I wish to debate anyone (gay,straight,monkey,alien) on the topic of gay marriage compared to polygamy.

I will be on the polygamist side and arguing that if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists...

Any takers?

P.S.: For extra fun I can throw in close relatives' marriage, as long as it doesn't produce children.

P.S.S.: Mind you, I want to be polygamist not because of religious reasons but because I like pussy, and I want it legally... :)

I agree. People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish.

~String

Hey, if we agree there is no debate!!!

Mind you, I want to be polygamist not because of religious reasons but because I like pussy, and I want it legally...

Well, I was going to take up the proposition, and then I read that line. As I consider it indicative of mental illness, I'm not sure if there's a point to the debate.

But, to the other, I shouldn't let pointlessness stop a discussion at Sciforums. Thus—


I will be on the polygamist side and arguing that if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists...

—you're on.

Shite, It's on.
My bet is Syzygys won't have the patience/endurance to match T's massive posts .

Well, it's such a limited proposal, there's not much to spend the words on. Presuming he actually keeps to his proposition, maybe I'll be repeating myself.

Well, we have the slight problem that I have Tiassa on Ignore, but just for the sake of the debate I might make an exception in this thread, although I do NOT read long posts, specially when they are long on rhetorics and short on arguments.

Also, I am NOT going to argue that I am a 50 year old wishing to be married to a couple of 14 year old virgins. For most people that is what polygamy is, but they are mistaken when we are talking about CONSENTING ADULTS.
If 3 or more consenting adults wish to be married to each other in one family, they have EXACTLY the same rights or arguments than gays do.

Argue against that.... :p

Shite, It's on.
My bet is Syzygys won't have the patience/endurance to match T's massive posts .

1. Are you saying you are willing to argue the opposite I stated or you are just happy that Tiassa voluntered?

2. You might be right about not having the patience of putting up with bullshit. :)

Well, we have the slight problem that I have Tiassa on Ignore, but just for the sake of the debate I might make an exception in this thread, although I do NOT read long posts, specially when they are long on rhetorics and short on arguments.

Certainly makes thinking easy, doesn't it?


Also, I am NOT going to argue that I am a 50 year old wishing to be married to a couple of 14 year old virgins. For most people that is what polygamy is, but they are mistaken when we are talking about CONSENTING ADULTS.
If 3 or more consenting adults wish to be married to each other in one family, they have EXACTLY the same rights or arguments than gays do.

Argue against that....

I await your opening argument, and even admit to some curiosity about whether or not you will restrict it to the point you noted at the outset and reiterated above (boldface portion of quote).

And, for the record, if you manage to stick to your basic proposition, it shouldn't be too long a response. I doubt I'll need to renegotiate the 1,500-word cap (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1639547&postcount=1).

1. I am still waiting to see if there are others interested.

2. I am not sure I need to make the opening statement, since I am in the position, that pretty much EVERY argument for gay marriage alson APPLIES to polygamy (and incestious marriage too).

So Athelwolf or any gay advocate could list his/her arguments and we can go through it why they wouldn't/shouldn't apply to polygamy.

If I throw in the religion argument, polygamy actually makes more sense than gay marriage, unless of course the gay person wishes to marry for religious reasons... :)

2. I am not sure I need to make the opening statement, since I am in the position, that pretty much EVERY argument for gay marriage APPLIES to polygamy (and incestious marriage too).

Really? That's all it is? You don't care to make a formal argument?

I mean, you did after all, propose this debate. It might be helpful to your argument if you would at least attempt to detail the point.


So Athelwolf or any gay advocate could list his/her arguments and we can go through it why they wouldn't/shouldn't apply to polygamy.

Huh?


If I throw in the religion argument, polygamy actually makes more sense than gay marriage, unless of course the gay person wishes to marry for religious reasons...

That would be a distraction compared to your original proposition. The argument in favor of gay marriage is legalistic, not religious. Religion only enters the gay marriage discussion insofar as it's hard to take religious people who have no care for their own religious doctrine seriously. There's no integrity in demanding that religious rules be applied as law when the religious rules aren't important to the actual religious people who are demanding they be applied in law.

Really? That's all it is? You don't care to make a formal argument?

Sure, I could. Right now I am researching the arguments for gay marriage.
When I find one that DOESN'T apply to plygamy, I will post it. Otherwise my arguments for polygamy would be the same as for gay marriage.

The debate is not about polygamy vs. marriage but gay marriage vs. polygamy.


That would be a distraction compared to your original proposition.

1. I am a very distractive person.
2. I reserve the right to use any and all kind of argument to support my case, even if I personally don't care for it...

If people smoking pot on religious grounds can get an exception from the government why can't polygamists ??

Aren't you guys supposed to start making rules right now? And sygfdgudthd, you have to actually make an opening argument in the formal debates section.. Maybe try Law and Order if you have no previous experience??

Why would I be making rules if there are no takers? (or the one who voluntered I don't wish to debate?)

Maybe try Logic 101 if you have no previous experience. :)

P.S.: Read the Subforum, I was involved in 80% of the debates in the last 6 months or so....

Aren't you guys supposed to start making rules right now?

For my part, the standard rules (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1639547&postcount=1) are more than adequate for dealing with the proposition as it stands. If Syz wishes to change the proposition, I'll have to assess the argumentative needs against the rules for that.


• • •



2. I reserve the right to use any and all kind of argument to support my case, even if I personally don't care for it..

Well, all I would ask is that you stay relevant.

OK, since nobody else voluntered, I guess I have to take Tiassa. Let's make sure we are understanding what the issue is (because I have a feeling we might have a missunderstanding here):

I state that logically and morally there is absolutely no difference between gay marriage and polygamy, so IF gay marriage is legal (or made legal) than so should be polygamy too.

Again, the debate is NOT about why polygamy should be legal or not, but that it should be treated exactly the same as gay marriage.

By polygamy I mean marriage between 3 (edited) or more CONSENTING ADULTS. (so let's cut the children forced to be married crap from the start)

So, since I don't really have any masterstatement to make, I say it is Tiassa, who should start with an opening argument stating why polygamy and gay marriage should be treated differently...

I guess, the title of the debate could be:

Why polygamy and gay marriage are different (thus Tiassa making the positive statement, need for opening argument)

I state that logically and morally there is absolutely no difference between gay marriage and polygamy, so IF gay marriage is legal (or made legal) than so should be polygamy too.

Okay, now you've changed the proposition. Time to negotiate the rules. I'm likely throwing out the 1,500 word cap.


Proposition 1 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2147652&postcount=1) — ... if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists.

Proposition 2 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2148104&postcount=7) — If 3 or more consenting adults wish to be married to each other in one family, they have EXACTLY the same rights or arguments than gays do.

Proposition 3 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2148533&postcount=16) — I state that logically and morally there is absolutely no difference between gay marriage and polygamy, so IF gay marriage is legal (or made legal) than so should be polygamy too.

Notice that the first two are pretty much the same. But it is my understanding, based on your latest post, that you intend to argue the third. Is that correct?

Because as much as you might not like long posts, the revised proposition calls for longer posts. You opened any number of doors with that.


By polygamy I mean marriage between 2 or more CONSENTING ADULTS.

That's a new definition of polygamy. I'll call it a typo, instead. Would that be fair?


So, since I don't really have any masterstatement to make, I say it is Tiassa, who should start with an opening argument stating why polygamy and gay marriage should be treated differently...

I guess, the title of the debate could be:

Why polygamy and gay marriage are different (thus Tiassa making the positive statement, need for opening argument)

Well, it's your proposition originally, whether in the original or revised form. With no detail to respond to, there's nothing for me to post.

All 3 propositions are basicly the same and I won't read anything over 500 words.*

Yes it was a typo, I corrected it.

*Rule #1: If you can not be concise, you are most likely illogical. No more than 4-500 words per post.

Rule #2: Anybody who uses footnotes automaticly loses.

Rule #1: If you can not be concise, you are most likely illogical. No more than 4-500 words per post.

Rule #2: Anybody who uses footnotes automaticly loses.

Okay, dude, I've been trying to be polite about something, but this is just getting absurd. Two questions:


(1) Why did you propose this debate when you don't seem to want to undertake it?

(2) What the hell are you afraid of?

Seriously, I'll tell you what: Write whatever opening argument you want, and I'll spend exactly four words in response: "You are absolutely correct."

And then you can be happy and tell all your friends how smart you are.

Will that work for you? Or are you going to get serious at some point?

Just waiting for your opening argument...

Also, the challenge was not particulary for you but anyody (debating you wasn't really in my mind), but looks like most people agree with me... String said it best...

Just waiting for your opening argument...

It's your proposition. And according to the standard rules (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74147),


1. The debater for the affirmative side of the debate will create the "Debate" thread and post the first post, setting out his or her main arguments.

As it's your proposition, you are the affirmative. And despite your contention that, "All 3 propositions are basicly the same", the third is a broad and ill-defined expansion of the first two versions. If you actually write an opening argument, then we'll have a better definition of what you mean. Otherwise, you're simply asking me to think for you, to presume what you mean.

If you wish to renegotiate the rules, now is the time to do so. For instance, specifically reject your proposition of a 500-word cap. If you stick to one of your first two propositions, I probably won't even need the full 1,500. If you want to expand according to the third, we might need to bump it as high as 3,000. It all depends on how many new points of argument you wish to add.


Also, the challenge was not particulary for you but anyody (debating you wasn't really in my mind) ....

Ah, so that's what you're afraid of? Or, perhaps more directly, did you really think I would pass on such a thesis?

It's okay, though. If you want to back out, that's fine with me.


... but looks like most people agree with me... String said it best...

Most people? Interesting. A whole sample of one? And when did String's general assertion of opinion become some sort of fact? In other words, how does his contention that, "People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish", pertain to your first proposition that, "if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists"?

He certainly doesn't address that connection.

Affirmative:

1. Asserting that something is true or correct, as with the answer "yes": an affirmative reply.
2. Giving assent or approval; confirming: an affirmative vote.
3. Positive; optimistic:

Depends on how the original proposal is worded:

Since I am saying "gay marriage and polygamy are NO different:, that is not affirmative. :)

But anyway, I will start if it makes you happy. For those who don't know Tiassa, here is an example of his ability to shit words. Click on the ban list and see what he gives as a reason for being banned. It takes him 8 words to explain when other moderators just say "spam or spamming". :)

Affirmative:

1. Asserting that something is true or correct, as with the answer "yes": an affirmative reply.
2. Giving assent or approval; confirming: an affirmative vote.
3. Positive; optimistic:

Depends on how the original proposal is worded:

Since I am saying "gay marriage and polygamy are NO different:, that is not affirmative. :)

To agree with the proposition is to affirm it. Your focus on the word "no" is misguided, misplaced, and mistaken.

What is the purpose of this?

What is the purpose of this?

At this point, I must confess I have no idea.

In theory, we're supposed to be outlining the proposition and rules, but I doubt we're going to come to an agreement with such an unstable expression of the proposition and the attempt to limit the debate to a recitation of talking points.

The standard rules and the first proposition suffice for me. Aside from that, I'm waiting on the official opening statement in order to figure out which version of the proposition I need to address.

The show is on:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2148984#post2148984

Although I don't explicitly state, but I will treat polyandry and polygyny as the same deserving the same treatment and what is valid for one also applies to the other.

Okay, I just wanted to check in here, Syzygys, and offer you another chance at it.

Seriously, that (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2149058&postcount=3) is your rebuttal? You wasted one of your two rebuttals on that?

Not that your postscripts helped your cause any.

Case was golden, no need for many rebutals... :)

By the way I don't have a problem having more rebutals if actually AN ARGUMENT presents itself from your side.

I see. Very well.

You know, Syz, you should have negotiated terms here, before you started. And changing your proposition midstream only suggests you've conceded the original.

The careless often stumble, much as you have in the debate.

I will give you a hint, though: You wrote such a poor proposition that you didn't have much of a chance from the outset. Like I said, "And, for the record, if you manage to stick to your basic proposition, it shouldn't be too long a response. I doubt I'll need to renegotiate the 1,500-word cap."

Indeed, I haven't yet spent a thousand. Total. Through two posts.

Well, I guess I will put you back on my ignore list. All your posts will be ignored except the debate and the proposal threads.(for a while)

You weren't man enough to acknowledge when I beat you senseless in the capital punishment debate, and I didn't really expect that you have grown since...

Well, I guess I will put you back on my ignore list.

The ignore list in your head? You seem rather fixated on that.


You weren't man enough to acknowledge when I beat you senseless in the capital punishment debate, and I didn't really expect that you have grown since...

Would that be the one where you were wishing murder on the families of those who disagreed with you?

Something about growing goes here.

Next time, try arguing the issues instead of turning it into a personal crusade.

I will keep open my proposal just in case if anybody else interested and we can do a redo. I would like to thanks Tiassa because without him there wouldn't have been a debate...

Links:

Debate thread
Discussion thread