Instigator / Pro
11
1524
rating
54
debates
74.07%
won
Topic
#4112
Homosexuality is not wrong
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Bella3sp
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
9
1233
rating
412
debates
39.56%
won
Description
๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐: ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐
Both PRO and CON are provided with fฬฒiฬฒvฬฒeฬฒ rounds with the deadline of oฬฒnฬฒeฬฒ week per round to respond.
This argument should only include actual facts and logic. Failure to do so only results in your own loss. Feel free to involve your feelings if you so choose to ignore. If you choose to forfeit I will extend it if or until the last round. If it continues to be a forfeit it is most obvious I have won the debate. Thank you.
Audience, please do not send hate towards me or the other contender. You may submit questions and/or comments below. Other than that, choose wisely!
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you, @Best.Korea for accepting this debate!
Beginning:
This argument is debating if homosexuality is wrong; a controversial issue in society today. Though some may agree with my position, others may argue it as unnatural or wrong. I will be presenting my viewpoint that homosexuality is not wrong. Whereas CON must argue that homosexuality is wrong.
Definition of Homosexuality:
First off if we are to come to any response to this argument we need a clear understanding of the definition of Homosexuality.
Homosexuality refers to a sexual attraction or romantic relationship between individuals of the same sex. It is an inherent aspect of one's identity and not a choice or behavior that can be changed or controlled.
Argument 1; Homosexuality is Natural
Firstly the definition of the word natural refers to as:
โExisting in or cause by nature; not made or caused by humankindโ
Homosexuality is not the result of a disorder or mental illness but instead natural to humans. โBoth heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.โ (APA, 2008) Furthermore, โthe new finding is consistent with multiple earlier studies of twins that indicated same-sex attraction is a heritable trait. The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for gay genes that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome.โ (The Conversation, 2019) While it is still up for debate whether Homosexuality is influenced partly by genes there is still heavy proof that โgay genesโ most likely exist.
Argument 2; Homosexuality is not a disorder
Being that homosexuality is not a disorder there should not be a cause for viewing homosexuality as immoral and/or wrong. Based on an abundance of scientific evidence has proved that homosexuality is not a disorder. Multiple organizations have already concluded that homosexuality is not a disorder. According to the American Psychological Association, "same sex-sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per say are normal and positive variants of human sexuality - in other words they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders." Move over, "no lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both hetrosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. (APA 2008)
I have nothing much else to conclude at the moment. I'm curious what CON will include in their argument. That being said, while this is little to provide, this will be my argument for the time being. Good luck
Con
#2
Thank you for starting an interesting debate.
The topic is: "Homosexuality is not wrong".
My position is: It is not true that "Homosexuality is not wrong".
Pro defines homosexuality as: "Homosexuality refers to a sexual attraction or romantic relationship between individuals of the same sex. It is an inherent aspect of one's identity and not a choice or behavior that can be changed or controlled."
Pro defined homosexuality as a sexual attraction between individuals of the same sex.
Homosexuality causes behavior that disrupts function of an individual.
Argument 1; Homosexuality is NaturalFirstly the definition of the word natural refers to as: โExisting in or cause by nature; not made or caused by humankindโ
This argument is irrelevant.
Something can be caused by nature and still be considered wrong.
Wrong is by definition: unsuitable, unjust, incorrect.
We can say that it is wrong that children die from flu, but it is natural by Pro's definition. Flu is not caused by humankind, but by nature. Same with many other diseases and sicknesses. We still consider it wrong and we fight against it.
Further, Pro does not explain to us what part of nature caused homosexuality. By Pro's definition, homosexuality cannot exist anywhere except in humans.
โBoth heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.โ
This claim depends entirely on the definition of normal.
If we define "normal" as "what happens in most cases", then homosexuality is not normal. Most people are not homosexuals.
If we define "normal" as "good", then the claim of "its not wrong because its normal" is the same as saying "its not wrong because its good".
Its circular reasoning that doesnt tell us anything.
If we define "normal" as "what is accepted by certain culture", then we also have to consider cultures that really hated homosexuality and considered it wrong.
If we define "normal" as "what occurs in many cultures and eras", then "hating homosexuality and considering it wrong" is also normal since plenty of cultures hated homosexuality.
So if "considering homosexuality as wrong" is normal by these definitions and if "normal" tells us what is right, then "considering homosexuality as wrong" is right.
Furthermore, โthe new finding is consistent with multiple earlier studies of twins that indicated same-sex attraction is a heritable trait.
Many bad things are heritable, like disorders, mental illnesses, weaknesses, diseases, bad behavior...
The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for gay genes that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome.โ (The Conversation, 2019) While it is still up for debate whether Homosexuality is influenced partly by genes there is still heavy proof that โgay genesโ most likely exist.
There are also genes that make us more violent. Violence is wrong. Disorders and mental illnesses can also be caused by genes. They are wrong.
Also, this topic does not deal with "most likely". The topic claims total certainty. The arguments that dont have total certainty are to be disregarded.
Being that homosexuality is not a disorder there should not be a cause for viewing homosexuality as immoral and/or wrong. Based on an abundance of scientific evidence has proved that homosexuality is not a disorder.
Disorder is by definition: "something that disrupts functions of an individual".
We know that homosexuals have "higher rates of HIV, diseases, suicides, mental illnesses, depression and violence" and "lower rates of reproduction", which tells us that homosexuality "disrupts functions of an individual".
Functions being defined as "successful reproduction" and "survival" and "life with least harm".
So yes, it is a disorder.
According to the American Psychological Association, "same sex-sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per say are normal and positive variants of human sexuality - in other words they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders." Move over, "no lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both hetrosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.
This topic does not deal with specifically lesbians, so I will skip on lesbians.
The claim mentions "positive variants" but does not list what is positive about them.
Saying "It is not a disorder because its positive" does not tell us what is "positive" about it.
I can make the claim and say "homosexuality is a disorder because its negative".
Further, the claim of "psychopathology" doesnt make any sense. Psychopathology is a study of mental disorders.
Claiming that "something is not a mental disorder because it is not related to a study of mental disorders" does not tell us what standards were used to make distinction between a disorder and a non-disorder. It is circular reasoning.
By definition of disorder that I provided, we see that homosexuality disrupts "functions of an individual" and makes him more likely to harm himself or be harmed by others. This increase of harm directly caused by homosexuality proves the claim "homosexuality disrupts the functions of an individual" to be correct.
The claim "homosexuality is a disorder" is proven correct by the claim "homosexuality disrupts functions of an individual", where "disorder" is defined as "something that disrupts of functions of an individual".
The claim "Homosexuality is not wrong" is proven to be false with a claim "Homosexuality is a disorder" and with the claim "homosexuality increases harm".
I am looking forward to hear your opinion on this.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Interesting...
Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to point out CON has yet to provide any evidence for their argument that explains how homosexuality is wrong. Everything seems unsupported.
That being said let's continue the debate now, shall we?
Rebuttal:
Pro defined homosexuality as a sexual attraction between individuals of the same sex.
Incorrect, you have even verified my actual definition yourself.
You state: "Pro defines homosexuality as: Homosexuality refers to a sexual attraction or romantic relationship between individuals of the same sex. It is an inherent aspect of one's identity and not a choice or behavior that can be changed or controlled.""
Homosexuality causes behavior that disrupts function of an individual
Seeing you added this early on without definition, I have chosen to ignore this. I have found your definition later on in your rebuttal and have already responded.
This argument is irrelevant.
This argument is showing homosexuality is natural.
Wrong is by definition: unsuitable, unjust, incorrect
Correct, (and I hate to be this person) however I would also like to add the extension: "to treat disrespectfully or dishonorably: violate". I am adding this because I will be using this later on in my rebuttal.
We can say that it is wrong that children die from flu, but it is natural by Pro's definition. Flu is not caused by humankind, but by nature. Same with many other diseases and sicknesses. We still consider it wrong and we fight against it.
My entire point in that section is homosexuality is not something controllable. Such as if someone was mentally or physically disabled they shouldn't be considered wrong ("to treat disrespectfully or dishonorably: violate"). For example, someone should not be talked down to because they are physically disabled.
On top of that, you are referring to homosexuality as a sickness and/or comparing the two. If you are comparing the two, homosexuality is not something you can try and prevent. However the flu is something you can try and prevent. I don't think I need to explain the process of how you could try and protect yourself from the flu.
Further, Pro does not explain to us what part of nature caused homosexuality. By Pro's definition, homosexuality cannot exist anywhere except in humans.
I will explain this later on in my argument as you scroll. Homosexuality is natural per influence of heritable traits.
Furthermore, it is possible for homosexuality (through sexual activity) to exist within animals but is usually referred to as "bisexual". Which is why it is not included in my definition.
If we define "normal" as "what happens in most cases", then homosexuality is not normal. Most people are not homosexuals.
This is inaccurate as not only have you not provided evidence that most are heterosexuals but you are assuming. Being you said, "this topic does not deal with most likely".
That being said, even if you did have evidence, many people are afraid of coming out, forced to ignore and/or ignore their feelings or are just unrecognized to even have a close precise amount of how many people are homosexuals. That would only be a round about estimate of how many homosexuals are alive.
If we define "normal" as "what occurs in many cultures and eras", then "hating homosexuality and considering it wrong" is also normal since plenty of cultures hated homosexuality.
Simply just stating that homosexuality has been documented in multiple cultures and eras and is part of human diversity. Not if it is accepted by them or not.
Many bad things are heritable, like disorders, mental illnesses, weaknesses, diseases, bad behavior...
(Something bad connotes inferior or poor quality whereas wrong is a concept that connotes immorality and sin. Keep this in mind when using "bad" instead of "wrong")
Of course, that is a given. But many good things are heritable as well. Autism is considered special among some and even a new part of the "evolution" of humankind. Additionally, my main purpose of including this prompt is because most believe that homosexuality is a choice rather than a heritable trait.
There are also genes that make us more violent. Violence is wrong. Disorders and mental illnesses can also be caused by genes. They are wrong.
Are you concluding and/or suggesting that homosexuality makes homosexuals violent? Seeing that there is no proof backing this, I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion.
If anything, it would be prejudice or discrimination against those who are homosexuals that create violence. As stated from Beyond Blue, "However, experiences with discrimination and stigmatisation can lead to a higher likelihood of emotional distress, depression and anxiety." (Beyond Blue, 2022)
Functions being defined as "successful reproduction" and "survival" and "life with least harm".So yes, it is a disorder.
I would like to address all of these!
Successful reproduction:
One of the most common successful reproductions with homosexuals: In Vitro Fertilization
IVF definition:
IVF stands for In Vitro Fertilization which is a medical procedure whereby an egg is fertilized by sperm in a test tube or elsewhere outside the body
IVF is proven useful along with a successful way to repopulate the earth along with having successful reproduction. Being homosexual does not mean you can't repopulate the earth along with having successful reproduction.
Survival:
I'm unsure what function your talking about that being homosexual will affect your survival. Elaborate.
Life with least harm:
Once again, I will need you to elaborate. I would like to know your definition of "life was the least harm".
Your definition of function in other words: homosexuality disrupts least harm of an individual. (least harm)"
If you are referring to "life least harm" by saying homosexuality itself causes you pain has no evidence. Furthermore if you are to state they would have least pain than anyone else would as well be false. If you are referring to this, I would love to see evidence (if any)!
If you are referring to "life with least harm" by saying homosexuality causes harm because people have injustice against them, and they (homosexuals) are causing harm, then that is also incorrect. Homosexuality itself isn't causing the harm. It would be people opinions on homosexual people.
If you're referring to "list with least harm" in any different way please elaborate.
We know that homosexuals have "higher rates of HIV, diseases, suicides, mental illnesses, depression and violence" and "lower rates of reproduction", which tells us that homosexuality "disrupts functions of an individual".
HIV:
Not all gay men have sexual relationships. As my definition states "Homosexuality refers to a sexual attraction or romantic relationship". Your suggesting every relationship is sexual, however not everyone has sexual relationships.
Nevertheless, your argument is somewhat flawed. According to verywell health, "For example, men who identify as "gay" or "bisexual" aren't necessarily sexually active, while those who identify as "straight" might have sex with multiple men." (verywell health, 2022). This means even straight (hetrosexual) people can as well have "higher rates" of HIV.
Diseases:
Are you trying to conclude if someone is homosexual they can get a disease such as heart disease more likely? This seems like a broad conclusion. Elaborate.
Suicides, Mental illnesses, Violence and Depression:
Most suicides, mental illnesses, violence occurrences, and depression are caused because of hetrosexuals injustice towards homosexuals. This is caused by human-kind.
And with my extension of the definition of "wrong" : treat disrespectfully or dishonorably: violate. Then to call homosexuals wrong by those who treat them wrong is what should clearly be called "wrong".
My reason for writing these all down is to prove my point that, to say the cause is homosexuals only is false.
As to even backup my point even further, "Most LGBT youth consider suicide in response to bullying, discrimination, homophobia, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, violence, gender nonconformity, low self-esteem and societal and family rejection." (Western Michigan University, 2023)
This topic does not deal with specifically lesbians, so I will skip on lesbians.
This topic includes both gays and lesbians. Not one or the other will be specifically focused on as both are homosexual. Going back to my definition of homosexual.
The claim mentions "positive variants" but does not list what is positive about them.Saying "It is not a disorder because its positive" does not tell us what is "positive" about it.I can make the claim and say "homosexuality is a disorder because its negative".
Positive meaning: consisting in or characterized by the presence or possession of features or qualities rather than their absence.
Features meaning: a distinctive attribute or aspect of something.
This doesn't mean they are a good or bad thing, just a distinctive attribute people have while others do not. Such as someone having brown hair while the other has black hair.
Psychopathology is a study of mental disorders.
Correct. The APA has verified it as not a mental disorder.
Running out of characters however I will answer the last three claims and rebuttals:
Incorrect with all my previous argument(s) in my rebuttal.
References:
(I apologize for not listing any of my references last round)
I have already stated my argument and have nothing else to add.
I am interested and as well anticipating your opinion on this.
Con
#4
Thank you for this debate.
It seems that Pro has conceded many of my points, even proved some of my points for me.
The topic is: "Homosexuality is not wrong".
My position is: It is not true that "Homosexuality is not wrong".
Wrong is by definition: unsuitable, unjust, incorrect.
Pro says this about the definition: "Correct, (and I hate to be this person) however I would also like to add the extension: "to treat disrespectfully or dishonorably: violate". I am adding this because I will be using this later on in my rebuttal."
So Pro says that the added definition of wrong is: "to treat disrespectfully or dishonorably: violate".
However, the words "to treat" in Pro's definition are a word play. Can homosexuality treat someone disrespectfully or dishonorably? Can homosexuality violate someone?
Lets check.
If I can prove that homosexuality of a person causes that person to be treated disrespectfully or dishonorably or to be violated, I believe the definition will be satisfied.
Such as if someone was mentally or physically disabled they shouldn't be considered wrong ("to treat disrespectfully or dishonorably: violate"). For example, someone should not be talked down to because they are physically disabled.
I never claimed that person should be considered wrong. Their disorder, however, should be. Disorders are something that "if removed, an individual's life is improved".
homosexuality is not something you can try and prevent. However the flu is something you can try and prevent.
This debate is not about if certain disorder can be cured or prevented or removed currently.
A definition of disorder( or sickness ) is not that "we can prevent it" or "we can remove it" or "we can cure it".
The definition of disorder is very simple: something that disrupts the function of an individual.
If anything, it would be prejudice or discrimination against those who are homosexuals that create violence. As stated from Beyond Blue, "However, experiences with discrimination and stigmatisation can lead to a higher likelihood of emotional distress, depression and anxiety."
"Discrimination creates violence" does not mean that "Homosexuality doesnt create violence". Homosexual person experiences more violence than straight person does. Curing the homosexuality of a person would greatly reduce the amount of violence that such person experiences. Curing homosexuality would make a person feel safer. Homosexuality in a person creates violence. It makes others attack the person that has homosexuality. Removing homosexuality from a person would remove violence that happens as a result of homosexuality.
In Pro's own words: "Most LGBT youth consider suicide in response to bullying, discrimination, homophobia, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, violence, gender nonconformity, low self-esteem and societal and family rejection.".
If we know that a person will suffer unless we remove homosexuality, then we are to consider homosexuality wrong and remove it.
In the future, it will be possible through gene editing to remove homosexuality.
Once homosexuality is removed, homosexuals will be straight. They will no longer face violence that they would face if their homosexuality was not removed.
This is inaccurate as not only have you not provided evidence that most are heterosexuals
I dont need to present evidence to disprove your claim if you didnt present evidence to support it.
Simply just stating that homosexuality has been documented in multiple cultures and eras and is part of human diversity. Not if it is accepted by them or not.
Same applies to many other disorders and crimes. This is not unique to homosexuality.
most believe that homosexuality is a choice rather than a heritable trait
It was already explained that "heritable" does not equal to "not wrong".
Autism is considered special
I am not sure what are you trying to prove here.
Then to call homosexuals wrong by those who treat them wrong is what should clearly be called "wrong".
"People treating homosexuals wrong" does not mean that "homosexuality isnt wrong". We have seen that if we cured homosexuality, we would remove the violence that happens when homosexuality is not removed.
homosexuality is not something controllable
It might be. You mentioned gay genes. We could remove those genes. That being said, I believe a homosexual can choose to supress his attraction, which would reduce "the amount of violence he experiences as a result of being homosexual".
Homosexuality itself isn't causing the harm. It would be people opinions on homosexual people.
Is a false claim. Removing homosexuality from a person would reduce the amount of harm the person experiences in life.
Most suicides, mental illnesses, violence occurrences, and depression are caused because of hetrosexuals injustice towards homosexuals.
Is a false claim. If we remove homosexuality, then we will also remove "the injustice that person experiences due to being homosexual".
Correct. The APA has verified it as not a mental disorder.
Sorry, I didnt realize you were appealing to authority. I will appeal to Korean authorities. They consider homosexuality as "very bad".
men who identify as "gay" or "bisexual" aren't necessarily sexually active
The HIV rates disagree.
50% of homosexual males are positive to one or more STDs.
Conclusion:
I consider this a fun debate so far, and I feel like I have proven my position of "Homosexuality is wrong" due to the fact that homosexuality puts a person who has it through lots of suffering.
Round 3
Pro
#5
I once again appreciate you for engaging in this debate.
I am glad you took the opportunity to "prove some points" for yourself. Clever indeed! Though you have also proved some considerable points for myself.
Before I start, once again I would like to point out that con has failed to provide any evidence towards any of these claims or rebuttals. Also it seems they have moved on and backed down from some of their claims like "successful reproduction, etc.." I wouldn't blame them.
That said, let's continue this debate.
REBUTTAL:
I never claimed that person should be considered wrong. Their disorder, however, should be. Disorders are something that "if removed, an individual's life is improved".
Firstly, I would like to make clear that it was an example not that you claimed anything.
"Their disorder .. " is unsupported if you are talking about homosexuality as a disorder. And I have already stated evidence.You have also not responded to my rebuttal
Since you have no evidence regarding how homosexuality is a disorder then this comment is disregarded. If you change your answer to it being a genetic disorder out of pressure, I as well have something for that.
This debate is not about if certain disorder can be cured or prevented or removed currently.
Your entire argument so far and so forth as I read is about removing, preventing or curing homosexuality.
The definition of disorder is very simple: something that disrupts the function of an individual.
I understand the meaning.
However last round you tried tried to stress homosexuality is a disorder however did not rebuttal against my rebuttal showing how your claims are wrong.
Though you seem to have already dropped that argument.
Homosexual person experiences more violence than straight person does.
To clarify, the reason I don't respond to some of the "if we remove homosexuality, .." is because it is already answered in this section.
Once again you have no evidence to support your claim. And being untrue because being straight does not mean you don't experience more violence in your everyday life. I can see the logic you're trying to come from though.
I would also like to mention, if someone who was born homosexual and decided to hide their feelings pretending to be straight would they go through violence? No, violence would not occur because heterosexuals would be thinking that individual is hetrosexual. The only way violence could occur is if they knew you were homosexual.
I think this already closes your entire rebuttal and claim. Being that someone who is homosexual is pretending they would no undergo stigma that at this point I really don't need to further this rebuttal. Unless you can finally show some proof rebuttaling this.
I can even further this as my main overall comment of removing homosexuality. By saying that it is possible to remove homosexuality you are referring to remove it as a "gay gene" however that is not proven that there is clearly a gay gene.
Not only but this brings up a new claim for me. "Homosexuality is not wrong its the stigmga they receive"
Curing the homosexuality of a person would greatly reduce the amount of violence that such person experiences.
I have responded to this already.
However ill bring something up that might hopefully hit the spot just right to prove my point.
Curing homosexuality? Would that be the same as "curing Korean"? As many Koreans have violence occur in their life. I would presume we would want to "cure them" to greatly reduce the amount of violence, correct?
In the future, it will be possible through gene editing to remove homosexuality.
"In the future", being this can't happen currently, I am not sure why this is being mentioned.
More so, your also bring up the word "gene editing" suggesting there is a "gay gene". Being there is no proof that there is currently a "gay gene" and this topic doesn't deal with "most likely" I would assume this should be discarded.
I dont need to present evidence to disprove your claim if you didnt present evidence to support it.
I never started with the claim that most are heterosexuals. You brought it up, meaning you need evidence.
Same applies to many other disorders and crimes. This is not unique to homosexuality.
Your somewhat correct being I stated "human diversity", crime and disorders do not relate to human diversity meaning it does not apply.
"Diversity is the range of human differences, including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, social class, physical ability or attributes, religious or ethical values system, national origin, and political beliefs." (UtahState University,
I am not sure what are you trying to prove here.
As in the beggining of my sentence states: "But many good things are heritable as well."
It was already explained that "heritable" does not equal to "not wrong".
Once again "But many good things are heritable as well."
"People treating homosexuals wrong" does not mean that "homosexuality isnt wrong". We have seen that if we cured homosexuality, we would remove the violence that happens when homosexuality is not removed.
Who are we? You haven't provided any scientific evidence.
I have also already responded to this claim.
It might be. You mentioned gay genes. We could remove those genes. That being said, I believe a homosexual can choose to supress his attraction,
Actually you gave me a laugh for a moment. Using my evidence that you discarded and now you're using it as your own? Ironic. Maybe not actually, guess I should've expected it this way.
I mentioned it, however you totally voided it (rightfully). You can't discard my evidence and then claim it as evidence for yourself.
On top of that you state "it might not be", this topic does not deal with "most likely" or "might".
I will be using the definition of suppress as: prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain.
The definition of attraction: Attraction describes interest, desire, or affinity that's emotional, romantic, sexual, physical, or aesthetic in nature.
You could suppress something all you like but it will remain there. For instance, homosexuals could restrain themselves from kissing another man or women in the street. However the feeling of doing it will remain.
Furthermore according to O'Reilly, "You may be able to reduce how much you focus on or think about the object of your desire, but you cannot fully suppress your bodyโs natural desires." (2019
which would reduce "the amount of violence he experiences as a result of being homosexual".
I have already responded to this.
Is a false claim.
This is not a false claim, and I have backed it up with evidence. I have already gave this evidence to backup my point further: "Most LGBT youth consider suicide in response to bullying, discrimination, homophobia, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, violence, gender nonconformity, low self-esteem and societal and family rejection." (Western Michigan University, 2023)"
if we remove homosexuality, then we will also remove "the injustice that person experiences due to being homosexual".
I have already responded to this.
Sorry, I didnt realize you were appealing to authority I will appeal to Korean authorities. They consider homosexuality as "very bad".
I am not just simply "appealing to authority" being that they have verified it with many tests. If you are going to be sarcastic at least provide evidence from Korean authorities how it is "bad" with scientific evidence. Otherwise I don't see your argument.
Not to mention, the APA is the study phsyoglical disorders while the Korean authorities are just the authorities. The only thing they really speak of is their own personal opinion. There's a difference when I use evidence from actual studys verus if you were to mention Korean authorities.
50% of homosexual males are positive to one or more STDs.
Once again this is an estimated guess. They have not run tests on every homosexual person alive.
Additionally, "A gay personโs chance of infection is no different from a straight personโs." (Planned Parenthood, 2010).
Even more, Self-reported STI rates were significantly higher among heterosexual-WSMW (58.1%), bisexual-WSM (51.1%), and bisexual-WSMW (64.1%) compared to heterosexual-WSM (46.6%). Gay-WSMW had the lowest rates of self-reported STI (32.0%).
References:
Conclusion:
I further extend all my claims. Homosexuality is not wrong. And disprove the position with con's argument: "Homosexuality is wrong due to the fact that homosexuality puts a person who has it through lots of suffering".
I wouldn't call this close to the peak of my exhilaration for a debate but it's been alright.
Back to you, con
Round 4
Con
#8
Thank you for an interesting debate.
The topic is: "Homosexuality is not wrong".
My position is: It is not true that "Homosexuality is not wrong".
Wrong is by definition: unsuitable, unjust, incorrect.
This is not a debate about if homosexuality can be cured or not, but if my opponent is right about gay genes, then the cure could be there soon.
To support the claim "Homosexuality is wrong", I use the evidence of "homosexuality causes violence":
"Most LGBT youth consider suicide in response to bullying, discrimination, homophobia, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, violence, gender nonconformity, low self-esteem and societal and family rejection."
"many people are afraid of coming out, forced to ignore and/or ignore their feelings or are just unrecognized"
"However, experiences with discrimination and stigmatisation can lead to a higher likelihood of emotional distress, depression and anxiety."
"Most suicides, mental illnesses, violence occurrences, and depression are caused because of hetrosexuals injustice towards homosexuals."
"I would also like to mention, if someone who was born homosexual and decided to hide their feelings pretending to be straight would they go through violence? No, violence would not occur because heterosexuals would be thinking that individual is hetrosexual. The only way violence could occur is if they knew you were homosexual."
"You could suppress something all you like but it will remain there. For instance, homosexuals could restrain themselves from kissing another man or women in the street. However the feeling of doing it will remain.
Furthermore according to O'Reilly, "You may be able to reduce how much you focus on or think about the object of your desire, but you cannot fully suppress your bodyโs natural desires." "
These above are claims made by my opponent. Since he thinks they are true, I will use them for my case.
The claim "homosexuality causes violence" is true.
We see that if a person has homosexuality and tells other people that he has homosexuality, he will suffer greatly and experience violence. They will beat him up or insult him. He will consider suicide. If he doesnt tell them anything, he has to keep it inside of him and suffer and experience emotional violence.
The person who has homosexuality suffers as a result of having homosexuality.
Heterosexual person doesnt face so many problems in life and heterosexual person experiences much less violence than a homosexual person. Homosexuals are, just like pedophiles, defined by difficulty to control their urges. This makes them expose themselves and end up being beaten or insulted or killed. People dont want homosexuality in their country to be promoted as something acceptable. Most of homosexuals consider suicide, and wish they were straight so they wouldnt have to kill themselves.
If they were heterosexuals and not homosexuals, they would have much less problems and would experience much less violence.
The claim "Homosexuality doesnt cause violence" is false. If there was no homosexuality, there would be less violence, less suicides, less substance abuse, and less bad things in general. Homosexuality provokes and causes people to attack the person who has homosexuality, leading to an increase in violence.
The claim "Discrimination and stigmatisation of homosexuals causes violence" is false. Homosexuality causes the violence. The reason for violence towards a person is his homosexuality. If homosexuality was removed, that violence would disappear.
"Homosexuality is wrong" is a correct claim. Homosexuality makes a person who has it to suffer. If something makes a person suffer so much for no valid reason, it is wrong. If a person didnt have homosexuality, his suffering would greatly be reduced.
If we ever find a cure for homosexuality, our obligation would be to cure homosexuality and save people from violence that happens as a result of having homosexuality.
I will use the final round for final conclusion about the debate.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Thanks Best.Korea,
OBSERVATIONS:
- My first arguments in round one continue to stand. Extend.
- Con has backed off on previous arguments initially made by him.
REBUTTAL:
This is not a debate about if homosexuality can be cured or not, but if my opponent is right about gay genes, then the cure could be there soon
Correct. Though if you're going to continue to state this in the majority of your arguments obviously this debate is starting to become that for you.
However, this topic doesn't deal with "if" meaning this would be discarded either way.
I also answer this further down in my rebuttal, but ill restate it, "If it makes possible to find a cure for homosexuality it should never be used unless wanted. I don't think they would ever make such a thing, but if it does happen nobody should be forced into taking this "cure."
We see that if a person has homosexuality and tells other people that he has homosexuality, he will suffer greatly and experience violence. They will beat him up or insult him. He will consider suicide. If he doesnt tell them anything, he has to keep it inside of him and suffer and experience emotional violence.
I have already responded to this (further down).
I guess I have to address every single one of these huh?
- "They will beat him up or insult him". You're once again assuming in this situation. Not everyone will harm another for being gay.
- "He will consider suicide". Not necessarily, not everyone cares about others opinions. Also even hetrosexuals consider suicide "this is not unique to homosexuality".
- "Experience emotional violence." I don't think emotional violence is not a real thing. Also some people are completely fine with keeping their sexual orientations a secret.
Heterosexual person doesnt face so many problems in life and heterosexual person experiences much less violence than a homosexual person.
To clarify, every time I say "I have already responded to this" is because it is answered here
Hopefully I won't spoil the rest of your argument before I even get to it but this round should make clear of your entire rebuttal.
At this point I might steal your way to victory.
1. If nobody knows you are homosexual violence can not occur because the stigma will not exist.
2. Your claiming all people who are homosexual people will face more problems in their lifetime more than a homosexual person. I'll address this in multiple different ways.
Lets address these "problems and violence":
- How someone views a problem varys from person to person. For example, some find homework a problem while some don't.
- Your assuming how much a homosexual person versus a hetrosexual person has problems. This would be impossible. It is impossible to make a precise and accurate amount on if homosexuals or hetrosexual's have more problems. Even with all of this, if you really do think about it, logically, could there be one person (who is homosexual) who experiences less problems than a hetrosexual person?
- Violence is impossible to be precise as well. And the same question applies, "if you really do think about it, logically, could there be one person who experiences less violence than a hetrosexual person?"
I think this closes your argument for the most part.
The claim "Homosexuality doesnt cause violence" is incorrect
I have already responded to this.
Homosexuals are, just like pedophiles, defined by difficulty to control their urges.
I hope con knows how this went against his argument made in round two. Con said, "That being said, I believe a homosexual can choose to suppress his attraction, which would reduce the amount of violence he experiences as a result of being homosexual". Now con is stating that they have difficulty. Yes, con could say that he didn't state that "difficulty" meant they can't but I am sure we all know how this somewhat backtracks.
Hopefully you're just stating they are similar in this way rather than both of them being the same thing. Being that you stated "like" I assume you are stating how they are similar.
But I can disagree with this concept your using. It doesn't have to be difficult to control their urges because many don't have to control their urges. But even with that, not everyone has difficulty controlling their urges. Some could simply just ignore it.
This makes them expose themselves and end up being beaten or insulted or killed.
Even if they do have difficulty resisting their urges, it doesn't mean that they don't have secret relationships.
That said, with my third round I made clear if nobody knew they were homosexual they wouldn't get insulted, beat up, or killed because they are homosexual.
People dont want homosexuality in their country to be promoted as something acceptable.
What's your point? I don't think it matters what those people want.. Maybe the homosexuals don't want them.
Most of homosexuals consider suicide, and wish they were straight so they wouldnt have to kill themselves.
"Most" is an estimate. Not all are homosexuals are suicidal. I can see your basing this off the quote I made "Most LGBT youth ..", this quote states that most youth consider suicide, not all homosexuals together.
Further, they didn't ever have to be straight to still stay alive and not commit suicide. The correct term would be "they wish they weren't judged so they didn't feel the need to kill themselves" - this would more so support the claim, "Homosexuality is not wrong, its the stigma homosexuals receive".
If they were heterosexuals and not homosexuals, they would have much less problems and would experience much less violence.
I have already responded to this.
If we ever find a cure for homosexuality, our obligation would be to cure homosexuality and save people from violence that happens as a result of having homosexuality.
This topic doesn't deal with "if" meaning we should discard this.
Even if I did let you have this, it wouldn't matter based on my other responses.
The claim "Homosexuality doesnt cause violence" is false. If there was no homosexuality, there would be less violence, less suicides, less substance abuse, and less bad things in general. Homosexuality provokes and causes people to attack the person who has homosexuality, leading to an increase in violence.
This will be answered more clearly later in my rebuttal.
The claim "Homosexuality doesnt cause violence" is false. If there was no homosexuality, there would be less violence, less suicides, less substance abuse, and less bad things in general. Homosexuality provokes and causes people to attack the person who has homosexuality, leading to an increase in violence.
This will be answered more clearly later in my rebuttal.
The claim "Discrimination and stigmatisation of homosexuals causes violence" is false. Homosexuality causes the violence. The reason for violence towards a person is his homosexuality. If homosexuality was removed, that violence would disappear.
This part will also make cease of your claim even further
Maybe you should look over these words. The claim would actually be correct.
Any violent act has a reason for its violence whether it is because they dislike some.thing of a person, disagree, or anything of sorts. This is not something that happens with just homosexuals. It is a person's mindset (opinions, beliefs, etc) that creates the violence.
I think it's obvious the multiple different things that create violence because of the person's mindset towards them, so I won't list them.
If others who are hetrosexual, can respect and not violate others who are homosexual means that its not because of homosexuality, its because of peoples opinions etc.
If this doesn't make sense let me clarify it even more.
Not everyone will violate a homosexual for being homosexual. What does this mean? If not everyone will violate a homosexual and can be respectful towards them, it is the person violating causes the violence.
Not only, false accusation or claim that someone is homosexual (even though they aren't) can damage their reputation or become harmful for them.
"Homosexuality is wrong" is a correct claim. Homosexuality makes a person who has it to suffer. If something makes a person suffer so much for no valid reason, it is wrong. If a person didnt have homosexuality, his suffering would greatly be reduced.If we ever find a cure for homosexuality, our obligation would be to cure homosexuality and save people from violence that happens as a result of having homosexuality.
I have already responded to this claim. "If prejudice makes a person suffer for no valid reason, it should be considered wrong."
If it makes possible to find a cure for homosexuality it should never be used unless wanted. I don't think they would ever make such a thing, but if it does happen nobody should (and mostly have) be forced into taking this "cure".
I will use the final round for final conclusion about the debate.
Alright, sounds good.
CONCLUSION:
The claim "Homosexuality is not wrong" is most clearly supported by evidence and it is shown of prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals. Homosexuality is natural, not a disorder, and should be respected regardless of personal beliefs or theories. Any other claims that fall under "Homosexuality is wrong" is unsupported and based on estimates.
----
SOURCES:
----
Quite unfortunate it's the last round. Out of words once again.
Even with it being the last round, I'm glad we got to do this debate. This being my first actual debate with somebody on this website it was quite interesting to look at another perspective. I look forward to the conclusion and I thank you for this debate.
Vote Pro
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
First off, I did not even know we could put formatting into the description; so well done on teaching me something!
On a related note, the a good description to model future debates on is at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4222
So key definitions laid out, along with one or two metrics for measurement (which to me doesn't mean they're the only ones, but it gives a baseline to decrease arbitrariness).
...
Ok style criticism:
Please recycle the headings throughout the debate. It makes it so much easier to follow, and saves a ton of characters.
Argument 1; Homosexuality is Natural
While not advancing his own case, con wins this hands down by pointing out that natural or unnatural is irrelevant to good or bad. This one seems to be pro falling into the tactic of trying to pre-refute arguments an opponent is likely to make but has not made. When it works it can be beautiful, but other times it's a strawman; generally I'd advise against trying those in R1 (and/or keep it minimal).
Not sure why con thought pro's definition limits homosexuals to humans, and sure pro comes back with how it applies in the animal kingdom; but again, con is right that natural doesn't matter.
Argument 2; Homosexuality is not a disorder
This is more akin to what arg1 meant to be. A reminder of a common abuse hurled at anyone who isn't asexual (in addition to anyone who is asexual).
I get con's complaint over the word "psychopathology," the sentence indeed did not come together when initially put forward.
Con pivots here with standards for how it could be classified as a disorder (even if such would not be recognized as one by the American Psychological Association).
Argument 3; violence
Con argues that gays are more prone to violence. This is the first really important claim in the debate, so really should have gotten a heading (there were other claims next to it, but this is the big one!).
Pro counters that the claim is unwarranted, and mentions non-homosexuals abusing them as the real wrong.
Con argues that having the disorder homosexuality causes others to inflict harms upon them, and they are therefore wrong for being harmed... He reminds us that disorder is defined as "something that disrupts the function of an individual"
Pro responds with something about secret gays... Expected more of a slam dunk here... Oh gets fun with a counter about curing Korean for how odd talking about removing identity from people really is.
Argument 4; successful reproduction
Con throwing this one out there caught my attention, but seems like an ok metric, to which pro would need to outweigh with positive ones.
However, pro uses IVF to show that they do a have children.
This really should have been followed with some comparison of the average quality of parents among both groups.
Argument 5; diseases
Con points out increased disease rates,
Pro counters with a study about straight men who have sex with men being more likely to get sick than actual gay people (I was in the military too long; I'm still laughing about this, and I feel bad for laughing!)
Con counters that half of gay men are positive for STDs (this would have been strengthened with the comparative rate for straight people).
Pro comes back with disease rates from Planned Parenthood (actually this is part of why I'm not giving sources, as I am not seeing the table within that link), showing heteros having higher STD rates than some gays (the letters should have been spelled out a bit).
...
Things basically just repeat themselves a bit from there.
Were the debate to have the "definitely" qualifier, I'd vote against pro; as is, it seems far more likely than not that homosexuality is not wrong. I'm left with the impression that non-homosexuals have a problem of committing violence, which makes the ones not committing said violence a decrease in the amount of wrongness; further the STD rates favored the gays (I actually don't believe this based on my own research, but no counter evidence was used for me to align with).
That said, it was close. Pro fell solidly flat on their main two contentions, and only attained the high ground within the framework con put forward. I think I'd still be putting this down as a tie (maybe giving pro conduct for con missing two rounds), if not for the whole remove Korean from people; that one gives me food for thought about the greater implications of trying to make people homogeneous (pun intended!).
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Arguments:
Pro started off with a convincing argument, stating that Homosexuality doesn't harm people in a physical sense, and occurs naturally. They go on to provide sources, and a firm argument for that case.
What really got me though, was when Con made the argument that homosexuality is not a natural occurrence, given that the only place it shows up in, is humans. Then Con also goes on to say, that homosexuality causes more harm than good, because of the suicide and depression rates. Con does not provide any statistics or evidence for this, but Pro does rebuttal this statement so I will count it in my vote.
This is where the argument gets interesting. Pro states that the cause in violence is due to others being aggressive and demeaning to homosexuals, and that it isn't the homosexual's fault, but what Pro does not realize is that they are attacking their previous argument, in saying that homosexuality doesn't harm people. Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true. But dangerous doesn't entirely constitute as wrong all the time, so this was a hard vote for me.
So, all in all, what got me to vote for Con, was that Con proved that.
A. Homosexuality is not a natural occurrence, yet a human made one.
B. Homosexuality causes its own danger.
So, danger, plus unnatural usually = wrong.
Sources:
Goes to Pro, because Con provided 0 sources.
Your vote is appreciated. Next time when doing this debate, ill keep the recommendations in mind.
Mostly to improve my first arguments along with information on gays being better parents on average.
Thank you.
Huh?
Its okay, because you were talking about South Korea.
Based on Barney's vote, it brought up words I forgot about. I apologize about that Best.Korea. My comment, "Curing homosexuality? Would that be the same as "curing Korean"? As many Koreans have violence occur in their life. I would presume we would want to "cure them" to greatly reduce the amount of violence, correct?" was unnecessary.
That study about how self identified straight men are more likely to have sex with multiple other menโฆ โ ๏ธ
I instinctively doubt those findings or the interpretation of them, but still, Iโm โ ๏ธ
Many thanks, good to see someone thinks similarly.
I'll probably vote on this later, as one of the votes here (not going to name names) appears to be insufficient.
"Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this."
The statement Con made was true.
If no homosexuals existed, then there wouldn't be any violence towards homosexuals.
As for all your other questions, there was a lot going on in that debate, and those points that I made, I felt were the main arguments that were being made, and I wanted to wrap up the vote as quickly as possible, and those points out of the whole debate, helped me make my decision.
The other points were good, but I didn't want to make the vote too long.
Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this.
That said, i'm not completely sure if the voting policy says anything on your vote meaning no matter the reason it won't affect anything. Just curious.
I see. Thanks for the vote.
I do have some questions.
What about the arguments con dropped in the first argument? Which means con didn't fully fulfill the BoP. Con dropped my arguments, while I dripped none of his.
As for this part "Pro states that the cause in violence is due to others being aggressive and demeaning to homosexuals, and that it isn't the homosexual's fault, but what Pro does not realize is that they are attacking their previous argument, in saying that homosexuality doesn't harm people" homosexuality verus homosexuals are different. And in my last argument, I state that one again its not homosexuality that causes the violence. Homosexuality does not harm people and it even goes with the me saying its due to the violence of others. "Homosexuality is not wrong or the reason for violence, its the discrimination and stigma against them."
I state: "Any violent act has a reason for its violence whether it is because they dislike some.thing of a person, disagree, or anything of sorts. This is not something that happens with just homosexuals. It is a person's mindset (opinions, beliefs, etc) that creates the violence.
Not everyone will violate a homosexual for being homosexual. What does this mean? If not everyone will violate a homosexual and can be respectful towards them, it is the person violating causes the violence"
A. Con dropped this part, never rebuttaling against how it is natural. Meaning con never proved this.
B. My first part of this argument explains this
Not saying your vote is wrong, just need a bit more clarification.
Much appreciated.
No problem
I'm going to go ahead and mention a few people who showed interest in this debate..
Not sure about the others.
Do you guys mind voting? If possible.
(Would rather this not end in a tie)
Going to go ahead and bump this.
Oh, I see. Thank you.
Melacharaz is saying that he believes homosexuality is firmly wrong and would fear that his vote would be deemed biased unless he voted for your side.
Quite unfortunate you won't be able to vote.
I'm unsure what your meaning. Would your vote be biased against me or for me? Either case it doesn't matter being it would be a unfair vote - just curious. And by saying giving all points to me, is that your biased voting opinion? Or your none-biased voting opinion?
i wont be able to vote on this. someone could report my vote for bias, even if i just used debate info only. unless i gave all points to bella.
Im glad your enjoying this debate.
I'm not sure if I should worry.. Right now, I think I am in a solid area. But who knows..
I like this debate so far.
Though so far, I can obviously see a clear winner.
I agree with you.
Though with my opinion on the topic of this debate, I have nothing to judge. It's not that I am one-sided when it comes to my opinion however I am certain with my opinion. That is until someone possibly changes my mind. Unlikely, but possible? Yes.
If your talking about how I do my debates, I already am already aware of my errors. That said, my judgement has already been decided.
at the end of the day, if you judge yourself, you will be wiser.
10 billion people could disagree with you, but its your conscience and guilt you must live with.
now, as to what standard you judge yourself, thats for you to decide.
Hm.. This isn't much up for me to answer. My judgement could be questioned regularly outside of this debate or inside of this debate. Simply, yes, this debate regarding (or my personal idea) on this topic can affect how people view my judgement. However, what much is there to judge?
Does the arguement of morality concerning homosexuality, affect you to the extent that your judgement could be questioned?
That's good.
It's always good to be curious once and a while. I apologize if that sounded a bit harsh or aggressive. I wasn't sure if it was a genuine question or more so a "hate" comment. Hopefully my previous response answered your question.
no problems. i simply wish to understand the reason for it.
Forgot to mention your user, my apologies.
I'm unsure what your point is concluding. This debate is not regarded off of "higher authority" on what is "right or wrong" and would be incorrect.
Debating is different for everyone. Debating can be to prove a point, enjoy or something following along. However for me personally it can change frequently as it could most. This being my first debate I have engaged in on DART I decided to come up with a topic I am somewhat passionate about.
Do you have a problem with this debate? If so, what? I'm curious to some degree.
The point of a Debate Site is to debate, regardless of the subject.
I mean, all someone has to do is appeal to a higher authority on what is " right/wrong" the logic then followed based on their position of authority.
i dont understand the reason for this debate.
will probably vote pro on this one...
Wow, i'm quite ashamed of my argument this round. Due to the lack of time I feel some of my mistakes have put me at a disadvantage, though I do think for the most part I have covered everything that was mainly in need for a rebuttal. Many of edits to my argument were not saved. However, I would much rather post an argument and have a few mistakes rather than not have any argument posted at all (with a forfeit round). Even with various things I was wanted to get rid of in my argument. That said, if anything doesn't make sense, I might clarify it in the next round or upon request.
References (that were not mentioned due to lack in time):
Utah University State. 2023.
O'Reilly. 2019. Retrieved from Elitedaily.
PubMed Central. 2012.
1. just leave it
2. an illness is still a... "unique characteristic"(trait)(unique in the sense of not being normal and only held by few people)of a person, even though it is not positive. And yes homosexuality is BOTH a trait and a practice, otherwise gay people would be asexual, not having intercourse. If it was only a trait, it would be bad to say it is wrong. Since it is also a practice, however, their arguments remains valid.
(I personally don't think being gay is bad, there are some exceptions where it is bad, bored to go into detail).
"Dropped point" refers to someone dropping their claim not if they don't support it well. Considering they haven't responded to my rebuttal against my rebuttal starting an entire new claim I assume he has dropped it. Though you're right, it's possible he hasn't dropped it.
Also if you consider a "dropped point" as not supporting it well, he still does not have a backed up response with evidence.
Also his "valid explanation" is not really considered valid being he hasn't backed it up. I have already responded to his claims "when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong." and he has not responded to them. Hence why I think he has dropped that claim. (You would not be assuming their gender as their gender is being displayed in their profile).
I never mentioned homosexuality as a illness. I simply say they did not CHOOSE to be homosexual, not they did not choose to have these illness (referring to homosexuality).
1. Unsure what you mean?
2. Homosexuality is not a practice, I have already stated the definition. I am not sure where you're getting that an illness is a trait. The definition of a trait is: "a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person." I don't think an illness is a characteristic of someone. You are referring to homosexuality as a disorder. I have already proved how it isn't a disorder. Con has not provided ANY evidence on how homosexuality is a disorder. In a sense con is wrong.
Might be my last response. I don't want him getting any ideas.
What does drop a point mean? Assuming it means don't support it well, I would say he hasn't dropped it, it is a valid explanation that when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong. And I do agree with his definition of disorder.(oh no "their" definition because God forbid we assume their gender lol Oh and did I JUST REFERENCE GOD?) (sorry not trying to be cocky, just voicing my concerns over wokeness).
And what you said about how people with various illnesses did not CHOOSE to have these illnesses, however they can be defined as wrong, I reply;
1) It isn't wrong to be sick
2) Homosexuality is a PRACTICE. An ilness is a TRAIT. Homosexuality is the ACTUAL PRACTICE of something that disrupts a human's behavior and function. In that sense, con is tottaly right.
HOWEVER, I personally Do believe that homosexuality is wrong but I also believe that no one has the right to stop these people to do whatever they want in their HOUSES (not some pride parades). Afterall, we live in a free country, well you at least 'cause I live in greece
Disclaimer: It's not that con isn't doing a good job, i'm just genuinely curious how they're doing a good job or bad job for future reference.
I agree with you. However, is it possible for you to define "pretty good job"?
Con has yet to provide any scientific evidence towards any of their claims or rebuttals against my claims.
Furthermore, they dropped their claim, "homosexuality is a disorder is proven correct by the claim homosexuality disrupts functions of an individual, where disorder is defined as "something that disrupts of functions of an individual". While dropping this and not responding to my objections, they leave my claims standing.
Well, although con has done a pretty good job so far, they have failed to portray if correlation between HIV and homosexuality is also a causation. It could be that the CHOICES of gays (during sex) make them more vulnerable to HIV and not that just by practicing homosexual intercourse, gays are more likely to catch it.
Thank you.
They took my voting rights due to my troll vote on Novice's debate with oromagi.
That being said, I dont usually vote anyway.
Could I get your vote on the Nicolino vs Floyd Mayweather debate?
"Would you be willing to have a mod change the amount of characters we are able to use, if even possible? If not that is quite alright as well."
Yes, I am fine with that.
"I apologize for how long it is taking for me to respond"
There is no need to apologize. The time is set to one week.
I apologize for how long it is taking for me to respond, as currently I am trying to fit all my words in my rebuttal.
Would you be willing to have a mod change the amount of characters we are able to use, if even possible? If not that is quite alright as well.
*can be attractive to someone (not something) else*
Hi Wylted,
When creating this debate I was playing devil's advocate, as this is my first debate I would like a much debated topic in the world!
However, when you brought up this comment it gave me a chance to think "do I think homosexuality is alright?". The answer is yes, I do see that man on man sex should be alright and/or okay. There is nothing harmful (that I can see) with man on man sex.
It is most obvious you are hetrosexual, which is completely fine. However a sexual orientation is based on person to person, you finding something unattractive can be attractive to something else. Such as I might like pasta while others might find it disgusting.
are you arguing devil's advocate or do you really believe that man on man sex is okay?
It seems disgusting to me. What is attractive about Harry asses?