Even if my case seems a bit contradictory that I affirm civil unions but affirm more of same-sex marriage, my opponent did the same thing that he did last time: he failed to get to the meat of the argument. He failed to show that civil unions are indeed to the same level of equality than marriage and that my subpoint is wrong. My personal beliefs are one thing, but when we analyze civil unions in entirety, we will realize it is not a permanent solution. I will admit, civil unions are good first step, but it's not marriage. My opponent failed to address that. Then we move on to the argument about tradition. My opponent makes this argument about a so-called contradiction that I keep making, which is an argument that really doesn't make sense at all. In fact, I would even go all the way to say that this is nothing but a strawman argument because nowhere in my argument did I even imply that homosexuals cannot be wed under marrige. He goes on to explain that I am supporting the legalization, supporting the marriage of homosexuals over civil unions as an alternative, and made an explanation as to why tradition really doesn't have to be followed and when deviated from actually has bettered the society. I said nothing about the actual practice (institution) of marriage other than we're changing the rules of it, hence me saying that it changes the institution, but my opponent makes this big leap to saying that I'm saying that gays cannot wed under the institution of marriage. It's an argument that doesn't really link, and my opponent fails to show that link in his argument against the entirety of my case. So, at the point where my opponent makes this big leap, that's nothing more than a strawman. Also, my opponent really doesn't argue against my rebuttal against his own where I clearly pointed out the logic to you, the only logic that he procided. He also doesn't argue against my argument about his circular reasoning, so extend those arguments across the flow. The only thing that he states against the economics argument for subpoint 1b is: it doesn't make sense. No explanations except a totally irrelevant study on same-sex civil unions in the state of Vermont. Before making my argument against his evidence, please note the difference between my studies on the economics of same-sex marriage and his study on the civil unions of Vermont: Because we live in a capitalist society functioning under the same capitalist rules, we can take a study sample from a state about the economics and apply it to the whole of the United States because it's all the same function under the same system with the same conditions. Not to mention, it's been duplicated with consideration of the multiple states that have allowed for same-sex marriage, so we know that same-sex marriage increases revenue. My opponent's study, on the other hand, cannot be applied to all of the population because not all of the population is the same in every state considering the different idealisms across the country. Same-sex marriage increases revenue, but I won't say that the revenue from California will the same as the revenue in Kansas. What point am I trying to get to here? My opponent is taking this isolated survey in Vermont (which is irrelevant anyway because it talks about during the civil unions and not after the marriage) about the idealisms of the gay community and trying to apply these results to all of the country implicitly from the argument that he's making about the gay population in general. That's flawed. And at the end in Contention 3, we can see that my opponent is making a totally irrelevant case. What I was arguing is that because we live in a democracy where the government works mainly for the people as is dictated in the doctrine thereof, we must consider what the population believes with regard to it, and as my evidence suggests, the majority of America is supportive of same-sex marriage, so it would be upholding the obligation to an indirect democracy to uphold those mainline beliefs. However, my opponent just keeps talking about placing it on a ballot and the chances of the outcomes when no one is talking about placing it on a ballot. No one even has to place it on a ballot. It's all about upholding the majority (when upholding the majority is correct in a case), and by legalizing same-sex marriage, that is what you are doing. My opponent hasn't really argued anything against Contention 3. So the final question here is: why will the judges vote for me? Judges, you will vote for me because I addressed every single attack against my case and fully sustained it. You will vote for me because my opponent's attacks against my case are either fallacious, ungrounded, or both. You will vote for me because my opponent just tells us to disregard my arguments with no real points of his own and doesn't defend his case AT ALL against my attacks, so he implicitly concurs. You will vote for me because my points stand over his. Judges, marriage is a beautiful thing, and it's unfair and impratical to keep it only between men and women.