The Instigator
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
DrIVanHopekins
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Conversion Therapy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
CosmoJarvis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,308 times Debate No: 99946
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (3)

 

CosmoJarvis

Con

Conversion therapy is a psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual through electroshock therapy.

Pro will advocate for conversion therapy. I, con, will argue that conversion therapy is not only
ineffective, but immoral and dangerous.

Rules:
1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.
2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.
3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.


Rounds:
R1: Acceptance

R2: Main Arguments
R3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
This debate will assess whether churches and other religious institutions in America should or shouldn't be taxed for the property they own.

Con will discuss why religious institutions should pay their taxes, while pro will defend why these religious institutions should be exempt from taxes.

Rules:
1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.
2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.
3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.


Rounds:
R1: Acceptance

R2: Main Arguments
R3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
DrIVanHopekins

Pro

Hello, my name is Ivan Hopekins and I am a family doctor and would like to welcome you to the debate. It is my first debate on this website, so please bare with me as I find out how the "gizz" works around here.

Shock therapy is the most effective way to treat the homosexual illness, as it caves into our society and grabs us by our legs, forcing us to act on such matter. I have personally sent teenage boys to gay conversion, with permission from their parents, of course, and I can confirm that it has a 99% success rate, which means it works 99% of the time! These children have been tricked by the media into thinking homosexual behavior is natural, and shocking them to coming to the conclusion is the most effective way for someone to stop such a satanic choice they made in their life.
Debate Round No. 1
CosmoJarvis

Con

Outline:
I. Introduction

II. Is Being Gay a Choice?
III. The "Success" of Conversion Therapy
IV. Sources

I. Introduction

I would just like to begin by thanking my opponent, Dr. Ivan, for accepting this debate. It's an honor to debate a family doctor, a person who is very educated
in this topic. Regardless of the outcome, I'm glad to have this opportunity to debate against such an expert!

My argument will enforce the belief that homosexuality is not a choice. I will also analyze how "successful" Conversion Therapy is. Personally, I am discontented with Conversion Therapy, or electroshock therapy. I see it as more of torture; to associate people's homosexual impulses with fear and pain. However, my argument will not consist of mere opinions. I will primary rely on science and reliable sources to support my points in my argument. I also urge my opponent to discuss how homosexual behavior is "satanic," and how successful he finds Conversion Therapy to be.

II. Is Being Gay a Choice?

The age-old question: is being gay a choice? Some conservative and religious people may say that, yes, it is a choice; an unnatural and sinful choice where people willingly turn their backs against God to pursue "sexually immoral" acts. Many modern studies have shown that, however, homosexuality is completely natural.

Recent studies have found that homosexuality is a genetic trait, rather than a decision or a thing that is caused by "media" and culture. According to a study conducted by Dr. Tuck C. Ngun and his team at the University California, a gene known as the "Xq28 Marker" is believed to be the "gay gene." Ngun and his team gathered 37 pairs of twins in which one was homosexual while the other was heterosexual. His team took a sample of blood from each volunteer and through DNA electrolysis, his team was able to isolate this "gay gene," (S1).

Homosexuality is not only found in humans, but in other animals. Homosexuality is found in all living species (except for asexual organisms) (S2). According to an observational study conducted in Yale University, researchers has confidently confirmed this belief (S3). These animals lack the ability to even grasp the concept of sin and God, so to claim that homosexuality is a delliberate action against God is utter boondoggle, seeing as animals do it, not to intentially go against God, but because it is in homosexual animals' nature.

III. The "Success" of Conversion Therapy

Conversion Therapy is a psychological treatment to change a homosexual person's sexual orientation to heterosexual through electroshock therapy. Conversion Therapy is fairly controversial, and for good reasons: practitioners rewire homosexual men and women to fear their homosexual impulses by associating homosexual ideas with pain, (S4).

My opponent has claimed that Conversion Therapy has a "99% success rate." As to how my opponent has gotten such information and what he necessarily defines as "success" is beyond me. Ironically, the actual success rate of Conversion Therapy ranges from 11% to 37 (S5), (S6). Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 143 "ex-gays" who went through Conversion Therapy. He reported that 89% of the men still had feelings of attraction to people of the same-sex (S7).

Conversion Therapy is very counter-productive in fact. Many people involved in Conversion Therapy have committed or attempted suicide. For example, Bobby Griffith was a homosexual male who came out to his family at 17. Pressured by the stigma from his family and church against homosexuality, he committed suicide by the age of 20, (S8). And according to GoodTherapy.org, out of fifty-five transgender teens, 25% have committed suicide (S9).

IV. Sources
S1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

S2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
S3) http://www.yalescientific.org...
S4) https://en.wikipedia.org...
S5) http://www.ispn-psych.org...
S6) https://en.wikipedia.org...
S7) http://www.religioustolerance.org...
S8) http://whatstheharm.net...
S9) http://www.goodtherapy.org...
DrIVanHopekins

Pro

Your argument that homosexuality is not a choice is very flawed. You have given a study source, which I do give you credit for that it is indeed a very well presented argument, but an argument I cannot believe. You said that electroshock therapy has an 11% success rate, by associating homosexual behavior to pain. If homosexuality wasn't a choice, then how is it possible to have a success rate at all? Maybe electroshock therapy is not the right direction, but an 11% success rate means nearly 1/10 people treated with this kind of therapy had a positive outcome. There wouldn't be any percentage of success rate if it weren't a choice to be homosexual to begin with.

I would also like to add that one study does not confirm fact. For example, there are studies that say climate change is not real, when there are others that say the exact opposite. Both cannot be right, so therefore it requires more than one study to confirm fact.

In Duet 7:1-6, there were a group of people known as the Canaanites who lived in a town that practiced perversion, sodomy, idolatry and other sinful acts. These sinners were so satanic and evil, that when Yahweh commanded Israel to exterminate them, they had to even kill their livestock. Why did I tell you this story? Well, it's because sin is passed on to animals, and they continue to practice what us as humans do, and if we practice in homosexuality then animals will practice in homosexuality.
Debate Round No. 2
CosmoJarvis

Con

I wished my opponent cited valid sources and used quantitative or qualitative data to suppor this arguments. His claims are very vague and does not form an argument that supports Conversion Therapy. Additionally, I did ask that rebuttals would be saved for Round Three, and not Round Two.

"Your argument that homosexuality is not a choice is very flawed. You have given a study source, which I do give you credit for that it is indeed a very well presented argument, but an argument I cannot believe."

I believe that I have properly demonstrated that homosexuality is purely a genetic trait, and that it is commonly found in nature by citing multiple sources which help support my argument.


"You said that electroshock therapy has an 11% success rate, by associating homosexual behavior to pain. If homosexuality wasn't a choice, then how is it possible to have a success rate at all?"

As I have said before, Conversion Therapy uses painful stimuli (electricity) to discourage homosexuals from acting on their sexual impulses because the therapy deliberately associates these impulses with pain and fear. An article which I have cited in the previous round states that "success in therapy has been defined in various ways... [such as] behavior to continued homosexual attraction in the context of celibacy," (S1).

Sources:
S1) http://www.ispn-psych.org...;
DrIVanHopekins

Pro

If being gay isn't a choice, then how was this man saved from sin? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...? How do you explain this story http://www.jamaicaobserver.com...? These two men are now people of God, and when they embraced their Christianity, their homosexual behaviors died down. This is physical proof that science cannot explain accurately, because God works in very mysterious ways.

Proving homosexuality is a choice is a very simple concept, all you need is two magnets. Try to put a positive and a positive or a negative and a negative together; it just simply doesn't work. But when you put a negative and a positive together, then they can connect. Whether it's electroshock therapy or something else, this is a proven illness by the Old Testament that needs to be treated accordingly.

It was a pleasure debating you, and I hope that the best comes in the following years.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by madness 1 year ago
madness
Work it out.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
What are you talking about?
Posted by madness 1 year ago
madness
Are we to expect 16 year old transgender females to cry a river and throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with them?

Waa Waa Waa!

(This vote was not aimed at anyone in particular, just every 16 year old transgrander female.)
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
Fair debate, Dr Ivan Hopekins. Maybe in the future, we can pursue more debates on the topic of homosexuality, or religion in general.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
So, here's what I'd recommend:

1) Don't award all 7 points, except in special circumstances (e.g. where the debaters make a rule to that effect, one of the debaters is overtly insulting, one of the debaters trolls, etc.). The reason is that you have to justify every point, and so far, I've seen scant few RFDs that can fit in 1000 characters and justify all 7. You can always spill over into the comments if you want, but I don't think you want to regularly put in that much effort.

2) Every point awarded is by comparison, and some of the thresholds are larger than you've taken into account. Someone using good S&G, for example, doesn't warrant giving them a point for it unless their opponent used such terrible grammar that their argument was difficult to understand. Conducting oneself well doesn't warrant giving that person conduct unless the opponent was insulting, forfeited one or more rounds, or broke the rules of the debate. The thresholds are placed here to restrict people from just awarding points on the basis of minor differences in these factors, and partly because having laxer standards lead to more generally subjective assessments (i.e. one can see a debater as conducting themselves well, and another could see that debater as being aggressive or condescending).

3) Awarding arguments and sources, since those two provide more points, requires a higher threshold of analysis. When awarding arguments, for example, you have to show that you read and comprehended at least some of the debate. That means actually pointing to arguments made by both debaters, and coming to a decision based on the comparison between those points. Merely saying that one side had more support for their arguments isn't enough, nor is it enough for sources. It has to be clear that the sources of one side are significantly better in quality than those of the other side, and that they're relevant to the debate. If you want to award these points, you have to give those specifics.
Posted by Plexon_Warrior 1 year ago
Plexon_Warrior
It's quite fine. No need to get on to him unless he starts becoming an issue about it. I just want to know is my RFD better now that I have revised it. I didn't realize that I need to go more n depth analysis of my reasoning and any misconceptions that resulted from it are my responsibility.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
That's good. And yes, I agree that Masterful was insulting. If you wish, you're welcome to report him and Airmax1227 will handle it.
Posted by Plexon_Warrior 1 year ago
Plexon_Warrior
I have been following the standards. I was referring to when Masterful literally called me retarded and that my logic was faulty. That is technically speaking an insult.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Considering this vote was removed only 15 hours ago, and considering none of us are employed to do this, you can exercise some patience and wait to hear from him. BOT contacts everyone who has had a vote removed, and he will likely do so within the next 24 hours unless he's super busy. If he hasn't, send me a message and we can discuss it.

As for the democratic aspect, you are welcome to post your opinions to the comments whenever you'd like. There is, however, a difference between posting your opinion and posting a vote. An opinion doesn't require any standards and doesn't award any points. A vote requires standards, mainly because it awards points. This site isn't meant to be perfectly democratic, and you certainly don't have to like that, but it's how we function. We could have a discussion over why we have standards, and I'd be fine doing that in a private message or a forum where we're not spamming the comments section of this debate.

Regarding the decision to remove instead of contacting you, neither I nor anyone else in moderation on the site is endeavoring to insult you by removing a vote, nor do I view the removal of your vote (or any vote for that matter) as evidence of a lack of maturity. However, I cannot personally contact every individual whose votes are up for removal on every single debate. Again, I'm not being paid to do this. I already spend an hour or two on a nightly basis going through vote removals, and we have a system in place for contacting people whose votes are removed. It's not perfect, but no system would be, and we need a system that ensures that moderators aren't incredibly overworked while ensuring a decent standard of moderation. As you've noticed, you are more than welcome to re-post your vote with added detail and, so long as you've followed the standards, have it upheld against any report. You are always welcome to contact Airmax1227, Blade-of-Truth, or me to better understand the circumstances behind a removal.
Posted by Plexon_Warrior 1 year ago
Plexon_Warrior
I would like to add that I have not been contacted by anyone on this issue, as I have been informed in the comments that Blade-of-Truth has tried many times to do so.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Plexon_Warrior 1 year ago
Plexon_Warrior
CosmoJarvisDrIVanHopekinsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a well presented argument on the part of Cosmojarvis, he was quite polite, well-mannered, and overall carried himself well. His grammar and spelling were exquisite and immaculate. His arguments were better supported with evidence and his sources were cited and reliable. This combination of good debate techniques, good conduct, well sourced facts over all lead to a far more convincing argument. I'm sorry that those who disagree with my statements above will no doubt try and have this vote again removed. If any admin is asked to view this and review my vote please take into account that I have neither insulted the opponent nor made any blatantly foul or offensive comments. Thank you.
Vote Placed by madness 1 year ago
madness
CosmoJarvisDrIVanHopekinsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument: Con says: "Pro will advocate for conversion therapy. I, con, will argue that conversion therapy is not only ineffective, but immoral and dangerous." Con failed to argue that it's ineffective, immoral and dangerous. Seriously this WHOLE debate was weak, but Dr Hopkins made an argument that the electric shocks would induce a fear based response to homosexuality. This was the only piece of logic I found in the entire debate. Everything else was about homosexuality not being a choice, which was irrelevant. Con had a neat argument, but the substance was off topic and actually gave evidence that the shock therapy CAN work. Sources: Con's sources were not unreliable but they were not relevant to disproving shock therapy. Pro's only sources were merely accounts. S+G was fine. Conduct: Fine.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
CosmoJarvisDrIVanHopekinsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had good S&G. CosmoJarvis argued that Conversion Therapy can lead to suicide, and only worked about 11% of the time. Yes, it did work, but 90% of those were fails, and 25% of suicides by patients were reported. The fact that genetics were the cause of homosexuality, and not choice, aids in the assertion that a shock, causing fear, would only do more harm than good. Hopekins claimed that it's a 99% success rate, but his only source was his authority. Considering Jarvis had a website link and Hopekins had none, I buy Jarvis's argument more. There was also Hopekin's speak of sin and evil and God.... Nice Pathos, but I'm an athiest, and God isn't a relevant argument anyways. He tries to counter genetic homosexuality with a story of Sinners getting killed, as well as their livestock. He doesn't actually disprove homosexuality in animals, as it never stated the animals ever sinned. The whole suicide thing made Conversion Therapy seem immoral. Sources to Con, as only he used links.