• 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!

DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

So now we're no longer talking about pissing toxins but for any vague purpose. And we're not talking about sexual reproduction but the act of intercouse.

Keep moving those goalposts, you're bound to score on one of these attempts.

No, this is what we've always been talking about. YOUR narrow view has been shown to be fallacious. That's how debate works.
 
No, no - I never said "the main reason" and the context was a bit broader than just procreation.

Ah...so now your backing off, eh? So why don't you tell us what you really mean. You seem to be either having a difficult time expressing it or are getting caught in your own inaccuracies.
 
That's the problem with your position. The second part of my comment is entirely relevant and without it, the position...yours...makes no sense and is irrelevant. So I can understand why you omitted it.
My assertion makes perfect sense with or without your comment. You've been unable to explain otherwise.
 
No, this is what we've always been talking about. YOUR narrow view has been shown to be fallacious. That's how debate works.
Oh come on - do I really need to go back and post the history?
 
My assertion makes perfect sense with or without your comment. You've been unable to explain otherwise.

It may make sense, but not in the context of this debate. Try again.
 
PHP:
It may make sense, but not in the context of this debate. Try again.

For someone that talks so much about logic and debate, you're not really good at it. I'll ask you again a bit more directly this time to support your claim.
 
For someone that talks so much about logic and debate, you're not really good at it. I'll ask you again a bit more directly this time to support your claim.

You don't seem to know what we are talking about you have altered what you have said so often. Tell us what your position on procreation and marriage is. Try to stick to ONE position.
 
Sure. Tell us what the context of this discussion is.

I said:

No, no - I never said "the main reason" and the context was a bit broader than just procreation.

You claimed I was "backing off" from a previous position

Now prove it. Quote me.
 
You don't seem to know what we are talking about you have altered what you have said so often. Tell us what your position on procreation and marriage is. Try to stick to ONE position.

Third time: back it up
 
CC: What is your position

Taylor: no, what is yours

CC: but what is your position

Taylor: tell me yours though

Edit: guys, why don't you both make a quick statement of position on the topic, and start again from there.
 
CC: What is your position

Taylor: no, what is yours

CC: but what is your position

Taylor: tell me yours though
Believe me, it's incredibly frustrating.
 
CC: What is your position

Taylor: no, what is yours

CC: but what is your position

Taylor: tell me yours though

Edit: guys, why don't you both make a quick statement of position on the topic, and start again from there.

LMAO.

+ 5 Characters.
 
CC: What is your position

Taylor: no, what is yours

CC: but what is your position

Taylor: tell me yours though

Edit: guys, why don't you both make a quick statement of position on the topic, and start again from there.

Incorrect. My position is not in question here. Taylor's is. She's changed it so often, I'd like some clarification.
 
Incorrect. My position is not in question here. Taylor's is. She's changed it so often, I'd like some clarification.

So state your position for me, to answer my curiosity. Is it just that gay marriage should be legal for the reason of childrearing?
 
Incorrect. My position is not in question here. Taylor's is. She's changed it so often, I'd like some clarification.
Correction. CC is desperately trying to change the subject because he's been unable to provide proof on about three claims now and he doesn't enjoy being pinned down.
 
Correction. CC is desperately trying to change the subject because he's been unable to provide proof on about three claims now and he doesn't enjoy being pinned down.

Which 3 claims are you referring to?
 
Correction. CC is desperately trying to change the subject because he's been unable to provide proof on about three claims now and he doesn't enjoy being pinned down.

I don't need to change the subject. The subject has always been the same. Why are you avoiding presenting your position, Taylor? Do you know what it is? Come on...you want to discuss this? Tell us where you stand.
 
That's the problem with your position. The second part of my comment is entirely relevant and without it, the position...yours...makes no sense and is irrelevant. So I can understand why you omitted it.
We'll call this #1. Thus far he's been unable to say why my "position" is irrelevant without his comment.
 
So state your position for me, to answer my curiosity. Is it just that gay marriage should be legal for the reason of childrearing?

My position has been consistent on this and every thread I post in regards to this topic. Here is the backbone of my position:

No it isn't. The rearing of children is a major reason why the state should recognize marriage. There is a difference.

Taylor misrepresented my quote in a desperate but vain effort to bolster her position...a position that does not look at the whole picture. Since then I have been attempting to get her to state her position...which she seems to refuse to do.

There. Now you are up to speed.
 
We'll call this #1. Thus far he's been unable to say why my "position" is irrelevant without his comment.

Because you contradicted yourself...which is why it seems as if you do not understand what your position actually is. Tell us, is procreation the reason for marriage...based on the state?
 
Back
Top Bottom