This debate specifically:
Voting
Posts
Archived
Read-only
Total:
8
Round 1 PinkFreud08/
His arguments were:
His arguments were:
“Homosexuality and sexual pleasure, in general,is great for one's health”
This was supported by the source so basically is claims weresupported by the source stating sex improves immunity, lowers blood pressure,relives pain and improves sleep. This enough of an argument to consider sex tobe a good thing.
The instigator did this which I would advise against:
The instigator did this which I would advise against:
“They bite the bullet and agree to remainlogically consistent
They don't bite the bullet and don't remainlogically consistent
They try to prove why these analogies don't apply”
This to me is not a good strategy because you are pretty muchtelling the opponent what your cards are. They can use this by stating anargument that is different to the scenarios you picked out or decide to rebutthese points rather than focus on your actual arguments.
“Homosexuals can't reproduce”
This wasn’t an argumentfor why homosexuality doesn’t lead to reproduction is bad more so it was anargument to see if his opponent remained logically consistent. This is a badapproach to take it because the instigator did not state why homosexuals not reproducingis bad more so if you care about it then you should care about this as well.This would be considered a whataboutism when a point can be made without it.
The instigator did thisagain:
The instigator did thisagain:
“They bite the bullet and agree to remainlogically consistent
They don't bite the bullet and don't remainlogically consistent
They try to prove why these analogies don't apply”
I already stated myproblems but I say it again. Making the opponent aware of your tactic leaves itopen to them either engaging too much with what you said here or deny that anyof them apply to them. It is best to keep your rebuttals until it is requiredin the debate.
Another argument fromthe instigator is:
Another argument fromthe instigator is:
“Homosexuality isn't natural”
This is the best pointmade by the instigator. The instigator clearly shows that if they considerhomosexuality to be unnatural they be extension should consider fans, medicine,dyed hair and buildings unnatural as well. The point would be better if theinstigator did point out the fallacy which is an appeal to nature.
This happened again:
This happened again:
“They bite the bullet and agree to remainlogically consistent
They don't bite the bullet and don't remainlogically consistent
“They try to prove why these analogies don'tapply”
Round 1 Tiwaz/
“P1. Homosexuals Contract STDs at Rates MuchHigher Than Straight People”
Basically stated evidence for this but didn’t say how it isharmful to society. All this needed was AID’s is harmful because of X and forthat reason homosexuals are more harmful than heterosexual men.
“P2. Sex is Harmful”
Opens up with an attack by saying “Sex, contrary to what contemporary liberals state, is by far the singlemost dangerous activity one may engage in.” So basically insulting liberalseither being not intelligent or just a general insult. Everything else wasbasically stating sex is harmful. Nothing was substantiated. Made claimswithout supporting it with evidence.
“P3. Homosexuality is Indicative of Psychosexual Immaturityas defined by Freud.”
This isbasically the contender’s argument. Claim supported without evidence.
“P4. Homosexuality is ethically objectable, itdegrades the relationship of love to a game.”
Same as above. Claim supported without evidence.
Round 2 PinkFreud08/
MY OPPONENT IGNORING MY ARGUMENTS:
Like it says.
P1 rebuttal was:
P1 rebuttal was:
“My opponent has either knowingly or by accidentignored my counter-argument I already made in my opening with me stating,”
Clearly true by looking at the contender’s Round1 arguments.
P2 rebuttal was:
P2 rebuttal was:
“My opponent did little to debunk MY claims in my previousargument when I stated,”
Clearly true by looking at the contender’s Round 2arguments.
P3 rebuttal was:
P3 rebuttal was:
“Same with this point,”
What I came to as well.
P4 rebuttal was:
P4 rebuttal was:
“This is a claim that mind youISN'T at all elaborated by my opponent,”
Basically what I said.
Round 2 Tiwaz/
Contender said:
Round 2 Tiwaz/
Contender said:
“My first round was not dedicated to rebuttals,after all there was little point in me doing so before I layed out a simplisticcase for my own side (that homosexuality is harmful to society).”
This is another point where I will give theinstigator the conduct point. He clearly did not say anywhere that was hisopening arguments and will not provide arguments. Instigator made argumentsbased on the failure of the contender not stating what he was doing.
“Homosexuals on average die 20 years younger thantheir straight counterparts so they won't be enjoying these slight benefits forlong anyways.”
His link is supported by data from 1997. I don’tthink I need to say this but I will that data has been gathered 22 years ago.This is too old to be accurate.
“Sex is dangerous, and deviancy is harmful.”
Was not supported by evidence.
“All of this bears no relevance to whether homosare dieing from AIDs in their ass or not - it's a false-equivalence.”
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.
“It is incredibly harmful if one deviates fromthe heterosexual monogamous standard. This is evidenced by polygamous societiesbeing vastly more violent historically, and of course STDs rates.”
Not supported by evidence so it just a claim.
“Life expectancy is also higher for straight married couples than normalheterosexuals.”
Not relevant. Both about heterosexuals. The linkdidn’t mention homosexual married couples so not relevant.
“Psychosexual immaturity occurs when psychosexual development is stunted insome manner, such as having no father or receiving negative influence from theenvironment.”
The link is from Wikipedia. I don’t think I needto say that this is not evidence but I will. Wikipedia is helpful in definingterms or getting some information. It is not a reliable source for evidence sothis is a claim without evidence. Even what he is claiming is not link tohomosexuals. So basically the claim is not directly linking to the debate athand and the evidence doesn’t even support the claim.
“My fourth premise is entirely straight-forward.It can be applied to any form of deviancy which does not necessitatecommitment. Perhaps you could counter this by demonstrating how homosexual loveis similarly pure, or show statistics which prove they aren't sex demons.”
Premise has yet to have evidence. Thisexplanation or an extended claim is not supported by evidence.
Round 3PinkFreud08/
Instigator said:
Instigator said:
“Both of which according to the same article arethe two deadliest around the world with almost 8.8 M deaths of people dyingfrom Heart disease in 2015 and another Strokes accounting for 6.2 milliondeaths in 2015.
Both of which mind you take up large percentages ofthe deaths worldwide both ranging from 10-15 %.
So yes actuallylowering your blood pressure would actually more than likely help you more thandying of aids would which according to damien.org comparatively only 1 milliondied in 2013.”
Supported by his first and second link. It is theburden of the contender to provide a rebuttal to the claim. If he does not thenthe instigator has provided a substantial enough point to say homosexuality isless harmful than it is harmful.
Instigator said:
“I mean ok homosexuals account for the majority ofaids related contractions.
Sexual diseases and problems exist in every sexualrelationship whether it be gay or straight, this isn't exclusive to one or theother.
For instance, the unwanted pregnancy rates are 100% due to heterosexuals, while the gay community actually aids the ongoingorphanage issue by adopting children.
According to my own opponents arguement,heterosexuality is harmful to society which is plainly absurd, each has issuesyes but this doesn't make them harmful to society especially with the overallhealth benefits both of them have.”
Clearly shown the absurdity of the contender’sargument when he was supposed to show how homosexuality is harmful instead hisarguments would also mean heterosexuals are also harmful to society.
Instigator said:
“By my opponentsOWN logic by appealing to statistical data arguments, he believes black peopleare harmful to society.
My opponents point on murder rate and culture aswell can be applied to homosexuals, homosexuals aids rate and culture is thefault, not homosexuality itself.
Therefore my opponent contradicts himself, I restmy case on this point.”
This could have been worded better but theinstigator has made his point clear. The contender believes blacks are harmfulto society because of the culture around them but with homosexuality he issupposed to say how homosexuality not the culture is harmful. With this in mindthe contender must find a way to provide how his arguments are not based onculture more so on it being intrinsic to homosexuality.
Instigator said:
“Yet anotherobvious red herring as once again my opponent is missing the overall flaw intheir logic.
School shootingsare common, there have been around 288 school shootings since 2009, tell methis isn't a problem in society?
Regardless ofpopulation size, this is irrelevant what if homosexuals were more common insociety?
What abouthomosexuals living in poor home environments or mentally ill?
Very obviouslyacross these two points, the issue seems clear.
My opponents veryown logic can be applied to homosexuals as well, or any of the other instancesI brought up.”
This clearly shows that the contender shows morefavour to whites so much so he is willing to defend them with their high massshooting rates. This favour has come into question because it is not equallyshared and this all would not be a problem if the contender decided not to talkabout it but he did and the instigator used it against him.
Instigator said:
“Which once again this sort of logic would statethat,
- Blacks are evil since they have the highest crimerate
- Whites are evil since they have the highest massshooting rate
- People ages 45-64 are evil since they have thehighest rate of suicide
So yes these arguments aren't simply afalse-equivalence, my opponent is obviously misusing the term.”
I think too much time was spent on thefalse-equivalence not enough was spent on actually providing claims. More sothe blame of the contender because he has failed to provide a singlesubstantial claim as in support it with evidence directly about the debate athand.
“However, it's veryobvious these high levels of hate crimes targeted against the homosexualcommunity surely must be an adaquete reason as to why they have lower lifeexpectancies.”
This was rebuttingheterosexuals have a higher life expectancy. Note that this does not mean it isharmful to society so both have spent time on a point which even if either aretrue still not provide a case for their respective sides.
“You once again haven't provided any statisticaldata or proper analysis of how homosexuals are " sex demons " or " not pure ".
The BOP of proof for this claim is on you sinceyou're the one making this claim, not on me.”
Clearly true when you take into account what the contender. He providedno evidence to support his claim and the instigator is doing the right thing inmaking sure he and people reading are aware of his claims.
Round 3 Tiwaz/
“STDs, and Lifetime Expectancy”
The data supported hisclaims are from 1979. Like I said earlier This is too old to beaccurate. Reason is life expectancy has increased drastically in that time. Asimply Google can find that out.
https://www.google.com/search?q=life+expectancy+us&oq=life+expectancy+us&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4709j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=life+expectancy+us&oq=life+expectancy+us&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4709j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
“Rates are commonly waved off by supporters asbeing symptomatic of the groups behavior. While this is partially true, itdiscludes the more important portion. Lest you misattribute HIV rates topromiscuity or unsafe practices exclusively, here are some medically acceptedreasons homosexuals spread HIV more rapidly. It’s simply biology that increasestheir rate of contraction. (HIV has more affinity to rectal tissue, higher riskof trauma, anal fluids contain 2500% more of the virus thansperm, the skin walls inside the rectum aren’t as thick, etc)”
By looking at the link he gave this is based onthe assumption that they are not protected. The link clearly suggests if theyuse enough lubricant and if not enough use a condom the risk is gone. Thisquote clearly states that “The study suggests thatmen who have insertive unprotected anal sex and encounter this mucus are at farhigher risk of HIV infection than had been previously thought.” So basicallyunprotected sex is bad not protected sex.
“Most homosexuals won’t even live long enough forthis type of longevity to be a concern. The average age of death for them is30-42 years old depending on cause of death. Less than 2% of them survive toold age. [1]”
This is based on data from 1994. Since that timethe life expectancy has increased. In order for him to have a relevant thecontender requires relevant data.
“I also never denied sex was beneficial in somemanners. I said it was dangerous, and sexual deviancy such as homosexuality isinnately harmful.”
Even if I grant him everything here. All the datastates is that do not have unprotected sex so that you don’t run in the risk ofHIV during anal. Since heterosexual couples can also have unprotected anal sexhe basically is against unprotected sex not homosexuality. So even if I granthim everything he does not have an argument against homosexuality.
“He is implying that because black and whitepeople have been harmful to society in some way, they are analogous to myarguments about homosexualities harmful nature. Both are harmful to society inone way or another, but homosexuality is innately harmful and for entirelydifferent reasons.”
This is clearly false because from what I havefound he is neither providide homosexuality to be innately harmful or even“entirely different reasons.” So it isn’t a false equivalency based on hisreasoning.
Suicide Rates
Nothing what he saidhere provided points against homosexuality. All he said is that the suiciderate is high without linking it to the reason of homosexuality. He simply gavea load of questions without answering them. Not answering has not given him apoint here.
“Homosexuality does not necessitate commitment, andis universally associated with rates of promiscuity and other deviancies suchas fecal sex. Around 80% of homosexuals admitted to sticking their tongue intotheir partners anus [2], thus ingesting a medically significant amount of fecesand increasing hepatitis. The vast majority of homosexuals have over 100lifetime partners[3] - the average for a straight male is 7, according to theCDC.
Thus, we can see how homosexuality is necessarilycorrolated to both promiscuity and deviant behavior.”
Hasn’t made an argument for why promiscuity and deviant behavioris a bad thing. This requires an explanation. Saying this is bad requires awhy. That was not given.
Sources
From his source theyare from before the turn to the 21st Century. The problem here isthat like I mentioned with life expectancy times have changed. People livelonger. Just that completely negates his findings in his first two links. His 3rd was not used to explain why homosexuality is innately harmful.
Round 4 PinkFreud08/
“If you are so sure that homosexuals are evil thenthe statistic should be published fairly recently,
Especially considering the medical and educationadvancements made in the past few decades. And the overall changes in society.”
Correct. Clearobjections to the contender’s data that are right. Doubt the contender doeshave a sufficient response to justify outdated data.
““Gaetan Dugas, the first known carrier of the STDwas a gay flight attendant (who I kid you not) flew all over the country andfucked 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 excuseto purport this to an entire population of millions of gays,
Then by logical extension, I could blame the KKKand proportionate that to the entirety to the south.
Or a few radical civil rights riots to the entiretyof the civil rights movement.
“ This is a gay plague because without them the STDwould simply be a non-issue. “
· Ok, and without heterosexuals, unwanted pregnancies wouldn’t be anissue.
· Without white people, mass shootings wouldn’t happen nearly as often.
· Without blacks, crime wouldn’t be that rampant.”
Even if the instigator does not sufficiently rebut this point it is notenough to say homosexuality is harmful to society. So basically this doesn’tneed me to address in order for me to vote on what the debate is about.
“Regardless of whether or not homosexualscontract aids the most, the problem isn’t homosexuality, the problem isdisease, education, and finding treatments.”
Correct. The contender fails to provide why homosexuality is badinstead gives arguments against disease. The contender fails to say how it isintrinsic to homosexuals.
Everything else mentioned was about the false-equivalency claimmade by the contender and summarizing his points so it doesn’t rebuttalsbecause both don’t give any new arguments.
Round 4 Tiwaz/
False-Equivalence fallacy
Even if the contender is right or wrong doesn’t mean that he hasgiven an argument for homosexuality. So I don’t need to address it.
Sources
The contender hardly gavegood enough reasons for why using outdated data when he mentioned it was becauseof the “sample-size”. Even if the sample-size is good this data is produced in atime that is relevant to the present. It is not even in the same century.
Sources
The contender hardly gavegood enough reasons for why using outdated data when he mentioned it was becauseof the “sample-size”. Even if the sample-size is good this data is produced in atime that is relevant to the present. It is not even in the same century.
Briefresponses“I said if he wasstraight this epidemic would not have spread. That is a reasonable position tohold, one which this time I will base upon statistics and likelihood.”
Basically admits this is an anecdote. Anecdotes isonly evidence for one occurrence not a representation of something larger as ina case for why homosexuality is intrinsically harmful to society.
“Okay? Even if all ofthese things are true, they don’t somehow become relevant to homosexualitybeing harmful or not.”
Says what I have said earlier in here. Him using thefalse-equivalency claim as a talking point for more than necessary has reducedhis side. He spent a quarter of his response in Round 3 for a non-issue andanother quarter in Round 4. This could have been used better if I take out thefact that he had 30k characters to use and not once has he even a point forhomosexuality being harmful to society.
“I disagree, these gay people wouldnot have AIDs if they were straight. We wouldn’t have to focus on education andtreatment if there was no artificially created problem in the first place.”
A disagreement is not a case against havingeducation specifically designed for homosexuals. Thereiseducation tailored to deaf people and blind people in the form of sigh languageand braille. By his statements here he would be against that as well if hedoesn’t think homosexuality is a choice in a person can change who they likeeasily.
“That doesn’t change it’s accuracy. I realizeit’s hard to find studies on fecal sex – but simply claiming it’s old doesn’tchange the veracity. However weak a statistic, you must provide something tocounter it. I might even level a similar objection at you: how could youpossibly expect me to accept sources over a year old?”
The instigator only needed to provide a case for homosexualitynot being harmful to society not counter his data with better data specificallyaddressing the contender’s data. If studies of fecal sex were difficult to findthe contender should have made a different argument that was better as in atleast being gathered in the 21st Century.
“The hepatitis and general filth. It’s not just a“weird kink,” it’s directly harmful with potentially lethal consequence. Ifskewering people through the eyeball was my “weird kink” you might second guessit.”
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.
If it wasn’t clear one person gave substantialarguments for homosexuality not being harmful to society and the other did notprovide substantial argument for homosexuality being harmful to society.
I can vote on conduct and sources but I doubt itis 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.