Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

In this round I will do the following:1) Addresses PRO's counterarguments2) Demonstrate how PRO COULD HAVE WON THIS DEBATE3) Reaffirm the summary I profferred in round #4, i. e. my closing statement.1) PRO's counterarguments. a) PRO states that "argument from authority is not a valid form of argument without REASONS to back it up. " I'm sorry, but this is childish. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine are Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Both were pivotal in the debate surrounding the ratification of the US Constitution. Both were key figures in the birth of this country. If this is not enough "reason" to have them "argue from authority", I will simply say that they have more of an expert opinion than anyone that has ever lived, as do all the Founding Fathers. They may not be perfect, but they are the best we got. I simply cannot believe PRO wishes to waste time discussing this point. I reaffirm that "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion. "b) I will ignore his philosophical arguments, as they seem to argue from an assumption of fallibility, which is pointless and not constructive to debating, as we are not arguing about concepts of truth and validity. We are arguing about whether or not sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest. c) A Domestic Partnership Contract is "any contract by which two private individuals agree to share expenses and pool resources in a domestic setting. " This contract is a private good. This is essentially akin to two people drawing up a budget for themselves, and defining who takes out the garbage, who buys the groceries, etc. . d) Finally, FINALLY, PRO gets to the meat of the debate by clearing up the misconception that he was talking about military benefits. He is now clearly NOT talking about military benefits, but the benefits of MARRIAGE. For some reason he put this in the context of the military for whatever reason I cannot fathom because military service is clearly irrelevant to the concept of marriage and actually hurts his argument. I have been waiting this entire debate for PRO to mention this one word, MARRIAGE. This is PRO's strongest point, and yet he spends only one paragraph on it in this ENTIRE DEBATE, and he puts it in the absolute worst possible context. Since my opponent does not discuss marriage, and the burden of proof is on him, I will also choose to not discuss marriage. I will now address PRO's points in regards to military marriages specifically:i) off-base housing - this is the same as private actors finding housing and cohabitating WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. The government cuts them a check as PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, the private actors take care of their living arrangements. This has nothing to do with domestic partnership contracts - it is a benefit associated with EMPLOYMENT. Unmarried, single military personnel living off-base enjoy these housing benefits as well. ii) married housing - Servicemen/women do not have a say when it comes to married housing on-base. They are ordered by their commander to occupy a house with their family, and they follow orders. There is NO CONTRACT INVOLVED in regards to cohabitation or to seeking companionship. Thus this is not a sanctioned domestic partnership contract. Also, one can argue that for the interests of mobilization and deployment, the government should NOT provided SEPARATE housing accomodations to married personnel, and that ALL military personnel should live together AS ORDERED by their commanders, and that marriage detracts from a soldier's obligations. Ask any marine about this, whose life is almost subsumed by camraderie with their semper fi brethren, and they will tell you that the government did not issue you a wife. iii) separation pay - Separation pay is highly contested. It goes against the spirit of equal opportunity employment by discriminating against unmarried military personnel. Marriage detracts from a soldier's obligations in that SEPARATE HABITATION REQUIREMENTS APART FROM YOUR UNIT actually diminishes a unit's ability to mobilize and deploy. We are no longer talking about cohabitation here, but rather its opposite. iv) spouse insurance - SGLI is a private-sector-equivalent form of life insurance, and it is subsidized by the government. The subsidy is highly contested. Life insurance itself has nothing to do with a "domestic partnership contract" - you can assign anyone to be a beneficiary, even a non-profit corporation. Thus my opponent's use of the phrase "spouse insurance" is highly misleading, as both married and unmarried personnel can enjoy SGLI. v) survivor benefits - same as life insurance, see above. Therefore, as we can see, benefits accrued to married military personnel are pretty much the same as those accrued to unmarried military personnel. There is of course a degree to which married military personnel receive more of these benefits than unmarried personnel, but whether or not this is a "legitimate government interest" is highly debatable in that it overtly discriminates against unmarried personnel. Marriage in the context of the military also dramatically reduces a unit's ability to mobilize and deploy, and actually creates SEPARATE HABITATION arrangements, NOT COHABITATION arragements in that soldiers should live together to be more effective. Regardless, my opponent has chosen not to debate these issues. The key is to remember that the government is a serviceman/woman's EMPLOYER.2) Demonstrate how PRO COULD HAVE WON THIS DEBATEIf you want to know how, see the comments section. (irrelevant to the actual debate)3) Closing StatementI will reaffirm all of my round #4 closing comments. I will add:A) Over 90% of PRO's statements have been red herrings, and that apart from his voluminous and irrelevant philosophical ramblings, things like government "carrots" were HIS POINTS, not mine. Government carrots and corporations as individuals are indeed red herrings, and especially in the case of corporations (MONSANTO) were quite irresponsible of my opponent to bring up. B) My opponent asserts that I believe "government has a responsibility to encourage Domestic Partnerships through works, and therefore collect taxes to fund that work. " No, absolutely not, he is putting words into my mouth. I assert that government's role is "to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms. " My opponent does too, indeed these are his words. However, to "fight [for] that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens," it may at times have to compromise the freedoms of some of its citizenry for the "greater good", and that Freedom is not free. C) Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government interventionD) The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship. E) PRO did not discuss marriage, only military marriage. The various stipulations and regulations accommodating marriage in the military DETRACTS FROM A UNIT'S ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND DEPLOY, and SEPARATES THE SOLDIER FROM HIS UNIT. F) If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion. "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, PROVEN. G) MY OPPONENT HAS NO ARGUMENT. HE FAILED TO DISCUSS MARRIAGE, AND THUS DESERVES TO LOSE THIS DEBATE. BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON MY OPPONENT AS STATED IN ROUND #1 AND HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY.