DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 1): Homosexuality Is Immoral!
Debate Rounds (5)
Sir I challenge you to a debate on the resolution that "homosexuality is immoral". By accepting this debate, you understand that you are taking part in a tournament and a selection of five judges is made who will vote to decide the winner. By accepting this debate you bind yourself to the following principles and avowed statements:
1. You understand that I have done this debate multiple times, of which I informed you, and you agree that you found this debate most suitable from the 8 diverse topics I presented you with.
2. You have freely chosen to be Con, as I offered you both positions freely.
3. You understand you will have 48 hours to post each argument, there will be a total of 4 rounds of argumentation (the first is for acceptance only), you will be allowed a total number of 10,000 characters.
4. The first round, as stated previously, will be for acceptance only.
5. The burden of proof is shared equally.
6. The second round will consist of our independent arguments (no rebutals) where we will give a systematic positive case only.
7. The third and fourth rounds will be used for both rebutals and re-stating our case, where no new arguments may be presented.
8. The fifth round will consist of last rebutals, and a conclusion presented of the main issues so far in this debate; a summary may also be provided.
9. In the case of any forfeiture, if there is a valid reason then we may remove that round, or re-do this debate, unless a reason is provided a forfeiture will result in a definite loss.
10. Each side is allowed to present their evidence in the forms of books, journals, and essays alongside blong entries as long as the links are provided for easy access to these sources and paginations are cited. (I request that no youtube or such video sources be used because they are banned in my country, however this no way restricts either side from doing so.)
11. The font, I request should be default, however one may change their font, but be sure it is readable.
12. As this is a philosophical debate I am definig the terms philosophically, please inform me if you have any problem with them so that I may change them (you may inform me by message or in the comments) :
(1)morality:The term "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
The term "morality" can be used descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or; a. some other group such as religion, or, b. accepted by an individual for her/his own behaviour.*
*I would personally like to stick to the first definition, however both were mentioned so I added both, please mention if you are willing to keep only the first.
(2)immorality: will then be the opposite of morality so is can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct , that given specif circumstances, would be opposed by all rational persons.
(3)homosexuality: refers to sexual behaviour between the members of the same sex.
13. When in doubt the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy will be used to clear definitions.
14. None of the parties will take aid from any other person during this debate.
I wish you the best of luck should you choose to accept,
I thank Crescendo for accepting, lets get to it then. I should note that while this argument is similar to my other debates, I have re-written in entirely. I ask my opponent to address my arguments as they are numbered.
1. The Argument:
1. All sexual activity that is moral, must be purely rational.
2. All sexual activity that is purely rational must be reproductive* in nature.
3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral must be reproductive in nature.
*Here reproductive must be taken as reproductive in nature, and not so that the definition entails that an off-spring must be born but that it, given rational circumstances, ought to be born.
(1.2) Syllogism (with star-test validity):
1. all S* is R,
2. all R* is Q,
3. Ergo: all S is Q*
We have then affirmed beyond doubt that the argument in question is valid, and so cannot be criticized on its logic, if the premise are found to be sound then the concluion will directly follow.
2. The Major Premise:
(2.1) Derivation from Definition:
1. The agreed to definition with regards to morals was a code of conduct that would be endorsed by all purely rational entities. This entails then that morality is rational, for purely rational entities would bring about a code that is rational. This can easily be shown by logic where neccessarily rational according to a modal operator directly means neccessarily neccesarily rational. Which means that if A is the set of neccessarily rational people, then they will neccessarily come up with a neccearily rational code. Therefore according to our definition all morality is rational.
(2.2) Derivation from Causality:
1. It is a simply principle, that of causality. It ascertains that in phenomenon the implication of Y comes from X. In simple terms it means that if one needs to cause Y then one must do X. That entails that morality is rational insofar as if the goal of morality is the summum bonum (the highest good), then the action that makes the summum bonum possible is an action that is ascertained from causality, which would mean it is a rational action. Therefore morals are rational.
This then affirms that morality is rational beyond any doubt hence rendering our Major premise sound. It is noteworthy then to add that our premise does not prove that all rational is moral simply that all moral is rational. There is very much a difference in this statement, for some action may be rational but may not be neccessarily moral, while every moral action is neccessarily rational. Our definition therefore uses the purely rational people not to endorse a simple code, but to endorse a normative code. That is that only that ideal action that is rational may be moral, only that primary action. This will become clearer with the establishment of our rational grounding.
3. The Minor Premise:
(3.1) The Establishment of the Rational Grounding:
1. To connect principally that which is rational to reproduction we need to make another link. This link will attach reproduction to rational and then using out first link, that is from moral to rational, we will have joined our motion together. Then we shall follow this method having shown that all those normatively rational actions are moral, we need only show that only sex which is reproductive in nature is normativly rational.
2. To establish this we will be creating a "rational grounding" this will be the fundamental cause, or the fundamental reason why sex may be normatively rational, this as the ongoing arguments hope to show will be reproduction. I should clarify this that there can only be one primary rational grounding, as long as I show that to be reproduction I win this debate. For there cannot be two rational groundings for that would entail that two synthetic phenomenon are one and this contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction.
(3.2) The Rational Grounding Established from Evolution:
1. Evolution then is the: "theory of the change of organic species over time, with different conditions." However when one studies this more clearly then one learns that evolution is the name given to thar force which changes organic species, in accordanance with enviroment, so that the "fittest may survive." To connect this with our above rational grounding argument would entail that the rational grounding of sex, viewed from an evolutionary perspective*, is reproductive in nature. This would mean that if evolution is taken as a law of science, and it entails that the rational purpose of sexual conduct is reproductive in nature then my argument is sound.
*This argument assumes that evolution is a law of science.
2. We must then before stating the argument understand the difference between instinct, and a secondary precept of nature. An instinct is innate, and therefore universal. This, although drifts from the topic, is because such an idea is not genetical, rather natural. In any case lust is an instinct because lust while may be specified on a certain object, occurs on its own. Furthermore lust transcendent of time insofar as it is a priori to exist. That is that each man/woman/child possesss lust. Then homosexuality, hetrosexuality, and bisexuality or sapiosexuality is a secondary precept of nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org... (This is a very good summary of Freuds arguments, I have used them only so far as they show Lust to be an instinct)
3. Let us then begin, lust then as already shown is an instinct. This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized. This rational purpose may be understood quite easily when we realize that evolution, as the noun of a force, makes redundant any such instinct not neccessary for survival. In such evolution has not made lust redundant, as it has to other forces such as nervousness which used to be much stronger and used in battle, now it is much less feeling. Since that we understand that lust is neccessary for survival. It is important to note that lust is important for survival because lust directly causes sex, and without lust people would not have sex (see Freuds above essay). Lust is neccessary for survival only so far as it results in sec which reproduces to carry on the human race. Therefore since morality entails noramtive rationality, which may be connected the rational grounding of sex, which is further connected to lust, and lust is justified evolutionaly by reproduction then sexual activity is moral only when it is reproductive in nature.
On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, pagination 189, Chapter: "Instinct"
The Psychology of Love by Sigmund Freud
The General Theory of Love by Thomas Lewis, pagination 46, "Finishing Touches"
(3.3) The Rational Grounding Established from Pure Theology:
1. Theology is not neccessary Chrisitian, as not am I. I find this worth mentioning in the case where I am criticized for Christian reasoning, theology seeks to establish principles, logically set, only with one conclusion: that there is a God. There are those who deny evolution and so this argument is meant to convince them, my opponent however, regardeless of his beliefs, will have to attack this argument.
2. Insofar we may set a rational grounding from Theology where we consider an infinitely just and loving God. This God endowed man/woman/child with lust, and then considers some conclusions of lust sinful. It does not matter which religion one follows because one must believe that (from a theological perspective) that God is love, and that the blasphemy of this love by embracing erotic love is displeasing to God.
3. It then leads us to conclude that a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race. This then concludes that the rational grounding to lust, if theology is assumed correct, is that the only way sexual activity is moral is if it is reproductive in nature (following the same links as above).
Theodicy by Leibniz, pagination 33, Chapter: "On the Justness of God from a Logical Perspective"
Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, pagination 329 (The Cambridge Works of Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy) Chapter: "The Existence of God as a Postulate of Practical Reason".
The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, pagination 426, Chapter: "On Defiling Oneself With Lust", and "Marriage Right".
The Berne Fragments by Hegel (they are only some 23 pages long)
On Love by Hegel (also only 6 pages long)
4. Links to Respective Books (I have tried to give the links to most books):
Goodluck to my opponent!
Secund of all homosexuality is not a choice do you think they choose embraces a lifestyle that makes them bulled by evil homofobes like you Muslins and you Cristians it's natural and you need to stop being a bigets.
Therd of all strait people get marred all the time why are you tellings gay people that they canot get marred do you think their inferior but they are people to and its called marriage equelity so you should stop standing in the way of their equelity.
Checkmate you bigets!!!!
This is disappointing, if I had known I would be trolled I would not have spent one hour and a half trying to find resources, going through books, and writing my argument. In any case I will reply formally and give my rebutals:
1. "First of all gay people luv each over and you have no right to tell them that they canot get marred just because yor ancient book says so you are being a homofobe and yor beliefs do not belong in the Untied States were everyone is free and equel."
Lets start by clearing up the fact that this entire argument is in favour of gay marriage, not morality. This argument is a legal one, not a philosophical one. In any case we are not discussing whether gays should have permission to marry, we are discussing whether homosexuality is moral. The argument asserts, nonetheless, that since gay people love each other they should be married. That is not a proper argument because one could very well say if a parent loves his daughter they should have the right to get married, or in the case of polygamy if a man/woman loves more than one spouse they should get married. The argument is vague and distasteful and Crescendo fails to connects it properly to our resolution. Secondly he accuses me of using arguments from "ancient books" when I believe all the books I quoted are at best 300 years old, if not less. If he is referring to religious books then he should clarify how I used a religious book, for I quoted nothing from the Quran, Bible or even the Zend Avesta. Also these ancient books were connected by me, through rational argumentation to the resolution. I also made use of evolution, a fairly new concept. My opponent then goes on to avow that I am a homophobe. The meaning of homophobia is: "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay,bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs." In any case as my beliefs are put into question it is sufficient if I testify. I certainly do not have contempt or hatred for any homosexual, and I find them to be average human being, however I believe, not because of irrational fear, but because of reason that homosexuality is immoral, therefore I am not a homophobe. This was in any case ad hominem from my opponent. The next problem in his argument is that he brings up the United States, this debate is not limited in any way to the United States of America, the motion is universal. Also it is important to realize that since we are discussing morality, a direct link of equality is not made. Equality before the law is ignorant of ethical perceptions.
2. Secund of all homosexuality is not a choice do you think they choose embraces a lifestyle that makes them bulled by evil homofobes like you Muslins and you Cristians it's natural and you need to stop being a bigets.
This is the first even mildly rational argument I come across, it is however only a pseudo-argument. My opponent begins by asserting that homosexuality is not a choice, he provides, sadly, no evidence for this claim. Also even if his claim is valid, how and why does it connect to the resolution? In any case homosexuality is not forced upon people because the "gay gene" which is Xq28 accounts for: a. only 25% to 30% of choice, this is easily beat by nurture. Secondly homosexuality is not an instinct, (see my argument, and Freuds reference) it is a secondary precept of nature. Lust is the driving instinct, a same sex male is only the objects which is fixated by that lust, as our argument already shows that lust is established to further the human race it follows that homosexuality cannot be natural in human beings. That aside the gay gene has not yet been found, an area has been found where the gay gene could exist, which means that there is a probability it exists, however there is no conclusive evidence. Next my opponent talks about gays being bullied, which I never endorsed and I never did. Even in a troll debate I find this offensive. In any case I am not a bigot and it is rude to insinuate such.
3. "Therd of all strait people get marred all the time why are you tellings gay people that they canot get marred do you think their inferior but they are people to and its called marriage equelity so you should stop standing in the way of their equelity."
Again this debate has nothing to do with marriage, marriage is irrelevant here. This debate is regarding whether homosexual activity ought to be. Nor did I ever state that gay people are inferior to others, and again your marriage equality argument does not stand.
4."Checkmate you bigets!!!!"
I hope your happy, you made a mockery of the Tier Tounrmant.
Also, prove that Im trolling you have no proof this is a horrid person attack!
If yup want proof that homosexuality is nature well it is proven that gay men have woman brains!
See I provided sources so I am right and you are wrong and homosexuality is not a choice so do not criminate against them for doing what is nature.
I await my opponent's response.
I see that this is going to continue. In any case I win because you have broken a rule by not refuting my case. In any case I am going to refute Cresendo's case; I will not re-affirm my case as it stands uncontested.
5. "First of all my opponet says that luv is not a good reason too get marred but why do the vast major of people get marred its because they luv each over and gay people are the sam."
I should like once more to point out that this debate has nothing to do with marriage, it concerns itself with morality. While whether gay people should be married is a legal issue, whether it is ethical to engage in same-sex is a philosophical issue. We are supposed to discuss the latter. Now the argument that Crescendo gives is that since the vast majority of people get married for love, gay people should be allowed to be married. This is false because the vast majority of people get arranged marriages. The argument does not stand. In any case my opponent fails to connect his argument with the resolution. I never contested that gay people should not get married, I never endorsed that they should. This argument is a "besides the point" fallacy commited by my opponent.
6. "My opponet says that anything unatural is immoral butt in that case are cars immoral because walking is the nature thing to do and eating Doritos is immoral because Doritos are not nature."
I never stated that that which is unnatural is an immoral butt, and I never said that that which is unnatural is immoral. I did however say that my opponent has to show why that which is natural is moral, especially since there are numerous naturally born people who are psychopatha, sociopaths, and killers. Lets also not forget that a lot of people naturally feel attraction towards children. Until my opponent can successfully show and justify his argument and connect it with the original resolution his argument hold no weight. In any case my above concerns successfully neutralize his argument.
7. "You didnt quote Koran but your religion is the only real reason that you are opposed to homosexuality."
I think I am going to call you on that and ask what proof you possess. From my argument can you derive any Islamic doctrine? In any case my reasons for disliking homosexuality can be found in Immanuel Kant's works. While the Quran is my holy book, and I will follow it religiously I do have non-religious arguments against homosexuality. Some of them were actually mentioned in this debate, had you cared to read my argument. I wont say this is ad hominem but it is a fallacy so long as I am not arguing from Shari'a Law.
8. "Also, prove that Im trolling you have no proof this is a horrid person attack!"
A troll on DDO is one who writes very short arguments in a proper high class debate, one who does not follow the rules, commits ad hominem, uses bad spelling on purpose, et cetera. You have not followed the rules as you did not tackle my argument, your spelling when you want it is perfectly fine. Knowing that it is a sensitive word you spelled Koran perfectly even made the K capital. You commited ad hominem by calling me a biget (sic). This is not a personal attack because I am not abusing you or insulting you, I am accusing you. I accused you of being a troll and provided sufficient evidence thereof.
9. "If yup want proof that homosexuality is nature well it is proven that gay men have woman brains!
See I provided sources so I am right and you are wrong and homosexuality is not a choice so do not criminate against them for doing what is nature."
I think I have already shown that nature is not moral, and that you fail to give a proper, systematic argument. In any case here is the testimony of whiteflame a top debator here and a PhD Microbiologist. From his testimony we learn two things, that firstly Xq28 while it exists does not make a difference, and secondly any genetic activity or natural ability does not successfully control human psychology.
In any case the source you cited is Natural Geographic which might be a popular science sight but is not in any way a research journal. These findings are still unders consideration and as The Karolinska Institute has not yet proven this. The argument also makes the mistake asserting that since the brain is different then gay people must be gay while it only accounts for better verbal skills and more emotion, nothing that makes you gay. My opponent as you will see has not proved that his studies make people gay, only better verbal skills and more emotion on average.
10. "I await my opponent's response."
I await my opponent's responce.
But with all seriousness, I apologize to my opponent. At the last second I felt like dropping out of the tournament. However, I didn't want to just forfeit and leave you hanging. Therefore, I decided to post in every round, if only to troll. Also, I'm experimenting with a less blatant style of trolling, which involves fewer misspellings than usual and full denial of the trolling. How did I do?
Anyhow, the victory goes to my opponent. Cast your votes for him.
Here I go!
11. "First of all their is nothing wrong with my spelling evrybody else spells bad I spell good because im a good speller and write now theirs nothing wrong with my spelling!!!!!!!!!!!"
Well you spell perfectly when you want to anyways. Though over all my spelling is pretty horrendous, I don't quite know why...
12. "But with all seriousness, I apologize to my opponent. At the last second I felt like dropping out of the tournament. However, I didn't want to just forfeit and leave you hanging. Therefore, I decided to post in every round, if only to troll. Also, I'm experimenting with a less blatant style of trolling, which involves fewer misspellings than usual and full denial of the trolling. How did I do?"
I appreciate you not forfeiting as that would have really hurt. Your trolling actually made me laugh a few times and was entertaining.
13. "Anyhow, the victory goes to my opponent. Cast your votes for him.
In any case if the judges feel that I deserve to win they should simply acknowledge this and my name can be added as the winner in the forums. Crescendo's Elo is higher than I am and I do not want to ruin it so if the judges could, please do not vote or only one judge can vote so Crescendo's Elo is not harmed.
Anyhow, how was my trolling?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Crescendo, your conduct in this debate is not only unacceptable but I think it raises wider questions about your intentions with regards to the site. You created a new account because you wanted to be a more constructive member, and then you pull a stunt like this. Ajab, you have my sympathies for wasting your time on this concession - but to give you constructive feedback (if only for the sake of it at this stage): the individual threads of your argument all work, on their own, but I felt that you needed to tie them together more neatly (which you were probably planning on doing in R3). I had to reread that round several times before all the links became logical. Whilst the way you broke down the structure of your argument was very much a logical one, the separation of the arguments meant they didn't slot together without rereading a couple of times, because your argument is very much one which is reliant on all the threads of your reasoning. That's a minor point though - well done.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession from Con, win goes to Pro because of this. Looking forward to seeing what Ajab brings in the next round!
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly threw this debate. Pro made a case, while Con did his best to troll. How unfortunate that Con decided to waste Pro's, and us the voters's, time. As always, of course, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: concession
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.