Instigator / Con
14
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#904
Is homosexuality evil?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Pinkfreud08
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
11
1481
rating
11
debates
40.91%
won
Description
Before we begin let's clarify a couple of rules and definitions.
Evil: Harmful to society
Homosexuality: Attaining sexual pleasure from members of the same sex.
Rules:
- Religious arguments aren't allowed on account of them being arbitrary.
- Prefer not to have this debate centered around semantics however a little won't hurt.
- The burden of proof will be 90 % on Pro however I will provide a few reasons as to why it isn't evil.
Round 1
Con
#1
Before I begin I would just like to state that's very easy to create a moral and logical system that is consistent.
The two traits most if not all logical/moral people look for in systems is
- Consistency, I wouldn't be a hypocrite
- Do I agree with the logic
My goal of this debate is to either demonstrate that your arguments against homosexuality either aren't logically consistent, or they are consistent but are absurd.
With all of that stated, I will give my position.
I am not arguing that homosexuality is a particularly good actor, I am simply arguing it's mostly a morally neutral action like most actions are.
For instance, heterosexuality isn't exactly a bad concept, however, it's not really a particularly good action either. Which therefore makes it neutral.
Given that I'm mostly going to be taking the morally neutral action, it is Cons job to provide reasons why homosexuality would be overall harmful to society/evil.
However since I stated " mostly " technically I must provide a few reasons as to why it should be allowed so here it goes,
Homosexuality and sexual pleasure, in general, is great for one's health
Sexual pleasure, in general, has been proven to provide health benefits whether it be through masturbation or sexual intercourse.
According to medicalnewstoday, these benefits include,
- Improves immunity
- Lowers blood pressure
- Relieves pain
- Improves sleep
These are just several examples of the overall health benefits of living a healthy sexual life.
The main argument I hear about homosexuality in general, is people bringing up statistics on HIV or AIDS.
Well by logical extension this would make black people harmful to society since they commit the most crime.
Or White people evil since they commit the most mass shootings.
This inevitably leads to my opponent doing one of Three options,
They bite the bullet and agree to remain logically consistent
- Assuming my opponent does this then I will be forced to prove why this leads to absurdity.
They don't bite the bullet and don't remain logically consistent
- If my opponent does this route then he/she is a hypocrite and their logic/morals make no sense at all.
They try to prove why these analogies don't apply
Probably the more likely of the 3, assuming they pick this option than they will definitely have to give some ground which I inevitably will have to rebut
Of these Three options, I suspect my opponent will either bite the bullet or have to explain why these analogies don't apply.
Moving right Along let's address another common argument made against homosexuality,
Homosexuals can't reproduce
This is the most common argument made against homosexuality, which is absurd at that.
If my opponent is going to attempt to make this argument that they will have to concede that by logical extension, anyone else who can't reproduce are harmful to society as well.
This includes,
- Mentally disabled people
- People with disorders that make them sterile
- heterosexuals who don't wish to reproduce.
This inevitably leads to my opponent doing one of Three options,
They bite the bullet and agree to remain logically consistent
- Assuming my opponent does this then I will be forced to prove why this leads to absurdity.
They don't bite the bullet and don't remain logically consistent
- If my opponent does this route then he/she is a hypocrite and their logic/morals make no sense at all.
They try to prove why these analogies don't apply
Probably the more likely of the 3, assuming they pick this option than they will definitely have to give some ground which I inevitably will have to rebut
Of these Three options, I suspect my opponent will either bite the bullet or have to explain why these analogies don't apply.
Nextly let's address the third most common argument.
Homosexuality isn't natural
This argument is rather absurd and here's why,
Society in the 21st century generally isn't natural as well.
By this logic, my opponent will have to concede that,
- Buildings are unnatural which therefore make them evil
- Air conditioning is unnatural which make them evil
- Medicine is unnatural which make them evil
- Dyed hair isn't natural which therefore make them evil
This inevitably leads to my opponent doing one of Three options,
They bite the bullet and agree to remain logically consistent
- Assuming my opponent does this then I will be forced to prove why this leads to absurdity.
They don't bite the bullet and don't remain logically consistent
- If my opponent does this route then he/she is a hypocrite and their logic/morals make no sense at all.
They try to prove why these analogies don't apply
Probably the more likely of the 3, assuming they pick this option than they will definitely have to give some ground which I inevitably will have to rebut
Of these Three options, I suspect my opponent will either bite the bullet or have to explain why these analogies don't apply.
In conclusion,
Homosexuality and sexuality, in general, has aided humanity through various health benefits which are backed up by studies.
And the three main arguments made against homosexuality are nothing but either absurd arguments, or logically inconsistent with the person's views.
SOURCES,
Pro
#2
I will keep this first round quite
short and to the point. Due to his redefinition of "evil,"
I do not have to prove homosexuality is moral, only that it is
harmful to society. The title could properly be read as "Is
homosexuality harmful to society?"
P1. Homosexuals Contract STDs at Rates
Much Higher Than Straight People
According to the CDC, in 2015 homosexuals accounted for 81% of syphilis cases in which the partner
was known (2014). Statistically, homosexuals only account for 1-3% of the
population. It's also important to note that Syphilis is associated with a much higher rate of AIDs, with homosexuals also accounting for 67% of all individuals with AIDs as well.
There are many ways to qualify the data
but I will leave it here until I receive objections. Everything below is
not necessarily going to be tied to refuting the title due to me
already meeting my BoP.
P2. Sex is Harmful
Sex, contrary to what contemporary
liberals state, is by far the single most dangerous activity one may engage
in.
This could be justified in a myriad of ways, i) STDs ii)
childbirth iii) Vulnerability iv) manipulability v) Societal
Implications vi) emotional issues and scarring.
NOTE: Homosexuals suffer from all of the above for worse than their straight counterparts. Excluding childbirth of course.
P3. Homosexuality is Indicative of
Psychosexual Immaturity as defined by Freud.
P4. Homosexuality is ethically
objectable, it degrades the relationship of love to a game.
Round 2
Con
#3
I would personally like to thank my opponent for posting his argument, now let's continue the debate.
MY OPPONENT IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS:
My opponent made an argument in the previous round along the lines of,
"P1. Homosexuals Contract STDs at Rates Much Higher Than Straight People"
My opponent has either knowingly or by accident ignored my counter-argument I already made in my opening with me stating,
" The main argument I hear about homosexuality in general, is people bringing up statistics on HIV or AIDS.Well by logical extension this would make black people harmful to society since they commit the most crime.Or White people evil since they commit the most mass shootings.This inevitably leads to my opponent doing one of Three options, "
- My opponent has very obviously ignored the point I made either intentional or unintentional,
Because of this, I will await my opponent to give a counter argument to my argument in case my opponent did this by accident.
If my opponent fails to do so next round then I would ask for voters to consider this when voting.
Moving right along my opponent makes ANOTHER argument that completely ignores my previous points with his/hers
P2. Sex is Harmful
My opponent did little to debunk MY claims in my previous argument when I stated,
Homosexuality and sexual pleasure, in general, is great for one's healthSexual pleasure, in general, has been proven to provide health benefits whether it be through masturbation or sexual intercourse.According to medicalnewstoday, these benefits include,- Improves immunity- Lowers blood pressure- Relieves pain- Improves sleep
My opponent actually hasn't addressed ANY of these health benefits and has instead made anecdotal claims such as,
P4. Homosexuality is ethically objectable, it degrades the relationship of love to a game.
This is a claim that mind you ISN'T at all elaborated by my opponent,
Same with this point,
P3. Homosexuality is Indicative of Psychosexual Immaturity as defined by Freud.
To summarize,
My opponent is making claims and arguments I already debunked in my previous argument either by purpose or by accident if my opponent does this again then I would like to ask for voters to consider this GREATLY when they're voting.
Pro
#4
My first round was not dedicated to rebuttals, after all there was little point in me doing so before I layed out a simplistic case for my own side (that homosexuality is harmful to society).
I would like everyone to consider whether dieing of AIDs is worth having slightly lower blood pressure. I do not need to disprove his "benefits" to prove homosexuality is harmful to society. Homosexuals on average die 20 years younger than their straight counterparts so they won't be enjoying these slight benefits for long anyways.
Sex is dangerous, and deviancy is harmful.
-------
Are black people harmful to society? I don't know, their culture and murder rate is but it's hardly relevant. Society would probably be improved overall by expelling them, but I would prefer to seek a more amicable solution such as culture and schooling.
Are white people harmful to society? Clearly not, considering mass shootings aren't common. The white demographic is largely the only one keeping this country afloat. All the shooters in the last 20 years also have one other thing in common, they were prescribed some sort of psychoactive medication coupled with a poor home environment.
All of this bears no relevance to whether homos are dieing from AIDs in their ass or not - it's a false-equivalence.
--------
I apologize with premise 2, I meant to write 'sex is dangerous,' which by implication means it can be very harmful.
It is incredibly harmful if one deviates from the heterosexual monogamous standard. This is evidenced by polygamous societies being vastly more violent historically, and of course STDs rates. Life expectancy is also higher for straight married couples than normal heterosexuals.
--------
Psychosexual immaturity occurs when psychosexual development is stunted in some manner, such as having no father or receiving negative influence from the environment.
My fourth premise is entirely straight-forward. It can be applied to any form of deviancy which does not necessitate commitment. Perhaps you could counter this by demonstrating how homosexual love is similarly pure, or show statistics which prove they aren't sex demons.
Round 3
Con
#5
I would like everyone to consider whether dieing of AIDs is worth having slightly lower blood pressure. I do not need to disprove his "benefits" to prove homosexuality is harmful to society.
Firstly, this is a vast oversimplification on this topic,
Higher blood pressure according to heart.org actually increases the chance for someone's risk for heart disease.
Therefore I could imagine an act that directly lowers blood pressure would decrease one's odds of contradicting heart disease which according to healthline.com, also decreases odds for strokes.
Both of which according to the same article are the two deadliest around the world with almost 8.8 M deaths of people dying from Heart disease in 2015 and another Strokes accounting for 6.2 million deaths in 2015.
Both of which mind you take up large percentages of the deaths worldwide both ranging from 10-15 %.
So yes actually lowering your blood pressure would actually more than likely help you more than dying of aids would which according to damien.org comparatively only 1 million died in 2013.
Don't get me wrong, aid is a huge epidemic in the world and we must do whatever we can to stop it.
However, homosexuality isn't the issue, giving people education and finding treatments will actually stop it.
Secondly, you actually do have to disprove the benefits of homosexuality.
If homosexuality and sexual pleasure, in general, has benefits to the human population, you actually do have to disprove them. Or at least prove the cons outweigh the pro's which I'm not convinced of.
I mean ok homosexuals account for the majority of aids related contractions.
Sexual diseases and problems exist in every sexual relationship whether it be gay or straight, this isn't exclusive to one or the other.
For instance, the unwanted pregnancy rates are 100 % due to heterosexuals, while the gay community actually aids the ongoing orphanage issue by adopting children.
According to my own opponents arguement, heterosexuality is harmful to society which is plainly absurd, each has issues yes but this doesn't make them harmful to society especially with the overall health benefits both of them have.
Do you not think people relieving pain, decreasing their odds of heart disease, depression, and improving their sleep isn't helpful to society in any way?
I surely hope my opponent isn't suggesting that?
Are black people harmful to society? I don't know, their culture and murder rate is but it's hardly relevant. Society would probably be improved overall by expelling them, but I would prefer to seek a more amicable solution such as culture and schooling.
So my opponent here obviously is pulling a red herring by overall avoiding the point I'm making.
By my opponents OWN logic by appealing to statistical data arguments, he believes black people are harmful to society.
My opponents point on murder rate and culture as well can be applied to homosexuals, homosexuals aids rate and culture is the fault, not homosexuality itself.
Therefore my opponent contradicts himself, I rest my case on this point.
Are white people harmful to society? Clearly not, considering mass shootings aren't common. The white demographic is largely the only one keeping this country afloat. All the shooters in the last 20 years also have one other thing in common, they were prescribed some sort of psychoactive medication coupled with a poor home environment.
Yet another obvious red herring as once again my opponent is missing the overall flaw in their logic.
School shootings are common, there have been around 288 school shootings since 2009, tell me this isn't a problem in society?
Regardless of population size, this is irrelevant what if homosexuals were more common in society?
What about homosexuals living in poor home environments or mentally ill?
Very obviously across these two points, the issue seems clear.
My opponents very own logic can be applied to homosexuals as well, or any of the other instances I brought up.
All of this bears no relevance to whether homos are dieing from AIDs in their ass or not - it's a false-equivalence.
Obvious attempt to dodge my argument, it's not a false equivalence when these concepts apply to this situation.
My opponent is attempting to use arguments against homosexuality by bringing up aids statistics, when the same logic can be applied to whites committing the most mass shootings or blacks committing the most crime.
I am simply pointing out the logical inconsistencies/absurdities in my opponent's argument.
Not to mention the fact that I am not stating these concepts are 100 % equal, I am just comparing the logical consistency in my opponent's arguments.
An example of this very concept would be if I stated,
" It's right to kill cows since they are unintelligent"
Well then by logical extension if a human was unintelligent as a cow that would justify killing the human. This is a rather simple concept.
Let's apply it to this scenario,
My opponent has used the argument against homosexuality by citing statistics on the high aids rates amongst homosexuals.
Well then by logical extension if there were high rates of any other horrible act such as crime, disease, ETC, this would also mean those acts are " evil " by the same logic.
Which once again this sort of logic would state that,
- Blacks are evil since they have the highest crime rate
- Whites are evil since they have the highest mass shooting rate
- People ages 45-64 are evil since they have the highest rate of suicide
So yes these arguments aren't simply a false-equivalence, my opponent is obviously misusing the term.
Life expectancy is also higher for straight married couples than normal heterosexuals.
This isn't the fault of homosexuality if you actually look at statistical data it makes sense,
People in the LGBT community experience a good chunk of hate crimes committed which of course leads to depression and suicide.
Statistically according to Priceonomics, people in the LGBT community experience,
- Physical violence
- Verbal harassment
- Discrimination
- Harassment
- Bullying
- Sexual Violence
Not to mention the fact that according to the Seattle times,
People LGBT have the second highest rate for bias crimes and bias incidents in 2015.
Reject this statistic? Alright well according to the Williams Institute, Crimes against people and property are more likely to be targeting gays than blacks or jews.
Let's say both of these statistics are bad and you reject both. Ok well according to Vox, around 22 percent of bias hate crimes are targeted towards sexual orientation.
Reject all three of these statistics, ok well according to the FBI let me repeat the FBI, the statistic is that over 1,706 hate crimes in 2008 alone were targeted because of sexual orientation. Higher than disabilities and of ethnicity.
Reject the FBI statistic and the other 3 statistics by institutions or articles. Ok well according to A Wider Bridge, Gay men are the most likely to be hate victims in 2012 higher than Jews, Blacks, and Muslims.
Assuming my opponent ignores all 5 of these statistics, I will provide even more.
However, it's very obvious these high levels of hate crimes targeted against the homosexual community surely must be an adaquete reason as to why they have lower life expectancies.
My fourth premise is entirely straight-forward. It can be applied to any form of deviancy which does not necessitate commitment. Perhaps you could counter this by demonstrating how homosexual love is similarly pure, or show statistics which prove they aren't sex demons.
You once again haven't provided any statistical data or proper analysis of how homosexuals are " sex demons " or " not pure ".
The BOP of proof for this claim is on you since you're the one making this claim, not on me.
So answer this, can you prove that homosexuals don't have pure love? Or sex demons?
SOURCES,
Pro
#6
Definitions
Pure: Spotless, Stainless; free from impurity.
Demon: An evil passion or influence or a person considered extremely wicked, evil, or cruel.
Non-religious proof that homosexuals are impure sex
demons
See below.
STDs, and Lifetime
Expectancy
I think you’re mistaken, my comprehensive source study found
that an incredible 50% of homosexuals don’t live past 65 just because of AIDs.
They isolated that as the cause of death, not suicide. If we were to factor in
suicide and depression deaths as well, we are looking at even more grim
numbers.
From the reduced longevity source,
Demon: An evil passion or influence or a person considered extremely wicked, evil, or cruel.
See below.
“OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men.CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”
Rates are commonly waved off by supporters as being
symptomatic of the groups behavior. While this is partially true, it discludes
the more important portion. Lest you misattribute HIV rates to promiscuity or
unsafe practices exclusively, here are some medically accepted reasons
homosexuals spread HIV more rapidly. It’s simply biology that increases their
rate of contraction. (HIV has more affinity to rectal tissue, higher risk of
trauma, anal fluids contain 2500% more of the virus than sperm, the skin walls
inside the rectum aren’t as thick, etc)
These people are acting as a vector for the disease’s entry
into the broader population. Gaetan Dugas, the first known carrier of the STD
was a gay flight attendant (who I kid you not) flew all over the country and
fucked as many men as he was able, thus starting the epidemic. This is a gay
plague, because without them the STD would simply be a non-issue.
Something to note – he wasn’t the original carrier at the
time, but the first one to spread the illness. In all likelihood, he was one of the first ones to get it in the US, and his haphazard homosexual activity (in many locations) is what created the epidemic. If a straight american man had contracted that same disease, it would not have spread.
Most homosexuals won’t even live long enough for this type
of longevity to be a concern. The average age of death for them is 30-42 years
old depending on cause of death. Less than 2% of them survive to old age. [1]
I also never denied sex was beneficial in some manners. I
said it was dangerous, and sexual deviancy such as homosexuality is innately harmful.
----------
Heart disease is a leading cause of death in the general
population, not the homosexual population. Varying by year, the leading cause
of death for homosexuals has been suicide or HIV. AIDs is a worldwide problem,
but it is THE problem for homosexuals aside from their universal suicidal/depression tendencies. ----------
False equivalence
fallacy“So my opponent here obviously is pulling a red herring by overall avoiding the point I'm making. “
I am not the one committing a red herring, black crime and
white shooters are not the same as homosexuality. You are committing at best a
false equivalence, but in all likelihood you’re projecting. These are red herrings and not related to homosexuality.
Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal.
Suicide Rates
Riddle me this, if homosexual longevity is lower because of ‘institutional oppression,’ or ‘bias crimes,’ why do divorced heterosexual males live longer lives and have a lower suicide rate? I mean certainly, with 97% of alimony going to women that must count as institutional oppression in your book. When you also factor in social alienation, financial ruin, and psychological trauma it's astonishing how gays still manage to beat them in this regard.
Surely 97% of the crimes and robberies aren’t being targeted
at gays, so in the case of actually instantiated oppression, gay suicide rate
is still higher relative to it. To put this case to rest further – suicide attempts among holocaust survivors is lower. This extremely high rate could be the result of nothing other than homosexuality given it's universal prevalance among gays regardless of country and customs.
-------------
Homosexuality does not necessitate commitment, and is universally associated with rates of promiscuity and other deviancies such as fecal sex. Around 80% of homosexuals admitted to sticking their tongue into their partners anus [2], thus ingesting a medically significant amount of feces and increasing hepatitis. The vast majority of homosexuals have over 100 lifetime partners[3] - the average for a straight male is 7, according to the CDC.
Thus, we can see how homosexuality is necessarily corrolated to both promiscuity and deviant behavior.
Sources
[1]: Cameron P, Playfair WL, & Wellum S (1994) The longevity of homosexuals: before and after the AIDS epidemic.
[2]: Darrow, W.W. & Barrett, D. & Jay, K. & Young, A., 1981. "The gay report on sexually transmitted diseases,"American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 71(9), pages 1004-1011.
[3]: A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978)
Round 4
Con
#7
" I think you’re mistaken, my comprehensive source study found that an incredible 50% of homosexuals don’t live past 65 just because of AIDs. They isolated that as the cause of death, not suicide. If we were to factor in suicide and depression deaths as well, we are looking at even more grim numbers.
From the reduced longevity source, “
If you actually look at the source itself, the source was dated in 1997. Nearly 23 years earlier, this is quite obviously a poor source to use.
Not to mention the fact this was done with PRESUMED numbers and estimations, not exact numbers.
For you to use a statistic to somehow prove that homosexuals are evil with an article published in 1997 is a tad bit strange is it not?
If you are so sure that homosexuals are evil then the statistic should be published fairly recently,
Especially considering the medical and education advancements made in the past few decades. And the overall changes in society.
I would ask that voters keep this point in mind that my opponent is using an outdated source with estimated numbers as his justification for homosexuals being “harmful to society”.
However, all of this is irrelevant when you’re once again being logically inconsistent.
“Gaetan Dugas, the first known carrier of the STD was a gay flight attendant (who I kid you not) flew all over the country and fucked as many men as he was able, thus starting the epidemic..”
- My opponent is once again being logically inconsistent or absurd,
If you’re going to blame ONE gay pilot as an excuse to purport this to an entire population of millions of gays,
Then by logical extension, I could blame the KKK and proportionate that to the entirety to the south.
Or a few radical civil rights riots to the entirety of the civil rights movement.
“ This is a gay plague because without them the STD would simply be a non-issue. “
- Ok, and without heterosexuals, unwanted pregnancies wouldn’t be an issue.
- Without white people, mass shootings wouldn’t happen nearly as often.
- Without blacks, crime wouldn’t be that rampant.
“ Heart disease is a leading cause of death in the general population, not the homosexual population. Varying by year, the leading cause of death for homosexuals has been suicide or HIV. AIDs is a worldwide problem, but it is THE problem for homosexuals aside from their universal suicidal/depression tendencies.”
I don’t really see your point,
You were making claims earlier about sex, in general, is dangerous but now are moving the goalpost to homosexuals.
Regardless of whether or not homosexuals contract aids the most, the problem isn’t homosexuality, the problem is disease, education, and finding treatments.
STD and sexual problems exist in EVERY sexual experience, by this logic heterosexuals are also evil since they have the most unwanted pregnancies.
Once again your source is very outdated and relies on estimated numbers.
There are however more recent statistics on life expectancies from live science which ran studies from the early 2,000’s to 2011.
It’s also important to mention that these statistics showed mortality rates for everything in mind, not focusing on just aids or suicide. With all of this in mind, let’s examine these statistics.
“ "Since the year 2000, same-sex married Danish lesbians have had mortality rates that are almost 90 percent higher than opposite-sex women in Denmark," he said. Their mortality rates may even be increasing, he added.”
- Here married lesbians are actually higher than their opposite-sex women in Denmark.
“ Part of the mortality drop likely has to do with the development of antiretroviral therapies to treat HIV and AIDS, Fisch said. The syndrome affects gay men disproportionately, but drug therapies have been available since 1995 and 1996. As a result, gay men went from the group with the highest mortality rates to the group with the second-lowest, behind only men married to women.”
- This statistic absolutely proves my opponent's statistic absolutely false as it relies on ACTUAL numbers not estimated, is fairly recent and proves that homosexuals overall life expectancies are actually increasing.
This is a point I earlier brought up to which my opponent once again IGNORED
I would ask that voters consider this when voting, ignoring my arguments is a prime example of poor conduct and using unreliable sources.
“ I am not the one committing a red herring, black crime and white shooters are not the same as homosexuality.”
“ These are red herrings and not related to homosexuality.”
My opponent has once again shown he has little understanding of the concept of logical inconsistencies and has instead relied on the same counterpoints I already debunked.
Just for clarification, I will explain why this is false again.
I am not COMPARING homosexuality with blacks or whites.
I am interested in COMPARING logical extension.
For instance, if I stated that cheeseburgers are disgusting since they are made from cows.
Then by logical extension, other cow products such as milk or other dairy products are also disgusting.
In this instance I am NOT comparing milk or cheeseburgers, I am making a comparison of the logical trait I used to justify stating cheeseburgers were disgusting.
It’s not a red herring at all, this directly proves you’re being logically inconsistent. Let’s apply this logic to this scenario,
You are stating that since homosexuals have high aids rates, this makes them harmful to society.
Well by logical extension blacks are also harmful to society since they have high crime rates.
Or Hetereo sexuals are harmful to society since they have a higher unwanted pregnancy rate
Or Whites are harmful to society since they have the highest mass shooting rate
In this instance I am not comparing white’s mass shooting rate or the high unwanted pregnancy rate amongst heterosexuals, I am comparing the logical inconsistencies in your extension by disproving the trait you use to justify stating that homosexuals are harmful to society.
This also glosses over the fact that the aids statistic was proven false earlier by my opponent using outdated information and projected numbers, and as we see with my statistic, the aids epidemic is alleviating through better treatments and education.
The same way the unwanted pregnancy rate for heterosexuals is getting better through sexual education and better means of protection IE condoms, birth control ETC.
“ ’ why do divorced heterosexual males live longer lives and have a lower suicide rate?”
- My opponents source for this point was published in the year 2000, nearly two decades ago.
- Not to mention the fact that my opponent’s point about this really makes no sense once you began to think about it.
My opponent hasn’t exactly elaborated on how the increased suicide and depression statistic actually proves anything regarding homosexuals.
High suicide and depression rates exist for whites as well, does this make whites “ evil “?
Not to mention the fact this statistic doesn’t take into account the scenarios the divorced men may be in.
What about men who won the court cases and received custody and the assets? What about men who divorced women?
Also really? You think constant harassment, bullying, and discrimination is comparable to getting divorced?
Getting divorced depending on the circumstance can be hard, however, in 90 percent of divorces, the effects of feeling depressed and the loss of assets is mostly temporary and doesn’t last that long.
Getting constantly bullied for something you had no control over, being discriminated against by your peers, being targeted for crime, being sexual raped, is much worse than being divorced generally.
“ When you also factor in social alienation, financial ruin, and psychological trauma it's astonishing how gays still manage to beat them in this regard.”
- My opponent has provided no statistic for backing this claim of divorced men experiencing these things, I’ve already provided 5 statistics providing data on the types of hate crimes and how often homosexuals experience them.
“ Around 80% of homosexuals admitted to sticking their tongue into their partner's anus [2], thus ingesting a medically significant amount of feces and increasing hepatitis.”
Firstly the source my opponent used for this statistic is once again outdated, in fact, the study came out in 1987. Around 3 decades ago in fact.
My opponent has once again used an outdated statistic to justify his claims which are an example of using unreliable sources. I would ask that voters consider this when voting in the unreliable sources category.
Secondly, what is wrong with homosexuals performing this sexual act exactly?
I mean ok it’s a little strange to your standards.
But pretty much the entire human population has weird kinks? A study by the daily mail in 2018 reveals over one-third of adults have weird kinks.
By this same logic are you implying anyone with weird kinks is “ evil “?
I don’t get off to latex outfits or spanking, does that make them “ evil”?
This point is entirely subjective and very arbitrary. Moving right along,
“ The vast majority of homosexuals have over 100-lifetime partners[3] - the average for a straight male is 7, according to the CDC.”
- Once again my opponent is using yet another outdated statistic. This one is actually far worse than the other two and was published in 1978. Nearly 40 years ago.
Because there are no credible recent studies done properly recently, the statistic for this point remains unknown.
However even if the statistic is high, my opponent does little to explain how this is harmful to society.
It is self-explanatory how this is harmful, but regardless considering the BOP pretty much rests on Con, I would expect some sort of an explanation.
In conclusion, my opponent has used outdated sources to justify their claims, used logically inconsistent statistics to justify their points, and pulled red herrings and overall dodged several key arguments.
Homosexuality isn’t harmful to society, I have already provided several benefits to it and other sexual activities throughout the debate.
Anyways thanks to my opponent for keeping it civil.
SOURCES,
Jesus Christ that was so long, took around an hour of typing, researching, and thinking. And I still have HW to do UGGGHHHHHH
Pro
#8
False-Equivalence fallacy
He claims that me linking statistics does not justify homosexuality
being harmful, because such a thing could also be applied to black and white
people.
I directly address his obvious red herring (or more aptly,
equivalence fallacy) in round 2.
I call this a false-equivalence, because the context and
justification are entirely different.
He calls it a red herring for directly addressing his
obvious red herring.
In fact, this seems to be his only argument aside from
dismissing my sources in the final round – a false comparison. I implore
readers to actively look for it in the final round as there are many examples,
and this will become blatantly apparent.
Sources
I am quite glad that in lieu of actual arguments we get to
dispute sources in the final round. I don’t normally post arguments in the
final round, but I feel I must defend my sources from this underhanded tactic.
Objection 1 – Your sources do not specify homosexual sex. In
order to accept your sources, the voters must assume they are applicable to
homosexuality and then also assume they will live long enough to reap the
benefits.
Objection 2 – Your longevity sources are needlessly narrow;
it specifies married gay men and married lesbians. In reality, most gay men don’t
marry and are incredibly promiscuous. Regardless, gay male longevity in a
marriage is still much lower than the average unmarried male.
Defense 1 – Modern science confirms similar disparities in
mortality rates. It might be stated, however, that everyone’s life expectancy is
rising primarily due to capitalism. Therefore, an increase in lifespan relative
to 20 years ago is to be expected – but the disparity remains the same.
Defense 2 – I chose my sources primarily due to sample size
and thorough representation in pervasive literature.
One might ponder why he chose to save his objections on sources
until the last round. Did he not read them prior? Or did he willingly ignore
the date to pull this on the final round?
Brief responses
“If you’re going to blame ONE gay pilot as an excuse to purport this to an entire population of millions of gays,”
I said if he was straight this epidemic would not have
spread. That is a reasonable position to hold, one which this time I will base upon statistics and likelihood.
“Ok, and without heterosexuals, unwanted pregnancies wouldn’t be an issue.Without white people, mass shootings wouldn’t happen nearly as often.Without blacks, crime wouldn’t be that rampant.”“You are stating that since homosexuals have high aids rates, this makes them harmful to society.Well by logical extension blacks are also harmful to society since they have high crime rates.STD and sexual problems exist in EVERY sexual experience, by this logic heterosexuals are also evil since they have the most unwanted pregnancies.”
Okay? Even if all of these things are true, they don’t
somehow become relevant to homosexuality being harmful or not.
Still, the differences are: heterosexuality is innately beneficial
to society, white people do not commit crime because they are white, black
people do not commit crime because they are black. This is not analogous to my
argument or my justification. They share only one thing in common and that is that they are harmful to society in some way - this does not mean my argument is applicable to them.
“I am not COMPARING homosexuality with blacks or whites.”
It does not matter what you homosexuality to, you’re comparing
my argument to one I am not making.
“You were making claims earlier about sex, in general, is dangerous but now are moving the goalpost to homosexuals.”
It is dangerous – that much is blatantly obvious regardless
of how many minor benefits you provide. Unless STDs don’t exist, or “unwanted
pregnancies,” as you put it don’t exist. As for moving the goalposts – I have done
no such thing, heart disease is just irrelevant to the average gay man who will
die of AIDs or kill himself before that becomes an issue.
“Regardless of whether or not homosexuals contract aids the most, the problem isn’t homosexuality, the problem is disease, education, and finding treatments.”
I disagree, these gay people would not have AIDs if they
were straight. We wouldn’t have to focus on education and treatment if there
was no artificially created problem in the first place.
“Getting divorced depending on the circumstance can be hard, however, in 90 percent of divorces, the effects of feeling depressed and the loss of assets is mostly temporary and doesn’t last that long.My opponent has provided no statistic for backing this claim of divorced men experiencing these things, I’ve already provided 5 statistics providing data on the types of hate crimes and how often homosexuals experience them.”
This is simply not the case. You aren’t factoring in children
and relationships (social alienation). You also aren’t factoring in what it’s
like to have everything you’ve built for 10+ years be taken by the government
and be provided no recourse. It’s like bullying, except done by an entity which
hates you while having absolute control over your life.
“Firstly the source my opponent used for this statistic is once again outdated, in fact, the study came out in 1987. Around 3 decades ago in fact.Once again my opponent is using yet another outdated statistic. This one is actually far worse than the other two and was published in 1978. Nearly 40 years ago.Because there are no credible recent studies done properly recently, the statistic for this point remains unknown.”
That doesn’t change it’s accuracy. I realize it’s hard to find
studies on fecal sex – but simply claiming it’s old doesn’t change the veracity.
However weak a statistic, you must provide something to counter it. I might even level a similar objection at you: how could you possibly expect me to accept sources over a year old?
“Secondly, what is wrong with homosexuals performing this sexual act exactly?”
The hepatitis and general filth. It’s not just a “weird kink,”
it’s directly harmful with potentially lethal consequence. If skewering people
through the eyeball was my “weird kink” you might second guess it.
Conclusion
His primary objections were founded upon false
equivalence and misconception. He constantly appeals to voters while attempting to object to my sources on no basis other then "they're old." In reality, these are all quite thorough studies with large sample sizes. He largely brushed my third and fourth premises under the rug, likely because they were not validated by statistics but psychological observations.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
To start with, this debate is very hard to judge as it’s not entirely clear what the intent of resolution actually is.
While the definitions clearly state that “evil = harmful to society”, cons opening round includes some more typically moral arguments.
There’s no end of permutations here; does this mean “more harmful than heterosexuality?” Or “on balance harmful?” Its unclear
So on it’s face - pro offers an example of STDs: while this is well sourced; he doesn’t contrast this with benefits and explain how homosexuality is on balance harmful. Worse, pro appears to come within a hairs breadth of conceding - acknowledging that it may not be blackness that causes the crimes/murders but other factors that correlate. In a similar vein, it’s not clear how the harms are related specifically to homosexuality, rather than being “culture”.
My issue with pros round 2, however extends beyond this. Pro states implies that on balance white people aren’t harmful - implying that the balance is important, and pointing out that part of what is being assessed relates to deviation from a monogamous standard: which encompasses more than simply homosexuality.
Both these undermine pros position by highlighting that he hasn’t contrasted, and highlighting the role of non-monogamy, rather than homosexuality.
Con highlights a set of health benefits - which appear to lay unrefuted by pro throughout. However, con misses his burden by failing to do more to counter the point that STDs are inherently related to homosexuality. This was one sentence buried in the sea.
Cons argument, also, that white people would be harmful to society, or black people appears beside the point. Whether or not pro accepts that wouldn’t necessarily refute the resolution.
The suicide point, while factually valid in my opinions isn’t clear where the harm to society comes in - definitely harmful to the individuals, but not necessarily to society as a whole - and the detail is a bit sketchy on how this ties in.
All in all, there were a lot of mistakes here: I feel that pro set up all the pins for con to be able to land a knock out, but really did not do enough to dispatch it.
Neither one really hammered a good value framework. Pro argues one side, con another, both sides don’t appear to spell out a system.
As a result, I’m sitting here flummoxed. I can take pros value and pro wins, I can take cons value and con wins - bother under mine the values and neither values seem specifically tied to how I viewed the resolution.
Because of this, I kind of have to award a tie - both sides proves their case, but didn’t prove their value.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Reason here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1850
>>Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.
Oh. That makes more sense. I was going off both of them using the same definitions. Do you have a clear example where both were talking about two different things?
I’m not sure that you’re entirely getting the nuance here.
To win Pro must affirm the resolution, con must negate (with burden on pro).
The resolution is a product of what is written in the title, description, and based upon the definition used by both sides.
Because both sides were arguing on implicitly different definitions - as I explained - they’re effectively arguing different resolutions. Neither of which appear to be the sensible interpretation of the debate description.
As no one really justifies why their version of the resolution is correct - and both stray from the resolution specified - I could easily arbitrarily chose either side as the winner and so chose neither.
>>Beliefs are irrelevant - I vote on the arguments.
Where did I claim this? My position is vote on the arguments.
>>Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.
Con started off with arguments then Pro did not clearly lay out what he was doing. Con used Pro's Round as the basis of his issues then it spiraled out of control. It would only be fair to deduct a conduct point for Tiwaz on the grounds of not being clear with what he was doing. Where did he mention in Round 1 that he was doing a "My first round was not dedicated to rebuttals, after all there was little point in me doing so before I layed out a simplistic case for my own side ". Saying "I will keep this first round quite short and to the point." doesn't mean that he will or will not talk about the rebuttals. Con had a problem with that very thing that Pro neglected to address. It is not out of question to expect rebuttals only to have a Round dedicated to only claims.
>>So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know:
Do you mean how do I know who gave better arguments when what was being debated on was not clearly laid out?
>>both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.
Isn't rebuttals and making argument for their own positions enough reason to say that they think the arguments they are making are correct?
Beliefs are irrelevant - I vote on the arguments.
To affirm the resolution - does pro merely have to show one minor, trivial aspect to affirm? Or does he have to affirm by proving, in detail, that homosexuality is worse than being heterosexual/white/black etc.
Both sides argue past each other on this front, and don’t bother to establish which is the correct way to view an affirmation of the resolution. While I could have gone straight for Tiwaz, on the grounds that his interpretation is close to the definitions; he subtly undermines that point himself, but not enough for me to take pros side.
So how do I know what consistutes the resolution being affirmed? I don’t know: both sides argue their own view, and don’t really do anything to show their position is correct over the others.
"Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?"
It's better than using sources which don't even specify what we're arguing about, as I pointed out in the debate - literally none of his sources are on homosexual sex specifically. It is certainly convenient you chose to ignore the last round entirely in your vote, because all of this was spelled out quite clearly.
All of my STD sources were quite up-to-date from the CDC, presented in round 1 as a foundation for using my other sources. I also acknowledged myself in the debate that general life expectency was climbing, I said the discrepancy remains the same. It's almost like you're willingly discluding things which contradict your points.
>>As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”
What do you mean by interpretation? That can basically mean anything. I interpreted from this debate that Tiwaz is an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays. I interpreted from the debate cthulhu is now real. Do you have a standard for this interpretation or is my cthulhu on the same level as Tiwaz being an Evangelical conservative who dislikes gays?
Just to point this out. You have not really addressed what my critique was. I'll lay it out in another way with what you said. If you take what they value by Tiwaz valuing his dislike for gays then this information has given him his basis for his dislike for gays whereas if you take what PinkFreud08 values that he likes gays he would use information that suits his narrative to support that.
If we go by values I can simply say I value PinkFreud08 and by showing my value I will vote for him. I can also say I value voting against gay-haters which is why I vote against them. See the problems with values in using that as a way to vote? The better way of doing things is if either side has provided a substantial enough argument for their burden in the debate. I found only PinkFreud08 doing so.
Scroll down.
>> For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals.
Supported with outdated data and points that didn't directly support what he was arguing for. Did you miss that?
>>For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.
Okay. He did say it is morally neutral then began to say how homosexuality is not harmful to society so close enough.
>>I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.
Okay so what about how we know what they value is met sufficiently. Do you have another value that both have made substantial arguments?
>> Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.
Don't understand this. Are you saying both did not provide a case for homosexuality being harmful or not harmful to society? I think you have already made it clear that they both have but you decide to talk about what they value. The problem is like you said they never said what there true intentions are you are inferring this. So basically your vote revolved around both sides doing sufficiently so equal that you can't find anyone of them doing a slight better than the other but under the assumptions of what they value both didn't meet your standards.
Continues...
>>I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.
More like wasted our time with your opinions.
>>Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.
When someone can't find a counter or can't even be reasonable how are they are not the very least an idiot? Guess you like defending people who can't be reasonable or consistent or in other words that you are not very fond of idiots and/or people who make absurd statements.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: omar2345 // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
*******************************************************************
I interpreted his "evil" as being more harmful to society than the alternative or disproportionately harmful. This method of attack seemed to be the only way to address the topic that made sense to me, as anything can be considered harmful to society in one way (which is what freud pointed out).
Not that everything else meeting his definition would change homosexuality being evil, it would just make most things evil under his definition - because most things can be highly harmful in one way or another. I spelled this out clearly in the final round, I just didn't express the first paragraph because I thought it would be clear to anyone viewing.
Edit: If we are to assume just the resolution itself, and not my charitable revision, then I met my BoP on round 1. His primary argument seemed to be centered around "logical consistency," that is he compared certain unrelated things that are harmful in some way and thus technically would meet his definition of evil and defeated his own side, not my argument.
I do hope that I'm wrong about this accusation. The only reason I kept poking at you all in the comments was to either disprove or prove my hypothesis.
So much evidence has stacked up that it's impossible to be mere coincidence you vote for him every time. That was just the tip of the iceberg, not really my primary points of evidence - just a minor observation.
Good luck, I'm only typing this response because you and Freud seem to both be fond of calling your opponents idiots and absurd.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, s/g
RFD: See below
Reason for mod action: To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. While the voter seemed to weigh them, they need to explain *how* they got there and how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G. The key to awarding s/g is *excessiveness* and how it made the debate incomprehensible.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
Primarily testing if I can vote, lo let's take a look.
Most convincing arguments:
-Isn't natural argument- 1 point con
-Sex is harmful- 1 point pro
-Ignored argument- 1 point con
-Ignored argument (Twice)- 1 point con
-Homosexuals die 20 years younger- 1 point pro
-Heart disease rebuttal- 1 point con
-Adopting argument- 1 point con
-High Bias Rates- 1 point con
-HIV rates and anal tissue- 1 point pro
-Longevity source rebuttal- 1 point con
-Final nail-in-coffin of comparative races- 1 point con
-Divorce argument- 1 point con
-Sources- 1 point pro
-Heart disease rebuttal- 1 point pro
-Kink rebuttal- 1 point pro
-Final Tally: con- 9 points. Pro- 6 points
Sources
Pro provided sources dated at over 20 years for a movement currently gaining speed and safety, therefore, point to con.
Spelling/grammar
Both sides had pretty good spelling, but I saw pro spell dying as dieing (4 times) so point to con.
Counduct
Tie, no swears or over-repetitiveness.
I know we aren't supposed to continue replying to each other but I want to prove there is no foul play here.
22 days ago, I was banned from voting because I continued to submit insufficient votes. Yesterday, I was messaged by virtuoso that I was allowed to vote again, so I picked the first debate I saw and voted on it. It still took me about half an hour to make my voting decision, as the debate was really long.
I admit I may have shortened what I meant about the arguments to a non understandable degree, but what I meant by sources was the argument DEBUNKING the sources provided.
Hi Omar,
This one is tricky: but I will clarify. I think the use of “value” here maybe a bit confusing.
Both sides are interpreting the resolution as the definition to mean two independent things. For Pro - it is exclusively that there is some harm visited upon society by homosexuals. For Con: this resolution appears to be “homosexuality is directly and on balance no more harmful to society than any other group”. Of course this is my paraphrasing of the way both presented their arguments.
I think both sides proved their side of that resolution based on that specific value condition they interpreted.
Few people actively spell out their interpretation of the resolution and argue in support of it over the other. Meaning voters are often left to chose which of the two argued resolutions they prefer in this situationsr. Often one is a bit more intuive, or the definitions more specific - but in this case I can’t take cons side as the resolution doesn’t include his aspects, and I can’t take pros side as I don’t think “any harm whatsoever” is the default interpretation of “harmful to society”.
As I can’t chose which resolution is more accurate - both sides argue that their interpretation is the one that should be followed, but unless I missed something, neither explained why in a way that allows me to say “you know, that interpretation makes more sense”
Me voting for someone because they said so doesn't equal I always vote for them wining. It just means they asked me to vote for them and I did. If lets say PinkFreud08 decides to make a debate about Trump being the greatest and him being Pro and asked me to vote on it. I doubt I could vote for him because the arguments against Trump being the greatest would be so much better.
My RFD was clearly fair and your arguments hardly address what I said in a way that was enough to say my RFD is wrong.
3.) He was "testing" the moderators. This one would be me.
Your the idiot for having awful arguments and not acknowledging they were bad arguments. I can't help people who are incapable of helping themselves. You take the position homosexuality is harmful to society and expect to somehow be on the same level as you. For me in your eyes to vote fairly I would have to be a religious person who also dislikes homosexuals to be in the right frame of mind to vote for you because those arguments were awful. Outdated, insufficient and in cases didn't even provide a point for your side.
Complain all you like. I'll wait until Virutoso, bsh1, Ramshutu decide to check the vote.
>>I can take pros value and pro wins, I can take cons value and con wins
Would this be true in any scenario? This distinction to me doesn't actually mean anything. If I am interpreting this correctly every single debate you have voted on you would have to vote a tie because they value X which is why they debated in the way that they did. Even in debates what will you be arguing about? Their values or their arguments for how to best commit to that value or defend the value?
You are basically for women subjugation because Christianity values it. You would be for women freedom because a liberal society values. Am I wrong here?
Understood.
Alright yeah sorry I was typing and posted this right as you said that. My bad.
It's actually kinda funny, I was going to give you another chance and not block you.
However, considering you just ignored me debunking your vote argument, I'm done with you.
You have dodged my argument not once, not twice, but three times.
Dodged several key points on this debate
And dodged several counter-arguments against your absurd claims.
Why should I continually debunk your points when you continue to go around in circles and espouse the same arguments again?
You are blocked and banned from participating in any of my debates for this reason.
Now I will debunk a claim Tiwaz made in the comments, consider this response a gift.
" also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently"
You failed to explain how him not making a clear vote makes him " bias ".
I mean I will admit he didn't make a great vote the first time around, but again how does this equate to him being " bias"
Anyways I hope one day when you get older, you look back on this entire debate and think about how immature and of a poor debater you were back than and how much you changed.
Because really, you have potential.
I've seen you in several debates and while I do sometimes disagree with your positions, you do sometimes actually make pretty solid arguments.
My advice to you would be to actually respond to your opponent's arguments in the future and actually answer them.
Good day.
I am off work and will be looking into everything tomorrow. That being said, please stop replying to each other. This is an official moderator restraining order.
You're welcome to talk to the moderators, as for me I'm willing to let the evidence speak for itself. In-fact, I implore you to private message them, as you're clearly quite adept at that.
Omar's votes account for nearly half of your debates, in many cases they prevent you from losing when other people voted against you. Such as:
https://www.debate.org/debates/Girls-joining-the-Boy-Scouts-Of-America/2/
https://www.debate.org/debates/Socialism-is-evil/3/
I also never claimed his vote was removed for that reason, it was removed specifically due to him not surveying the arguments sufficiently. I said you should read the vote before I go about justifying bias to you. Moderators post the content of every vote they've removed in the comments, but just in-case they forgot I also screenshotted it.
I would like for the mods to please read me debunking Tiwaz's absurd accusations in my previous comment.
To summarize,
Tiwaz's " evidence " is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that really doesn't prove much aside from me PMing people asking for them to vote on debates which to my knowledge isn't against the rules.
It's not like I asked Omar to specifically vote for me, I asked him to vote on a debate of mine.
“ On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.”
This is a very heavy accusation which doesn’t make sense once you begin to think about it and here’s why…
Correlation doesn’t equal causation, just because he votes for me alot doesn’t mean he is bias.
Did you ever think I may just be a good debater?
I have a near perfect record on debate.org with only one lost debate with OTHER people voting on them as well.
I am having trouble how this equates to “ vote rigging “.
I am not trying to flaunt my ratio around, however facts are facts it’s more likely my arguments were better then my opponents on the debates he voted on.
2. You once again have dodged the question again, you STILL haven’t explained how contacting people to vote on debates is “ vote rigging “.
“ . If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponent's argument.”
Plenty of people vote purely on concessions and don’t actually look at the opponent’s argument much.
I used to do that plenty on other debates on this site before it became a rule.
I don’t see how that equates to him “ vote rigging “ or being “ bias “.
To conclude, Tiwaz has repeatedly dodged questions and made baseless accusations which make zero sense.
" In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contenders Round 1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis"
- Straw manning his entire position on almost all levels. You made a claim of sex being harmful in round 1, then completely ignored the benefits of sex I made in R1 being centered around Sex being beneficial to one's psychological and medical health.
“ I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.”
Once again Tiwaz has COMPLETELY ignored my question.
How is me ASKING people for votes “ vote rigging “?
Doing that is NOT against the rules, plenty of people make comments tagging a bunch of people asking for votes.
You once again completely dodged my question, because of this I will be blocking Tiwaz shortly after I finish responding to his absurd accusations.
This has happened numerous times throughout the debate, in the comments, and in another debate. I am not going to continue responding to Tiwaz when he won’t answer simple questions and instead will dodge and ignore them. Sorry not going to tolerate it.
“ I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias.”
Note, Omar’s vote WASN’T removed for being “ bias “ at all.
The only reason it was removed was because he didn’t explain clearly enough.
Very obvious misrepresentation of the Mod’s decision.
I will tag you as well.
It is for all the reasons I have outlined in my comments, in addition to Omar's votes, that I formally accuse all three of them of Vote Rigging. Admittedly, most of this is circumstantial evidence except for the direct admission by Debaticus on a prior debate of his (which I linked in my previous comment).
This is the absolute best case I can imagine being provided short of PM doxxing.
I do not take this accusation lightly, and to avoid a kangaroo court I will leave this up to the mods to decide.
------
II. Vote Bombs
C. Vote Rigging
Vote rigging is when someone solicits deliberately biased votes in order to rig the outcome of a vote. Votes stemming from vote rigging will be removed. It is not vote rigging to ask for someone to cast a fair vote. Vote trading may or may not be vote rigging, depending on whether the outcome of the traded votes is fixed or agreed upon before the debates are evaluated by the voters.
I think you should inspect Omar's prior vote (and my objections to it) which was removed by moderators before we ask how I'm justifying bias. Once you've done that, there are 4 options that I can think of which we arrive to.
1.) He did not read the debate, and just assumed you won on the basis of only your arguments.
2.) He willfully ignored counter-evidence and voted for you without including it.
3.) He was "testing" the moderators for 'funsies.'
4.) He's an idiot.
As tempting as option 4 is - he clearly isn't an idiot, as evidenced by his prior debates. On his debate.org profile he has voted for you at least 10 times - and against you only once, where you directly conceded. When you combine this with the fact you just openly admitted to contacting him through private messaging prior to this vote, it becomes very evident that option 1 or 2 is incredibly more likely than option 3.
We may now add in a fifth number in there, as the cat's out of the bag: 5) Vote Rigging
Sometimes bias just isn't enough, and we must go that extra mile for someone to vote for us every time regardless of the opponents arguments. If you concede, he bases his vote exclusively on your concession, and not the opponents argument. I think I have built as solid a case as any, considering everything else, in tandem with the direct admission by debaticus in his debate.org vote, and your admission of PMing Omar himself directly.
Considering in Omar's vote he agrees with you when you stated "OPPONENT IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS" it is not a strawman. I was not talking about the debate here, I was talking about the votes. In his reasoning, linked in his vote he states: "Clearly true by looking at the contender’s Round1 arguments." and goes on to justify giving you a conduct point on a similar basis - though he doesn't, because he would like to hold it against me for future purpose, another example of dishonest (and probably illegal) voting.
"you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM."
I was simply not referring to the vote on this debate, I linked it in the comment if you'd care to take a gander at the votes. I didn't even write that as a refutation of his vote, I only put it there to show admitted vote rigging on another site. I think I have built a substantial case for this accusation by now.
" Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something."
- Obvious strawman, I understand you not rebutting the claims in the first round. I am talking about my rebuttals to the arguments I made in the second round.
You actually do have to disprove my debunktions.
" Tell me where I accused you in my previous comment."
My bad I meant Omar
" I accused him of biased voting because that much at least was apparent."
Please elaborate, you called him bias earlier but still haven't explained why.
" He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. "
- Firstly you actually dodged my question which I predicted, you didn't explain how he was only voting for me other than a summoned PM.
Or explained how this is even bad in the first place.
- Secondly, Debaticus didn't award me the conduct point, even if he did he gave good enough reasons why. I don't see what the problem is.
You still actually haven't properly debunked his points on his debate.
" If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent."
- Please explain how asking someone to look at a debate makes their vote automatically bias?
Are you calling pretty much everyone on this site bias because pretty much everyone tags other people in the comments asking for votes?
To conclude, you have gone on to ONCE AGAIN dodge questions and instead made nothing but baseless accusations.
The next time you do this, you'll be blocked so I'll give you one last chance.
ANSWER my questions and stop dodging. I won't let you do it anymore, just stop dodging and answer the questions.
Moreover, I did not need to address your rebuttals in the first round - they were aimed at a position I do not hold. This, coupled with the fact you stated BoP was on me not you, implying I had to prove something not disprove something.
Tell me where I accused you of anything in my previous comment. I did not mention your name once in that entire comment (aside from identifying the debate), or any of my comments against Omar in an accusation. I accused him of biased voting because that much atleast was apparent.
I only stated Debaticus, on that debate, voted for you for no reason other than "Summoned via PM." He gave all the points to you without thoroughly analyzing any of the arguments, or presenting a proper case for awarding a single point - despite awarding all 7. Which of you specifically contacted him in this debate or the other is completely irrelevant to me.
If nothing else, I thank you for admitting to PMing Omar, and thus making his reason for a biased conclusion and analysis apparent.
Very obviously you have taken the entire situation out of context and have gone on to make baseless accusations against me and debaticus.
" It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that bore no relevance to my argument."
- I made rebuttals which you did not counter, that were the arguments you ignored.
If you didn't falsify my rebuttals, then my debunking of your points still stand.
" m also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point."
- Pretty sure this was a typo.
" I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion."
- Can you actually logically answer this question, how did I engage in " foul " play in this debate?
Don't dodge this question either like you always do, actually, answer and back up your poor hypothesis.
" In this debate, you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." "
- False I haven't even talked to debaticus for quite some time, and I certainly didn't pm him to vote.
The only person I PMed was Omar but that was only because the debate wasn't getting any votes.
Is there something wrong with PMing people to request for votes? Lots of people on the website do so. and plus it's not against the rules.
Now if I was PMing Omar and asking " Hey please vote for me on this debate," then we can talk about this being poor conduct. But that's not the case, actually, prove to me that PMing asking for votes is a bad thing? Don't dodge this question either.
Out of curiosity: which arguments did I ignore? He stated the burden of proof was 90% on me in the description, so it only stands to reason I would first lay out a case in the first round that is not contradicted by his prior statements. It was on me to prove that homosexuality is harmful, not to disprove arguments he made that beared no relevance to my argument.
I'm also curious as to why you awarded 1 point to me for sources then gave con the source point.
I may also note that I was not suspicious of foul play before, but upon viewing https://www.debate.org/debates/Have-the-conservatives-in-America-lost-the-battle-with-the-leftists/1/ I have a strong suspicion.
In this debate you voted for Freud/Squeakly under no basis other than "summoned from a PM." Your last vote on this website specifically was 22 days ago. Now, given the above and given Omar is on your friendslist, we can reasonably assume he PMed you to request a vote due to his being called into question.
(1/3)I'm going to keep this brief, because I do not have much time.
You have blatantly ignored my justification/arguments and based your statements upon prior bias. This, including the fact you earlier stated "That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. "
So, you are not only being dishonest, but you are doing it tactically to see how much the mods will tolerate. I will provide several examples of your blatant dishonesty in the next comments. I would request the moderators disallow you from voting because of how clearly improper you're being, but that is likely against the rules.
(2/3) Example 1: “Not explained what is the main cause or howhomsexuals can get it. The point about “general filth” is bad if we do not knowthe context behind what is general. “
I was referring to the statistic which showed homosexuals practice fecal sex disproportionately (intentional or not). When a homosexual performs oral on the other partners rectum he will frequently ingest a medically significant amount of feces. I should not have to explain why eating shit is generally filthy. If you had actually read the conextual pieces you would know this and have not made the objection.
Example 2: "Was not supported by evidence."
In response to: “Sex is dangerous, and deviancy is harmful.”
I went on to support this in the following rounds, the prior round was also dedicated to supporting this partially through CDC STD statistics. Unless STDs don’t exist, or as I put it using Freud’s example - unwanted pregnancies.
Example 3: “Hasn’t explained how it was a false equivalenceonly said it. Before this he was explaining why whites are not harmful andblacks are harmful. Bears no relevance to the topic at hand.”
I have explained it several times throughout the debate – my objection to his “analogy” or “equivalence.” I stated it most succinctly in the final round “white people do not commit crime because they are white, black people do not commit crime because they are black. This is not analogous to my argument or my justification. They share only one thing in common and that is that they are harmful to society in some way - this does not mean my argument is applicable to them. “
Thus, I directly stated my justification behind it being a red herring or equvalence fallacy, but ignored by him and discluded from his vote conveniently, likely due to as he stated in the comments: "The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand."
(3/3)These are selective examples as there were too many similar examples to directly insert into my comment, these are indicative of the majority of your vote. The arguments in the debate were very simplistic, if you were confident his case were stronger you would have summarized them rather then selectively addressing points devoid of larger context and surrounding justification.
I must also include this as a finality: "I can vote on conduct and sources but I doubt it is necessary because I don’t think anyone would vote for the contender so I'll just have my vote to be just about the most convincing argument. "
In other words, you are excluding a point you believe is proper in order to effectively hold it over my head - or my voters', in the case I get any.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {username} // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 2 points to pro for source, 1 point to con for s/g
RFD: Your gay and there is nothing you can don
Reason for mod action: In order to be eligible to vote, Accounts must have read the site's COC AND completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
If you're going to insult me, then at least make the insult funny or creative.
Or hell at least spell con right lol
Wish I could vote...
I said I would like to do so in his forum post, I don't like talking in the comments because it's impossible to format. That, and I believe there is a character limit and his vote is very long.
His prior vote was incredibly blatant in his disregard for anything which contradicted him.
You still haven't actually proved his vote was a misrepresentation or bias
Those two things only become contradictory if you isolate them from the part where I stated "I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there."
In short, I feel something is wrong with your vote but I don't want to impose on your forum post. I simply don't know if you're okay with me voicing my objections there.
"Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. "
It is quite fair to say, even moreso since you were voting on the basis of testing the waters and not the actual arguments. I had no proof of vote rigging or even genuine tactical motive, but now assuming what you've said is true, one could only deduce you are doing the same thing you just admitted to with this current vote.
>>I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here.
>> I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.
Okay?
>>Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.
Unfair to say. That vote was me wanting to see if I can get away with what I deemed to be a sufficient vote but guess it wasn't sufficient. My prior vote history is to vote for things I am interested in. That can be people asking me to vote or a debate I have an interest in like the 2nd vote I ever gave.
I wasn't attempting to prove it here, or even necessarily argue about it here. I said I could show how this vote specifically was a misrepresentation in the forum post you made as it's easier to format there. Overall it's your choice, I am not going to overstep my boundaries, but I just felt like I would make the offer to point it out directly in-case you were actually just unaware.
Furthermore, your prior vote was a clear example of a dishonest vote in all regards. I am not going to directly accuse you of vote rigging, but I just find your conduct there highly suspicious when coupled with your vote history.
The moderators (assuming what ramshutu said was accurate), cannot address votes on the basis of honesty or accuracy therefore I must address anything I feel is a strawman directly.
It is not a dishonest or a misrepresentation of my vote. You haven't even showed it to be the case. I am not going to tell you what I already said that was said in my RFD. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about for even taking this debate let alone not substantiating anything. If you actually read my vote I did represent your points. You are just triggered that someone actually took the time to read the BS you put through.
To sum up. You failed to show how I am dishonest or how my vote is misrepresenting what you said.
Don't argue with me because I frankly couldn't even care to. Complain to bsh1, Ramshutu or Virtuoso if you actually think your critique holds up.
I take issue with the majority of your vote not because you side with him, but because you've misrepresented the debate and are being dishonest on the basis of prior bias. If you would like, I can go to that forum post and point out many examples of this directly.
I honestly expected to lose this debate considering I'm arguing for an unpopular position but this level of dishonesty is annoying.
That's their choice, hopefully they actually analyze the debates "arguments." You say I did not substantiate my points but I did on many occasions.
The arguments can largely be summarized in 2 paragraphs or less, you are selectively taking quotes and ignoring the surrounding context and justification. In-fact, you've chosen to simply ignore my assertion about the false-equivalence because "Even if the contender is right or wrong doesn’t mean that he has given an argument for homosexuality."
One of arguments is that homosexuality is responsible for the AIDs epidemic, along with 3 others, 2 of which you have both ironically ignored.
Fairly simplistic, I have justified the STD argument through empirical data with recent STD statistics from the CDC coupled with older data on behavior and the general impact on longevity.