The Instigator
LadyLover123
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Gay conversion therapy should be illegal

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 6 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,020 times Debate No: 68535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

LadyLover123

Pro

First round acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
LadyLover123

Pro

Thank you CommonDebator for accepting my debate.

I will be arguing that so-called "conversion therapy" is a harmful practice with methods reminiscent of other outdated and long-ago illegalized forms of "therapy." Conversion therapy, rather than focusing on healing, focuses on the patient learning that they are mentally ill; selfish; sinful and evil. Conversion therapy aims to change and destroy that which can not be changed, rather than providing aid for the real struggle that comes with being a homosexual in a culture where one may still be emotionally and/or physically brutalized for being so. While some people may choose on their own to attend conversion therapy, it is quite common for parents to force their children into CT, using it as a weapon and a punishment rather than a form of medicine. Those who DO attend on their own, have, for one reason or another, not found peace with their identity, and feel it necessary to change this aspect of who they are. They are driven by social pressures that make them feel either unsafe to live in a rampantly homophobic environment, or morally wrong for feeling the same-sex attractions they do. These people don't need to be told that they are awful and need reform. They need to be being given asylum from environments where they potentially being abused, and/or given real emotional support for self-deprecation, self-harm, and the mental disorders that may come along with lgbt-based abuse and ego-dystonic sexual orientation/ gender identity. That is how they become safe and get better.

This argument is inspired by the following video:
https://www.youtube.com...
While the statements made here in no way constitute proof, the speaker makes salient points about the unethical nature of conversion therapy practices. I ask you to watch and consider it. I will provide a rebuttal to your initial thoughts and to your response to this video.
Commondebator

Con

C.1 Attending a gay therepy is your own choice. Anything else is irrelevant.

If people want to convert, yet it does not work it is their own problem. They are not harming anyone and it is at their own will to do so. However, my opponent argues people are forced to go gay conversion therapy, therefore gay conversion therapy should be illegal. That logic falls.

A better situation would be for it to be illegal for people to force someone GOING to the gay conversion therapy. Which is irrelevant to this debate because this is not about wether forcing someone to go to gay conversion therapy should be illegal, rather if gay conversion therapy by itself (ignoring all other variables such as forcing someone to go). My opponent should have stated in the resolution that that forcing is relevant to this debate however fails to do so. Adding rules further to this debate would be unfair.

C.2 Pseudoscience? Yes Illegal? No

Just because this is Pseudoscience on a bigger scale does not mean it should be illegal. One may argue that religion is Pseudoscience however, we have freedom of religion.

Gay therapy alone is according to law and therefore should be legal. Forcing someone is not, however forcing someone is irrelevant.

I will perform rebuttals in the following round.
Debate Round No. 2
LadyLover123

Pro

LadyLover123 forfeited this round.
Commondebator

Con

This is very sad I hope she is not mad, I leave my arguments extended in hopes me not getting blended this day is not going so splendid.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by shedevil 2 years ago
shedevil
I don't believe in gay anything, but this is 10 steps to far. Like that's not fair to anyone, gay, bi, or straight.
Posted by LadyLover123 2 years ago
LadyLover123
Yo I'm not mad in just in college and don't have time.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I don't think it would be inhibiting religion. It doesn't advocate changing religious opinions, but it prevents religious institutions from engaging in potentially harmful practices that are outside of the bounds of that institution. It's no more inhibitory to religion than them not being able to provide their own version of medical practice as an alternative to actual medicine.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
Since this typically only occurs under religious institutions would it be inhibiting religion?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LadyLover123CommondebatorTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by SamStevens 2 years ago
SamStevens
LadyLover123CommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited; this results in the loss of conduct for Pro. Con had the better argument since Con demonstrated that Gay conversion therapy is one's own choice. Therefore, arguments go to Con. Spelling and grammar are equal. Sources are equal.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
LadyLover123CommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like, in terms of a win, this debate was tied. Conduct points to go Con because Pro forfeited, however I had to give spelling and grammar to Con because of the pros use of commas and quotations. Next, convincing arguments went to Con. Overall, he was more persuasive and articulate. Pro, you need to work on your persuasion abilities. Pro did not sufficiently address why it should be illegal, and Con brings up a good point that it is the choice of the person, that nobody is being forced to go. At the end of the day, however, I just feel like Con deserves more points even though this was such a close debate in my mind.
Vote Placed by carriead20 2 years ago
carriead20
LadyLover123CommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because pro forfeited. Spelling and Grammar go to Pro because of one letter the "e" in round one, it is not "therepy" it is therapy. Con's arguments were slightly better although it was a close debate. Con focused on the legality of the arguments which ultimately won the debate imo.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
LadyLover123CommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con report the VB. Con provided real evidence that therapy is an individual choice, and thus not a violation of anyones rights. Pro fails to uphold her BOP and her FF causes her to drop Con's points. Thus, Con wins.
Vote Placed by Pokemonzr 2 years ago
Pokemonzr
LadyLover123CommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like, in terms of a win, this debate was tied. Conduct points to go Con because Pro forfeited, however I had to give spelling and grammar to Con because of the "therepy" in the first round. Next, convincing arguments went to Pro. Overall, he was more persuasive and articulate. Con, you need to work on your persuasion abilities. Sources went to Pro since, even though he admits to not having much proof, he at linked something whereas Con didn't link anything. Pro did not sufficiently address why it should be illegal, and Con brings up a good point that it is the choice of the person, that nobody is being forced to go. At the end of the day, however, I just feel like Pro deserves more points even though this was such a close debate in my mind.