Homophobia is a natural disease avoidance behavior. Therefore, homophobia is good for humans
Debate Rounds (3)
Studies show homophobia is rooted in DISGUST, not fear
Homosexual activity elicits disgust
Homosexuals induce disgust
Studies show disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior.
Homophobia = disgust
Disgust = disease avoidance behavior
Homophobia = disease avoidance behavior
homophobic women are less likely to intentionally have sex with bisexual men in which decreases the risk of contracting deadly is STDS
Homophobic men are less likely to hang out with gay or bisexual men in which decreases the chances of getting drunk and having gay sex in which decreases the risk of contracting deadly STDs
Homophobic men and homophobic women are less likely to experience homosexual sex out of curiosity in which decreases the risk of contracting deadly is DD's
Homophobia rooted in unwanted sexual advances
Disgust as embodied moral judgment
High Disgust sensitivity levels indicates disapproval of gays. In other words, people with a stronger evolutionary disease avoidance behavior are more likely to disapprove of gays
Gays admit that it's normal to have crushes on their heterosexual same sex friends. This explains why homophobia exists.
Gays admit that non-homophobic heterosexuals are targets for sexual seduction
Read C. The author clearly states, "if he's uncomfortable around gays, lay off". In other words, if he's not homophobic, continue trying to sexually seduce him. This is more proof that homophobia serves as a defense system.
Here's more evidence that homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior. The following link shows gay men admitting that homophobia ruins their chances of sexually seducing straight men.
The following link is gays admitting that sexually seducing straight men is gay mens ultimate gratification... This explains why humans evolved the defense system called homophobia.
Homosexuality induces disgust
Study shows the majority of HIV infections among gays happen in committed relationships. Guess what? Committed relationships includes gay marriages.
Here's a quote from the study
"The researchers noted that gay men account for nearly 70 percent of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses among adolescents and young adults in the United States. A recent study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also found that the majority of new HIV infections occur within committed relationships"
Unprotected sex spurs hiv rates among gay men
Gays in serious relationships are more likely to practice unsafe sex.
Unprotected sex rising among gay men since 2005
Gays in serious relationships 8 times more likely to practice unsafe sex
Gays are more likely to experience domestic violence
Gay and bisexual women have higher rates of bacterial vaginosis
Gay women have higher rates of mental health issues including depression
Gay women are more likely to be overweight
Gay women are more likely to develop breast cancer
Study shows women who get pregnant in their twenties decrease the risk of breast cancer. Gay women are less likely to get pregnant in their twenties and even less likely to get pregnant at all compared to heteroexual women.
The gay HIV epidemic is increasing in ALL nations.
Gay men triggered the hiv epidemic
HIV is devreasing among heterosexuals but increasing alarmingly among gays
In 2010, gays made up 72% of all new HIV infections
In 2013, gays made up 81% of all new HIV infections
In 2012, gays made up 84% of syphilis cases.
In 2013, gays made up 91% of syphilis cases
Study: Biology Leaves gay men highly vulnerable to HIV
According to Unaids, Hiv is more common among gay men in all areas of the world including Africa"
A Study in China shows gay lifestyle Caused an HIV outbreak.
Shigella outbreak among gay and bisexual men
New drug resistant gonorrhea striking gay men
New Deadly meningitis striking gay men
Hepatitis C rising among gay men
New flesh eating bacterial strain striking gay men
A rare disease, (Lymphograunuloma venereum) striking gay men
A rare parasitic disease striking gay men
Sexually active Gay teens at a high risk of hpv. In other words, when gay teens act on their homosexual behavior, it's not good for them.
> > > >"http://america.aljazeera.com......
High rates of hpv among gay men
Anal cancer rising among gay men
Study shows most women who are infected with hiv contracted it from a bisexual man
Pro presents to you a long list of sources which he believes support his resolution. Unfortunately, that's all that R1 for Pro consisted of; he merely lists sources which ostensibly support certain premises. The resolution seems to take the form of a syllogism, yet I find all of Pro's eggs in the basket of supporting the premise, "Homophobia is a natural disease avoidance behavior", instead of the link to "homophobia is good for humans".
Furthermore, it may be my computer acting up, but I cannot follow the plethora of sources to any actual article (I'm just led to the front page of each website).
But I'll go into some offense for a while.
Framework: What is "good" for humans?
Saying that something is "good" is an inherently normative statement. It is an effort to attach value to a particular thing or idea, and in the context of "good for humans", we must assume that humans are the beneficiaries of the thing in question, namely homophobia. But what is "good" for humans ought not be based solely on evolutionary considerations. The mere fact that we attach value to humanity and attempt to promote what benefits humanity and repudiate what does not suggests that there is something inherently valuable about human lives and the human species.
We can approach this from two philosophical angles: deontology and utilitarianism. I firmly believe that Pro's resolution is objectively wrong from a deontological perspective and almost certainly erroneous from a utiliarian perspective.
Let's turn to Kant, the quintessential deontological philosopher. Kant argues that we should respect humans as ends in and of themselves because humans have inherent value (obviously an oversimplification, but character limit). Even if Con won that homphobia has some value for our species, we in the process renege on our moral duties to homosexual people by failing to respect their humanity and their inherent worth. I wouldn't go so far as to say homophobia reduces them to means to an end, but that it dehumanizes people, and that a moral theory which promotes what is "good" for humans while ignoring certain humans is inherently contradictory and flawed, treating homosexual people as less than ends. Check up on the Kant Man here:
When discussing what is utile for humans, we must consider all humans. Just to be clear, homosexual people are still people (If Pro attempts to argue that homosexual individuals carry less moral weight than heterosexual individuals, he will have to warrant a powerful philosophical distinction rooted in sexual preference). And homophobia leads to some pretty deplorable consequences for these people.
High rate of hate crimes towards LGBT individuals:
As Pro mentions, there is a high rate of mental illness amongst the LGBT community, and this leads to rates of suicide far higher than the general populace. The tendency of homophobia to foster adversarial atmospheres and environments in which homosexual individuals feel unwelcomed and "otherized" leads to such outcomes.
When a large portion of humanity is treated as subhuman, denied rights in innumerable countries, and violently persecuted worldwide, humanity loses.
In many countries, it is possible for mere sexual preference to be met with the death penalty.
When homophobia leads the literal termination of human life, the very object of utilitarian consideration, we should probably recognize its disutility.
Even when considering humanity as a whole, we can acknowledge the fact that homophobia and contempt towards any particular group of individuals in general creates rifts between humans, serving to make cooperation and coexistence more difficult. I will tackle the potential utilitarian benefits for humanity in the rebuttal section.
While Pro's first round consists primarily of links to certain websites preceded by summaries of articles presumably on those sites, I will attempt to construct (and subsequently deconstruct) the broader argument Pro gives. Note that some sites have an unclear connection to Pro's points, such as the link to the National Center for Biotechnology Information succeeding the point about disgust as the embodiment of moral judgment (which I wish Pro would expound upon).
The argument appears to go something like this: Homophobia is disgust, disgust protects us from diseases, homosexuals have diseases, therefore homophobia is good.
Unfortunately, the links between these premises are, as mentioned earlier, tenuous, as is the link to the conclusion. I will not contest any premise on face. I will concede that homophobia is probably more rooted in disgust than in fear. I will concede that the evolutionary purpose of disgust is protection from bad things, such as disease, and I will concede that many diseases are found in the LGBT community at higher rates than the general populace.
HOWEVER, to outweigh the harms incurred by humans as a result of homophobia, Pro must establish a unique link between homophobia and disease avoidance, that is to say a connection which would not exist if homophobia did not exist.
1. The uniqueness of homophobia
Pro attempts to convince you that homosexuals are out to seduce heterosexuals, and that homophobia is our only natural protection against this. Utter nonsense. A lack of physical attraction easily suffices. There is no need to become physically ill at the thought of two men or women engaging in intercourse. Does Pro really believe that it is only homophobic individuals who turn down sexual advances from members of the same sex? Furthermore, homophobia is often associated with disgust towards homosexual acts between other individuals, yet Pro can only cite disease associated with intercourse, suggesting that homophobia extends its disgust beyond what is even plausibly evolutionarily advantageous into the realm of the private lives of other individuals who otherwise may not have engaged with you.
Discount Pro's sources regarding homosexual advances towards heterosexuals as irrelevant unless he can produce sources suggesting that a lack of homophobia triggers reciprocation from heterosexuals.
2. Evolution and Homophobia
Even if you grant Pro the uniqueness of homophobia, it is unclear what exactly we're avoiding. Disgust may be broadly valuable, but each instance of disgust is not inherently valuable. If, as Pro seems to imply with reference to the evolutionary origins of disgust, homophobia evolved as a response to higher rates of STDs amongst homosexuals, then this evolution would have occurred over a long period of time, a long time ago. HIV is relatively young amongst humanity:
Furthermore, it is likely that STD rates are so high amongst LGBT individuals because protective measures, such as condoms, serve only one purpose (there is a contraceptive motive during heterosexual intercourse). Of course, contraception isn't old enough to trigger evolutionary responses. But even if homophobia once served a purpose, that does not mean that homophobia IS good for humans, just that it once was.
Honestly, Pro's assertion that the ultimate gratification of seduction of heterosexuals led to the evolution of homophobia is absurd. It assumes a latent desire, inherent in all homosexual individuals, to seduce someone who you can't reproduce with merely because they are attracted to people with whom they could reproduce.
Of course, even if you don't buy any of this, Pro still has to outweigh persecution of homosexual people today with a concept that ostensibly helped us out in the past. The resolution isn't "homophobia was good".
Pro has a lot of work to do to dig himself out of this hole.
This is false. It's a positive statement being the fact that it could be proven with scientific evidence. An example is, since homophobia decreases the chances of a homophobic woman having sex with bisexual men, that would decrease the chances of the woman contracting deadly STDs since bisexual men are far more likely to be infected with a deadly STD. it could be scientifically proven that bisexual men have much higher rates of deadly STDs. There's absolutely nothing good about deadly STDs... Not only do they cause pain, suffering and sickness, they're also contagious and has the potential of causing millions to suffer. I demonstrated how homophobia is a defense behavior against these problems. Therefore, homophobia has been proven to be good for the human species on every level.
"Even if Con won that homophobia has"somevalue for our species, we in the process renege on our moral duties to homosexual people by failing to respect their humanity and their inherent worth" I wouldn't go so far as to say homophobia reduces them to means to an end, but that it dehumanizes people, and that a moral theory which promotes what is "good" for humans while ignoring certain humans is inherently contradictory and flawed, treating homosexual people as less than ends"
My opponents spewed two fallacies.
Straw man and appealing to Pity
My opponent spewed a straw man based on the extreme stereotyping of the term "homophobia".
Since homophobia is rooted in disgust, how people express and cope with their disgust determines how they treat gays. Many people who are disgusted by homosexuality would never dehumanize gays. Better yet, there are over 300 million people in the USA. There are at least 100 million people at the minimum who are disgusted by homosexuality. A small fraction of 1% have committed hate crimes against gays and some of those probably involved gays who provoked the issue. Therefore, the vast majority of homophobes do not dehumanize gays in which is an indication that Homophobia is not the cause of dehumanizing gays. People who commit hate crimes against gays likely have other issues in play.
"When discussing what is utile for humans, we must consider all humans. Just to be clear, homosexual people are still people"
This is another straw man
There are two parts of homosexuality. They are homosexual desire and homosexual behavior. The same thing goes for pedophilia. Homophobes are disgusted by the behavior, not the people. Better yet, gays are the ones who made their sexuality their identity. In many cases, gays have to tell us that they are gay in order for us to even know. That's like pedophiles telling a person that they are pedophiles. Gays promote their sexual private life simply by identifying as gay. Gays are people but their behavior is the problem.
"As Pro mentions, there is a high rate of mental illness amongst the LGBT community, and this leads to rates of suicide far higher than the general populace. The tendency of homophobia to foster adversarial atmospheres and environments in which homosexual individuals feel unwelcomed and "otherized" leads to such outcomes"
This is false. The most gay friendly nations in the world show that gays have high rates of mental disorders and suicide including Netherlands.
this study shows homosexual mental issues are caused by the lifestyle itself
"When a large portion of humanity is treated as subhuman, denied rights in innumerable countries, and violently persecuted worldwide, humanity loses"
You're appealing to pity. Again, humans have a problem with the behavior, not the people. A high health risk behavior is supposed to get treated as such. Pretending as if a high health risk behavior is not a high risk behavior just makes it worse. Gays intentionally let people know that they practice a high health risk. if someone goes around saying he has sex with animals, people will feel disgusted and may choose to not be around them.
Gays have harmed themselves more than any homophobe. When HIV first struck the gay community, Gays were warned to stop having sex. when gays didn't listen, their behavior triggered an epidemic. Then they went crying to the government for help.
It is not in human nature to sit back and let gays continuously trigger STD epidemics without doing anything about it. the condom strategy has failed over and over again. A strong offense requires a strong defense. Homophobia is triggered by a high health risk behavior called homosexuality and the issues that comes with it. Gays are usually persecuted in certain countries when they come out to embrace their high health risk behavior. Unlike race, gays can remain invisible amongst us but they would rather embrace a behavior that commonly triggers STD epidemics. it could be argued that a country is immoral for not downplaying a high health risk behavior
Gays triggered the HIV epidemic in America and possibly in the other nations as well. Gays also triggered another syphilis epidemic after it was nearly eliminated..
HIV was not always around but STDs have always been around. The problem was, humans didn't know what they were. being the fact that gays have always had anal sex, STDs always more common among gays.
Gays are persecuted when they come out to embrace a high health risk behavior. gays could live a harm free life if only they didn't try to embrace a highhealth risk behavior
Because Pro didn't really format R2, I'll just use my original format.
Pro seems to conflate the use of scientific evidence to support a point with the bare results of a scientific study. No scientific study could ever prove that anything is "good". You could prove that it avoids disease (which Pro hasn't, as I'll get into), but you must make the normative leap to saying something is "good" through your own reasoning, which Pro fails to provide. Science quantifies, describes, and explains the observable world. I challenge Pro to contrive an example in which the scientific method is utilized to postively determine the "goodness" of something.
Pro's only legitimate example is a woman not having sex with a bisexual man because he may have STDs, however you can cross-apply my point about the STD rate differential resulting from more modern phenomena, such as contraception. Also, homosexual individuals may very well engage in less conservative sexual behavior because institutions which are conservative by nature repudiate homosexuality. Homosexuals, then, would be less likely to affiliate with, say, religious institutions, which would bar casual sex.
Once again, we are weighing Pro's bizarre scenario in which a man with an STD contracted from sex with another man attempts to have sex with a woman (to be impactful today, remember that this sex would have to be performed without any sort of protection) and homophobia comes to save the day. I've given you many concrete examples of the quotidian suffering of homosexuls all around the world. Prefer my tangible, quantifiable harms to Pro's poorly warranted hypothetical.
A very poor response from Pro on this point. In my debating experience, you do not want to be the boy who cried "fallacy", as you're usually missing the point.
Did I "straw man" his point? No. I showed that homophobia leads to some extremely terrible outcomes. I even described how homophobia in its most innocuous state creates rifts in the human species and damages cooperation while dehumanizing and otherizing particular human beings. But the harms such as bullying, persecution, and hate crimes still exist, as well as denial of basic rights in many countries. The hilarious "not all homophobes are violent" argument misses the crux of Pro's own resolution. The fact that homophobia "is" the root cause of these heinous acts and laws means that homophobia "is" detrimental to humans. Pro's resolution states that it "is good" for humans. It is actually irrelevant for Pro to establish an idealistic world in which homophobia doesn't lead to harms, and his dissociation from the real world is the reason he loses this point. Ironically enough, I am contesting the notion that homophobia is good for humans with real world data and examples, while Pro is defending his resolution, inherently grounded in the real world, with hypotheticals.
Getting into Utilitarianism (I think)
"Homophobes are disgusted by behavior, not the people". I'm gonna have to call BS on this point. Behavior is inextricably linked with the person, and in the moment when one is disgusted by behavior, you're usually disgusted by the person as well. I don't think anyone reading this debate is going to buy the point that no homophobes would be disgusted by a homosexual individual. Google "define homophobia", and you get the definition "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". Pro reveals his own discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals when he goes on a tirade against gays regarding sexual orientation as a component of identity. Yes, sometimes you don't realize someone is gay until they inform you of it. Who cares!? But I digress...
The crux of my argument was that gay people are people, and homophobia leads to harms directed towards gay people. Therefore, homophobia harms people. Very simple, difficult to dispute. Whether or not they "bring it upon themselves", and whether or not we're disgusted by behavior or individuals, we can still recognize that individuals are harmed as a result of homophobia. Pro calls straw man, but he's the one missing the core of my actual argument.
And the response to the mental health argument is actually horrendous. It can be structured as follows: "High rates of mental health issues amongst gays are present in countries most accepting of gays, therefore lack of acceptance doesn't cause these issues." The assumption necessary to make this argument work, namely "countries like the Netherlands do not discriminate and otherize homosexuals" is patently false. Lower levels of discrimination to not undermine a broad sense of ostracization. To say that bullying and ostracization is not linked with mental health issues and suicide is, to be honest, delusional. Pro warrants no link between the "lifestyle" and mental health issues, only linking us to "LifeSite", a site dedicated primarily to pro-life stories. Obviously, the CDC is preferable to LifeSite.
Finally, Pro says I'm appealing to pity (which is a rhetorical strategy, not inherently fallacious if the argument exists to back it up). Pro manages to squeeze in a comparison of homosexuality to bestiality (he already hit pedophilia), attempting to link homosexuality with a health risk, but once again is unable to produce an evolutionary link to these higher rates of disease, and without such a link, he is unable to argue that we evolved homophobia as a subcategory of disgust to shield us from diseases. Once again, Pro makes no attempt to outweigh my cited harms with this nebulous health risk which is completely preventable in the 21st century.
Have "gays" harmed themselves more than any homophobe? Probably not, but it's irrelevant. This round is about how much good or bad homophobia has done, not how much the gay community has harmed itself. Ignore Pro's repugnant comments here.
Once again, Pro decide to use his round to rant about homosexuals, displaying obvious disdain towards the LGBT community. "The condom strategy has failed." WTF does this mean!? Promoting easy access to condoms is obviously an integral component in combatting aids, probably better than policing the sexuality of individuals. Once again, Pro equivocates on the point of homophobia as an evolved response to disease and as a strategy to combat new disease.
Gays are not persecuted most in countries where they "embrace high risk behavior". If you think that the most outspoken and visible gay communities exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Uganda, think again.
Contraception is almost certainly the difference-maker, as countries without access to protection with the highest rates of HIV, namely those in Sub-Saharan Africa, actually have more women with HIV than men, destroying Pro's "gay lifestyle" theory.
Pro struggles to find his way in the end of R2, ranting more about anal sex and gay behavior, refusing to connect it back to the resolution. Homophobia is triggered by any act perceived as homosexual, not just sex. People are disgusted by men kissing and holding hands, yet I find it hard to believe that this behavior is any more "high risk" than heterosexual couples kissing and holding hands. Furthermore, the notion that we needed homophobia tens of thousands of years ago is absurd. Pro cites very recent statistics showing higher rates of STDs amongst gay communities, giving us no reason to believe that STDs were more common amongst gays pre-civilization. I argue that social factors, such as repudiation of Christian and conservative beliefs and lack of incentive to use condoms, lead to differentials in STD rates. Pro makes no link between gay sex and STDs that exists naturally and uniquely.
No response to my argument about the uniqueness of homophobia except an example of bisexual transmission of disease, further damaging the impact of Pro's case. I'll do more weighing and framing in the final round.
First of all, I would like to remind the readers that homophobia is rooted in disgust and disgust is a disease a disease behavior in which means homophobia has to be a disease avoidance behavior since gays commonly have much higher rates of stds and infections.
Knobes et al (2009) gay men elicit disgust 9092857422 4242403024 7573765577
Otangi , Bunji et al (2001) homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear
Hanah Chapman et al (2010) moral disgust rooted in survival instinct
our sense of right and wrong has roots in an evolutionary survival instinct
Valerie Curtis et al (2009) Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior
There's an article about a study on disgust entitled "Why the feeling of disgust is good for us'
Here are more sources
Google the following
"UK study shows massive surge in deadly STDs among gay men"
"Gay sex drives up China's HIV/AIDS infections"
"Gay HIV epidemic is increasing in all nations"
There's a study that clearly states "disgust is good"
Here's a quote.
"The feelings of disgust help us to avoid, or at the very least recognize, the things that make us feel this way - and for a very good reason, psychologists say.
"When it comes to infectious diseases, disgust has evolved to help us steer clear of sick people, dirty water, vomit, body fluids and all the other stuff that makes us react "Yuck."
In a paper published in Philosophical Transactions for the Royal Society B, Dr Val Curtis, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, argues that avoidance behavior is essential to prevent the spread of all the major current and recent infectious diseases which present a threat to humans"
My opponent is insinuating that an avoidance behavior that decreases the risk of deadly diseases is somehow not good. That goes against the definition of 'good'
According through Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of ' good' is as follows.
"b (1) :suitable, fit (2) :free from injury or disease (3) :not depreciated (4) :commercially sound (5) :that can be relied on"
"Pro's only legitimate example is a woman not having sex with a bisexual man because he may have STDs, however you can cross-apply my point about the STD rate differential resulting from more modern phenomena, such as contraception"
My opponent's complaint about one example is irrelevant and he falsely assumes that I only have one example. Since homophobes are disgusted by gays, homophobes in general are less likely to experience homosexual behavior in which decreases STD risks.
There will always be a segment of the population who won't use contraceptions so my opponent's assertion about contraception is irrelevant.
" Also, homosexual individuals may very well engage in less conservative sexual behavior because institutions which are conservative by nature repudiate homosexuality. Homosexuals, then, would be less likely to affiliate with, say, religious institutions, which would bar casual sex"
This is false. According to a report from aidsmeds, the gay HIV epidemic is increasing in all nations. This means political views are irrelevant because the same issue applies to the most liberal countries.
"The Gay HIV Epidemic Is Increasing in All Nations"
"Once again, we are weighing Pro's bizarre scenario in which a man with an STD contracted from sex with another man attempts to have sex with a woman (to be impactful today, remember that this sex would have to be performed without any sort of protection) and homophobia comes to save the day"
A study proves that my opponent is wrong.
'New stats from the New York Department of Health and Hygiene and the Centers for Disease Control show that, in New York City, the majority of 647 women who tested HIV-positive in 2012 acquired the virus through unprotected sex with bisexual men'
Since homophobia is rooted in disgust, homophobia women and men won't have sex with gay/bi men in which decrease the risk of contracting deadly stds.
My argument is, homophobia is good because it is a disease avoidance behavior. If gays are harmed during the disease avoidance defense process, it does not change the fact that homophobia is good because it is a natural disease avoidance behavior.
" The crux of my argument was that gay people are people, and homophobia leads to harms directed towards gay people. Therefore, homophobia harms people. Very simple, difficult to dispute. Whether or not they "bring it upon themselves", and whether or not we're disgusted by behavior or individuals, we can still recognize that individuals are harmed as a result of homophobia." Closet gays don't suffer because people don't even know they're gay"
Again, Homophobia does more good. Millions of homophobes are naturally equipped with a defense system that decreases the risk of deadly stds. "Less than 3,000 gays are attacked each year in America compared to millions homophobes who benefit from homophobia. "There's a good chance that the people who attack gays have other issues that contributed to their behavior"
Openly gays chose to publicly embrace a high health risk behavior instead of keeping their private life private. Therefore, they suffer the consequences. Again, it's their fault for publicly embracing a high health risk behavior. Again, it could be argued that it's morally wrong for nation to tolerate people to publicly embrace high health risk behaviors.
"But the harms such as bullying, persecution, and hate crimes still exist, as well as denial of basic rights in many countries"
Again, Homophobia does more good. Millions of homophobes are naturally equipped with a defense system that decreases the risk of deadly stds. "Less than 3,000 gays are attacked each year in America compared to millions homophobes who benefit from homophobia. "There's a good chance that the people who attack gays have other issues that contributed to their behavior"
Again, my opponent assumes that there shouldn't be any consequences for publicly embracing a high health risk behavior. If a kid went to school and told everyone he's having sex with dogs and cats, he should expect negative consequences for publicly embracing a high health risk behavior.
""Behavior is inextricably linked with the person, and in the moment when one is disgusted by behavior, you're usually disgusted by the person as well"
Gays are the ones who publicly expose their sexual orientation in which causes people to be disgusted by them. In most cases, we don't know they are gay unless they let it be known. Therefore, the actions of gays trigger a natural defense system against them. That's like walking towards a bear's Cubs and expecting the bear to not have a defense system.
Again, homophobia is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior.
if someone exposes that they're having sex with their mother or their dog, they should expect the same type of reaction .
In conclusion, my opponent attempts to downplay a disease avoidance behavior even though it clearly serves as a defense system against deadly diseases and infections. My opponent chose to fish for sorrow and appeal to emotions to persuade the voters. "Notice his argument is based on emotions, not logic. "The truth is, homophobia does more good than bad. Even the bad part of homophobia is triggered by gays openly embracing a high health risk behavior. Also, America's idea of "marriage equality" is a mass delusion. "True marriage equality is Legalizing all types of marriages including incestuous marriage and polygamy. "
We must enter the gay world to find out why Homophobia is necessary
"How to seduce a straight guy in 8 easy steps"
Real number 7. "The blogger clearly conveys that homophobia ruins their chances of sexually seducing "straight guys. Hundreds of gay men agreed"
Readers of the debate, if you were looking for amusement, you got what you came for. But if you came to see a close, competitive round, you have been let down. Pro's arguments lack nuanced analysis, he fills space where there ought to be warrants with inordinate amounts of irrelevant studies and links, and he refuses to engage with the bulk of my argument.
Pro has been very eager this round to defend his own analysis. However, he pays little attention to my offense and nigh ignores my philosophical framework.
I win this round for 2 reasons primarily:
1. Deontology (basically dropped)
2. Utilitarianism (woefully underaddressed my offense and fails to show why good outweighs bad)
Pro REALLY wants to focus on disease! But you can't win a debate by only talking about what you want to talk about!
As explained in R1, deontology (Kantian) is a moral theory which prescribes morality on the basis of recognizing inherent value in humanity and treatment of humans as ends in and of themselves. Pro gives an unsatisfactory response to this in R2 and drops my R2 response in R3. Take it as conceded in the round that homophobia falls short on deon. This portion of R3 is short, but that doesn't diminish its importance. Pro literally concedes that, under a philosophical framework which values moral consistency and inherent human value (including valuation of humans in and of themselves), homophobia is abhorrent and impermissible. This could win me the round alone, but if you have ANY doubt in your mind as to who won the Utilitarian side of the debate (which Pro unwittingly sticks to the entire round), then vote Con on deon.
I'll throw in Pro's new definition of "good" here as well. Attempting to combat nuanced, warranted analysis as to why "good" is a normative claim with a definition of good specifically pertaining to disease is, I'll admit, an admirable attempt, but ultimately silly. Type "define good" into google and you get "to be desired or approved of". Flow through my earlier arguments regarding "good" as necessarily moral, and Pro's failure to meet my challenge of devising a hypothetical in which the scientific method is utilized to determine what is good.
I highlight many deleterious impacts resulting from homophobia:
1. Bullying and Hate Crimes
2. Denial of basic human rights
3. Institutional persecution, actual death and imprisonment on the basis of sexual orientation
4. Lower self-esteem, suicide, mental health problems
5. Divisiveness within the human species, impediment to cooperation and empathy, which is key to overcoming problems and surviving as a species
Here's Pro's response, in a nutshell:
2. More disease
3. *Squints at notecard* even more disease
In fact, he even tries to respond to my harms with "but disease". While I call into question the impactfulness of disease as well as the validity of the argument, he responds almost exclusively with his only offensive point! It is damning to one's argument when one fails to come up with anything remotely creative and unique to defeat the opponent's offense.
Remember, by saying that it's justified because we're avoiding disease, Pro is not saying that my cited harms are not harms. He is merely making an argument which attempts to rationalize the allowance of those harms. Flow through ALL of my harms, because whether or not "they bring it upon themselves" (a repugnant thing to say), harms are harms! Moral desert is not a facet of utilitarianism!
Even if we extend this "moral desert" argument under the assumption that it helps avoid disease, we find ourselves denying rights, bullying, and killing homosexuals when the disease avoidance, because we're discussing STDs, would merely require an avoidance of sex with homosexuals.
Look, the fact that innumerable kids are committing suicide, people are being denied basic rights, jailed, and killed, and the human species is (at least for people like Pro) embracing disgust towards an entire subset of itself is reason enough for me to win utilitarianism. But Pro's arguments are very limited in terms of both homophobia's solvency and its uniqueness.
Pro's Case (AKA "Disease!")
As discussed above, Pro's case is a one-trick pony. Unfortunately, that one trick isn't even very good.
Homophobia is probably rooted in disgust. Ok. I conceded that at the top of R1. Disgust, broadly, is and probably has been beneficial for humankind. Fair. Does this mean we jump through Pro's hoops of logic and conclude "homophobia is beneficial for humankind"? NO!
As discussed (and dropped by Pro) in previous rounds, disgust broadly is different than disgust on a case-by-base basis. Just because disgust is broadly beneficial does not instantly mean every instance of disgust benefits us. For example, I think it's fair to say that fear is probably broadly pretty beneficial to most species, including humans. It creates avoidance-based behaviors which steer us away from, say, cliffsides or bear dens. Phagophobia is a fear of swallowing. Does it follow that phagophobia is good for the human species? Of course not! Neither would it follow that fear of clowns or fear of social situations is good for humans! In fact, phagophobia could lead to difficulty eating.
So now to win the debate Pro must outweigh a deontological concession and a pile of serious util. harms with exampes of situations in which people may avoid STDs through homophobia.
1. Homophobia could not have evolved in response to STDs, as factors leading to disparities between STD rates amongst homosexuals and heterosexuals (especially with HIV) are recent. I supported this with statistics showing that STD rates are actually higher amongst women than men in South Africa, a country with an extremely high STD rate, because the causal factors are sociocultural. Pro's response that STD rates are up in all countries is explained by the presence (while varying in magnitude) of conservatism in all countries and cultural spillover effects across national borders.
2. Homophobia is not unique. Especially with gay men attempting to seduce straight men, Pro offers no reason as to why total lack of physical attraction would be insufficient -- as to why disgust is a prerequisite to avoiding sex with gay men when heterosexuality already implies a sole attraction towards the opposite sex.
3. (I'm actually developing this argument more now, in response to the absurd bisexual argument) Homophobia is not solvent. If a bisexual man approaches a woman in a bar, there is no incentive (and perhaps a disincentive, as Pro's case shows) to mention previous gay partners. How being disgusted by homosexuals would combat sex with bisexual men is unclear if, as PRO SAYS HIMSELF, sexuality must be revealed by the individual to become known, and as PRO SAYS HIMSELF, denial is more likely if previous homosexual relationships are revealed.
I suppose I can't say for certain that NO disease is prevented by disgust towards homosexuals. But as my mitigatory string of arguments show, homophobia is probably not evolutionary in basis (undermining Pro's thesis), it's not unique, and it solves virtually nada. Simple weighing will show that Pro cannot possibly outweigh my harms with his benefits, and that Pro should count homophobia's plausible successes on his right hand, not in the millions.
Pro cites an article regarding seduction of straight men in a futile attempt to salvage an absurd point, that homophobia is the only thing standing between straight men and gay sex. But I need not repeat my responses from earlier to negate some blog post by a man with 2 followers and a stupid hat. Do these instructions on casting love spells prove that we need counterspells?
Homophobia solves nothing and probably isn't grounded in evolution. It devalues inherently valuable human lives, leads to societal rifts, and causes quantifiable and unquantifiable harms, ranging from suicide and mental health issues to violence and death.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.