The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Britain's immigration service should introduce Kuwaiti-style gay detectors.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,134 times Debate No: 38777
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




Homosexual acts are banned in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates: the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member countries; but some foreign gays still manage to sneak in by posing as normal tourists or businessmen.

That's why the Kuwaitis are planning to clinically screen international visitors for homosexuality in order to identify any gays that may be lurking in the midst of the heterosexual passengers. Any gays they detect will then be deported and banned from all GCC countries.

Yousuf Mindkar, the director of public health at the Kuwaiti health ministry, said: "Health centres conduct the routine medical check to assess the health of the expatriates when they come into the GCC countries. However, we will take stricter measures that will help us detect gays who will be then barred from entering Kuwait or any of the GCC member states." [1]

Meanwhile, here in Britain, we have the opposite problem: heterosexual migrants from countries where homosexuals face discrimination are landing at Heathrow, queering it up and claiming to be gay in order to obtain political asylum. That's because the United Nations Refugee Convention states that people should be able to live freely and openly without fear of persecution.

They might not fool a genuine gay with their chocolate cha-cha dancing charades but how do the immigration officials and judges prove these bogus asylum seekers are faking being homosexual so that they can deport them?

Labour MP Keith Vaz,said "It is absurd for a judge or a caseworker to have to ask an individual to prove that they are lesbian or gay, to ask them what kind of films they watch, what kind of material they read." [2]

I agree, if I wanted to convince an immigration officer I was gay, all I would need to say is "Last night I watched The Sound of Music on DVD and I am currently reading Cristiano Ronaldo's autobiography," and he'd stamp my asylum application form with "SCREAMING HOMOSEXUAL" and "POLITICAL ASYLUM APPROVED" and I'd be allowed to legally stay in the country.

However, with Kuwaiti-style gay detectors immigration officers will quickly and reliably be able to determine which asylum seekers are really homosexual and which ones are just camping it up to get into the country.

Thank you.




I would like to thank brian_eggleston for this interesting debate, which as I understand is satirical and not meant to be taken seriously. Nonetheless, because the maxim "the more truthful, the better" applies to satire, or so I will argue, I shall first describe my general position on the satirical nature of this debate and then address my friend's argument.

As Jo Coppola(1958) says, "Good comedy is social criticism... For comedy is, after all, a look at ourselves, not as we pretend to be when we look in the mirror of our imagination, but as we really are. Look at the comedy of any age and you will know volumes about that period and its people which neither historian nor anthropologist can tell you."[1]

This argument can be used on satire(which often is humorous[2]), but with a careful elimination of false statements intentionally used by the satirist, and hence my concern is going to be namely with the truthfulness of the general argument put forth. By this approach, I'm not disengaging myself entirely from the realms of satire and comedy; I'm still going to have quips here and there. However, I surely will have a more serious disposition than my opponent, as I find it essential to refute satire with a more accurate construct of reality.

1- On the reliability and effectiveness of Kuwait's gay detectors

According to Russia Today, there is no information concerning how those "gay detectors" will operate[3]. While in other news websites, no conclusive claim is made but there is no description of the "clinical tests" in Yousuf Mindkar's statement[4,5,6,7]. I've found some untrusted sources who claim it would be a medical test, but they do not specify how a medical test could possibly detect homosexuality. Hence, it is highly likely that such detectors remain unknown and untested.

Pro claims, "However, with Kuwaiti-style gay detectors immigration officers will quickly and reliably be able to determine which asylum seekers are really homosexual and which ones are just camping it up to get into the country."

Rebuttal: BoP is on Pro to prove how the Kuwaiti-style gay detectors are more reliable. Pro has not presented us with any description from the Kuwaiti authorities on how the "clinical tests" would be performed or any researches to show why they are reliable enough to be used.

I've tried to research and brainstorm a few homosexuality-detection approaches to see if they would hypothetically work in the Kuwaiti clinical test, but all that I reached in my cumbersome journey was utter failure. Here are the drawbacks I encountered for every approach if applied in Britain:

Approach 1: Testing the fun-hole for any anal activity.

1- Non-comprehensive. How could we identify homosexuals who always like to be the "top" as opposed to those who like to be the "bottom?"

2- Unreliable. I've had constipation for weeks and that ended up expanding my fun-hole to the extent that I've been bleeding like a woman for days now. If I were to be tested with this approach, I'll be classified as "too damn gay" even though I'm straight.

3- Not very difficult to cheat. A desperate immigrant would do anything.

Approach 2: The boner-stimulation through gay p0rnography test

1- Easily cheated. All it takes is to choke the chicken five times before having the test.

2- Problematic. Straight men might vomit or have psychological traumas while watching a group of men rewarding the one who picks up the soup.

3- Non-comprehensive. Young men(below 18) would be exempted from the test, and hence we would never know if they're "rainbowy" as they claim

Approach 3: Furniture and clothing preference test

1- Stereotypical. It is not true that all gays have a good taste in furniture and clothing.

2- Easily cheated. A straight man can simply lie and use preferences which he considers "gay."

3- Unreliable. What if it happened that a heterosexual man had a good taste in furniture and clothing?

Approach 4: Hand and facial movements test

1- Stereotypical. Not all gays are animated speakers who follow the same girlie pattern of talking.

2- Easily cheated. Straight men can mimic effeminate men who are very interested in the men around them.

3- Theoretical at best. The claim that we can detect homosexuality from facial expressions is not grounded with reasonable evidence but loads of assumptions.

In summary, (1) Pro has not provided a description of the Kuwaiti-style gay detectors, (2) Pro has not provided researches that such detectors are very effective and reliable, (3) Pro has not used trusted sources to define the technology and the clinical procedures (4) Existing technologies seem to fail in creating a detector for homosexuality as deduced from the four failing approaches that I mentioned.

Therefore, I argue that we shouldn't introduce such a technology to Britain, unless we are sure that it is reliable and effective in helping us keep the lying heterosexuals out. And we currently aren't.

The disadvantages of having an unreliable technology is the acceptance of many heterosexual citizens claiming to be homosexual and the rejection of some homosexual citizens who do not fit the stereotypes. It is important to note that this failure would not happen in limited cases, but in many because of how unreliable the technology could be compared to advanced technologies in bioinformatics such as finger-print detection.

[1] Coppola, Jo (1958), The Realist
[2] Corum 2002, p. 175

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to extend my thanks for accepting this debate to NiqashMotawadi3 (are there already two other members of Debate.Org called Niqash Motawadi?) and, also, for generously including my opening round the category of satire, which I am not sure it deserved!

In his rebuttal my opponent has noted that Kuwait's new gay detectors are not (yet) known in the outside world and details of how they might work are hard to come by. That may be true but it doesn't mean the Kuwaitis do not possess such technology.

Firstly, we should remember that the Arab world was the cradle of civilisation and much of what we know in the West about science ultimately stems from Arabia so we shouldn't underestimate the Kuwaitis' capacity to develop a clinical homosexual screening technique independent of Western scientists.

In addition, Western pharmaceutical companies would be unlikely to invest in the development of gay detectors for fear of attracting adverse publicity.

Furthermore, it should come as no surprise that the Kuwaitis have not published scientific details of their new gay detectors. They will be waiting for international patent protection before selling their sexual deviant-detecting devices to Vladimir Putin and other homophobic customers around the world.

My opponent also offered various methods that the gay detectors might rely on and showed them all to be ineffective. Fair enough, but although the exact operation of the Kuwaiti gay detectors remains a closely-guarded secret, I have done my own research into the causes and symptoms of homosexuality and, on that basis, I can make an educated guess that the Kuwaiti gay detection system is a multi-stage system operating along the following lines:

Stage 1 - The Digit Test
In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger while in homosexual men the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. This is a result of reduced testosterone exposure prior to birth. A quick look at the passengers' hands will determine whether or not it is necessary to proceed to Stage 2.

Stage 2 - The Pheromone Test
The sexual centre of homosexual men's brains light up when they sniff a pheromone-like chemical from men's sweat but they don't respond to a chemical from women. This reaction could be monitored with a simple brain scan. If the passenger responds to the wrong chemical but still denies he is gay then it will be necessary to proceed to Stage 3.

Stage 3 - The Neurohormonal Test
Hormones in a developing foetus determine a mammal's sexual identity by orchestrating brain organization and an imbalance in these hormones can lead to homosexuality in later life. The part of the brain responsible for sexual behaviour is twice as big in male heterosexual mammal as it is in male homosexual mammal. This region of the brain can be measured and if it is found to be undersized in the suspected gay but he, nevertheless, persists that he is straight, it will be necessary to proceed to Stage 4.

Stage 4 - The Enzyme Test
Gay men have lower brain levels of an enzyme that activates testosterone and promotes typical male sexual behaviour and a blood test indicating such a deficiency would be the final conclusive proof that the passenger is, in reality, a roaring poof who is just masquerading as a normal man in order to sneak into Kuwait. [1]

Obviously, most visitors will pass the first test and be admitted into the country with a cheery greeting such as:

"Welcome to Kuwait, enjoy your stay but remember to keep your impious infidel eyes off our women."

However, visitors who fail the gay detector tests are likely to be told:

"You've tested positive for homosexuality. There's no point in denying it, the results are conclusive. You're a queer and that's that. Now get out of our country and never darken our borders with your sexually-perverted presence again."

Such gay detecting devices would be equally useful to Britain's immigration services as they will be to Kuwait's. Since asylum seekers cannot fake any of the stages of the gay detector there would be no way to deceive the immigration officer who might advise the applicant as follows:

"Sorry sir, no matter how many times you tell me you are fan of Broadway musicals or how many posters of Cristiano Ronaldo you say you have on your bedroom wall, we've done the tests and we've found that there's absolutely nothing wrong with you. Consequently, your application for political asylum on the grounds of homosexual persecution has been refused and you will be duly deported back to Alabama on the next available flight."

Thank you.



To win the debate, Pro had to prove that Britain should buy the Kuwaiti gay-detectors. He didn't come close to proving that.

Pro ended up with an argument that Britain should buy
them without knowing what they are or seeing any scientific studies about them, because his hunch says that Kuwait is working on some super-duper advanced technology. This might pass in a conversation with a Taxi driver, but definitely not here in DDO. In the current sitatuon, Britian should wait till the required information and studies are out, in order to decide whether she wants them or not.

Points of agreement:

1- Kuwaiti gay-detectors remain unknown and concealed from the public.
2- Kuwait has not released scientific papers and researches on the effectiveness of such detectors.
3- The gay-detectors could be anything, and might very well be ineffective and unreliable.

Pro's multi-stage homosexuality-detection procedure

Pro gave us a four-step procedure which consists of researched techniques present and researched in the western world, and claimed they are very effective in detecting homosexuality.

Pro's argument is self-contradictory at best:

P1- We need the Kuwaiti gay detectors to detect homosexuality in Britain. [Pro's position]

P2- We already have a multi-staged procedure that can detect homosexuality [Pro's claim]

Conclusion: We don't need the Kuwaiti gay detectors. [My position]


In an attempt to avoid this contradiction, Pro made the following claim...

Pro claims, "Western pharmaceutical companies would be unlikely to invest in the development of gay detectors for fear of attracting adverse publicity."

Rebuttal: This contradicts some of what Pro said in the previous round. He clearly stated that Putin is a homophobe. Why then does he assume that Russian pharmaceutical companies wouldn't invest in the development of such technology? Russia is a Western nation after all; the dicthomy between east and west is cultural and not purely geographical as one might think. And Russia has a long history of scientific achievements, while Kuwait doesn't. Not to mention that the US is full of proud homophobes, some of which happen to be filthy-rich right-wingers who would run fast-food companies that proudly support homophobia. Why wouldn't they invest in such detectors? They could use them in churches to confirm what priests shouldn't come close to Altar boys.

Pro could have rescued his position if he proved that the Kuwaiti gay-detectors are superior to the four-staged procedure he described. Nonetheless, he conceded that the Kuwaiti gay-detectors are unknown.

Pro could have argued (but he didn't) that Kuwait's gay-detectors are the only available solution and so we should get them because of the urgency of the matter. To defeat Pro's resolution, I would have been forced to point out that this is not the case. However, Pro didn't.

Kuwait and highly advanced technology

Pro made many flimsy arguments to say that Kuwait must have advanced technology beneath its sleeves. I would like to refute those arguments before closing the debate.

Pro says, "Firstly, we should remember that the Arab world was the cradle of civilisation and much of what we know in the West about science ultimately stems from Arabia..."

Rebuttal: The Islamic golden age is actually a highly-doubted historic theory. The counter-view is that most of the Science came from outside Arabia[1].

Pro continues, "... so we shouldn't underestimate the Kuwaitis' capacity to develop a clinical homosexual screening technique independent of Western scientists."

Rebuttal: Even if we assume science stemmed out of Arabia, it is logically fallacious to assume that the scientific state of such a region has been preserved all those centuries. Let us not forget what came after the "Islamic golden age": Ignorance, persecution, conservatism, underdevelopment and religious verdicts against philosophy and the early sciences[2]. Kuwait is actually lacking in terms of scientific studies, researches and achievements. The currently leading country in the Middle East is Israel which is superior in both education and research faculties[3].

In summary, Pro has failed to prove to us that Kuwait is capable of advanced technology and research, but instead used flimsy arguments on the ancient history of the region to support his position. That is like employing Egyptians to build your house because Ancient Egyptians were once great architects.


Pro managed to offer a relatively good procedure to detect homosexuals. However, the multiple tests were all researched by western colleges, and hence Britain doesn't really need Kuwait to detect homosexuals. There are peer-reviewed studies of how we could implement the tests ourselves. Englishmen are better off building their own tools.

In summary, Pro didn't prove that we have to get the Kuwaiti gay-detectors, but instead offered us good reasons not to.

Thanks for reading,

Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
This was a very interesting debate and I really enjoyed reading it. It was very hard to decide. I believe both parties deserve points in conduct, arguments, structure, and grammar. Unfortunately I can only five tied or win. Con gave the best and in the end victorious arguments. He also had the best grammar and the most structured arguments. In all, this debate should go to the con.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
No, I wasn't being serious.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
well its funny,
but kind of strange and so new for me.
wanted to vote but haven't read full.
i take time to read the debate.
when i will full may be vote for it.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
It's because of the timezone, I guess. I posted my round when all the Americans were sleeping.

Anyway, it was a good debate. Though I'm sure you weren't serious.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
That was a good debate, why no votes?

Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
I meant soap* not soup. FAIL. :D
Posted by magi800 3 years ago
This is hilarious!
Posted by pensfan 3 years ago
that is the dumbest and one of the most racist things I have ever heard of!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Weiler 3 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly intended this debate in the satirical sense, and Con rose to the challenge, mixed the satire with science, and proved his case while observing the levity of the topic. Also, I always wanted to hear a middle-easterner refer to the anus as the "fun-hole". LOL
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.