Debate Rounds (5)
I am homophobic. There is nothing wrong with it. Anyone who thinks they can prove me wrong, BRING IT ON!
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
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
: something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially : principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law
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.
demoreo21 forfeited this round.
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.
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
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.
demoreo21 forfeited this round.
KarolusMagnus1 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Inquistive 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||7|
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.
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.