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
I "omitted" what? I did the best I could sitting through the trash that was your debate. The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand and since the more recent Rounds you could not substantiate the points you were making I don't even know why you even accepted this debate. The loss of this debate is on you and when someone else does vote on this debate they will vote for the instigator not you.
You have omitted (presumably, willfully), many things from your analysis including statements I make which directly address your opinionated objections.
I didn't expect your vote to change considering who you are, but at least you read the debate this time.
good debate.
Don't worry about it. You have 9 days. You can decide to do it early so you don't do it later on or have some free time then later on to vote on it.
I started yesterday but got pulled away. I’ll try to get back to it this weekend
Can you vote on this debate?
Not a problem. We make mistakes at times and we would always be willing to listen to appeals. This was a bit of a challenging decision.
Thank you both for the fair, open, and respectful analysis of his vote.
See below
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: omar2345 // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct
RFD: see below
Reason for mod action: This vote was rather difficult to judge. Upon closer inspection, I believe that the vote should be removed. First, To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. The key word here is explaining how this was excessive and making the debate toxic. I don't see enough analysis in this vote to award conduct point. The argument point is borderline; however "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. " There are many arguments and counterarguments that are left unaddressed in this vote.
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
*******************************************************************
The instigator's points were that sex is great and homosexuality isn't harmful. The instigator laid theses points very simply which I am sure helped the reader the contender understand what he was saying. The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. Second blunder of the contender was not addressing the instigator's arguments. He had more than enough space because he hardly used any and there was a 30k character limit. After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position.
(3/3
So basically the contender failed to point out how homosexuality is evil or even harmful to society whereas the instigator clearly showed the problems if they had a specific response to his arguments. The contender went down the your analogy doesn't apply route which is wrong and was not clearly shown by the contender to not apply to the debate at hand.
The instigator also gets the conduct point because he did try to rebut the contender's point and that same courtesy was not shown by the contender. The contender also tried to change the way the debate was headed and I would consider lying about his positions.
Everything else wasn't relevant to my vote so I left it out.
I understand, and I've just read the CoC.
Under the Voting Policy section I, part A., "Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate."
He did not do this, as evidenced by this quote: "He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?"
I did not change the instigator's resolution given his definition of evil. This is clear evidence of him not "surveying" the counterarguments sufficiently. If you disagree, I would kindly request you forward this to Virtuoso or Bsh.
What is important to understand here is that my vote moderation isn’t assessing the accuracy of the vote or whether it is “correct”, but whether it meets a set of predefined criteria. I can’t judge the vote based on whether it is a correct vote or not - if we did that, then the winners of the debate would likely be down whoever the vote moderators decide it is, which is not a good idea.
In terms of debate rules, while we consider the rules - for example if someone made a rule and a voter placed a vote referencing that rule, (ie “rules say forfeit means a loss of arguments), we take that into account; but we don’t typically enforce the rules (IE: we won’t remove votes that are deemed insufficient as per the rules posted in the debate definition).
In this case, I believe the voter meets the overall voting criteria both in terms of general precedent and the CoC- I could have called the argument points borderline also, but felt that they were just about sufficient- but felt that conduct was borderline.
While I completely understand the frustration, I believe the issues you raise fall under the issues of accuracy and whether the vote is correct, rather than whether it is sufficient: and unfortunately that is not the purpose of the moderation - and not something I can make a decision on.
There are a couple of things you can do here: you can ask Omar about the vote (though be respectful) - he may have missed these issues: and I have seen voters change their mind when they realize they have made a mistake.
Second, you can post the debate in the DebateArt forum “debate voting” thread to request more votes, which may very well counter the effect of one vote you think is bad.
Finally, you can most certainly appeal to Bsh1 or Virtuoso by tagging them in your response. I recognize that I am imperfect and capable of making mistakes - one of the other vote moderators may come to a different conclusion than me on this, or hold a different view. It’s worthwhile highlighting the area of the CoC voting standards you feel weren’t met by the vote.
Furthermore, he sates, "After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position."
I debunked pros argument in atleast 3 ways. I directly addressed both of the cases to show why they aren't analogous in round 2 (in a show of good faith), I called it a red herring/false-equivalence aptly when he accused me of a red herring for directly addressing his analogy, and finally in the last round I stated "Okay? Even if all of these things are true, they don’t somehow become relevant to homosexuality being harmful or not."
I take issue with this. In the vote he states, " The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. "
In the description of the debate it clearly defines "evil" as harmful to society. This implies he did not read anything other then the instigators' arguments. I did not need to prove why homosexuality is immoral, or meeting the colloquial definition of "evil," only that it is harmful to society as that was how the instigator himself defined evil.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is deemed sufficient. The conduct point is considered borderline - thus sufficient.
************************************************************************
Look at the debate description. He defines evil as "harmful to society" before the debate even began. I clarified this exclusively so it wouldn't cause this exact type of confusion.
>>You are blatantly lying in multiple cases to justify your vote. I will not make any accusations here, but this vote is incredibly suspicious.
Blatantly lying is an accusation so you don't even follow your own words.
Report me then lets see if the moderators agree with you.
I don't normally report votes, but it just seems you haven't read my case, or past the description. Not only that, but in the debate I went on to elaborate directly afterwards why I don't know if black people are harmful to society. These are by definition red herrings, and the way he used them constitute them being an equivalence fallacy.
You are blatantly lying in multiple cases to justify your vote. I will not make any accusations here, but this vote is incredibly suspicious.
I changed nothing. Read the match description, where he defined evil. I don't personally think homosexuality is immoral, but that wasn't the proposition of the debate.
Another thing to note, I did address his examples - I called them irrelevant and a red herring, because they are.
It's primary purpose is for reproduction, but it can also be used for gratification.
Awesome. Now you're getting close to the heart of the issue. It's primary purpose/objective is reproduction. but likewise, it has a secondary purpose-- gratification...."fun", as you put it.
But would you agree it's primary purpose is reproduction?
The purpose of it is for reproduction. However, it can be done for fun under some conditions in my book.
The basic question that must first be answered is, what is the purpose/objective of sex? How would y'all answer this?
No problem
Sorry about not seeing the sources you posted. My mistake.
I already provided 3 sources,
However, I can respect your needs.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sex-and-relationships/sex
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201101/attention-ladies-semen-is-antidepressant
Can you prove how sex is beneficial to the individual with a reliable source?
If heterosexuals have an STD, they shouldn't be allowed to have sex.
Fair point, however, if you're going down this route than by logical extension you'd have to agree that people who are heterosexuals shouldn't have sex since protection doesn't always work.
Protection is not prevention; it doesn't always work.
Assuming we were able to reduce promiscuity in the Gay community through means of culture or otherwise (which is highly unlikely, at this rate). Then AIDs infection rates would fall by approximately 60% if you disclude the women who are infected by bisexual men. Furthermore, this is assuming promiscuity is the primary issue with contraction which I'm not convinced of.
Data on STDs will be taken from the CDC. I will post my first round later.
Assuming they wear protection, I don't see a problem with them having sexual intercourse. Even then however, I feel they should be somewhat limited of how much they have sex and they should tell the person they are having intercourse with that they have a disease.
I am saying that anyone with any STD(s), whether gay, bisexual or straight shouldn't be allowed to have sex in order to reduce STD rates across all sexualities.
Are you implying that homosexuals should have restricted rights compared to heterosexuals simply because their AIDS rates would be higher?
If the roles were reversed would you restrict heterosexuals rights since they would have higher STD rates?
If gays were less promiscuous, then AIDS rates would fall. It's not an absurd argument because they don't want gay people dying due to them having promiscuous gay sex.
It's not absurd that AIDS is common throughout the LGBT community, it's absurd that this is an argument used against LGBT rights.
I could see how it wold be inconsistent because straight people get it too, but absurd? The LGBT community needs to stop being promiscuous. I say this as someone who is bisexual. We also need laws prohibiting people with STDs from having sex otherwise, eventually every human will have every STD.
If the argument is addressed in the debate, I will rebut it.
If it doesn't then I will take the time to respond to it here.
All I will state is that logic would make someone either logically inconsistent or absurd.
How would you respond to the argument that gays and bis are more likely to get HIV due to the inherent promiscuity that comes with many LGBT relationships? I support the right to be gay, but the gay and bi communities need to be monogamous or abstinent.