The Instigator
TheChristian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
whatevs
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 2 votes the winner is...
whatevs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,352 times Debate No: 65621
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

TheChristian

Pro

A gay student should be in a gay or gay friendly school to avoid bullying or harassment. No sources please, as this is opinion. First round is for acceptance only and notes, and if after round 5 ask for a continue debate.
whatevs

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
TheChristian

Pro

Gays are often insulted or bullied by straight students simply because they are gay. One in 20 people may have a homosexual preference, and they are still abused. Say there is a town of 1000. That translates to about 200 gay people.My school hates gays for the most part,and a gay or gay friendly school will create a better life with less oppression. It is best for a straight-gay equality or gay freedom-note:i am bi and against gay rights and this is a willing school for gays and straights who will not judge eachother.
whatevs

Con

Thanks, Pro.

-------------------------------------------------------

The resolution of this debate is that: "Gay students should have gay schools with no judgement". Pro clarifies what he means by this in his first round: "A gay student should be in a gay or gay friendly school to avoid bullying or harrassment". Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, because he is advocating for a change in the status-quo; he is advocating for the development of "gay" schools or "gay friendly" schools. Thus, in order to win this debate, I am tasked with successfully negating the arguments he gives to support his position. Note that I do not have to provide positive arguments of my own, in order to win this debate, even though it may be beneficial.

--Pro's Case--

Pro's justification for "gay" schools, or "gay friendly" schools essentially resolves around gay students having a "better life"; one with "no oppression", and that it ["gay" schools/"gay friendly" schools] "is best for straight-gay equality or gay freedom". His proposal is flawed for a simple reason, which I shall discuss quickly.

Pro's proposal only deals with the symptoms of gay oppression, whilst ignoring the underlying causes. This is because even though there may be less gay oppression at "gay" schools, or "gay friendly" schools were his proposal were to be implemented, this still does not deal with the problems relating to gays in regard to society at large. With his proposal, a significant proportion of society will nevertheless remain hostile toward gays, because his proposal does not deal with underlying issues revolving to gays within society.

--Conclusion--

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
TheChristian

Pro

Con makes a mistake-he fails to realize that this is designed to protect CHILDREN not adults. Consider the case of a university student who had a same-sex relationship ( not going into details) and was unknowingly filmed and broadcasted to several watchers. This drove him to suicide. Thid is to protect students,not adults or the choices they make. This doesn't mean segregation, as it would be willing. Gay prisoners get protection from this, and these students are not criminals. They deserve at least as much protection as the guilty. So effectively these are to protect students from bullies. Adults can generally defend themselves. Children cannot. This makes the last argument effectively void. To recap-this is to protect students and there would be no judgement, and no Christian will let someone be oppressed. And such were some of you- 1st Corinthians chapter 6.
whatevs

Con

Pro's criticism is that I "fail to realize that [his proposal] is designed to protect CHILDREN not adults." I don't really see how that is relevant towards my criticism, and as a lack of elucidation on behalf of Pro, on his criticism's relevance, I can't really deal with it.

I criticised Pro's proposal on the grounds that it does not deal with the underlying causes of gay oppression; it only deals with the symptoms. Pro somewhat addresses this by arguing that "adults can generally defend themselves...children cannot". However, Pro's statement is unable to account for issues such as LGBT workplace discrimination. Pro states that as a result of his proposal, "there would be no judgment" toward gays. That is untrue. Once again, there still will be judgement toward gays, because Pro's proposal never deals with the underlying causes of gay oppression; the underlying causes of judgement or harrassment toward gays. His proposal is merely limited to segregating homosexuals in schooling from the rest of society. Pro anticipates this criticism by arguing that because gays are "willing" to go to such "gay" schools, it means that his proposal does not mean segregation. His statement is problematic because:

(1) an unjustified assumptions that gays will be "willing" to go to such schools will be made.
(2) he overlooks the fact that gays may be wiling to go to such schools only because such schools are set up to segregate gays from people of other sexual orientation.

Consequently, none of Pro's rebuttals succeed, and the resolution is thus NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 3
TheChristian

Pro

The willingness is irrelevant, as no student wants to attend school. Plus, your second statement is exactly what such a school is for. And segregation implies unwillingness. Anyone can join said school if they are not harming or harassing the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual/other students for their orientation if the school is willing, it is not segregation. Enrichment- you would define this as segregation? What about intervention?
-it is not segregation
-willingness is not relevant
-rebuttal negated
-note this is not to endorse LGBTQIA activity, just protect the students
whatevs

Con

(1) Pro contradicts himself, when he says that "no student wants to attend school". However, in his previous rounds, and in this round, he argued that "gay" schools are not segregation, because the gays are "willing" to attend them. Indeed, he, in this round, writes that "segregation implies unwillingness".

(2) Pro has completely ignored my argument that "gay" schools, or "gay friendly" schools are not viable, because they do "not deal with the underlying causes of gay oppression; it only deals with the symptoms."

I don't have much to say, because there isn't much to say, but at the moment, due to Pro's inconsistency in his argumentation, and the fact that he has outright ignored one of my arguments, the resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 4
TheChristian

Pro

Oh, con you forget that once again that this is protection, not fixing. It is a bandaid solution, put in place place until we fix the problem. Thid is to protect students. Do you object against bodyguards? No, because that is protection. Do you object to chosen isolation in prisons or real life? No because they do it for protection. Same with this school. If they are willing to attend this school in leau of a regular school -no one wants to go to those, but they have to- then it is not segregation, and, iv it is it is a willing segregation, and as for the willingness, it is because of lack of harming to them. The reason for such a school is to protect them, so theg will attend for protection and no judgment. So i have undermined all of these in one round, and once again, eventually this will be unnecessary. Have a lovely day. Thsnk you for the debate.
whatevs

Con

(a) Pro has once again claimed that because the students would be "willing" to go to such a "gay" school, his proposal can not be called segregation. In the 3rd round, I criticized such this argument by pointing out that he arbitrarily assumes, without giving any form of justification, that gays will be "willing" to go to such "gay" schools. I will reiterate that he still has not answered this criticism. In the 4th round, he attempted to answer this by arguing that "the willingness is irrelevant". However, if he affirms that the "willingness is irrelevant", then he can't justify that "gay" schools are not a form of segregation, on the grounds that the students would be "willing" to go to such schools. As a result, the criticism of his argument, on the grounds that it can be considered a form of segregation stands.

(b) Pro responds to my criticism that his proposal does not solve the underlying causes of gay oppression, but merely deals with the symptoms. Pro responds to this by arguing that was the whole point of such a proposal; that it was never meant to solve the problem of gay oppression, merely to protect the students, until a solution for the underlying causes of gay oppression is put in place. The problem with this argument is that it actually contributes to hindering the process of finding a solution to the various problems that gays face within society. This is because gay students will be segregated from other "normal" students, thus making it more difficult to find a solution for gay oppression, given that the "band-aid" makes matters worse.

--Conclusion--
By default, Pro had the BOP in this debate. He has failed to fulfill it. He argued that "gay" schools are necessary in order for the protection of gay students. There are numerous problems in this case, as elucidated above.

Thus, the resolution is negated; Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ItsRenee 2 years ago
ItsRenee
Nah that shouldn't happen. Students will be too protected and sheltered. They wont be ready for the ridicule that they may experience because of there sexuality, they wont be ready in their adult hood. Who said gays only want to be with gays anyhow? Straight people don't always want to be with straight people, do you know how many straight girls want a homosexual male friend? I'm sure its the same with most homosexuals that they wouldn't want to be surrounded by other homo's. You also fail to realize that bullying is everywhere, if we made a homosexual school people there would still be bullied maybe not about their sexual orientation but they will be bullied about other things (they always find a reason) its not fully protecting them. There will be hard times for everyone but that doesn't mean we need to separate schools to make it 'easier' black people are judged in mostly white schools an vice verse but we aren't going to separate the schools by race to make it easier (not again at least). Life in general isn't easy and we shouldn't sugar code that to students or they wont be prepared for the struggles that may hit them in the future.
Posted by Georgiaheartandsoul 2 years ago
Georgiaheartandsoul
Well, according to the bible, God created marriage between a man and a woman so it really shouldn't be any other way. Not that I hate gay or bisexual people or anything.
Also, ya'll need to calm down about this. Missmedic, you ARE kinda putting Down what bodie believes. And if you really must create a school for gays, it wouldnt technically be hiding.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Miss ur making me mad. It is a PROTECTIVE MEASURE!
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
your right it is not segregation, it's hiding.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Missmedic, this school is like a regular school, but no student would be harassed or bullied due to their orientation. This is the only way this school would be different. Plus willing isolation is not segregation
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Pro....
All schools need to adopt zero tolerance policies for bullying, homophobia, violence, bigotry, drug use and homework.
I think you just want a school where you can hit on someone with no worries. That is not what school is about.
What you propose is segregation.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
PEOPLE! Do ont debate in the comment section.debate in a new personal debate.
Posted by Alpacthulhu 2 years ago
Alpacthulhu
'Thsnk you'

Yss'rs welcome.
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Plus, AIDS being more common in 5.6% of the population than 94.4%? Perpourostrous!
Posted by TheChristian 2 years ago
TheChristian
Well said miss, but you fail to realize that being protected from bullies isnt cowardly. Its common sense.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
TheChristianwhatevsTied
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: While Con didn't really make a very good argument is still is slightly better that pro's argument. My advice to Pro is next time make the argument like all boys/girls school. Don't let the other side trap you in to a argument of semantics. It would have been more convincing to make a argument that it is not segregation because all boys/girls schools are not that trap your self in to a willing unwilling argument.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
TheChristianwhatevsTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more coherent arguments and Pro clearly contradicted themselves in rounds 4 and 5.