The Instigator
masterzanzibar
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

Homosexual relationships (married or not married) are ultimatley beneficial to society.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,069 times Debate No: 4654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (15)

 

masterzanzibar

Con

*before i begin this debate, please note that i am in no way making a personal attack on people who are homosexual in any way. also note that i am in no way a bigot, and am looking for an intelligent debate. every claim or attack that i do make in this round will be backed up by tangible evidence with sources cited.

Since i am con, i negate the resolution that "homosexual relationships (married or not married) are ultimately beneficial to today's society." i do so with the following three points:

I. Homosexual relationships encourage promiscuity, leading to the spread of aids.

II. intimate partner violence rates are astronomically higher in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual.

III. Homosexual couples show a far greater rate of mental health problems compared to married couples.

before i begin, i will start off with defining one term, and will establish a burden of proof for this round.

beneficial- Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous.
-dictionary.com

BURDEN OF PROOF:
Since the burden of proof is on the pro, the pro must prove by the end of the debate round that homosexual relationships will and are "Producing or promoting a favorable or advantageous result" within today's society ultimately, or are in other words doing more good to today's society than harm.

lets begin.

I. homosexual relationships encourage promiscuity through the ideals that are being practiced throughout a great portion of the homosexual community. A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous. According to study author Barry Adam, "Gay culture allows men to explore different forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.(Ryan Lee, "Gay Couples Likely to Try Non-monogamy, Study Shows-Washington Blade 03)

Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.(-A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309;)

heavy research pertaining to fidelity within marriages done by McWhirter and Mattison in 84 show us that the sexual fidelity in marriages differentiates largely between homosexuals and heterosexuals. statistics say that 85 percent of married heterosexual females, and 75 percent of married heterosexual males stay committed, while on other end only 4.5 percent of homosexual males reportedly stay committed to their mate. ( The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253;)

the impact of this promiscuity is heavy spread of sexually transmitted diseases, most importantly aids. At the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and In 2006, the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 14,627. clearly homosexual relationships do not have a beneficiary impact on our society, and in fact pose a negative one, for they increase the spread of aids.

II. Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice confirm that homosexual and lesbian relationships had a far greater incidence of domestic partner violence than opposite-sex relationships including cohabitation or marriage. 15.4 homosexual men, and 11.4 homosexual women report being victims of intimate partner violence while the rates for heterosexual men fell at 0.05 and heterosexual women just below .27 percent. the impact of this violence and these relationships on society stand to be the psychological effects that carry down throughout those who have been abused. if you have even been associated with a victim of abuse, it is simple to see that the abuse effects not only them, but those around them as well. It most definitely brings psychological destruction within the home, effecting the children of america, the future of our society. This should really be looked upon as perhaps the ultimate impact in this round, and is in no way beneficiary to society by any means.

III. Homosexual couples show a far greater rate of mental health problems compared to married couples. A twins study that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders(R. Herrell, et al., "A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
)

in conclusion, because of increasing the spread of aids, an increase in intimate violence, and a link to mental health problems, homosexual relationships are in no way beneficiary to society, which is why i negate this resolution.

good luck:)
Danielle

Pro

Let's set the record straight (no pun intended) - Pro and Con have equal burdens. Pro must prove the resolution to be true while Con must prove that the resolution remains untrue.

CON'S CONTENTIONS

I. GAY PROMISCUITY

A. MONOGAMY

I will begin by discrediting Con's first cited source. Barry Adam, the conductor of this survey/experiment, has said, "The study sample was diverse, but may not be representative of gay men as a whole, because "genuinely random samples of gay and bisexual men are virtually unachievable" [1]. Thus, the director of this experiment himself acknowledges that one survey of 70 gay men... out of all of the gay men that exist in the world... is NOT a good representation of all of Gay Society.

Further, "Matt Mutchler, a research and evaluation specialist for the AIDS Project Los Angeles, presented a study on communication between gay men... Mutchler discovered that many wanted to practice safe sex... "What they said runs contrary to the notion that gay men are totally irresponsible or are behaving recklessly," Mutchler said. "For the most part, the unprotected sex they have is with people they consider to be intimate partners" [1].

Mutchler goes on to explain that it is a lack of sex education that contributes to the problem regarding unsafe sexual practices between gay men. Why? Well the focus of safe sex education in schools has primarily been the promotion of abstinence until marriage... but since gay marriage is not an option, the lines are often blurred about what constitutes right/wrong regarding serious, monogamous relationships.

Moving on to my opponent's second source - Again I disagree with the validity of its claims. Doctor Harvey E. Kaye from The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry has found Con's source to be 'somewhat biased' in addition to being somewhat exclusive. The 'sociological excursion' of Bell and Weinberg are limited to the gay individuals of the San Francisco Bay area [2]. Additionally, this text from 1978 is outdated. While some older sources are justifiable, certainly one regarding sexuality - for which society and cultural changes play such a large role in terms of expression - should be more up to date for a better informed debate/analysis. However at least this source includes homosexual FEMALES instead of just being exclusive to males, as Con's first source was.

Next I will contest the reasoning that married heterosexuals practice fidelity more than homosexuals in relationships. Again, I point to the fact that homosexuals ARE NOT LEGALLY MARRIED, therefore a proper comparison cannot be fully addressed. That's like comparing the fidelity of married heterosexuals couples verses unmarried heterosexual couples. I'd be willing to bet that again the married couples had a higher rate of monogamy. Further, this 1984 study is again out dated regarding a topic that has shifted and advanced so much in the past 20+ years (i.e. the introduction of Civil Unions).

Moreover, Jan Laten, a demographics expert, notes that gay couples tend to dissipate more frequently than heterosexual marriages because gay couples tend to be two-income families with no children -- couples which have a higher risk of divorce than the straight population [3]. So why should gay couples be singled out from this equation? "Divorce rate statistics show that couples without children have a higher divorce rate in America" [4].

B. HIV/AIDS

First of all, my opponent has offered absolutely no proof/cited sources that gay men made up the majority of those diagnosed with HIV and AIDS in 2003 and 2006. He simply mentioned the number of people who were diagnosed, and proceeded with, "clearly homosexual relationships do not have a beneficiary impact on our society" which is laughable to me -- where is the correlation? He has drawn no link.

Perhaps if Con wishes to refer back to that ancient 1980s logic that only gay men have AIDS, he can scrounge up some info that proves his point. However in today's day and age, most people are aware of a few key facts about AIDS and HIV that Con seems to be forgetting. One, the number of people who are being diagnosed with AIDS is DECREASING, while the number of gay men who 'come out' is INCREASING. The decline in HIV is thanks to increasing awareness about the disease, its causes, and how you can prevent it. In no way does it link to 'increasing' homosexual behavior.

Two, GAY MEN DO NOT MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF THOSE INFECTED WITH HIV. In fact it is intravenous-drug users; those who share needles while shooting drugs like heroin. And let's not forget that not only gay men are exposed to the risk -- men and women of every sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, economic standing, etc. are all exposed to the risk. Certain BEHAVIOR leads to contracting the disease - such as practicing unsafe sex in general - not specifically practicing unsafe sex between men only.

Further, let's not forget that sometimes there are 'accidental' cases of rape, i.e. a nurse in February dying from accidentally contracting the virus whilst taking blood from a patient [5]. And finally, the "group" that is least likely to contract AIDS is actually homosexual women. That idea nullifies any correlation between homosexuals and the virus -- too often in this debate has Con completely neglected gay women as pertaining to homosexual relationships.

II. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

First of all, almost every study/survey will note that exact facts regarding domestic violence are unattainable, because the problem is that MANY WOMEN ARE TOO AFRAID TO COME FORWARD about the abuse they have sustained. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude a true depiction of domestic violence overall. However, out of global studies that *I* have found, it has been noted that nearly 1/2 of women in relationships have been the victim of domestic violence. Originally it was concluded that only 1/3 had been affected, which only proves my point that increasing awareness and honesty has drawn about new results. This cited source [6] proves my claims to be true.

On the contrary, Con has not cited ANY source regarding the number of people who suffer from domestic violence. Therefore my citation stands, and clearly 50% or even 33.3% is higher than Con's report that 15% of gay men and 11% of gay women are abused. Thus, I have won this contention.

III. MENTAL HEALTH

Con's point is ridiculous. He cites a study in which twins were evaluated, and in the cases for which one twin was gay, his chances of being depressed or suicidal were increased...? What does that have to do with anything? The facts remain that there are numerous theories about the causes of depression such as biological and genetic factors, environmental influences, and childhood or developmental events - not homosexuality [7]. Further, because there is also speculation about why homosexuals are gay (including biological factors), perhaps there is a GENETIC reason that links the two, in which case a homosexual nor their relationship can be blamed.

PRO'S CONTENTIONS

Because I have unfortunately run out of characters, I will have to address my contentions for Pro in the next round. As of now, I have at least debunked all of Con's contentions, meaning if you believe in relationships existing at all, there is no reason to vote against homosexual relationships -- Con has provided no substantial reasoning to make his case and sway you to do so.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.washblade.com...
[2] http://www.pep-web.org...
[3] http://www.news24.com...
[4] http://www.aboutdivorce.org...
[5] http://www.metro.co.uk...
[6] http://www.globalaging.org...
[7] http://www.allaboutdepression.com...
Debate Round No. 1
masterzanzibar

Con

starting off, i would like to Thank you, theLwerd, for accepting this debate. you seem very knowledgeable and it is a pleasure to debate this with you.

i will attack the route the PRO has taken throughout this debate, attack the claims the PRO has made against my case while reaffirming my case simultaneously.

II. Homosexual relationships encourage promiscuity, leading to the spread of aids.

my opponent's first attack on this point went through explaining that the studies done by Barry adams were not representative of the whole, however it was for this reason-to enhance diversity and demonstrate a more accurate view- that i provided several different studies pertaining to the same subject, promiscuity within homosexual relationships.

i will include more to further emphasize my point.

- nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.(Wiederman in 97)

-telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows(PR Newswire 94)

in comparison to

-The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year (AIDS Magazine 94)

-A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners
( Lambda Report, January 1998)
-In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.(Van de Ven 97)

the second attack my opponent has made against my 1st contention in this round has been in the attempt to discredit the classic Bell and Weinberg study of 1978, and while this tangible piece of evidence may be in the past, it is not obviously not outdated, for promiscuity is still an ideal that is evidently being accepted and practiced within a large portion of the homosexual community. "Gay culture allows men to explore different forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals" (adams 03) additionally, just because the study has been done in 1978 does not negate the validity of the other studies and sources used in this round.

the third attack against my first contention stands to be the fact that my opponent believes that there are large discrepancies between unmarried and married homosexual couples. however research indicates that it isn't what type of relationship, its more the ideology taught within homosexual culture.

hayton in 03 states that
"Homosexuals...are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. Sexual relationships are primarily for pleasure rather than procreation. And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good "marital" relationship what's further, is while the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a significant difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even "committed" homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage."

the complete attack against my HIV/ AIDS argument has been backed up by three arguments which i will contend now.
1. no link between aids and homosexuality

the link is found in promiscuity within homosexual culture. it is an undisputed fact that sexual promiscuity generally puts individuals who are promiscuous in grave risk of getting the disease. additionally, The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than did those without a steady partner. Anal intercourse has been linked with a host of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. (Coxon 93)

2. the CON has neglected lesbian relationships in this round

i suppose the evidence that i have given out has been a tad one sided towards homosexual men. however, to make the claim that i have not included any evidence pertaining to female homosexual relationships is completely untrue.

further on, evidence indicates that The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false. The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false
"The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: "The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW (women who have sex with women) was similar to all wsw." One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."

3. lack of education real problem
while i do agree with my opponent that lack of sex education plays a large role in HIV/AIDS. the level of promiscuity seen within homosexual culture, and shown to you through statistics provided, is something that no sort of sexual education will cure.

notice that i am in no way advocating that every homosexual person has aids, nor am i advocating that every homosexual is promiscuous, however, what i am advocating is that promiscuity is an ideal generally accepted within gay culture and ideology. (provided sources for that claim earlier in both rounds) the plain fact is that sexual promiscuity increases the spread of HIV/AIDS and the risk of being diagnosed with such. additionally, even if my opponent had proved to you that the statistics for promiscuity were less than i've shown in this debate round, my opponent concedes the fact that the statistics are still there, ultimately saying that homosexuality does more harm to society than good. deeming the resolution FALSE. i win this point.

II intimate partner violence
my opponent has attacked this contention through merely stating that we cannot conclude on domestic violence polls because the results are unattainable, however, he has not provided any evidence that shows correlation between different sexual orientations and their willingness to report abuse. my evidence still stands. he attacked this point secondly with stating that 50 percent of all victims report domestic violence. however, there were no statistics on what percentile of those were homosexual. according to the U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs, in total victimized individuals 40 percent of homosexual females, and 23 percent of homosexual males report abuse, comparatively to 22 percent hetero females, and less than 9 percent of males. again the evidence is right before you, showing that intimate partner violence is more common in homosexual relationships than in hetero.

III. i am running out of characters so i will shortly contend his third attack, he argues that there is a variety of genetic and environmental factors that could lead to suicide. reread eviden I contend that the tests were done with identical twins to rule out biases, and that the correlation lies within homosexuality. the facts are there, Vote Con
Danielle

Pro

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
masterzanzibar

Con

in response to my opponent's argument in the comment box:

First off, no where within this debate have a i made any claims that have not been backed up by legitimate cited evidence. it is not true in any degree that i have ever advocated that all gay people have aids, nor have i advocated that you get aids when you are homosexual or anything relatively close to what my opponent falsely claims that i have stated. i stated that promiscuity leads to aids. tangible polls, statistics, and quotes back up the claim that promiscuity is generally accepted within gay culture. if my opponent can show me otherwise then i will gladly side with her. however, instead of attacking these points my opponent makes a personal attack as she screams bigot in my face, claims i am ignorant, and claims i want to put a limit on the amount of free will and agency that people have in this world;i am not a bigot, i am not ignorant, and i believe that people who are homosexual should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they are true to their consciences. if you read the debate you will notice that no where within it i have advocated stripping the rights of homosexuals once so ever ANYWHERE. my opponent has failed to construct any case of her own, and fights evidence that i've provided with sole anger, and nothing else, simply because we don't see eye to eye.
spectators, you may vote which ever way you wish but actually read the debate before you do.
Danielle

Pro

Con has made the mistake of addressing comments I made in the Comment Section in R3, thus essentially forfeiting his final round to refute what he could have stated in the Comment Section alone. So basically, we have both forfeited one round content-wise and thus are at an equal advantage as I finish up Round 3. So here's what I got:

--> "no where within this debate have a i made any claims that have not been backed up by legitimate cited evidence."

Actually, Con's evidence was shabby, at best. I provided specific links that led my opponent and you, the readers, directly to the source of my information. Pro, on the other hand, vaguely cited incomprehensible sources, i.e. "(Van de Ven 97) and "(Wiederman in 97)" -- What the Hell is that? An author? A book? Page numbers? A Year? How am I supposed to see this information in black and white if I do not own the hard copies of these documents, and no proper citation is provided? I realize this is not exactly research paper, but clearly anyone who is using supposed legit evidence would want to properly cite their sources, no? Besides, what we DO know about Con's sources is that they are out-dated and biased to say the LEAST. *Point: Pro.*

--> "i stated that promiscuity leads to aids. tangible polls, statistics, and quotes back up the claim that promiscuity is generally accepted within gay culture."

What Con did NOT state, however, is the fact that there are innumerable ways in which one could contract AIDS, and he also failed to address my statement regarding the fact that drug users remain the highest demographic of those who contract AIDS - *not* homosexuals. Further, lesbians make up the demographic of the 'smallest group' of people who contract the deadly virus... yet numerous times throughout this debate, Con has failed to address the fact that lesbian relationships make up 1/2 of gay relationships. All of his studies, facts and biased research pertains largely to men -- one of many huge flaws in his case. *This point definitely goes to Pro.*

Taking a look back at R2, Con attempts to defend his Gays Are Promiscuous argument by stating, "...this tangible piece of evidence may be in the past, it is not obviously not outdated, for promiscuity is still an ideal that is evidently being accepted and practiced within a large portion of the homosexual community." However to make his point, Con should have then included a piece of relevant, more recent information, BUT HE DIDN'T! Meaning he concedes to the fact that his 'evidence' is old, and does nothing to provide new evidence which suggests that his old evidence still stands if it ever did at all.

Further, while promiscuity may increase the likelihood of contracting HIV, practicing safe sex DECREASES that chance. Con himself has admitted that a lack of adequate safe sex education exists in the public school system, especially regarding homosexual sex. Therefore according to Con's logic, if it is AIDS that is so dangerous, then it's not homosexual relationships that are non-beneficial to society but rather the lack of sex education. *Another point for the Pro here.*

Additionally, I'd like to (properly) cite some facts of my own regarding gay relationships:

1. In a RECENT study, psychoanalysts believe that most homosexuals live a lifestyle more geared towards health and wellness than illness.

2. 40-60% OF GAY MEN AND 45-70% OF LESBIAN WOMEN ARE IN A STEADY RELATIONSHIP (what people do sexually is their own business, and if we're going to hold gay people accountable for their sexual health, than we must hold heterosexuals to the same standard -- heterosexuals are not absolved from promiscuity, and in fact more straight men have AIDS and other STDs than gay men).

3. STUDIES OF OLDER HOMOSEXUALS SHOW THAT RELATIONSHIPS LASTING OVER 20 YEARS IS NOT UNCOMMON IN THE COMMUNITY.

And finally, I would like to quote research that entirely dismantles the Bell & Weinberg theory, proving why their methodology completely invalidates any of their findings. However I frequently run out of characters while debating, so I'll try to include only my main point -- that in a parallel study using random gay and straight men (much less biased than the B&W study which surveyed gay men they found in clubs, baths, etc. verses heterosexual married men living in suburbs) found that straight men actually have more sexual partners than gay men. All of these facts and more can be cited at number [1]. I encourage a good read. *Again, many more points for the Pro.*

--> Regarding Gays and mental health/relationships, TIME magazine writes - "John Gottman, a renowned couples therapist who was then at the University of Washington, and Robert Levenson, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, led a team that evaluated 40 same-sex couples and 40 straight married couples. The psychologists concluded that gays and lesbians are nicer than straight people during arguments with partners: they are significantly less belligerent, less domineering and less fearful. Gays and lesbians also use humor more often when arguing (and lesbians use even more humor than gays, which I hereby dub 'the Ellen DeGeneres effect'). The authors concluded that 'heterosexual relationships may have a great deal to learn from homosexual relationships'" [2].

--> In terms of domestic violence, "The debate over gay marriage has stirred many negative comments in the media, with some seeming bent on citing any research they can find (even if outdated and irrelevant) to continue to present gay men as child molesters who would harm children. This issue is directly relevant, as marriage is a protective factor against violence... One could argue convincingly, however, that by denying marriage and the legal, religious, and familial support it should bring to gay couples, society discriminates and harms gay couples by placing them at an increased risk for relationship violence" [3].

--> In terms of mental health, sadly Con is right about homosexuals being unhappy. "The heterosexual couple that was concerned about acceptance by their mutual families was exceptional, whereas this was the rule for homosexual couples. Heterosexual couples lived with some expectation that their relationships were to last 'until death do us part,' whereas gay couples wondered if their relationships could survive. Heterosexual couples have a wide variety of models for their partnerships. Gay men have only the same heterosexual models, including their own families, which they may try to emulate but find unsuitable. Non-gay people rarely question the rightness or wrongness of their sexual orientation, but at some point gay persons do" [3]. Perhaps these sad truths reveal a lot about why many homosexuals are depressed/suicidal, hmm?

In that case, this brings me to my point as to why I am In Favor of the resolution. Regardless of whether or not a gay man has a boyfriend, he's still gay. Why shouldn't he find love and maintain a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender? I believe that too many people are suffering from the pressures of 'societal norms': irrelevant rules that should no longer be 'norms' at all. I feel that homosexual relationships are in fact beneficial to society, because the more gay people live moral lives without fear or embarrassment, the better off future generations will be in terms of overcoming prejudice, bigotry and hate. Con has done nothing to prove why homosexual relationships are non-beneficial to society; even his incredibly flawed attempts resulted in destruction to the individual only - not society at large. However my reasoning as to why the resolution should be affirmed pertains to all of society in general.

SOURCES:
[1] http://www.jeramyt.org...
[2] http://www.time.com...
[3] http://www.psychpage.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Ragnar_Rahl please note i am discussing homosexuality itself not the humans who choose to become homosexual."
Discussing an action without relation to the person who is the only reason for the action is not coherent.
Posted by djexcelsior 9 years ago
djexcelsior
i kinda like policy debate, and the strategy of it. I also dont believe that you have to be strongly for or against the resolution you are debating on. Your supposed to be able to debate both sides anyway.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
"I'm voting PRO - CON's arguments lack foundation in reality."

Yes, be this one of the many downsides to policy or LD debate (especially policy). Due to the nature of the sport, you become accustomed to using or dealing with very absurd "washed of any real life basis" arguments. That was probably the case with CON here. He came in expecting that people would overlook the content of his arguments and would simply focus on the strategical aspect.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
I'm voting PRO - CON's arguments lack foundation in reality.
Posted by djexcelsior 9 years ago
djexcelsior
HOMOZEXUALZ ROKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop being so IGNORANT!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
To be honest, theLwerd, I too saw this debate in the challenge section and had much the same reaction. It smacks of a christian website 'list of facts of why god was right to hate'. The premises do not support the conclusions, the research is out dated and frankly, even if it was not, society, government nor religion has the right to say homosexuality is bad for society. Views should not be allowed to go unchallenged merely because it lays under the protection of religion, any religion. Religion and the pure ignorance it breeds is detrimental to society, not homosexuality.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
I'll be honest: I don't deserve to win this debate (not that I would have anyway -- votes mean absolutely nothing to me on this site anymore now that someone stalks/trolls me *shrugs*). Reason being for the simple fact that I have finally met my match -- an opponent I truly don't feel that I could argue against. Why? Because his ignorance baffles me. No seriously. It's not that arrogant kind of annoying ignorance (think: Solarman) but rather that hopelessly brainwashed kind of sad ignorance, the kind that makes me stare blankly at my computer screen for a few seconds before screaming WHAT! THE! FU<K! I mean seriously, people, this guy actually brought out the whole "Gay people have AIDS" argument as a reason to be against homosexual relationships! Not even being against gay MARRIAGE but against gay relationships in general! What the Hell! As if anyone has any right to tell whom who to date or sleep with! Jesus me, this is too ridiculous, and hardly worth my time. I honestly had no clue how to respond to my opponent during R2 so admittedly I just kind of ignored the argument due until it was too late. I'm disappointed and shocked and saddened by the fact that I think my opponent's ignorance is sincere -- another one of the brainwashed many who use distorted logic and misguided facts to generate a trite response, one that sends us back decades in the progress department regarding human rights. But anyway. I not so excitedly look forward to R3, in which I will basically just wrap up why I am affirming the resolution. That's it.
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Exactly, Brian. ;) Just like every lesbian is missing that magic cure that some gents feel are all that stands between them and straightdom.
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
So people choose to become gay? I wondered how it worked.

So George Michael out of Wham! grew tired having fantastic sex with incredibly attractive teenage girls and thought "just for a change, I'm going to hang around the gents toilets in the hope that some big, fat, hairy trucker comes in and offers to ram his *****-encrusted **** up my sweaty Greek ****"?
Posted by masterzanzibar 9 years ago
masterzanzibar
Ragnar_Rahl please note i am discussing homosexuality itself not the humans who choose to become homosexual.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 9 years ago
indianajones644
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by sorevilo 9 years ago
sorevilo
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Killer542 9 years ago
Killer542
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by djexcelsior 9 years ago
djexcelsior
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by youseeovermyhead 9 years ago
youseeovermyhead
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
masterzanzibarDanielleTied
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