Instigator / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#5009
Would homosexuality be accepted by society if the majority 98% of earth population were practicing homosexuals?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
0
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Straightforward question that I don't see asked and answered. Couldn't even find discussions online regarding this topic.
If you say yes, to the question, tell us why please. We'll be the first at the table discussion.
Round 1
Very good point in the comments about the definition of society.
Society is another word for people. It's understood that people accept homosexuality. They're for full engagement of it to include marriages and open displays of it. These are the people in particular that are heterosexual.
It's obvious that people who are homosexual would support their own act and desires.
If that's where the opposing side was going to make a point about would homosexuals still accept what they do given it was more of them that make up the population isn't debatable.
The ones who are in question of supporting homosexuality are the outsiders. Always has been. It's that way with them being the majority and it can be that same way in this hypothetical of them being the minority namely 2 percent.
So when we're talking about societal acceptance, the context clue is pointing to those who actually have to make a choice in accepting. If I have a desire myself, acceptance has nothing to do with it, it's what I am. I don't accept it like it was just offered for me to take. I already have it.
This topic is meant to flush out would the acceptance of homosexuality not be what it is if we knew the world population would not be intact from overwhelming numbers.
I know the argument against homosexuality about world population is dismissed with a deflection because there really is no rebuttal for it in a real life scenario. Well let's flush that out.
I'm really hoping for an effort filled argument from the opposing side that says yes, homosexuality would be accepted by society the 2 % if the majority 98% of earth population were practicing homosexuals.
Again the word society was used broadly here. I didn't specify all of society, I didn't specify some of society or the least of society. I didn't specify some people, all people, none of that. What makes a society or a people doesn't require a specific number in order for the word to be validly used other than perhaps at least more than one person. I just wanted to nip that in the bud so we don't waste time on misunderstanding the topic, going back and forth .
So whatever arguments the opposing side had in mind, they may want to revise a bit. Good call by the commenter.
But again I'm hoping for an effort filled argument from the opposing side that says yes, homosexuality would be accepted by society the 2% if the majority 98% of earth population were practicing homosexuals.
Then they go to back up their position specifically, specifically, specifically by proving that society, the non homosexuals that accept homosexuality would still accept it based on the exact reasoning and views they have now.
Now how can this be done in this hypothetical? Surely we can't know the future. Maybe the opposing side will find surveys showing folks who have been asked this question on the lines of this topic.
If that's the case, here's the kicker. The opposing side has to prove the answers with veracity. That they were truthful. Saying you accept something or accept something still when you actually don't is not the same as accepting it .
So I think that is it for me for now. I ask the opposing side to please please please bring substance to the debate. Be prepared to be asked questions and give answers.
If you don't answer a question, it is a conceding and forfeit. If you do not bring a counterargument or any argument it is a conceding and forfeit.
Now we're here to edify and be embraced with the truth. I shall continue achieving that .
Who gives acceptance of the society?
The people.
What counts as "the people"?
A majority. Some may propose 2/3rds majority, but 98% is above that as well.
: regarded favorably : given approval or acceptancea fully accepted member of the groupespecially : generally approved or used
And yes, 98% is well enough for "generally" imo.
I do not need to say more.
Conclusions
- If 98% of the society accepts homosexuality, it would be enough to be accepted by definition.
- In this case, 98% of the society do accept homosexuality.
- Therefore, such a hypothetical society would accept homosexuality.
Round 2
Let me ask you this being that you choose to measure society by 98% , would society still accept homosexual practice being that they're 2 percent that are the remaining surviving heterosexuals left to survive the population, the 2 percent now?
If you say "yes" , that is where it is only valid in attempt to make a rebuttal within the goalpost of this topic.
Forfeited
Round 3
I rest my case for what is projected to be a waste of time.
Let me ask you this being that you choose to measure society by 98% , would society still accept homosexual practice being that they're 2 percent that are the remaining surviving heterosexuals left to survive the population, the 2 percent now?
You are saying that the other 2 percent is now representative of society, somehow. And you know that they are just not practicing homosexuality, we have no reason to believe they are actively homophobic, so the homophobe turnout rate for such a hypothetical society would therefore be equal to or less than 2%, probably much less with this many people being actually homosexuals, assuming it is even possible.
Think about it for a second, what is something we have that is like 98/2?
Would society accept using electricity if only 98% of the world population gets electricity?
Your logic, in this place, would sound like if you want the electric privileges revoked from Paris, Tokyo, Beijing, New York, and just anywhere else that needs them.
Would society accept using phones if 98% of the people use them?
I mean, do I have to say it anymore?
Would vaccination be normalized if 98% of the people are vaccinated?
You tell me.
And the three proportions may not even be this extreme to begin with, and look how obvious that we clearly have electricity, phones and vaccines normalized in society. Why would homosexuality be different?
If you say "yes" , that is where it is only valid in attempt to make a rebuttal within the goalpost of this topic.
I guess I am the only one here that can move a goalpost because my opponent has possibly just demonstrated his inability to do so. Saying that "2% is more representative of a society than the 98%" doesn't make sense, no matter where the goalpost is, even if the goalpost now resides in some hypothetical homosexual society with 98% gay rate.
I rest my case for what is projected to be a waste of time.
Look, I am sorry for not being here because I was busy writing my college essays for the early action applications I must make in order to take a shot at my own future. So, come back I guess, I'm not wasting time no more.
Round 4
"You are saying that the other 2 percent is now representative of society, somehow."
What do you mean NOW REPRESENTATIVE?
What is a society? A people is it not? If 2 percent aren't people, what are they?
Let's not play games.
"And you know that they are just not practicing homosexuality, we have no reason to believe they are actively homophobic, so the homophobe turnout rate for such a hypothetical society would therefore be equal to or less than 2%, probably much less with this many people being actually homosexuals, assuming it is even possible."
Very simple without trying to complicate things in order to try and avoid refutation, just face it. In the case of this topic, 98 percent of society or just about all, not all, but very close that they're practicing homosexuals and the remaining percentage which is the minority are not ok. Would that minority, the heterosexual members still accept homosexuality based on the views they currently have now in real time?
If you say "yes", why? I don't know exactly what homophobia is. You can unpack that in your explanation.
"Think about it for a second, what is something we have that is like 98/2?"
Are you asking about something realistic? If so are you asking this because you have no answer for this scenario presented in this topic?
"Would society accept using electricity if only 98% of the world population gets electricity?
Your logic, in this place, would sound like if you want the electric privileges revoked from Paris, Tokyo, Beijing, New York, and just anywhere else that needs them.
Would society accept using phones if 98% of the people use them?
I mean, do I have to say it anymore?
Would vaccination be normalized if 98% of the people are vaccinated?
You tell me."
All this is deviation from the topic and you know it.
"Let me ask you this being that you choose to measure society by 98% , would society still accept homosexual practice being that they're 2 percent that are the remaining surviving heterosexuals left to survive the population, the 2 percent now?"
"I guess I am the only one here that can move a goalpost because my opponent has possibly just demonstrated his inability to do so. Saying that "2% is more representative of a society than the 98%" doesn't make sense, no matter where the goalpost is, even if the goalpost now resides in some hypothetical homosexual society with 98% gay rate."
Not only are you moving the goalpost but are misrepresenting me.
Please answer the question below. If you can't, you can forfeit.
"Let me ask you this being that you choose to measure society by 98% , would society still accept homosexual practice being that they're 2 percent that are the remaining surviving heterosexuals left to survive the population, the 2 percent now?"
What is a society? A people is it not? If 2 percent aren't people, what are they?
This person thinks that 2% of the society is more representative of the society than 98% of the society. That says all about it really.
Very simple without trying to complicate things in order to try and avoid refutation, just face it. In the case of this topic, 98 percent of society or just about all, not all, but very close that they're practicing homosexuals and the remaining percentage which is the minority are not ok. Would that minority, the heterosexual members still accept homosexuality based on the views they currently have now in real time?\\
Firstly, maybe yes. I am a straight male, but I am clearly not homosexual. A lot of such people exist here on our current earth. Your assertion that even they wouldn't accept it is baseless.
Are you asking about something realistic? If so are you asking this because you have no answer for this scenario presented in this topic?
No for both.
"Let me ask you this being that you choose to measure society by 98% , would society still accept homosexual practice being that they're 2 percent that are the remaining surviving heterosexuals left to survive the population, the 2 percent now?"
This is irrelevant to the problem because 2% of the society wouldn't be representative of the entire society. I restate and rest my case.
Round 5
"What is a society? A people is it not? If 2 percent aren't people, what are they?"
It's obvious when you deflect from answering questions, your point or counterpoint was refuted.
I got you. It's just like these police interrogations I've been watching lately. When these detectives got the suspect cornered in a lie or stump them with a question they can't explain away of what has just incriminated them, they got them.
So when you don't answer a question, you're just conceding my point is true and you're wrong. You rather just not admit it and play it off as a juvenile move or maybe it's a matter of pride.
"Firstly, maybe yes. I am a straight male, but I am clearly not homosexual. A lot of such people exist here on our current earth. Your assertion that even they wouldn't accept it is baseless."
It must be as baseless for your "maybe yes" response. You're calling me baseless but you're trying to halfway agree with me making that type of response.
Also the burden is on you. Don't deflect yet again by looking at me calling me baseless or my calling my stance that.
I said this in the first round:
"I'm really hoping for an effort filled argument from the opposing side that says yes, homosexuality would be accepted by society the 2 % if the majority 98% of earth population were practicing homosexuals. "
The weight is on you to prove that heterosexuals that are barely surviving by 2 percent approve of an overwhelming practice of non sexual reproduction. Let's put this in perspective. Doesn't it stand to reason that these heterosexual folks are looking for generations of families to live on and the likelihood of that being the case is smaller than ever?
Nine times out of ten, more so ten times out of time, they could expect that with a majority or average heterosexual potential mate and partner. But with a ratio scarce of maybe less than one out of ten, what do you think?
But instead of trying to make a case since the first round, you filibuster because you know your "maybe yes" is weak and you flat out don't know what kind of case you could make that'll stand up.
I also said this in the first round:
"The opposing side has to prove the answers with veracity. That they were truthful."
On you to prove your case. So actually I tell you what. Throw out that "maybe yes" as "maybe yes" is not the challenge you signed on to . Your position is not "maybe yes". It is full flat "yes, society, the heterosexual members would still accept homosexual practice based on the same views they have now".
So you're the one that has no basis at all. You haven't presented anything of the kind.
Why is homosexual practice accepted by anyone?
The common supportive points are "love is love". What's the harm? The bottomline is that there is no harm. Particularly not to the population, you know that. But what if the ratio was opposite?
Smoking, drinking, doing drugs, consuming unhealthy foods, engaging in all kinds of sex acts in "moderation" or in a small ratio, harmless.
IT'S HARMLESS. What about the flip side?
Forget about the flip side right, we don't have to waste a thought on that. Well this is the topic where I already stated we're here to flush all that out. Face that.
"No for both."
I was just wondering. We do know this is irrelevant as it is not any kind of point to build a case for a BURDEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FULFILL .
Now if somehow my answer was expected to be used to help you build it , forget that. You can answer the question(s) posed to me yourself in connection with building your case or just go straight to building it. Don't try to use my input. You took the challenge. You think you have a case, make one or give up.
If you want to know what's realistic or not to me which is a separate subject, we can setup that topic another time.
"This is irrelevant to the problem because 2% of the society wouldn't be representative of the entire society. I restate and rest my case."
Ok then this is just deflecting and conceding that you cannot make a case for society still accepting homosexuality.
I asked you is 2% of society still society. You act like the 2 % aren't people. Then I ask what are they if they're not people. You couldn't answer. You're stuck. You stand refuted.
Let's go back to the first round where I made full disclosure and clarity on what a society is so there'd be no loophole you can find in the topic.
I didn't say I'm referring to all of society. Do you want to pretend you didn't read the first round ? It just makes you appear intellectually dishonest in attempt to move the goalpost.
From the first round I stated this in advance just in case you'd try what you went on ahead to do anyway which again just tells on yourself deliberately looking to misrepresent me.
"Again the word society was used broadly here. I didn't specify all of society, I didn't specify some of society or the least of society. I didn't specify some people, all people, none of that. What makes a society or a people doesn't require a specific number in order for the word to be validly used other than perhaps at least more than one person. I just wanted to nip that in the bud so we don't waste time on misunderstanding the topic, going back and forth . "
To the readers here I explained how the term society will be used and applied in this topic and the validity of how it's used period.
The opposing side wants to argue the validity of society as they can do no better than "maybe yes". So instead of continuing in that weak direction, they'll pick at the validity of the term.
The definition of terms were established in the topic. Then all that are arguing within the topic , I reiterate and emphasize - that is within the topic - will have to argue from within the established standards. Based upon that you know whether you're relevant to the topic or not. That's how I know the opposing side is outside the topic. Then the opposing side communicates I've gone irrelevant.
According to them I've gone irrelevant because I'm outside THEIR STANDARD of terms . Well you come up with a topic of your own, then you have the place to dictate all that.
As far as the topic, you went and back over the word society as predicted . Round after round you offered nothing much of a case . You came up with "maybe yes" which indicates you really don't know in answer to the question. You've failed to prove society the heterosexuals would still accept homosexuality as the heterosexuals of society, the society do now.
Case closed.
I asked you is 2% of society still society. You act like the 2 % aren't people. Then I ask what are they if they're not people. You couldn't answer. You're stuck. You stand refuted.
This is essentially the backbone of Con's argument. I restate that the ratios 98% to 2% is already enough to prove that it is being accepted by society by definition.
The 2% are people if you say they are, but they are not more representative of the society than the other 98% are, and the other 98% say yes, which is by definition enough.
I restate the definition.
What counts as "the people"?A majority. Some may propose 2/3rds majority, but 98% is above that as well.: regarded favorably : given approval or acceptancea fully accepted member of the groupespecially : generally approved or used
This entirely depends on definition of "society".