The Instigator
demoreo21
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KarolusMagnus1
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Homopshobic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
KarolusMagnus1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 416 times Debate No: 75867
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

demoreo21

Pro

I am homophobic. There is nothing wrong with it. Anyone who thinks they can prove me wrong, BRING IT ON!
KarolusMagnus1

Con

I accept this debate. Given that pro has not provided a framework I will use this round to do so and then await my opponent to initialize the argumentation.

Definitions:

1. homophobic: (from Webster's Dictionary)
Definition of HOMOPHOBIA
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
" ho"mo"pho"bic \-G2;f!3;-bik\ adjective

2. wrong: (from Webster's Dictionary)
Definition of WRONG
1
a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause
b : a violation or invasion of the legal rights of another; especially : tort
2
: something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law

Voting Issues:

Based upon these definitions, and the wording of my opponent's challenge, the burden of proof is upon ME to prove that the state of being homophobic is injurious, unfair, unjust, a violation of legal rights, immoral, or unethical. If I can prove that the state of being homophobic is any of these things, then the statement that "homophobia is wrong," would be true, and I should win the debate. My opponent has no burden except to rebut each of my arguments. If he succeeds in doing so, then he should win the debate. He can also win if he is able to substantiate some argument which provides reason for disregarding or outweighing what I have said.

Good luck demoreo21.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
demoreo21

Pro

demoreo21 forfeited this round.
KarolusMagnus1

Con

My opponent ha forfeited his round and therefore has conceded my framework. With this in mind I offer 2 arguments:

1. My opponent's homophobia is likely illegal, and therefore "wrong."

The definition of homophobia which I supplied included discrimination against homosexuals. In most places in the United States, discrimination against persons on the basis of sexuality is illegal (http://www.nolo.com...). My definition of wrong also included illegal acts. Therefore, because my opponent did not object to my framework, you can vote Con because his homophobia is probably illegal, and therefore "wrong."

2. My definition of homophobia specified that it is "irrational." If a person is causing another person harm (for example in the form of discrimination), for irrational reasons, then your cruelty is unjustified and therefore "wrong." Once again, because my opponents never objected to the framework, you can vote Con without hesitation.

Thank you, and good luck to my opponent.
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. I have provided you these sources to read. Please read carefully.

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

http://www.bible.ca...
KarolusMagnus1

Con

My opponent does not respond to either of my contentions, so you can vote for me based on his having dropped my arguments.

In terms of his contention: There are (3) problems.
1. His argument is a call to authority, but he gives no reason for us to respect the Bible as an authority.
2. He claims that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, but it doesn't. The bible says things about homosexual acts, but nothing about homosexuals themselves. Some gay people remain celibate for the sake of their religious beliefs, so homophobic beliefs target them unjustly.
3. He gives on justification for why homophobia is okay just because homosexuality is wrong. Everyone sins, that does not justify bigotry against those who might commit a certain type of unethical act.

My opponent has not responded to any of my points, and every single link in his argument is logically inconsistent. Please vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
demoreo21

Pro

at least i dont ask to vote for myself every round.
KarolusMagnus1

Con

My opponent once again fails to counter either of my arguments. Vote for me because by the very definitions of homophobia and wrong, Con should win.

He continues with a quick ad hominem attack, but you shouldn't buy it because he never explains why you should vote against me just because I ask you to vote for me.

Good luck to my opponent and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
demoreo21

Pro

demoreo21 forfeited this round.
KarolusMagnus1

Con

KarolusMagnus1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PatriotPerson 1 year ago
PatriotPerson
Pro has made a fallacy (ad hominem) and forfeited. Con has this in the bag.
Posted by gametimer 2 years ago
gametimer
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this guy. Or girl. But tell me, in all honesty, do you hate lesbians equally as gays? I think they are the same thing but whateves.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Inquistive 1 year ago
Inquistive
demoreo21KarolusMagnus1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Everyone has the right to an opinion and Pro may think homosexuality is wrong but Con has proven that homophobia is, by definition, wrong as well. Pro's arguments were weak and their forfeiture was prominent. Con had exceptional conduct, grammar and sources in comparison to Pro. Con had reliable sources for all of their information except for their rebuttals and using information from previous arguments, where of course no sources were needed. I am Muslim and once was Christian and I can support that the Bible is against homosexual ACTS but not homosexuals specifically. Con ultimately won this because of their maturity, conduct, grammar, sources, arguments and the fact that I personally support the stance.