ENDGAME Litterbox #4 -- Stanford v tinytall


#1

Gov: Stanford
Opp: tinytall

Judges: Dog Day Prophet, Arabian Knight, The Rev

Deadline: 6pm, Wed

Resolution: Paradise By The Dashboard Light


#2

Judge signing in.


#3

Jeez…What an inopportune time for a debate round. I’ll do my best to get PMC up ASAP, but we’re at the tail-end of the debate institute with which I’m currently employed as an instructor. Time will be pressed for a little bit here…


#4

I give notches for good arguments. Whoever has the most notches wins.

Hajeer


#5

I’m busy as well. But I’m sure we can get this done :slight_smile:


#6

I will be awfully tempted to vote for whoever quotes Pirates of the Caribbean or Capt. Jack Sparrow more.

:slash

Kyle


#7

Ladies and gentlemen, today I wish to speak of a common societal institution that plagues individuals. It is responsible for much pain and suffering, and stops at no borders. Stress. Despair. Heartbreak. Discrimination. Just a few harms of the government?s involvement this otherwise well-meaning union between two individuals. Ladies and gentlemen, today I urge you to join me in advocating the abolishment of marriage.

Sure, at the honeymoon, you?ll be wisped away as you hear, ?[i]Welcome to the Caribbean, love[/i],? but as you?ll see at the end of the debate, marriage is not all it?s cracked up to be.

Up Top Fun Stuff:
[list]First, since this resolution is a song lyric, it should be addressed on a metaphorical/poetic/lyrical level. Thus, exact meanings of words are not so much important as interpretation on a metaphorical level.

With that in mind, my proposition will meet the resolution on two levels.

[list=1][*]I meet within the context of the chosen lyric alone:

Paradise ? An environment in which good things are promoted
By ? With the use or help of, as in ?We became happy by eating chocolate.?
The dashboard ? Slang. A state of sadness, as in ?I felt very dashboard.? (Origin: From the band Dashboard Confessional, whose emo songs often sound sad.)

Thus, I must prove that a good environment is promoted with the help of the state of sadness. Since some perceive marriage as a state of romantic bliss, it follows that some would be saddened by the abolishment of the institution.

[*]I meet within the context of the entire song:

The song starts with a seventeen year-old couple fooling around, but the girl stops short and demands to know if the boy loves her and will be with her forever. After much deliberation, the boy declares a vow to stay with the girl until the end of time. Note that this is not done without any state-sponsored legal documents, and indicates that marriage on the state level is both unnecessary and unneeded.[/list=1]
That said, I offer two criteria: first, whoever provides the most Jack Sparrow quotes and, second, the good old standard criterion of net benefits. If I prove to be net advantageous in the abolishment of marriage, I should be given the ballot and we should all rejoice in a state of non-matrimonial bliss. Cool? Cool.[/list]
Plan: The United States Federal government, through a constitutional amendment, should abolish state recognition of marriage and the benefits granted thereof.

(Wow! This plan is either madness or brilliance! ?[i]It’s remarkable how often those two traits coincide.[/i]?)

Advantage 1 (Health?psychological and physical AKA ??[i]It must have been terrible for you, Jack. Must have been terrible.? Well, it bloody is now.[/i]?):
[list=A][*]It?s commonly accepted among physicians and psychologists that people who are married are more subject to more stress than their single counterparts. This causes deterioration of health on various levels and may result in psychological conditions such as chronic depression. Development of these psychological conditions only serves to further the downward spiral of physical health degradation as one?s physical health is generally intertwined with one?s mental health.

[*]Many military officials are married. And as nuclear triggers are placed on hair-alert, do you really want someone completely stressed out and fraught with mental disorders hovering his or her finger over the button?

[*]With divorce rates ever-rising, the most vulnerable members of our society are also endangered. Children bear the brunt of divorce the hardest, and are most prone to the development of psychological conditions. Unfortunately, when children are under trauma at such a young age, it becomes more difficult to separate them from psychological disorders later in life. Cross-apply the downward spiral argument above.

[*]The government has an obligation to protect each of its citizens? right to life. Failure for a government to protect its citizens? right to life is oppressive and tyrannical. Unfortunately, sponsoring marriage is antithetical to this aim, as it?s been empirically proven that?on average?unmarried people live longer than married people and are generally in better health. Furthermore, cross-apply economics, which shows that people have a higher quality of life, and, thus, are able to afford?on the most basic level?the food and shelter needed to live, and?on a higher level?medication and regular doctor visits to ensure good health and life.

[]Simple economics. Having a population at better health means increased productivity due to fewer sick days being taken, the workforce being able to work harder, etc. This means that the standard of living will increase abroad as more money is earned and circulated at greater velocities. Moreover, having a good economy makes nuclear war less likely. Look to World War II. After recession, the people of Germany were desperate for leadership and a scapegoat. They found both with Adolph Hitler.[/list=A]
Advantage 2 (Discrimination AKA ?[i]Elizabeth… it would never have worked between us darling.[/i]?):
[list=A][
]Having a statewide definition of marriage will always marginalize some group. Right now, homosexuals cannot marry. But even if homosexuals were granted the right to marry, there would still be other groups marginalized. Why can?t a sacred union between man and pig be recognized?

[*]Granting benefits based on one?s sexuality will always be wrong. First, it violates the government?s obligation to protect people?s right to liberty. This violates the basic social contract between the people and their government, which, in turn, delegitimizes the government. Second, it is dehumanizing to claim that minority groups cannot receive the same benefits as the majority. Dehumanization is the worst impact ever, as it engenders violence and is at the root of all oppression. At the root of the Holocaust was dehumanization of Jewish people. All being told, dehumanization is responsible for more deaths than all wars, famines, and nuclear incidents combined. Third, you should reject discriminatory practices, and the only way to do this is through abolishment, as any definition of marriage will always marginalize a minority.[/list=A]
Vote gov, ?[i]Spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically.[/i]?


#8

Cross-X
No survivors? Then where do the stories come from, I wonder?
1- What happens to the couples that are currently married?

Easy on the goods, darling.
2- How do you intend to address the over 1,050 federal benefits of marriage?

Mr. Cotton’s… parrot. Same question.
3- And what about the proven thousands of physical, emotional, and social benefits of marriage?

Who makes all these?
4- Will states be forced to enact this legislation after the federal amendment goes through?

That’s not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?
5- How do you intend to fiat enough state governments to get an amendment passed?

This shot was not meant for you.
6- Would religious recognition of marriage still be allowed?


#9

[list=1][*]?[i]Not all treasure is silver and gold, mate[/i].? They can remain married in their own eyes, but the Federal government will have no place in recognizing the marriage. ?[i]Satisfied[/i]??

[*]Unfortunately, you?re not making yourself ?[i]inescapably[/i]? clear on this one. Seeing as you haven?t exactly specifically addressed these benefits either, I?m not sure what it is you?re arguing here. Regardless, they?re gone post-fiat (as per plan text). But ?[i]I want you to know that I was rooting for you[/i],? and if you can provide a specific benefit that?s lost, I?d be happy to argue it.

[*]Feel free to argue them, but I?ll assure you that ?[i]You don’t want to be doing that, mate.[/i]? On the other hand, it is ?[i]Your funeral[/i].? Most of these alleged benefits come simply from being in a relationship, and are not intrinsic to marriage.

[*]?[i]Can you sail under the command of a pirate, or can you not?[/i]? Uh?It?s a constitutional amendment. That means it?s written into the Law of the Land.

[*]Easily. I just did. And if you argue abuse, I?ll just shrug and say ?[i]Pirate[/i].? But, really, I?ll suggest right now that you ?[i]Put it away?It’s not worth you getting beat again[/i].?

[*]Allow me to give the lead up to the quote you offered on this question: ?[i]Move Away[/i],? and ?[i]Please Move Away[/i]?? In other words, the government will absolutely not infringe upon the churches in this regard. If marriage is your thing (in the words of Jack Sparrow, ?[i]A wedding? I love weddings. Drinks all around[/i].?), the government will never bar your freedom to choose to get married under whatever ceremony you wish. You can liken this to any number of other things you can do without the government?s involvement. After all, ?[i]The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do.[/i]?[/list=1]
(And seeing as I have scores of words left over?Just as an aside, when I posted this at 4 AM and?quite frankly?was a bit under the influence, I thought it would turn out a lot funnier than it actually did. Oh well. I?ve given you ridiculous amounts of ground. In fact, I?m more or less ?[i]marooned?on [this] god forsaken spit of land[/i].? But don?t forget ?[i]one very important thing, mate: I’m Jack Sparrow[/i].? Bring it on! And, ?[i]Now?bring me that horizon[/i].?)


#10

Very nice, guys. This has done so much to brighten my spirits.

[B][I]Take what you can, give nothing back.[/B][/I]

Kyle


#11

Quick procedural question… whill the quotes count against our word count?


#12

Given that I took the time to make sure I didn’t go over the word limit even with the quotes, I’d prefer that you did the same.


#13

Will do. Just checking :slight_smile:


#14

I will admit, I am a bit disillusioned with marriage lately. Apparently, there’s a leak… However, just because something is imperfect doesn?t mean it should be totally dissolved.

I ask you to keep that in mind as we look at this round first, grammatically
I have no problems with the definitions, interpretations, and criteria of this round.
So, moving on,

I ask you to recognize one large, important fact: Less then 40% of all marriages in the USA are done in religious settings. This means that as soon as the legal institution of marriage is eliminated, the following benefits will be lost to all:
Health and family science researchers cite the following as benefits of marriage:

1.Marriage tends to improve the way people think about themselves, their spouse, others, and the future.
2.more likely to do unselfish things for each other and for their families than they would do if unmarried.
3.more responsible to their communities and the nation.
4.have the lowest rates of depressions and schizophrenias compared to the unmarried.
5.tend to handle stress and anxiety better than their unmarried counterparts.
6.tends to make individuals to be more motivated to do well at work and to persevere through stressful situations.
7.less likely to be lonely because they always have someone to share their thoughts, feelings, and lives with.
8.more likely to report feeling hopeful, happy, and good about themselves.
9.have sex more often and enjoy it more physically and emotionally than their unmarried counterparts.
10.couples have more obligations to each other and tend to be more financially responsible, and more likely to save money.

Each one of these counts as a separate, and unique disadvantage to plan. So let?s take a quick look at just the preliminary impacts to each, all of which turn the impacts of both advantages:

1.With no social recognition of long-standing relationships, there is more depression and apathy about human life. Crime rates and suicides go up, causing strife domestically and internationally.
2.Fewer unselfish acts = less voulenteerism and charity, when it is so badly needed. Quality of life goes down for all.
3.Less feeling of responsibility for human life, again. The government asks if you want people that are depressed on hair nuclear triggers, I would like to turn this, with increased impacts from the larger number of disadvantages.
4.Cross apply to above. As well, while children do suffer from divorce, it is much better, in the net-beneficial world, to have A) the 50%+ chance of children growing up in stable homes as well as B) A reduced risk of children living with depressed, schizophrenic individuals.
5.Again, cross apply and turn for children, military employees, and all average Americans. .
6.Less motivation = less work = the economy downturns yet again.
7.Lonliness, statistically, leads to more suicide, not to mention less involved and less happy individuals. Again, cross-apply and uber-impact it.
8.Again, cross-apply and increase impacts of Adv. 1 and turn them into a DA.
9.Really, do I have to explain this one? Anything that increases good sex deserves at least one governmental nod!
10.Less money saved = increase in inflation = LESS RUM! But why is the rum gone?

After those ten disadvantages, are there any others? I’m in the market, as it were. and we?re lucky, because there are.

DA 11 ? Backlash
Here we must realize something very unique?in some form or another, conservatives, liberals, republicans, democrats, Focus on the Family, Human Rights Campaign, most are in some way, shape, or form, rooting for marriage. If the federal government were to completely abolish marriage, it would get major backlash from both sides, effectively shutting down government until some solution (that would most likely be the reinstatement of marriage) is reached. This means other, more important issues (like the thousands of soldiers in Iraq, the poverty in the US, schools that don?t have desks for their students, and more) will not be addressed.

DA 12- Precedence of Negative Rights
As the recent arguments about the Federal Marriage Amendment show us, there is a huge base of support for keeping rights-limiting amendments out of the constitution. This document has historically been one that only grants rights, not takes them away. Setting the precedence of taking Rights away as a constitutional amendment not only violates our social contract, but has been show (through prohibition) to do NOTHING good to our nation and it?s citizens. A single vote for this amendment is voting to go back to the days where a government can deny rights rather then give them. This, to quote the government ?deligitimizes and dehumanizes? people. Talk about bad stuff.

DA 13- Legality
Federally, married couples have over 1,050 rights and responsibilities. Eliminate marriage, and those rights are eliminated. Suddenly, there are millions of ALREADY MARRIED couples that can no longer visit each other in the hospital, be privy to inheritance rights, or do simple things like open one another?s mail. There is no provision for these couples in current plan, and no way to provide committed couples with these rights post-plan. The basic structure of many societal laws instantly breaks down, throwing millions into legal limbo and the already-worked courts into chaos.

Well, we?ve got a baker?s dozen, and the first advantage obviously turns to the opposition side, so let?s take a quick look at the second government ?advantage.?

As the 12th DA addresses subpoint B, I would like to specifically address the subpoint A. This is a slippery slope argument, to put it at best. I would strongly discourage and ask that the judges of this round discourage any further marginaliziation of the homosexual community by equating the act of homosexual sex to beastiality. Furthermore, it is better to accept a flawed institution for the potential and actual good it does then to throw it away entirely.

With every advantage a Disadvantage, and a Baker?s dozen of reasons to not to dissolve this institution, even in just the legal realm, I can ask only for an opposition ballot.

**edited to fix formatting


#15

[i]Take what you can, give nothing back[/i].”

In this spirit, I wish to take all of Andrea’s arguments and give nothing back in the form of cross-examination. I shall forego CX, and post the MGC tomorrow morning after a good night’s sleep.

-M


#16

Okay, so I managed to lock myself out last night and just sorta wandered around all night long. chuckle I got back in around 10 AM, and crashed until about an hour ago, at which point I went and had–I guess it would be breakfast at 5 PM??

Anyway, I’ll start the MGC right now. Hopefully it’ll be finished in about 20 minutes.


#17

20 minutes, my ass…

jk


#18

Okay. I have a speech, but it’s over 1300 words long. Cutting it right now.


#19

1,071 words…Getting there…


#20

Cut out the Pirate quotes… Kyle can’t read anyways :wink: