The Instigator
demoreo21
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Homophobic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 922 times Debate No: 75868
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

demoreo21

Pro

I am homophobic. There is nothing wrong with it. Anyone who thinks they can prove me wrong, BRING IT ON!
Lexus

Con

I accept.
Definitions:
Homo-: homosexual
-phobia: an irrational fear
Homophobia: an irrational fear of homosexuals
Irrational: not logical or reasonable

Pro has the BoP to prove that there is absolutely nothing (not even one thing!) wrong with homophobia, while I do not have any sort of BoP. If I prove there is one thing wrong with homophobia I win.
Debate Round No. 1
demoreo21

Pro

demoreo21 forfeited this round.
Lexus

Con

forfeits are bad
Debate Round No. 2
demoreo21

Pro

I am a christian, and in the Bible, it says that homosexuality is wrong. Nothing else has to be said here. It doesnt matter what mankind thinks. it's what God thinks. period. The other phobia's arent wrong because it is not a sin. I have provided you these sources to read. Please read carefully.

http://www.openbible.info...

http://www.bible.ca...
Lexus

Con

I ask the voter to make note that my opponent forfeited a round which is almost never a good thing while in a debate.
I will provide refutations to my opponent's argument in this round, since the burden was never said to be shared. If I refute my opponent's arguments well enough then I win this debate.

My opponent says that being homophobic is justified and that there is nothing wrong with homophobia because God says so. However, this is a major logical fallacy, as the University of Texas explains [1] the fallacy known as the 'Appeal to Heaven'. "An extremely dangerous fallacy of asserting that God has ordered, supports or approves one's own standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible" (edited out parentheses for a smaller quote) is what the University of Texas says.

My opponent's argument is based around fallacious reasoning, that because God has said something that it must be true and that one cannot argue with it. However, this is a major error in logic, because it is comparable to "God has ordered me to kill my children. He has ordered me to do so, so I must without further thought", which is absurd to think.

My opponent's entire argument is based around this fallacious reasoning, and because all of the argument is fallacious, we can throw out the entire argument. This means that my opponent has 0 standing arguments left, while they still hold the burden.

Vote con because of fallacious reasoning that pro uses, and because they have no arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
demoreo21

Pro

1. I did not forfeit. I didnt have enough time because it was finals week for the last week of school so i didnt have timt to post. 2. I am not saying: because God said so. I am sting proof FROM the bible against this topic. there is no verses in the bible to kill your children.
Lexus

Con

I apologise for not posting my source in the prior round, it is here: http://utminers.utep.edu...

Re: 1.
Per debate rules and customs, you did forfeit round two. It will likely on result in a loss of conduct points.

Re: 2.
Con says that he has not said that because God says so that we must believe there is nothing wrong with homophobia.
However, if we look to round three, he says "[it is okay to be homophobic because] it's what God thinks. period", and then goes on to give a couple of sources that we are asked to read. The quote that I used specifically tells us that he used an Appeal to Heaven argument, which is inherently fallacious and dangerous to use.
A lot of the sources that con has used thus far cite the bible's passages which have been open to mass disagreement. Some people believe that 'abomination' was used in a different way, and this can be seen in [1]. Some people believe that the Bible is just a storybook, that all works are works of fiction.
In any case, my opponent places an unnecessary trust in the Bible without explaining why. This is inherently fallacious, so vote con.



[1]. http://richardwaynegarganta.com...
Debate Round No. 4
demoreo21

Pro

at least i dont ask everyone to vote for me every round
Lexus

Con

Nothing relevant to rebut.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sara_ann_dee 2 years ago
sara_ann_dee
Who did I agree with before the debate: TIED ~ I did not agree with any side before the debate because i was unsure of exactly what the debate was about. The instigator should make the title more clear before submitting so voters do not have to read the actually debate to find out the topic.

Who did I agree with after the debate: CON ~ PRO did not put much effort into his arguments and it was visible to the voters, like myself. CON did a very good job proving why I should continue to agree with him (because I did before the debate - when I found out what the topic actually was).

Who had better conduct: CON ~ PRO was rude and throwing insults at CON like; "at least I do not ask people to vote for me." PRO failed to keep the debate in a mature, respectful, and structured manner because he also forfeited the second round.

Who had better spelling and grammar: CON ~ Both sides forgot to capitalize letters and put ending marks on their sentences. But PRO made this mistake for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, round when CON only made the error when he stated the word "forfeited."

Who had more convincing arguments: CON ~ CON made an effort to make valuable comebacks to PRO and definitely succeeded. He proved why homophobia was wrong, and he proved his opponent wrong. His opponent basically agreed at the end of the debate when he stated, "at least I do not ask people to vote for me." He did not address the fact or tried to make a counterargument towards CON's argument. And him using the words; "at least," show that he was admitting to agree with his opponent ~ therefore, granting this section to CON.

Who used the most reliable sources: PRO ~ PRO did do good in this section because he provided multiple links to support his argument. CON only included one, and the one which he included was very brief and did not support his argument to the best potential. PRO's sources did though (if he used the sources in his actual argument then he probably would have done a better job
Posted by Karnathan 2 years ago
Karnathan
Um... Introducing religion into the argument just makes it worse for you, PRO... Atheists are out there, as well as Agnostics, and many would not approve of your statement of, "It doesn't matter what mankind thinks. it's what God thinks. period." Also, your argument is filled with grammatical error, leading to future point deductions. In the end, you're just digging your own grave PRO.
Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago
mostlogical
Although Pro may seem to be making an extraordinary claim he can't be expected to prove it, or provide an argument when no argument has been put forward to him. Con should have really started straight away.

Feelings don't kill or harm other people, actions do, everyone has negative feelings at some time, it is how you deal with them that determines whether your action is right or wrong, which is why I think Con will struggle and also why I think this could be an interesting debate
Posted by Karnathan 2 years ago
Karnathan
Human nature (feelings/emotions) intervenes with human instinct (the value of ones life). Therefore, feelings can kill us. :)
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
I don't have to do anything if they forfeit :(
Posted by Karnathan 2 years ago
Karnathan
Pro has the BoP because he literally stated that there was nothing wrong with Homophobia. Therefore, the only thing Con has to do in order win this argument is to prove that there is something wrong with having a fear of homosexuals no matter how small the reason may be.
Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago
mostlogical
I think Con will have a hard time proving there is something wrong with having feelings. Also, not sure why Con thinks Pro should have the burden of proof when he must prove an absence of something.
Posted by Karnathan 2 years ago
Karnathan
Roosevelt*
Posted by Karnathan 2 years ago
Karnathan
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" - Rosevelt
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
yep
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
demoreo21LexusTied
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: FF, so conduct to Con. The BOP remained unfulfilled by Pro, because their only argument was "god said so therefore it's right." This argument isn't sufficient nor accurate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
demoreo21LexusTied
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: Pro forfeited a round, therefore he loses conduct. Pro never counted con's round three or four and therefore he loses arguments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
demoreo21LexusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round.
Vote Placed by cads 2 years ago
cads
demoreo21LexusTied
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 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: Pro really didn't do to well.