The Instigator
KingofHarlem
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chimera
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Do Gays Recruit Homeless Boys?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Chimera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 53481
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

KingofHarlem

Pro

Young, straight-looking boys are the bread and butter of the billion dollar gay adult industry. Since the life-span of worker rarely extends beyond a year or two, owners must have an aggressive program in place to replace them.

That's where idiot liberals come in ...

On college campuses across the Country gay pimps set-up panel discussions to let college boys know being a male escort is cool. They do this under the guise of "panel discussions" such as the one held at USC recently. They cleverly use young, handsome sex workers to recruit. Here's one:

Sky, a young gay actor who is still relatively new to the business, explained that being in gay porn pushed him to overcome many self-confidence issues that he struggled with as a teenager. The demand of gay porn in particular for a certain kind of physique also introduced him to regular exercise, which he now says “is like therapy for me. It’s definitely a big part of my life since I began working in porn.” - See more at: http://dailytrojan.com...;

But this isn't the half of it. In Boston a few years ago a well-known gay activist group was busted handing out "safe sex manuals" to high school boys.

http://www.massresistance.org...

Later it was discovered this group had infiltrated every boy's homeless shelter in the state. Homeless boys as young as 14 were handed the manual when walking in the door:
http://www.massresistance.info...

How much more evidence do idiot liberals require showing they are completely wrong about the gay community?
Chimera

Con

I accept this challenge.

I would also like to note that the BoP is on the Instigator to prove something that is against the status-quo.

Opening Statement:

The topic of this debate is "Do Gays Recruit Homeless Boys?".

Now, first we should define the term 'recruit'[1].

Recruit (verb): 'to engage in finding and attracting employees, new members, students, athletes, etc.'

This means that pro is equating homosexuality to an organization that one can join, and can attract new members through recruitment tactics. Therefore, I would like to see Pro's proof of this conjecture.

Opening Rebuttal:

'On college campuses across the Country gay pimps set-up panel discussions to let college boys know being a male escort is cool. They do this under the guise of "panel discussions" such as the one held at USC recently. They cleverly use young, handsome sex workers to recruit. Here's one:

Sky, a young gay actor who is still relatively new to the business, explained that being in gay porn pushed him to overcome many self-confidence issues that he struggled with as a teenager. The demand of gay porn in particular for a certain kind of physique also introduced him to regular exercise, which he now says “is like therapy for me. It’s definitely a big part of my life since I began working in porn.” - See more at: http://dailytrojan.com......;'

And? This only shows that the college wanted to show more insight to young gay/bisexual men and women on the adult industry. This is not 'recruitment' into homosexuality.

Most college men by the way, are straight[2]. Why would they become homosexual (which you have also not shown proof for) when becoming such they are subject to state-based discrimination (in certain states[3]), higher chance of being the victim of a hate-crime or bullying[4], possible disownership by their family members[5], and higher rates of depression (which eventually can lead to suicide, of which gay teens have one of the highest rates in the country[6]).

They gain nothing from doing so, in fact, they are at risk of losing everything by doing so. So, in essence, what you're saying is that college men are so stupid, that they would 'become' homosexual since some gay pornstar said it was great.

'But this isn't the half of it. In Boston a few years ago a well-known gay activist group was busted handing out "safe sex manuals" to high school boys.

http://www.massresistance.org......'

This isn't 'recruitment', it is people concerned with health saftey amongst teens.

Also, I want to see an alternative source for this site, it seems sketchy and I don't think it is accurate or truthful.

However, even if it is, you can't clump the entire homosexual community in with these people.

Saying that because a few homosexuals distribute explicit manuals such as this, so that means all homosexuals do. Is an illogical statement.

It is the same thing as me saying that because some members of the African-American community are more prone to commit crimes, then that means all African-Americans are prone to commit crimes. However, that is clearly untrue.

'Later it was discovered this group had infiltrated every boy's homeless shelter in the state. Homeless boys as young as 14 were handed the manual when walking in the door:
http://www.massresistance.info......'

That source doesn't back up your claim, it simply shows the book in zoom.

Sources:

1-http://dictionary.reference.com...

2-http://www.browndailyherald.com...

3-http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

4-http://www.cdc.gov...

5-http://www.queerty.com...

6-http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
KingofHarlem

Pro

My opponent's first rebut is semantics. Rather than addressing the question of gay recruitment, he informs us "recruitment" is the wrong word. He then misrepresents my argument to make it easier to attack:

"This means that pro is equating homosexuality to an organization that one can join, and can attract new members through recruitment tactics. Therefore, I would like to see Pro's proof of this conjecture."

Gay recruitment need not be the result of an organization. This is my opponent's fallacy not hinted by anything I've written or implied -- a strawman meant to mislead.

Then in response to my point that gay adult industry pimps were at USC to recruit, my opponent rebuts:

And? This only shows that the college wanted to show more insight to young gay/bisexual men and women on the adult industry. This is not 'recruitment' into homosexuality.


Is my opponent joking? Of course the idiot college administrators who allowed the pimps on campus had no clue about their real motives -- that's the whole point! Thanks to these idiot liberals, across the Nation it's Open Season on cute college boys!

My opponent next dazzles us with the lame "why would anyone not born gay have gay sex?" rebut:

"Most college men by the way, are straight[2]. Why would they become homosexual (which you have also not shown proof for) when becoming such they are subject to state-based discrimination (in certain states[3]), higher chance of being the victim of a hate-crime or bullying[4], possible disownership by their family members[5], and higher rates of depression (which eventually can lead to suicide, of which gay teens have one of the highest rates in the country[6]). "

Indeed, had my opponent actually read the cited source he'd have learned not only are most gay adult industry workers heterosexual, but it's what customers want. Customers will not have anything to do with escorts who look gay.

Then regarding the gays busted handing out their "safe sex" manual to underage boys, my opponent writes:

This isn't 'recruitment', it is people concerned with health saftey amongst teens.

Here again, either my opponent hasn't read the source material or doesn't care. On this point I would ask my opponent why is it necessary to teach "rimming" to children in order to teach them safe sex?


http://www.massresistance.info...

From here my opponent gives us another lame LGBT rebut:

"you can't clump the entire homosexual community in with these people. "

Well, no, you can't -- but where do I do I do that? Also, my opponent needs to make up his mind: first he tells us there's nothing wrong with the booklet, then he says you can't clump (sic) the gay community for it.

Finally, this booklet was published by the Massachusetts AIDS Action Committee and distributed to every youth homeless shelter in Boston. If my opponent doubts this, I would ask that he contact one of the shelters and ask.



Chimera

Con

2nd Rebuttal:

'My opponent's first rebut is semantics. Rather than addressing the question of gay recruitment, he informs us "recruitment" is the wrong word. He then misrepresents my argument to make it easier to attack:

"This means that pro is equating homosexuality to an organization that one can join, and can attract new members through recruitment tactics. Therefore, I would like to see Pro's proof of this conjecture."

Gay recruitment need not be the result of an organization. This is my opponent's fallacy not hinted by anything I've written or implied -- a strawman meant to mislead.'

I didn't strawman your argument, you have the BoP here, and you used the term 'recruit'. After defining the term, I then requested you show proof as to how people are 'recruited' into homosexuality.

Since, if homosexuals can 'recruit' 'homeless boys', then how can people be 'recruited' in the first place. I was simply asking for evidence, and you have provided none.

'Then in response to my point that gay adult industry pimps were at USC to recruit, my opponent rebuts:

And? This only shows that the college wanted to show more insight to young gay/bisexual men and women on the adult industry. This is not 'recruitment' into homosexuality.


Is my opponent joking? Of course the idiot college administrators who allowed the pimps on campus had no clue about their real motives -- that's the whole point! Thanks to these idiot liberals, across the Nation it's Open Season on cute college boys!'

You have yet to explain why these actors are 'pimps', or what their 'real motives' are. The article you provided stated that the 'motive' was to give insight on the adult industry, it said so in the title. Not in one place did it say that they were attempting to 'recruit' people into homosexuality, or even the adult industry.

Also, all you have been doing is blaming all this on 'idiot liberals'.

'My opponent next dazzles us with the lame "why would anyone not born gay have gay sex?" rebut:

"Most college men by the way, are straight[2]. Why would they become homosexual (which you have also not shown proof for) when becoming such they are subject to state-based discrimination (in certain states[3]), higher chance of being the victim of a hate-crime or bullying[4], possible disownership by their family members[5], and higher rates of depression (which eventually can lead to suicide, of which gay teens have one of the highest rates in the country[6]). "

Indeed, had my opponent actually read the cited source he'd have learned not only are most gay adult industry workers heterosexual, but it's what customers want. Customers will not have anything to do with escorts who look gay.'

It does say that most in the gay adult industry are straight. However, we don't know this to be true. All we know is that from this source, that most men in the gay porn industry identify as straight.

However, that wasn't what I was talking about. What I was saying was, if people were 'recruited' into homosexuality, then they would have to deal with the above. However, if we are talking about if they 'recruited' into the adult industry, I don't see why it is a problem.

It states in the source that nothing is forced upon these straight men, and they perfom of their own free-will. So, if they do so voluntarily, then what exactly is the problem?

Also, there are no 'escorts'. The source you provided is about pornography, not escort service.

'Then regarding the gays busted handing out their "safe sex" manual to underage boys, my opponent writes:

This isn't 'recruitment', it is people concerned with health saftey amongst teens.

Here again, either my opponent hasn't read the source material or doesn't care. On this point I would ask my opponent why is it necessary to teach "rimming" to children in order to teach them safe sex?



http://www.massresistance.info...; '

The FRC, which has been labelled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a 'hate group'[1], were the ones who started this who fiasco by releasing a video that had claimed that the book was shown to children fom 5th through 9th grade by the Gay Lesbian and Staight Education Network[2].

However the GLSEN were not the ones who distributed or showed the book. In fact, the book was not shown to the children. 10 copies had been left on the table accidentally by a community LGBT health organization called Fenway Community Health, who have openly apologized for having those books end up there[3].

The book itself was made for gay men 18 and older, and intended to be satirical. Not for children like you are suggesting.

'From here my opponent gives us another lame LGBT rebut:

"you can't clump the entire homosexual community in with these people. "

Well, no, you can't -- but where do I do I do that? Also, my opponent needs to make up his mind: first he tells us there's nothing wrong with the booklet, then he says you can't clump (sic) the gay community for it.'

This is a deliberate strawman, I never said there was nothing wrong with the booklet. In fact, I can agree that this shouldn't be distrubted to kids.

However, it wasn't distrubtued to kids, is wasn't intended for kids, and FCH didn't even mean for the books to be there in the first place.

In fact, I asked you to show me proof of how the source regarding the book was accurate, and you only gave me a name of an organization to call. Instead of giving me an actual source.

What I meant by the clumping argument was that IF and only IF the books were meant to be distributed to kids (which they obviously weren't) then you can't say that all gays are out to 'recruit' young boys. Since by saying that gays do that, then you are generalizing the entire gay community as doing such. Which, obviously, they don't.

Is the 'clump' argument semantics? Yes, but semantics is still something that is very important. Especially for the main topic.

Sources:

1-http://en.wikipedia.org...

2- http://www.splcenter.org...

3- http://mediamatters.org...

Debate Round No. 2
KingofHarlem

Pro

KingofHarlem forfeited this round.
Chimera

Con

I hope my oppenent will return next round.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
KingofHarlem

Pro

KingofHarlem forfeited this round.
Chimera

Con

I hope my opponent comes back for the final round.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
KingofHarlem

Pro

Once again my opponent relies on semantics to make his points. Honestly, Opponent, how many times are you going to inform us "all gays don't recruit"? No one but a complete fool thought I meant "all gays" when I asked, "Do Gays Recruit Homeless Boys?"

The billion dollar gay adult industry requires thousands of new workers annually. Why waste everybody's time ignoring this? Why play semantic games to mislead people about it?

My opponent then gives us this gem:

"You have yet to explain why these actors are 'pimps', or what their 'real motives' are. The article you provided stated that the 'motive' was to give insight on the adult industry, it said so in the title. Not in one place did it say that they were attempting to 'recruit' people into homosexuality, or even the adult industry."

My opponent is referring to a adult porn industry owners who organized and appeared at a USC "panel discussion" on the adult gay porn industry. They called it a "panel discussion" but the only persons on this panel were young, attractive gay porn industry workers. Directly above my opponent tells us their "motive was to give insight on the adult industry."

Is my opponent kidding or does he really believe the most exploitative industry in the world does these panel discussion in order to educate young people?

They were there to recruit. Had my opponent read the article he'd have seen how they painted a picture of the industry that was all blue sky. Obviously, what they were doing was luring young students into it. My opponent needs to wake up and smell the coffee. There is no quicker way to get HIV than by becoming a male porn actor.

Gay porn is a death sentence. Here's a list of dead gay porn stars. How on earth does my opponent read the article and think there's nothing wrong with telling young people being a porn actor is cool and fun?


http://paparotsy.tripod.com...

Chimera

Con

'The billion dollar gay adult industry requires thousands of new workers annually. Why waste everybody's time ignoring this? Why play semantic games to mislead people about it?'

I'm not ignoring it, I don't see what the problem is. If someone wants to work for the adult industry, why not just let them? Why shouldn't they be able to choose to join the adult industry? I'm not playing any semantics games here, I was just pointing out that you didn't clarify what exactly people were being recruited into.

'Is my opponent kidding or does he really believe the most exploitative industry in the world does these panel discussion in order to educate young people?'

You provided no proof as to why the adult industry is exploitative either. In fact, in the source you provided, one of the panelists stated that, "he prefers working in gay porn because the directors and producers are more respectful of the men[1]."

'They were there to recruit. Had my opponent read the article he'd have seen how they painted a picture of the industry that was all blue sky. Obviously, what they were doing was luring young students into it. My opponent needs to wake up and smell the coffee. There is no quicker way to get HIV than by becoming a male porn actor.

Gay porn is a death sentence. Here's a list of dead gay porn stars. How on earth does my opponent read the article and think there's nothing wrong with telling young people being a porn actor is cool and fun?'

Really? So gay porn is a death sentence since there is more HIV? If the young person wanted to join the adult industry, then he knows the consequences that of such. In fact, if there is more HIV, wouldn't less people want to join the adult industry?

Another thing, the adult industry is probably the safest place from HIV for anyone. Why? Because directors don't want their actors to be harmed, because that hurts their profits. Therefore, adult actors have more access to HIV treatment than most people. So, if anything, it would be better for a young person to have sex with adult actors in the industry, rather than people off the street.

Also, there are 108 people listed in that link who passed away WITH HIV, not FROM HIV[2]. There is a major difference. There are also thousands upon thousands of gay adult actors out there, it is a huge industry. 108 is a very small number in comparison to this.

Also, they are allowed to say whatever they want to say to these young people. They aren't kids, they are legal adults. We don't need to coddle and protect them from everything in the world. If they want to go be a porn actors, fine. If not, that's fine aswell. It was all their choice as to whether or not to become on in the first place.

No where did the article say that they wished to 'recruit', that was the product of your meaningless speculation. If you just assume things, that doesn't make the claim valid.

Please vote Con.

Sources:

1- http://dailytrojan.com...

2- http://paparotsy.tripod.com...

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Chimera 2 years ago
Chimera
@mmadderom

I can see as to why my argument was naive. I thought that pro was arguing that homosexuals 'recruit' homeless men into homosexuality. Not into the adult industry. My bad.

Thank you for your feedback, I will attempt to make my argument stronger.
Posted by mmadderom 2 years ago
mmadderom
I have several issues with this debate.

Pro starts out with a question. A question is not a debate, it is an opinion poll. A debate starts with a "statement of fact" not a question. That might sound like nit-picking but it is actually very important.

Further pro goes into a rant about college kids...what does that have to do with 'homeless boys'? A college kid is certainly not homeless the VAST majority of the time.

Third, pro states that the gay porn is a 'billion dollar industry'. It is not. Not even close. It is a VERY tiny fraction of the overall 'billion dollar' porn industry.

Fourth, of course SOME 'gays' "recruit" from homeless shelters and any other places where the victims are vulnerable and weak. So do STRAIGHT criminals.

I guess I fail to understand the points pro is trying to make. If the argument is that ALL gay people are predators, it's absurd on it's face. He's all over the place and most of his arguments don't even address his statement of fact but rather rant against the practices of some unscrupulous people.

That said, cons arguments of "why would a straight man indulge in gay sex" is incredibly naive. A large percentage of 'gay' porn actors are indeed straight men. They are referred to as "Gay for pay". The reason is a Male gay porn actor makes more money than a straight porn actor. Simple economics. Same goes for male prostitutes. A man has a VERY hard time prostituting himself to women as women don't tend to have much trouble finding sex for free. However if he's willing to engage sexually with another man solely for the sake of making money, he has the potential of a much larger customer base.

I'm not sure either side is actually effectively arguing the statement of fact...which is incorrectly worded as a question.

Very confusing 'debate'.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JMCika 2 years ago
JMCika
KingofHarlemChimeraTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: yup