The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
draxxt
Con (against)
Losing
37 Points

A ban on sex between men should be introduced in order to help prevent the spread of AIDS

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,322 times Debate No: 9748
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (12)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

We all know that there is no cure for AIDS and that the disease kills millions of people every year. We also know that it is primarily spread through the exchange of bodily fluids and by far the most common way of contracting AIDS is through sexual intercourse between men.

http://www.lifesitenews.com...

Incredibly, however, in many countries, the 'right' of men with unconventional sexual preferences to pursue "the love that dare not speak its name" to its ultimate physical conclusion takes precedence of their victims' right to life.

Seemingly, if someone becomes infected with AIDS as the result of these men's perverted promiscuity, that's just too bad because most politicians would rather see innocent people die than confront the gay mafia and their powerful friends in the media.

It's not too late to stop the spread of AIDS but the politicians must act now and ban sexual intercourse between men before this reckless recreation causes any more needless deaths.

Thank you.
draxxt

Con

Thank you, Eggleston, for submitting this debate. It's ironic you should post this as it sounds like you have one massive stick up your rear. I'll start with my my case and if I have room, I will attack my opponent's case.
(Let me just say out of the scope of the debate, I have nothing wrong with gay people. My best friend is gay. O.o)
I will offer definitions and framework considering my opponent neglected to. I promise not to be abusive (that's what he said!).
I DEFINE
BAN-to prohibit especially by legal means*
SEX- (See Sexual Intercourse)
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis*

PREVENT- to keep from happening or existing *

AIDS- a disease of the human immune system that is characterized cytologically especially by reduction in the numbers of CD4-bearing helper T cells to 20 percent or less of normal thereby rendering the subject highly vulnerable to life-threatening conditions (as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia) and to some (as Kaposi's sarcoma) that become life-threatening and that is caused by infection with HIV commonly transmitted in infected blood especially during illicit intravenous drug use and in bodily secretions (as semen) during sexual intercourse*
HOMOSEXUAL- sex between two men (As used in context for this debate.)

My opponent has no choice but to accept these definitons considering his inability to clear the resolution and being that he was generous enough to make this debate very short. (Really Eggleston?)

I OBSERVE:
1) The resolution is not specific to any one country. It merely urges a ban on homosexual sex. Thus, any country-specific sources must be transposed on a worldwide scale (ie if America had five out of the one thousand reported cases of AIDS in the world, we would consider any and all social anomalies in America to be pertinent to that five).
2) The resolution requires that if even if 50.0000000001% of the reported cases of AIDS were due to homosexual actions, we have grounds to consider the Affirmative as a plausible solution to the AIDS epidemic. If even 49.9999999999999999999999999999999->**% of the reported cases of AIDS were homosexual, we wouldn't have enough reason to consider homosexual intercourse something worth banning. If we ban homosexual sex, we might as well ban heterosexual sex because there would be more of a chance that one could contract AIDS from sex with the opposite sex.

You must accept my observations because my opponent has offered no framework for the debate.

CONTENTION ONE: MOST REPORTED CASES OF AIDS IN THE WORLD ARE NOT A RESULT OF HOMOSEXUALS
According to a study done by until.org (http://www.until.org... [A leading AIDS researching group and fundraising effort for the AIDS vaccination]) "Over 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS [worldwide], and 74 percent of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa."
This study points to a clear reconsideration in my opponent's claims being that "Unlike in developed countries, where over 90 percent of AIDS cases are homosexual males, intravenous drug users and blood transfusion recipients, African AIDS is supposedly suffered by men and women in equal numbers who contract it, presumably from heterosexual intercourse" (According to the African Studies Center of the University of Pennsylvania). If an equal amount of men and women are contracting AIDS in Africa, we can assume that either the entire population of Sub-Saharan Africa is involved solely in homosexual activity or is involved primarily in heterosexual activity. It is only logical to assume that heterosexuality (being the majority versus the homosexual minority) is being practiced over homosexuality in this area.
For this reason, we must assume that 74 percent (or minutely less) of the population in the world living with AIDS are practicing heterosexuality. (Also, let us keep in mind that any statistic concerning homosexuality is dealing with the man on man homosexuality and woman on woman. Therefore, there is less chance man on man is to blame for the majority of AIDS)

CONTENTION TWO: INTRODUCING A BAN ON HOMOSEXUAL SEX WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE BAN OF HETEROSEXUAL SEX.
In my first contention, I established that the majority of those living with AIDS are heterosexual. Under that we would have very little reason to ban homosexual sex when heterosexual is the majority. Banning homosexual sex would be like banning apples to try and prevent the eating of fruit. We still have the option of strawberries, peaches, and bananas (XDDD).

Now I will move on to my opponent's case:

"[...]and by far the most common way of contracting AIDS is through sexual intercourse between men."
See my C1

His source is also moot considering it concerns a small number (less than one million) of the 22 million reported cases of AIDS.

"Seemingly, if someone becomes infected with AIDS as the result of these men's perverted promiscuity, that's just too bad because most politicians would rather see innocent people die than confront the gay mafia and their powerful friends in the media."

I'm friends with Elton John, so I'll see what I can do.

His entire case rests on one contention: Gay men cause AIDS. However, I have already proven that there is little to no warrant to his claims that a ban should be enacted. As stated in observation two, if my opponent can provide a legitimate statistic concerning homosexuals in the world outweighing heterosexuals with AIDS, you have a reason to consider the AFF. That is not to say that you should affirm but it would give you reason. I have abolished all reason to vote aff and given you a substantial reason (see C2) why you should negate.

Thank you, Vote NEG
-EG
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to extend my thanks to Draxxt for posting such an impassioned and comprehensive rebuttal, or perhaps I should say "response" - I don't want to give any militant gay rights activists reading this the impression that I am mocking the afflicted with butt-related puns!

Furthermore, I accept the definitions my opponent provided. His observations, on the other hand, were a bit spurious but I'll let them pass for now and instead deal with them as part of my main arguments.

So, to address my opponent's first contention that the majority of AIDS victims live in sub-Saharan Africa and there are roughly equal numbers of men and women who have the disease. This may be true, but the reasons are as follows:

1 – Until the late 19th or early 20th Century AIDS was confined to non-human primates in Africa but then one day (presumably) some dirty nonce went into the jungle and bummed a monkey, contracting the disease in the process and subsequently spreading it amongst the human population of Africa where it has had a longer time to develop than in the West.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

2 – The availability of condoms in Africa is limited and even where they are available men are often reluctant to use them for religious reasons.

3 – The political classes in Africa attach little importance to educating the population about the danger of AIDS. Indeed, when he was President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki consistently refused to accept that HIV leads to AIDS and claimed not to know anyone with the disease, even though South Africa actually has the highest number of AIDS sufferers in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

4 – Sexual promiscuity is culturally acceptable in many African tribes which means there is much more opportunity for AIDS to be spread around the female population by bi-sexual males.

My opponent's second contention that a ban on homosexual sex would lead to a ban on heterosexual sex fails on two counts:

1 – Despite my opponent's claims to the contrary, I provided proof in R1, and further evidence is provided herein below, that gay men are far more likely to contract AIDS than normal men and that's why they must be targeted.

2 – Heterosexual sex enables the most vital function of the human race to be performed – that is reproduction. The anal antics of homosexual gentlemen, on the other hand, are purely recreational - one man taking another man up the ‘Gary Glitter' serves no biological function whatsoever and, as we know, while it can result in deaths it can never result in the birth of a new human life.

Moving on, I was interested to learn that my opponent is friends with Elton John. Interested, but not surprised. Elton John loves hanging around with young men, as the embedded YouTube clip demonstrates. ;)

Coming back to the prevalence of AIDS in men of homosexual persuasion (who persuaded them, I don't know) Centres for Disease Control and Prevention established that the primary transmission of HIV (which leads to AIDS) in the United States was through "male-to-male sexual contact".

http://www.cdc.gov...

This is why AIDS used to be known as "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency" (GRID). However, the gay mafia and their apologists in government and the media didn't want homosexual men to be stigmatised by holding them responsible for this monstrous pandemic and insisted in changing the name of the disease to disguise the truth.

http://www.avert.org...#

This is rather similar to the way the fat refuse to accept that the fact that lazing about gorging on junk food and guzzling beer and sodas all day is the reason they are overweight. Instead they claim they are just "big-boned". Funny how very few "big-boned" refugees you see fleeing famine-ridden countries though, isn't it?

In conclusion, until gay men and their fawning lackeys in the Government and the media stop denying that gay sex is primarily responsible for the spread of AIDS, nothing can be done to stop it. Surely, it is now high time that the politicians woke up and smelled the coffee and realised that the lives of innocent people are more important than the right of homosexual gentlemen to bugger each other? In short, they must duly introduce legislation to outlaw gay sex, at least until a cure for AIDS is found.

Thank you.
draxxt

Con

Wow...I move on to my opponent's case (Really Eggleston? Really?) and will reestablish my own (as well as my conclusion if there is room).

As per my opponent's rebuttal concerning my case:

CONCERNING CONTENTION ONE-
1) So we should ban sex with monkeys as well. Simply because someone bummed a monkey (which is under current speculation regarding the SIV and HIV relation) does not mean that we should consider my contention any less valid. It still stands that, while the origination of HIV/AIDS is unknown and is currently believed to have come from apes, A majority of the world who is living with AIDS is straight. Furthermore, they are found in Sub Saharan Africa. both these points stand.

2) Moot. Simply because there is a lack of condoms in Africa we should not assume there is any correlation to the resolution and why homosexual sex should be banned.

3) Also moot. There is no correlation between the resolution's proposition and the amount of education revolving around AIDS. The AFF has still failed to tell me how this effects his proposition that gay men should be ostracized for having sex with one another. If my opponent would like to propose that we educate the African population on safe sex and the spread of AIDS, I will gladly agree but would not agree that it has anything to do with homosexual men.

4) What is your source for that? I have a source stating that heterosexuality is the preferred practice in Sub-Sahara Africa. Your attack on that point is just speculation. My point stands on credibility and you reject his attack based on a lack thereof.

CONCERNING CONTENTION TWO

1) You have proved that it is the case in America. The resolution is concerning the population of the world with HIV/AIDS. I have provided a source concerning the entire world and the condition of their sexual preference. You default NEG in this case because of a lack of topicality in the resolution.

2) That doesn't hold because the resolution is not concerned about Pokemon or their flamethrowers. The resolution is simply concerned with AIDS and the causes therein. Anything having to do with Pokemon and flamethrowers are irrelevant. You default NEG because my opponent's attack on my contention two has nothing to do with the resolution. Again, a topical error.

And Elton John and I are friends. That is all. That video you showed was an impostor. After all, he did Rocketman!

"Coming back to the prevalence of AIDS in men of homosexual persuasion (who persuaded them, I don't know) Centres for Disease Control and Prevention established that the primary transmission of HIV (which leads to AIDS) in the United States was through "male-to-male sexual contact"."

Sure, but that's only the a speck on the apple. The apple has a majority heterosexual. Saying that The United States is relevant to the majority only applies where it is the majority of the world with AIDS which I have already proven does not.

"This is why AIDS used to be known as "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency" (GRID). However, the gay mafia and their apologists in government and the media didn't want homosexual men to be stigmatised by holding them responsible for this monstrous pandemic and insisted in changing the name of the disease to disguise the truth."

Again, this is pertinent only to the US. You have yet to show me how the rest of the world is effected.

My case still stands because my opponent's attacks have a lack of topicality. His defense of his own case is flawed insofar as it deals with one minute portion of the scope of the resolution.

You have no choice but to vote in Negation.

~EG
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
"Wow.... this is ignorant garbage."
[sarcasm] Eloquent and utterly convincing. [/sarcasm]
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Actually, wouldn't it be a ban on "anal sex" and not just "sex between men?" From the stand point of risk level, anal sex is by far the highest; however, this is true REGARDLESS of the gender of the "receiver." This means that a man having anal sex with a woman is as risky as a man having anal sex with another man. Additionally, "sex between men" can also consist of oral sex (oral-penile contact or fellatio) which has the lowest risk factor (barring manual manipulation, of course.) And this is true regardless of the gender of the person performing the act.

Then there is Oral-Vaginal Contact (cunnilingus) and Oral-Anal Contact (anilingus) which are both riskier than Oral-Penile but not by much. Of these, anilingus can be performed by same sex or opposite sex pairings all of which carry the same amount of risk.

I am opposed to all bans on sexual behavior... ESPECIALLY the dry spell I'm going through!
Posted by draxxt 7 years ago
draxxt
I wanted to avoid attacks on morality, government legitimacy in the situation, and discrimination. Though my original C1 was that my opponent hates black people.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
The point is that it is boring to debate a sure-fire winner, better to challenge yourself to defend the indefensible, even if you lose!

Sorry to hear that vote bombing is back b/t/w - but everybody knows you are the No.1 debater for good reason.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Anyway, Brian, I'm all for controversial (and even ignorant) topics... but why start a debate that you absolutely cannot defend? Obviously Con's going to brings things up like morality, discrimination, the government's ability (or lack thereof) to enforce this, etc. I'm curious to see how you plan on combating these things. I'll be back :) Ps. We haven't debated in awhile :( But you'll be glad to know that I'm losing several debates to you thanks to my recent vote bombing :D
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Meh. Most controversy is rooted in ignorance.
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Quoted from the DDO Help pages:

"The topic of your debate should be a controversial statement. The topic should imply that there are only two sides to the argument. Creating a clear and arguable topic helps the debate look more professional and allows the reader to more easily comprehend the content of the debate and who is on which side."
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
The debates on this site are supposed to be "controversial". Just to be clear, the views expressed in my arguments do not necessarily represent my own personal opinions.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Wow.... this is ignorant garbage.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Erick 6 years ago
Erick
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by WhiteAfricanAmerican 7 years ago
WhiteAfricanAmerican
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
brian_egglestondraxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07