• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

vesper said:
I suggest you learn from history. In ancient times homosexuality along with bestiality , incest, polygamy were practiced. There are reasons why these things were found to be detrimental to society and stopped. When you do that you may have a better understanding.
Click to expand...

We have far more knowledge on issues such as these, today, then we did in the 4th Century. It is pure nonsense to apply 4th Century knowledge to 21st Century decisions.
 
vesper said:
I suggest you learn from history. In ancient times homosexuality along with bestiality , incest, polygamy were practiced. There are reasons why these things were found to be detrimental to society and stopped. When you do that you may have a better understanding.
Click to expand...

ROFL! In other words you believe the past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. That is an appeal to tradition fallacy by definition. Is that the best you have? The circumstances have changed; and thus the old assumptions are no longer valid.

As far as lumping bestiality and incest with homosexuality...well glad to know you think so highly of gay folk.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The logic and facts that I present are what carry the credibility... and sink yours.



You advocate against SSM and like most, base your argument on a lack of logic and a lack of substantiation.



I pretty much never argue from a civil rights position, so you obviously don't know what you are talking about.



And notice how this is changing. As the old, reactionary guard dies off, the newer more enlightened guard takes over.



And unless you can actually come up with a legitimate and logical argument that has some substantiation, your socks aren't going anywhere except right back to you.
Click to expand...

BS alert!!! No matter what argument is presented to you in regard to same sex marriage you find it a fallacy. Let the record stand. For you to claim authority over such things proves you are nothing more than a political hack. Now I have a really nice pair of black and red striped socks I'm willing to forfeit to you to stick in the appropriate orifice. Cheers!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I know, I know. It's hard to pay attention and stay focused when you are being beaten so badly and you keep fumbling over the fact that logic and information is devoid from your side. But see, I always find it invigorating to help those who are inept at debate become better. However, I don't like to do the work for them... they must learn. So, with that in mind, let me assist you in learning how to follow a debate and how that debate originates and progresses. Now, I'm not going to do the work for you. You're going to have to do it. So, let's start here... tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
Click to expand...

No, no it was your 20 man rubber study that you cited in your post.

Then you changed things to "what I said" instead of the 20 man rubber study. Way later, you claimed you didn't have a link for it. I'm not buying that. As much as you talk about studies this and studies that, I'm sure you have a link for it. So where is it?
 
vesper said:
BS alert!!! No matter what argument is presented to you in regard to same sex marriage you find it a fallacy. Let the record stand. For you to claim authority over such things proves you are nothing more than a political hack. Now I have a really nice pair of black and red striped socks I'm willing to forfeit to you to stick in the appropriate orifice. Cheers!
Click to expand...

I've heard some good, valid arguments against same sex marriage. The problem is with YOUR arguments. They are fallacious. They lack logic. There are logical arguments against same sex marriage. You just aren't using any.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
We have far more knowledge on issues such as these, today, then we did in the 4th Century. It is pure nonsense to apply 4th Century knowledge to 21st Century decisions.
Click to expand...
Actually it was 1st century. tisk tisk
 
vesper said:
BS alert!!! No matter what argument is presented to you in regard to same sex marriage you find it a fallacy. Let the record stand. For you to claim authority over such things proves you are nothing more than a political hack. Now I have a really nice pair of black and red striped socks I'm willing to forfeit to you to stick in the appropriate orifice. Cheers!
Click to expand...

In other words, when confronted with the facts and logic that sink your argument, instead of trying to learn from your errors, you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears, demonstrating the weakness of your position.

So, what have we learned here? That you argue solely with logical fallacies, slippery slopes, appeals to tradition, overgeneralizations, and that you don't even understand the definitions of these fallacies, probably why you keep committing them, no matter how often this is pointed out to you. What this leads us to understand is that your education on this particular issue is based solely on your ideology, since your logic and substantiation are nil.

Now I do hope that you have learned from this little interlude so next time you might fare a little better.
 
vesper said:
Actually it was 1st century. tisk tisk
Click to expand...

You posted 324 AD, so I just took what you said. It's pretty irrelevant, though. Your comments were easily refuted as nonsense and having no logic.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
No, no it was your 20 man rubber study that you cited in your post.

Then you changed things to "what I said" instead of the 20 man rubber study. Way later, you claimed you didn't have a link for it. I'm not buying that. As much as you talk about studies this and studies that, I'm sure you have a link for it. So where is it?
Click to expand...

Still having a difficult time following this debate? I know you are trying to morph it and keep tripping over yourself... and it is amusing to keep pointing out your failures, but we do need to stay focused. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
 
CriticalThought said:
I've heard some good, valid arguments against same sex marriage. The problem is with YOUR arguments. They are fallacious. They lack logic. There are logical arguments against same sex marriage. You just aren't using any.
Click to expand...

Fallacious? That seems to be a common word used by so many of YOU. No they do not lack knowledge, on the contrary my arguments posted in this thread have for the most part were to express the results of redefining marriage and how they open the door for the same arguments to be used by other groups who are currently shunned in society. Don't like them? Tough stuff cream puff.
 
vesper said:
BS alert!!! No matter what argument is presented to you in regard to same sex marriage you find it a fallacy. Let the record stand. For you to claim authority over such things proves you are nothing more than a political hack. Now I have a really nice pair of black and red striped socks I'm willing to forfeit to you to stick in the appropriate orifice. Cheers!
Click to expand...

He is like putting a quarter in a juke box that plays only liberal talking points
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Still having a difficult time following this debate? I know you are trying to morph it and keep tripping over yourself... and it is amusing to keep pointing out your failures, but we do need to stay focused. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Cite the 20 man rubber study that you used as "evidence" or whatever you want to call it. You made claims off that "study". Where is it? Who did it? When?
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Nope.

Cite the 20 man rubber study that you used as "evidence" or whatever you want to call it. You made claims off that "study". Where is it? Who did it? When?
Click to expand...

Sorry, the debate has already been framed and you are running from it because you committed many flaws, so I am helping you to do so. Tell me how the entire discussion on condom use started, what your position was and what my position was.
 
vesper said:
Fallacious? That seems to be a common word used by so many of YOU. No they do not lack knowledge, on the contrary my arguments posted in this thread have for the most part were to express the results of redefining marriage and how they open the door for the same arguments to be used by other groups who are currently shunned in society. Don't like them? Tough stuff cream puff.
Click to expand...

Fallacious means an error in logic. Apparently you are fairly new to debate.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two of the fallacies I have seen you use in this thread alone were...

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to be taken seriously as a debater then you need to learn the basics of logic and forming a rational and coherent argument.
 
Rocketman said:
He is like putting a quarter in a juke box that plays only liberal talking points
Click to expand...

And look who just walked in the room. I'd suggest you help out those on your side of the issue (they sure need it), but we KNOW that all you will do is hurt your side with whatever you post.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And look who just walked in the room. I'd suggest you help out those on your side of the issue (they sure need it), but we KNOW that all you will do is hurt your side with whatever you post.
Click to expand...

blah blah blah (liberal talking points)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In other words, when confronted with the facts and logic that sink your argument, instead of trying to learn from your errors, you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears, demonstrating the weakness of your position.

So, what have we learned here? That you argue solely with logical fallacies, slippery slopes, appeals to tradition, overgeneralizations, and that you don't even understand the definitions of these fallacies, probably why you keep committing them, no matter how often this is pointed out to you. What this leads us to understand is that your education on this particular issue is based solely on your ideology, since your logic and substantiation are nil.

Now I do hope that you have learned from this little interlude so next time you might fare a little better.
Click to expand...

Braahahahahah.
You have nothing.....simply nothing to legitamitly refute the slippery argument I presented.
duh.
You neither have a grasp on the history of homosexuality and why it was deemed destructive as early as the first century. But hey continue your march in the so called bastardization of civil rights for the cause in the name of emotion. After all everyone should have the right to marry whom they love. Right? So when Daddy believes he has the right to bang his adult daughter, in the name of the same bastardized civil rights, we can thank folks like your for making it all possible. Cheers!
 
vesper said:
You neither have a grasp on the history of homosexuality and why it was deemed destructive as early as the first century.!
Click to expand...

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

Appeal to tradition is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

1. The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.
(In actuality this may be false—the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.)
2. The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.
(In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.)
Click to expand...

In other words, the people who lived in the first century were wrong to believe that homosexuality was destructive, and even if in some cases it may have been true in their time and situation, it is no longer true. That is why your argument falls apart.
 
CriticalThought said:
Fallacious means an error in logic. Apparently you are fairly new to debate.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two of the fallacies I have seen you use in this thread alone were...

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to be taken seriously as a debater then you need to learn the basics of logic and forming a rational and coherent argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah I am well aware of the so called "fallacies". When you hold yourself to the same standands then maybe you have a right to address me. Cheers
 
vesper said:
Yeah I am well aware of the so called "fallacies". When you hold yourself to the same standands then maybe you have a right to address me. Cheers
Click to expand...

I can address you all I want. And feel free to point out when I make a fallacy. Unlike you, I welcome the chance to become a better debater from learning from my mistakes.
 
vesper said:
Braahahahahah.
You have nothing.....simply nothing to legitamitly refute the slippery argument I presented.
Click to expand...

Every slippery slope argument you presented was summerily refuted either by me or someone else. Easily and without much effort I might add.

You neither have a grasp on the history of homosexuality and why it was deemed destructive as early as the first century.
Click to expand...

You have no understanding or grasp of this issue whatsoever. Your entire argument lacks logic and since it is very difficult to discuss any issue with someone who doesn't seem to understand basic logical tenets in discussion, discussing this issue with you has been challenging. No substance can be presented, since you can't present information without it being logically wrong. For instance, as CT said, what you posted above is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy and is therefore not pertinent. You don't seem to understand these basic concepts even though they have been pointed out.

But hey continue your march in the so called bastardization of civil rights for the cause in the name of emotion. After all everyone should have the right to marry whom they love. Right? So when Daddy believes he has the right to bang his adult daughter, in the name of the same bastardized civil rights, we can thank folks like your for making it all possible. Cheers!
Click to expand...

So, along with your standard slippery slope logical fallacy... something that your entire position is based upon, we can add an appeal to emotion to your repertoire. Good job.
 
CriticalThought said:
Appeal to tradition fallacy.



In other words, the people who lived in the first century were wrong to believe that homosexuality was destructive, and even if in some cases it may have been true in their time and situation, it is no longer true. That is why your argument falls apart.
Click to expand...

Oh contraire, The laws to abolish it were in direct result of its detriment on society. When you do your studies on the history, get back with me. Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom