The Instigator
Seabiscuit
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
52 Points

Gay men should be forced to use the women's restroom

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,849 times Debate No: 17533
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (13)

 

Seabiscuit

Pro

I don't want any gay man eyeing me in the restroom
thett3

Con

This is ridiculous.

1. That's like saying you would eye every woman in the bathroom if you were in a womans restroom, just because gays are attracted to men doesn't mean they'll be "eyeing" you in the bathroom.

2. How do you even know if someone's gay? It isn't as if gay people all look the same, so how would such a rule be enforced?

3. I'm sure it would be uncomfortable for the women to have a man in the bathroom, even if it is a gay man.

4. Would urineals (can't spell it) have to be installed in womens bathrooms?

5. Why is it ok to discriminate against people?

That's all I have to say for now, negate this ridiculous resolution please.
Debate Round No. 1
Seabiscuit

Pro

On 1: The idea that somehow a women would make it out of the men's restrooms safely at the same rate as they currently do is by far the worst argument I've ever heard in my life. Having different gender roles is only important because of sexual orientation.

On 2: Semantics are gay, cops aren't at the entrance of every restroom now, yet the system works fine.

On 3: Why would it? Your notion of catering to the prejudices of women is counter-intuitive to your own pseudo-egalitarian communal. I'm sure white people felt uncomfortable with black people during the civil rights movement but that wasn't adequate enough to garner any mitigation of the emancipation that followed. Furthermore, this discomfort is actually progressive in and of itself, (see 5, or Nietzsche)

On 4: No

On: 5 The "progressively" egalitarian collective, have been forcing this leveling mechanism where, all people regardless of there complacent prerogative are for some reason equaled by the destitute, that through there oppression are conditioned to obtain there own astute acumen. Certainly, there is a sense in which without these antagonisms, under-stimulation infects the zeitgeist of the American population and creates a sort of entitlement complex, where being fat and uneducated is ubiquitous, and accepted. Which is actually happening in the status quo (Obesity is number one in the U.S., while education is 14th http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

To those who think there ought to be quandary that the resolution confronts I think the turn on five is an adequate amount of offense to consummate a burden of proof.
thett3

Con

1. Pro clearly does not understand this argument. He states in his first round that gay men would be "eyeing" him, and I made the statement that homosexuals would not be "eyeing" men in the restroom and he completely mis-understands it. Furthermore he states "Having different gender roles is only important because of sexual orientation." False. We have sex-segregated bathrooms becauce of the biological difference between males and females.

2. Pro makes an almost laughable response to this argument. He states "cops aren't at the entrance of every restroom now, yet the system works fine" The system works because there is a physical difference that divides all men from all women. The is no known physical difference between a gay man, and a straight man.

3. Perhaps it would be uncomfortable because like I've stated, there is no physical difference between a straight man and a gay man. They have no way of knowing whether it's a gay man, or a pervert who wants to see them in the bathroom. Irionic how you state we shouldn't cater to prejudice, but that's all this entire resolution is.

4. Pro merely states "no". This objection stands.

5. Pro tries to state that because Americans are "fat and uneducated" we somehow have the right to discriminate. He states that we have an entitlement complex, and more totally ir-relavent statements. Pro has not shown any good reason for discrimination. This objection stands.

In conclusion, Pro gives absolutely no valid reason to change the status quo. Pro wants us to discriminate on other people based on his own personal prejudgice.

Vote Con please.
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
But... but... there are no urinals.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
Were you never taught to use like, a toilet?
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
Women's restrooms don't have urinals.
Posted by RaeTulo 5 years ago
RaeTulo
Homophobic, much?
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
The object of debate is not to launch a variety of idiotic arguments and then claim that you won because your points weren't individually refuted. Arguments are won by besting the logic of your opponent. Of course, you would be doomed from the beginning if your proposal was illogical to begin with -something to think about.
Posted by Seabiscuit 5 years ago
Seabiscuit
"To those who think there ought to be quandary that the resolution confronts I think the turn on five is an adequate amount of offense to consummate a burden of proof."

I wrote that at the bottom of the second round. This was never refuted. Burden of Proof is not a voter, and if you would have read the debate you would have known that.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
thanks, and you're completely right YYW.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
Thett, you are a find debater, but this is among the most patently idiotic resolutions I have seen since I joined.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Seabiscuit, are you going to answer my question?
Posted by RogueAngel 5 years ago
RogueAngel
Perhaps you would have had better luck if you made the topic "gay men should not be able to use the same locker room as men".
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Seabiscuit was absolutely hilarious but Thett3 had stronger and more logical arguments. This debate is awesome, more people should read it.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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: see other RFV
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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: ""argumentation was astoundingly better for Con than for Pro"
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro did have more sources, but Cons arguments were far better and he used periods.
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: If it was intended to be a funny debate, both sides would have needed to participate in that, but it wasn't so i take it on face value. A stupid resolution would need a particularly strong argument - fail to you Pro.
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was outrageous (-ly funny). I like seabiscuit’s style!
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: The resolution is in poor taste, and the argument is equally crass. S&G: Pro's one sentence opening doesn't have a period... such a simple thing to get right and he couldn't do it. Arguments: Con made them... Pro didn't. Sources: Pro referenced an article that had nothing to do with his case... and made it seem as though it correlated education with obesity. Misusing an article is worse than not using any.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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: Pro refuted con's initial arguments but never asserted a reasonable case of his own... with the BOP on pro, points go to con...
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 5 years ago
XStrikeX
Seabiscuitthett3Tied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con. Pro called semantics "gay," using inappropriate language. S.G. to Pro, saw a couple of errors in Con's arguments, i.e. "urineal." Arguments to Con, actually made arguments, some were unrefuted. Pro failed to answer the BoP with no arguments of his own. Tie sources, Pro used some irrelevant source that didn't really help.