The Instigator
shneeba
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Gay

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 991 times Debate No: 51933
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

shneeba

Con

Gays.... ya or nay. I say nay as in the flamboyant ones. If you are a regular gay person then ya power to you, but if you are a flamer who walks around wearing your gay clothes and talking like a idiot I say leave.
bsh1

Pro

So, as I understand it, Con's issue is not with gays themselves, but rather it is the stereotype of the gay male that he finds irksome. He calls upon them to quote: "leave." This term is rather vague insofar as we don't know where Con wants them to go to, but I think this is largely a non-issue.

We can affirm very simply by asserting that everyone has the freedom to express themselves as they see fit. This includes being a "flamer who walks around wearing gay clothes and talking like an idiot."

Firstly, this right is guaranteed by the Constitution, which grants every person with the right to freedom of speech and expression. If I wanted (thought I really don't) to wear garish brocade pattersn and relish in my sunshine gay fabulousness, I could, and there would be nothing you could really do to stop me.

The right to freedom of speech and expression is vital to having an effective government and a fair society. The second we beginto descriminate against particular groups as being unacceptable or outlandish, is the second we begin to restrict freedom in our society. We might just as easily say "I don't like blacks who wear hoodies, dewrags, and listen to rap music. Let's do bad stuff to them." Eventually, we reach a point where society uses force to compel conformity and compliance, something analagous to Stasi in East Germany or Big Brother in "1984." This is clearly undesriable.

Secondly, we can ask how much authority should a society be able to exercise? If we acknowledge that each individual wants to maximize their own freedom, we can use the paradigm put forth by Mills, that so long as you're not infringing on other's freedom, you're free to do as you wish. Society cannot compel someone to dress or behave in a less "flamboyant" fashion, because how I dress is not an imposition on you, but dictates ot me about what I can wear are certainly impositions on me.

At this point, I really see no choice but to vote Pro. While I do not conform to the "flamboyant" stereotype, I do strongly believe that people, be they gay or straight, have a right to wear whatever they want, and to comport themselves in whatever fashion they so choose.

Thank you! Please VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 1
shneeba

Con

Ok first of I would like to begin with that clothing is not the main issue of this debate it is the openness that certain gay people show that not only do I sometimes find wrong but many times disturbing. Seeing a male in womens clothes is just disgusting and can scar childrens minds. Now im still not completely against gays but I do believe in God and follow the teachings of the Bible. The Old and New Testaments condemn Gay marriage as Leviticus 18:22 says ,,"A man shall not lie with man as with a woman, it is abomination." the topic of gay marriage was not popular 25 years ago and all before that but now that they have slowly been given rights it seems they are abusing the new "acceptability" of open gayness and blatantly showing to me that they are indeed homosexual. If I were to walk in a clothing or make up store or even just walking on the street (mainly in NYC and San Francisco) I would most definitely encounter a male wearing makeup with pink or purple hair and he would attempt to speak very loudly with a feminine tone. Now I know many gay people are not like that but this discussion is for them only and to leave I mean go to Madagascar or some remote island instead of scaring children.

also I have not included females in this debate mainly because they do not ever display disturbing actions like some men do
bsh1

Pro

Con says that clothing is not the focus of this debate. I could not agree more--it is about the right to freely express oneself in a nation that views itself as a "free society."

Really, transvestism? Okay, so lets use the example of the black man in a hoodie lstening to rap music. Suppose I am a parent, and I see someone fitting that description on my street. I feel as if this individual, by his appearance, is promoting pro-gang and anti-law sentiments that may negative impact my child. Can the state justifiably compel this person to change his appearance, or can the state forcibly deport him to Madagascar? NO!

He has the right to present and express himself however he chooses. Con never addresses my Constitutionality arguments, which clearly support this. Whe a nations begins to tell people how to act or how to dress or how effiminate their voice can sound or whatever, that nation is acting in an unjustified and illegitimate fashion. Direct comparisons can be draw to East Germany, the USSR, China (esp. the Cultural Revolution), etc. That is not the type of society the U.S. should become. Just because a few people are disgusted does not justify the violation of a large groups rights. Moreover, Con's assertions that "children are scared" is more a dogmatic, warrentless, bigoted claim than a fully developed argument.

As for Leviticus, he also advocated stoning adultresses. Did you know that Abraham was a polygamist? Unless Con is willing to say that we should practice polygamy, stone women who cheat, not eat pork, not allow women to marry unless they are virgins, etc. then we can dismiss his religious arguments because he is cherry-picking those quotes which support his own beliefs. It's a perveted form of confirmation bias he's employing here. He's selectively choosing those portions of the Bible he agrees with, and ignoring those other portions he doesn't agree with.

Also, in the U.S. we respect religious diversity, and not all relgions share those fundamentalist views. That is why we have Separation of Church and State, so no one religion dominates and so that our democracy does not morph into a theocracy.

Maybe we could solve Con's problem by sending Con to some remote place in Wyoming. He won't find any gay people there--in fact, he won't find any people there. Presto! Problem fixed.

Debate Round No. 2
shneeba

Con

Ok well I have been getting owned in this debate so far and rightfully so as my comments have been pretty offensive but then I saw my opponents profile and saw he was an avid liberal so I said to myself "oh I didn't realize I was debating against an idiot so the rest of this should be easy". First of these "black man in hoodie" comments seem pretty racist to me if u automatically think of gangs if u see one. Also Wyoming is a nice state with great people how dare u say that. Also Abraham married his sister and no one else as they loved eachother as husband and wife even though they we brother and sister. Present day this would be severely frowned upon yet gay marriage isn't anymore. I understand the consequences of 2 siblings reproducing but if that is what they want then fine and if gay people want to marry too than that is fine too. The differnce is that the siblings that married would not go around making sure I knew that they married eachother while some gay couples make sure I know that they are gay. Yes there is no reasonable or possible way to prevent this because it is not only morally wrong it's just against the law so I guess this debate is just me saying to the men who wear bikinis..... Please don't make me vomit anymore.
bsh1

Pro

Liberal are idiots? Dude, we need to have a chat. Also, if you read my profile, you'll know that I'm gay...and yes, to use your own terminology, you're "comments have been pretty offensive." I am not one of the stereotypical gays your referring to, but I do firmly believe in everyone's right to dress, talk, and behave as they wish, and that we shouldn't just ship people off to Madagascar because they're "flamboyant." If you ever want more information about gay people, just PM me--maybe I can *gasp* convince you the liberal gay-rights agenda isn't so insidious after all.

Okay, but on to the arguments...I shall rebut Con's case, point out some drops Con made, and Crystallize the Round.

REBUTTALS

The "black man in a hoodie" argument is racist, just as the "transvestites are disgusting and scaring children" argument was unacceptably homophobic. If you agree that the hoodie examples was an exercise in ridiculousness, then so too was the argument about gays scarring children--both are motivated by irrational prejudices.

Re: Wyoming...lol...just...lol

Con seems to have tread away from his biblical arguments, saying that "if gay people want to marry too than that is fine too." So, he basically concedes that the bible should not be the basis for legislation.

DROPS

- People have the Constitutional right to freedom of expression; i.e. Gay people can be as flamboyant and fabulous as we want
- Abandonment of this freedom, or a move to derogate the rights of certain "undesirable groups" is totalitarian and unjustifiable

CRYSTALLIZATION

Please vote Pro today because Con has, in essence, made a series of warrantless claims based more on prejudice, disgust, and personal dislike than reason. Con has dropped every issue of substance on the flow, and has misunderstood several of my attacks. Thank you and thanks to Con!
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
@Shneeba, If you didn't want to get raped by a gay guy, you shouldn't have initiated this debate.
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
shneeba
Ok I'm getting raped in my butthole in this debate so get me so votes
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Macumba - Well, you're entitled to your narrow-minded and inaccurate views.
Posted by Macumba 2 years ago
Macumba
@bsh1 no, many liberals are idiots; at least most.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@Macumba, most liberals would say the same of conservatives. Simply finger-pointing at the other side and saying "you're dumb" only does more to entrench partisanship and inefficacious government than it does to achieve anything. The fact is *gasp* many liberals and conservatives are smart people, but we have to move past our differences (and the name calling) to realize that and get anything done.
Posted by Macumba 2 years ago
Macumba
99.99993737262616152% of liberals are idiots.
-The unibrow
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
All liberals are idiots ?

That's just silly. I'd say most liberals are idiots, not all of them.

Most conservatives are idiots too.
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
shneeba
The reason I did not go into depth about women is because gay women (that I have ever seen) are much more reserved and "normal" in that they don't openly express themselves as much as gay men do
Posted by vampandaz 2 years ago
vampandaz
I am offended as a gay woman, you cant be against men who believe they are woman and wear "girl" clothes, but then be fine with women wearing "boy" clothes, so now your not only a homophobe, but your also being sexist.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
shneebabsh1Tied
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: pro had more logical arguments and his contentions weren't refuted. Every one of con's points were shot down. He even admitted to "being owned" at one point. Con also made a lot of extremely offensive remarks. It's possible to take his position without being a jerk about it. on an unrelated note, I found this debate hilarious. I hope con is just trolling.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 2 years ago
Benshapiro
shneebabsh1Tied
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: Con contradicted his own arguments and used Ad Hom against his opponent. He even admitted to being "owned" in the debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
shneebabsh1Tied
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: That idiot ad hom line("oh I didn't realize I was debating against an idiot so the rest of this should be easy") was offensive, I felt it somehow. Conduct was henceforth invaded so Conduct to Pro. I find the Constitutional Argument made by Pro to be more superior than subjective arguments made by Con. + Rebuttals, Pro wins.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
shneebabsh1Tied
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: Like... was this even a debate? PRO decimated CON, and I am embarrassed for this debate's obvious loser. As PRO adroitly noted, CON "made a series of warrantless claims based more on prejudice, disgust, and personal dislike than reason."