I see that there is no History of Marriage in Lion's opening nor does it cover family structures such as extended families. Not surprising really, considering that for Lion the world started with an arranged marriage in a magical garden, everything went astray from there .

Watch out Croc - Lion will be vigilant for Logical Fallacies

So far, it looks like I will be underwhelmed by Lion's defense.

z8000783 wrote:

Lizard_King wrote:I am somewhat unimpressed with Lion's first post of the debate. Many words, nothing much of substance. Then again, I can't really say I'm surprised...

Seemed alright to me, it was an opening post laying out the approach he was going to take which also depends on what CD is going to say.

What would you expect otherwise?

John

I agree. There is no way he could have come up with a "good" opening post for such a debate. His position is simply wrong and indefensible. So, really, what can he do?

He explicitly states that his position is based on what God has told him it should be, but he will attempt to defend it by reason alone. Well, sorry, just because you sincerely believe God wants you to believe something, that does not guarantee that your belief can be reasonably defended. In fact, I'd say it considerably weakens the odds.

Well, Lion was off to an interesting start:

There’s a word which describes the judging of someone’s position as wrong without even knowing the REASONS why
they hold that position.

...it’s called bigotry.

Interesting - but totally wrong.

Judging that a PERSON is wrong without hearing the reasons he believes things is bigotry. Judging a position to be wrong without hearing the reasons isn't bigotry, especially when it comes to many well-developed disciplines. For example, one doesn't need to hear vacuous reasoning to judge that anyone holding the position that the Earth is flat is wrong, and one isn't bigoted at all when they think this. The same can be said of other patently false positions, whether they're supporting homeopathy, or a Geocentric Universe.

Starting out with this opening is interesting, though - it's almost as if Lion recognizes that his position against gay marriage has bigotry at it's very heart, and is trying to distract any argument which points this out by claiming to be persecuted by bigotry first.

I also have to say I'm very disappointed to see that both posters are reading this thread - I thought that an understood element of formal debates is that participants would do everything possible to avoid being influenced by outside, sidebar discussions.

I wonder whether it would be possible for LIFE to remove viewing permissions to the Peanut Gallery thread for future debaters?

z8000783 wrote:

Lizard_King wrote:I am somewhat unimpressed with Lion's first post of the debate. Many words, nothing much of substance. Then again, I can't really say I'm surprised...

Seemed alright to me, it was an opening post laying out the approach he was going to take which also depends on what CG is going to say.

What would you expect otherwise?

John

I just don't think telling people what you're going to say and how you are going to argue is worth much at all. As long as you don't bring the points you're trying to make, simply announcing them doesn't impress me. He might prove me wrong, though, in his next few posts.

And I especially disliked the last paragraph. As others have mentioned before, what is the "way" that "We" are born and procreate? What is the "way" that "We" think? And who the hell is capital "We"? It's ambiguous and doesn't serve any purpose, as far as I see it.

Weaver wrote:Well, Lion was off to an interesting start:

There’s a word which describes the judging of someone’s position as wrong without even knowing the REASONS why
they hold that position.

...it’s called bigotry.

Interesting - but totally wrong.

Judging that a PERSON is wrong without hearing the reasons he believes things is bigotry. Judging a position to be wrong without hearing the reasons isn't bigotry, especially when it comes to many well-developed disciplines. For example, one doesn't need to hear vacuous reasoning to judge that anyone holding the position that the Earth is flat is wrong, and one isn't bigoted at all when they think this. The same can be said of other patently false positions, whether they're supporting homeopathy, or a Geocentric Universe.

Starting out with this opening is interesting, though - it's almost as if Lion recognizes that his position against gay marriage has bigotry at it's very heart, and is trying to distract any argument which points this out by claiming to be persecuted by bigotry first.

... or is trying to redefine bigotry in a way that doesn't apply to him.

quixotecoyote wrote:Then it raises my hopes with a clear bullet pointed list of arguments, only to dash them with a disjointed, rambling, series of one line statements that don't connect to each other or an overall argument.

That was rather how I felt as well.

Lizard_King wrote:And I especially disliked the last paragraph. As others have mentioned before, what is the "way" that "We" are born and procreate? What is the "way" that "We" think? And who the hell is capital "We"? It's ambiguous and doesn't serve any purpose, as far as I see it.

Clearly "We" are all the people that feel "that way", and feeling "that way" is what "We" (all the people who feel like us) do.

Thommo wrote:

Lizard_King wrote:And I especially disliked the last paragraph. As others have mentioned before, what is the "way" that "We" are born and procreate? What is the "way" that "We" think? And who the hell is capital "We"? It's ambiguous and doesn't serve any purpose, as far as I see it.

Clearly "We" are all the people that feel "that way", and feeling "that way" is what "We" (all the people who feel like us) do.

Well, if you put it that way, it certainly makes for a compelling argument, in the same way that this argument is quite compelling, if put that way...

Meh, close enough, I'm tired...

If by WE, he means humanity, then the actual truth is that WE have had homosexuals born amongst us for as long as WE have been around. Also, WE, have had a variety of different ways of feeling and thinking positively and negatively about the matter throughout history and across cultures.

But uhm, I don't think that's quite where he was going..

Is anybody else having difficulty understanding Lion? I understand the words, but when they're put in that order they don't make any sense.

Weaver wrote:I also have to say I'm very disappointed to see that both posters are reading this thread - I thought that an understood element of formal debates is that participants would do everything possible to avoid being influenced by outside, sidebar discussions.

It wasn't, at least not by me.

I argue occasionally over at debate.org, which has a fairly heavy representation of formal collegiate (and high school) debaters. There's an understood etiquette about not carrying the debate to the comments, but nothing about not reading them.

Wiðercora wrote:Is anybody else having difficulty understanding Lion? I understand the words, but when they're put in that order they don't make any sense.

No. It's clear - heterosexuality is divine. Just don't think about the irony that god made Adam and Eve through non sexual means.

ElDiablo wrote:

Wiðercora wrote:Is anybody else having difficulty understanding Lion? I understand the words, but when they're put in that order they don't make any sense.

No. It's clear - heterosexuality is divine. Just don't think about the irony that god made Adam and Eve through non sexual means.

And intended them to avoid sexual contact with each other.

Weaver wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

Wiðercora wrote:Is anybody else having difficulty understanding Lion? I understand the words, but when they're put in that order they don't make any sense.

No. It's clear - heterosexuality is divine. Just don't think about the irony that god made Adam and Eve through non sexual means.

And intended them to avoid sexual contact with each other.

Of course - that would have been incest, no? Weren't they sort of like identical twins, except for the Y chromosome of course?

Well, according to Genesis, Eve was an afterthought at best, so heterosexuality clearly wasn't part of the original plan. Presumably, then, magic man had intended bestiality to be the order of the day.

It does beg the question of why he didn't foresee that Eve might be required, being omniscient and all...

hackenslash wrote:Well, according to Genesis, Eve was an afterthought at best, so heterosexuality clearly wasn't part of the original plan. Presumably, then, magic man had intended bestiality to be the order of the day.

It does beg the question of why he didn't foresee that Eve might be required, being omniscient and all...

Sex is a result of "The Fall", isn't it? So not really part of the divine plan, at all.

I have no problem with the debaters reading here as long as they do not debate here until after the formal debate is over. It may lead to better posts in the debate itself. Enforcing a rule against would be impossible anyway and would just lead to suspicions of cheating. I did not follow the links as I would rather judge the debate by the content of the posts.

As for Lions opener. I actually thought it wasn't bad considering the ridiculous position he is arguing for. He did a decent job outlining his intended approach and defining some the terms of the debate (there are some holes in this). He actually did a good job heading off some arguments (logical fallacies) that his opponent may have planned on using. This also serves as good warning for Croc. I particularly liked the illustration of the Presumption Fallacy. I do feel that Gay marriage is inevitable in Aus. and that there is a sort of international peer pressure at work. Australians, Brits etc. will not relish the idea of being viewed internationally as backwards like the US (most notably the south) is viewed today. This does not however constitute an argument for or against.

The opening statement for Lion is the easy bit. Actually making an argument for his position will be substantially harder as I can't think of a single logical reason that supports it.

Shrunk wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Well, according to Genesis, Eve was an afterthought at best, so heterosexuality clearly wasn't part of the original plan. Presumably, then, magic man had intended bestiality to be the order of the day.

It does beg the question of why he didn't foresee that Eve might be required, being omniscient and all...

Sex is a result of "The Fall", isn't it? So not really part of the divine plan, at all.

Oh, yeah, the erectile tissue in the penis had a totally non-sexual purpose originally.

Just like T-Rex and Allosaurus were originally vegetarians, with sharp teeth to crack coconuts open with.

Weaver wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Well, according to Genesis, Eve was an afterthought at best, so heterosexuality clearly wasn't part of the original plan. Presumably, then, magic man had intended bestiality to be the order of the day.

It does beg the question of why he didn't foresee that Eve might be required, being omniscient and all...

Sex is a result of "The Fall", isn't it? So not really part of the divine plan, at all.

Oh, yeah, the erectile tissue in the penis had a totally non-sexual purpose originally.

Duh, of course it did. Adam was created in the image of God, right? This means that God was the first to have these bits. And has he ever used them for reproduction? No, in fact we have evidence to the contrary. He only reproduced once, and we know he used his spirit for that. (In fact, according to many experts, Virgin Mary didn't only stay a virgin after conception, but even after giving birth!)