TrystanWR44 (PRO)The people of homosexual nature are still people and denying them the same rights is unconstitutional
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-06 14:08:24
| Speak Round
cooldudebro (CON)I will give my opponent a chance to post their argument before I post my case. However, I will refute the point he made.
While there are national standards for adoption, adoption places may set their own. Here is an example of it demonstrated. (1)
1. http://www.adoptionservices.org/domestic_adoption_types/adoption_requirements.htm
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-06 17:39:28
| Speak RoundTrystanWR44 (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-09 17:40:03
| Speak Round
The argument PRO gave would be good in a 100-200 character quick debate, but not in this long one. Posted 2016-10-06 14:59:25
If you assume equality regardless of race or genders as the default position , then yes, CON would have the burden of proof.
I thought about this in, "That women should be allowed into front-line combat roles". I thought it should be, "That women should not be allowed into front-line combat roles" instead.Posted 2016-10-06 14:58:27
I can't accept this challenge, because by the nature of this statement, the "con" side actually holds the sole and affirmative burden of proof. This claim implies "same sex couples should have less rights than heterosexual couples", and so your side is actually the affirmative and you require warrant for your position - you hold the burden of proof.
My position is the neutral one, and I would need you to prove your case before I could disprove it.
This is a poorly worded claim.Posted 2016-10-06 00:19:39