Gay Marriage I

Conduct Vote/Extension of Case: For my opponent's forfeit, I'm definately winning the conduct point for my punctuality in this debate. Not only that, but my arguments have been extended across the flow. This is influential because my opponent has forfeited in the final round of the debate, meaning that no more arguments from his side can be made anymore. Since my opponent cannot make any more arguments and has not responded to everything I said about his own case, he essentially has no case at this point of time, meaning that regardless of whether or not I give a final rebuttal, I would be the winner of this debate. My argument against my opponent's case is pretty solid, so I'm just going to move on to the arguments from my side.R1: We see the contradictory logic of my opponent over and over in this part of the debate. His case argues that homosexual couples are inherently less in worth than heterosexual ones but holds infertile and abstient couples to a higher worth although according to his own logic, these couples would be just as worthless as the homosexual ones. He completely supports the marriage for these couples, however. These marriages violate the very principles of marriage my opponent is trying to promote, but he says there are always exceptions. He doesn't explain what the exceptions are nor does he explain why they in no way apply to homosexuals. My opponent asks of me to provide a reason for the existence of marriage, but (1) doesn't respond to my question to his logic as to why marriage would be needed in order to compensate for human inability to self-reproduce (2) provides leniancy for couples whose only warrant for marriage is desire. He also begs the question in the case of other second-class citizens.R2: Gay marriage in the context of bettering society would just be a governmental function in order to uphold its legitimacy, and whether or not it enforces a moral view is more or less irrelevant in this context. If looking from a moral context, however, I explained that my opponent's position also enforces a moral view from the opposite side, meaning that if my opponent wanted to charge at my case with such a moral context, he needs to provide a warrant to why his moral view enforced would be better than mine, which he doesn't since he forfeited the round. R3: I already explained about the economy and how it functions. Broken Window Fallacy is not applicable because my opponent provides no evidence that gay couples will have incentive to spend more during a ban of gay marriage. Summary: All of my points go unresponded, and my opponent in essence has no case because he has not responded to anything. At the end of this round will be my sources for the debate, plenty more than the absolute nothing of sources my opponent has provided. This means I have won the conduct, argumentation, and sources votes. Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com........................;. Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu........................;. Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org........................;.