The Instigator
gh000st
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points

Gays

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 55373
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

gh000st

Con

Gays are harming society.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Pro

I accept and will be arguing in favor of gay people, and for the fact that they are not harming society.

Because Pro is making a positive statement, he obviously bears the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 1
gh000st

Con

Nowadays, parents are dressing their kids up with gender roles reversed, which is harmful to the kids. Parents are also teaching their kids that being gay is normal (or for a better term, "okay"). If their kids grow up doing that, they will be made fun of, feelings will be hurt, and it could possibly waste taxpayers money in extreme bullying cases. It is not acceptable, and should be put to an end.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Pro

I'm going to respond to my opponent's claims in the next round, and use this round to present my own arguments in favor of the gay community. I would like to remind the audience that my opponent has the burden of proof in this debate.


C1) Egalitarianism

Richard Arneson defines this as the following [1. http://tinyurl.com...]

"People should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status."

The crux of egalitarianism is that any person, irrespective of their race, gender identity, sex, background, sexual orientation, etc. is of equal moral worth: that we aren't in a position, nor should we be, to deem someone as inferior or to caste them off to the fringes of society simply by virtue of a prejudice.


It is a longstanding American principle that all people are equal in the eyes of the law, which is why women, African Americans, etc. have made great strides toward greater equality. It is enshrined in the United States Constitution that people are to be treated equally.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states the following [2. http://tinyurl.com...]:


"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Therefore, my argument with regard to egalitarianism is this.


P1) If all people are created equal, it is simply morally wrong to discriminate against, cast aspersions against, or suggest that any person or group of people is inferior based on a generalization as to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
P2) All people are created equal.
C1) Therefore, it is morally wrong to discriminate against, cast aspersions against, or suggest that any person or group of people is inferior based on a generalization as to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The word prejudice is also quite critical, and this is my second contention.

C2) Prejudice is a form of generalization, which is ipso facto illogical

Prejudice is defined as "an unfavoracle opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." [3. http://tinyurl.com...]

Generalization is defined as "a statement about a group of people or things that is based on only a few people or things in that group." [4. http://tinyurl.com...]


I'd like to note at this point that I am not attacking my opponent or insinuating that he or she is prejudiced. Instead, I am attacking his arguments and the basis for the Pro side of this resolution. By addressing "gays," my opponent is making a general statement, which isn't based on evidence, about an entire group of people and suggesting that they all must fit X, Y, and Z criteria which is, hence, harmful to society. His argument is essentially the following:

P1) Gay people possess X, Y, and Z criteria.
P2) Gay people are causing A, B, and C effect to society.
C1) X, Y, and Z lead to A, B, and C.
P1) Because X, Y and Z lead to A, B, and C, gay people are have A, B, and C effect on society.
P2) A, B, and C effect are harmful to society.
C2) Therefore, gay people are harmful to society.

This is wrong not only because Con does not know every gay person and cannot prove that they all possess such criteria, or that they are all causing these effects to society.

Let's add some numbers to this. In 2012, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the population of the U.S. was 312,780,968 [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. Gallop estimated that, in that year, about 3.5 percent of the country identified as LGBT, and let's also bear in mind that many quite likely did not identify themselves as such due to fear, societal pressures, etc. [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. Some quick math brings us to the fact that, in 2012, approximately 10,947,334 people were LGBT. Can Con honestly tell us that he knows certain characteristics about all of these people? If there is a single person who does not meet this criterion, his arguments fall apart.

The fact of the matter is, he cannot prove that every gay person meets this criterion, and therefore, he cannot possibly meet his burden of proof.

At the same time, he cannot demonstrate causation.

The reason he cannot demonstrate causation -- and, by extension, the reason he cannot win this debate -- is because correlation and causation are not one in the same. Even if he could find a correlation between having (x) characteristic and being (y), he cannot demonstrates that this means either that (x) or (y) leads to (z) outcome.

Because of this, Con cannot make a causal link between being gay and harming society, and therefore he cannot fulfill his burden of proof.

C3) Homosexuality is natural in nature

The assumption implicit in Con's argument is that homosexuality is in some way unnatural or deviant. However, this is simply not true.

In fact, homosexuality has been practiced for a very long time, whether it was in ancient Greece or Rome [6. http://tinyurl.com...] or by animals. In fact, about 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality. [7. http://tinyurl.com...] It is simply inaccurate to aruge that it is in some way unnatural.

At the same time, we must ask ourselves the following question: if homosexuality has been around for quite some time and is quite widespread, we should know whether or not it is harmful to society. That is, we would be able to see the negative impacts if there were any.

However, Con cannot provide any, nor has he provided any in his opening contentions.

C4) Condemning Homosexuals Leads to Violence and Hatred Toward the LGBT Community

This, unfortunately, the most depressing component of my arguments. These will boil down to statistics, for the most part.


First, the American Association of Suicidology reports that LGB high school students in 1999 are 3.4 times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide, and that, as the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 2006 shows, teenagers who identified as LBG or reported any time of having participated in any same-sex contact were more than three times likely than those who didn't to report seriously having considered suicide [8. http://tinyurl.com...].

Second, the FBI 2011 hate crime statistics show that there were about 1,562 victims who were targeted because of their sexual orientation [9. http://tinyurl.com...], and that 20.8% of hate crimes are due to sexual orientation. [10. http://tinyurl.com...] This leads us to the conclusion that there are about 52,000 sexual-orientation-based hate crimes per year, and these numbers are increasing [11. http://tinyurl.com...].

Conclusion

I have thoroughly demonstrated not only that homosexuality is natural and that gay people deserve respect, but that an argument against the gay community is an appeal to a generalization, which cannot possibly hold. At the same time, an appeal to causation bears a very high burden of proof, which Con must be able to demonstrate to us conclusively.


Debate Round No. 2
gh000st

Con

I would like to point out to the audience that my opponent is missing the point. He is giving a philosophical standpoint. Philosophy (where talking about morals) is merely theories. Nobody can decide whether it is morally right or wrong, and this is not the argument. The argument is that gays harm society.

Also I would like to point out, just because he says I need to provide evidence, this is not true. My opponent believes that I am taking a negative standpoint. This is not fact, however, because I am taking the standpoint that gays are harming the society and that it needs to be stopped. If I am arguing that something harmful to society needs to be stopped, then I believe that is positive (preventing harm).

His argument for gays harming society shows that he is taking a negative standpoint, thus he should provide the "evidence".
JohnMaynardKeynes

Pro

Unfortunately at this point this debate is over, as Con has dropped every single one of my arguments and has failed to uphold his burden of proof. Let's review my contentions:


C1) Egalitarianism

-Dropped

C2) Prejudice

-Dropped

C3) Homosexuality is natural

-Dropped

C4) Condemning homosexuals leads to violence and hatred

-Dropped

I would also like to point out that there was no clear resolution: the title of this debate is simply "gays," and when we lack a resolution, we default to the title of this debate. In fact, in my Round 1 acceptance, I noted that I would be defending the gay community. Arguing against the notion that they in some way are harmful to society was a subunit of the point -- indeed, one that is part and parcel of it, but hardly the resolution. But the fact is that, even if that were the resolution, Con still bears the burden or proof -- either because he is arguing against the status quo by expressing disdain for an entire group of people, or because he is making a positive statement -- and he still has lost this debate. At this point, I don't even much care which resolution we're going to abide by. I'll even use the latter one to placate him. He hasn't demonstrated any evidence for harm, and therefore he loses.

In his opening statements, he claims that "gays are harmful to society." I have addressed this extensively by pointing out that (1) homosexuality is natural (2) he cannot demonstrate to us causation and (3) he has not demonstrated any negative effects, which we shoud be able to see if they actually exist.

His last argument should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. However, he, not I, possess this burden because he is the one making a positive statement. I am simply negating it, and have negated it thoroughly.

At this point, I'm not going to go through his arguments point by point and refute them.


Con states that "Nowadays, parents are dressing their kids up with gender roles reversed, which is harmful to the kids."

This argument is completely incoherently not only because it isn't sourced, not only because he hasn't provided us with any means by which to verify, but also because he has not connected this causally to harmful.

Even if we were to accept that it were true -- and I have seen no evidence to this effect whatsoever, so we can simply discard the argument immediately because Con has the BOP -- he has to demonstrate to us why this would be harmful to society. He must be able to demonstrate causation.

However, he cannot demonstrate causation and has not because gender roles, ipso facto, are contrived: they are arbitrary and rooted largely in culture. Gender roles aren't even relevant to homosexuality unless Con is claiming that a gay man, for instance, will demonstrate behavior that he would call "feminine." Not only is this not the case in every circumstance, but I have to ask a very bold question: who cares?

Truly, that is the crux of this point, and this is what I addressed when I spoke of egalitarianism. Who cares? If a gay person is not harming anyone -- which is true, and Con has yet to prove otherwise -- why should Con care? He claims that it harms kids, or that parents are harming them by "reversing gender roles." How? To what extent or in what way? Con provides us with no evidence.

The point of egalitarianism is also quite critical in addressing the point of gender roles. Gender roles dictate essentially that women ought to be subject to a "cult of domesticity" -- that is, that they should be confined to the home. If Con is arguing in favor of gender roles, he must defend that. However, he has not, and my first contention on egalitarianism refutes this handily.


Con then states that "Parents are also teaching their kids that being gay is normal (or for a better term, "okay")."

First and foremost, the claim is unsourced, even though it may well be true: homosexuality is becoming increasingly accepted by society. So? How exactly is this harmful? Con insinuates that this is a bad thing and is harmful to society, but the logic is circular. His case is, by and large, "homosexuality is harmful because 'trust me,'" as though we should accept his case as prime facie. That isn't how it works, especially when he has no sources and has the BOP.

Then he states that " If their kids grow up doing that, they will be made fun of, feelings will be hurt, and it could possibly waste taxpayers money in extreme bullying cases. It is not acceptable, and should be put to an end."

First, I must ask, doing what? For what will they be made fun of and bullied? For being homosexual?

How can Con link that to the acceptance of homoseuxality, which he claims is a bad thing? I addressed this point as well (see? My points are still relevant). Because many people still do not accept homosexuality and many people feel virtually powerless, are told that they are in some way deviant or "not normal," they are more likely to commit suicide or to bottle up their feelings. That is what leads to bullying. Acceptance of homosexuality is not.

He then makes a point about taxpayer dollars being "wasted on bullying campaigns." First of all, this is a tangential point because (1) he cannot prove that taxpayer dollars will be used for this purpose (2) he has not proved to us empiriclaly, or argued normatively, that this would be a "waste" (3) the point still stands that acceptance of homosexuality is what would reduce bullying.

He then asserts that "It is not acceptable, and should be put to an end."

What isn't acceptable? Homosexuality? I have a few questions for you, Con: how, in what why, why, to what extent, etc.? You haven't addressed any of these. Once again, your entire argument boils down to "trust me."

(Side note: he claims that homosexuality isn't acceptable while asserting later on that the resolution is about homosexuality being harmful. This is a highly deceptive form of argumentation that attempts to transition between two entirely different resolutions, both of which he cannot win).

He then claims that homosexuality should be "put to an end." What does this mean? He wants to put an end to homosexuality? How? There are countries around the world where gay people are literally incarcerated or put to death. Surely Con is not arguing for any of these. So what does he mean by "put to an end?" This case is incoherent, and I hope he realizes how insensitive his arguments are, as well.

As for his final argument:

Con begins by claiming that "nobody can decide whether it is morally right or wrong." But not only is a large part of his case arguing that homosexuality is wrong and that is why, he claims, it should be "put to an end," but I have demonstrated to you that it was quite likely that he was in fact arguing for that resolution. And, at the same time, it is quite possible, as I have done, to refute his arguments with an appeal to philosophy.

He then makes a completely incoherent, factually incorrect remark. This demonstrates that he has confused what a positive statement is -- this has absolutely nothing to do with a "negative or positive standpoint," and I never used those terms. A positive statement is a statement of "what is." He has made a positive statement to the effect of "homosexuality is harmful," and therefore he bears the burden of proof. By statin that he doesn't need to provide evidence, he has effectively conceded the debate.

His argument as to whether I am taking a positive or negative statement is also laughable, because in order for this to be so, the notion that homosexuality causes harm, and thus he is arguing for preventing harm and I am arguing for causing harm, must be prima facie. It, however, is not. I have provided plenty of evidence for why the general statement "homosexuality is harmful" is factually and morally misguided.

Conclusion
Con has not met his burden of proof, nor has he provided any evidence. He tried to shift the BOP to me in the last round, and has dropped every one of my arguments in the process.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mikeksyd000 2 years ago
Mikeksyd000
Go pro, gays do nothing wrong they are still human!
Posted by Daisy1234 2 years ago
Daisy1234
Being gay can be messed up but it is ok unless you don't tell anybody
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
gh000stJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave no evidence to defend his claims and failed to fulfill BOP by failing to give evidence of harm to society.
Vote Placed by Artur 2 years ago
Artur
gh000stJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Simple, CON almost had no any supported arguements, his rounds were just lika a speculation or assertion, no reference and e.t.c on the other hand, PRO made good arguements with sources. And things written by PRO was like a formal/official writing.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
gh000stJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments of Con were refuted by Pro but the other way around was not done in the slightest. Sources were only supplied by Pro.
Vote Placed by KevQuixote 2 years ago
KevQuixote
gh000stJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: It is pretty clear that Pro had better constructed arguments and did a better job building his own case, as well as attacking the positions of Con.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
gh000stJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con started off with a very vague statement and did not meet the BOP. He also never used a source. On the other hand, Pro provided great arguments on egalitarianism.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
gh000stJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: Con did not meet his BOP and later on tried to switch the BOP. I recommend con provides premises for his arguments and learns about how burden of proof is determined. I also think it would be beneficial to con if he took the time to understand his opponent's arguments and attacks them head on.