The Instigator
Ajab
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Burncastle
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Homosexuality Is Immoral!

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...
Ajab
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,383 times Debate No: 54911
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (4)

 

Ajab

Pro

The resolution is that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral".

Rules:
1. By accepting the debate you automaticaly bind yourself to the rules and the onus I have set.
2. First round for acceptance only.
2. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals, and if desired a summary.
3. In round 5 a conclusion must be submitted, much like the reply speech in British Parlimentary (in essence you summarize the issues so far and show how these issues were tackled by you but not by your opponent).
4. No semantic arguments.
5. All sources are accepted, even books, if the page or chapter reference are give. It is for the voters to decide whether those sources are respectable enough.
6. No moving from the topic, we are not discussing gay marriage or laws, we are discussing whether homosexuality ought to be.
7. Con must provide a counter-argument seperate from rebuttals, the failure to do so should result in loss of voter points.

Definitions:
1. Homosexuality is consentual and intentiounal 'erotic activity with a member of the sam sex'[1]
2. Immoral means that engaging in such an act will not yield the summum bonum, that is the "highest good". In essence that homosexuality ought not to be.
3. Morality will be determined by will, such that if the will is carried out perfectly it will yield the summum bonum, or the highest good.
[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

These defintions may be challenged but will result in a definition challenge being issued by the Opposition.[2]
[2]Part 2 — Definitions

2.1 The definition

2.1.1 The definition should state the issue (or issues) for debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation.

2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.
2.1.3 The definition must:

(a) have a clear and logical link to the motion - this means that an average reasonable person would accept the link made by the member between the motion and the definition (where there is no such link the definition is sometimes referred to as a "squirrel");
(b) not be self-proving - a definition is self-proving when the case is that something should or should not be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal. A definition is may also be self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists or does not exist and there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are sometimes referred to as "truisms").
(c) not be time set - this means that the debate must take place in the present and that the definition cannot set the debate in the past or the future; and
(d) not be place set unfairly - this means that the definition cannot restrict the debate so narrowly to a particular geographical or political location that a participant of the tournament could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the place.

2.2 Challenging the definition

2.2.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules. The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.
2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister.

2.3 Assessing the definitional challenge

2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be ‘unreasonable’ where it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules.
2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members asserting that the definition is unreasonable.
2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.
2.3.4 Where the definition of the Opening Government is unreasonable and an alternative definition is substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may introduce matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government and consistent with the definition of the Opening Opposition.
2.3.5 If the Opening Opposition has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable, the Closing Government may challenge the definition of the Opening Opposition and substitute an alternative definition.
2.3.6 If the Closing Government has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable (in addition to the unreasonable definitions of the Opening Government and Opening Opposition, the Closing Opposition may challenge the definition of the Closing Government and substitute an alternative definition.


Onus:
1. The onus of proving that homosexuality is imoral rests entirely on the proposition. If the opposition show that the argument is illogical (it goes against the rules of validity) they gain half the points only. Keeping in mind the "argument from fallacy" they also have to attack premises and show that the argument is unsound. That the conclusion is false. They ay do this by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is, and win the debate. If the opposition should bring about a claim, or evidence such as: homosexuality is natural they must prove that claim beyond doubt.

Ajab

Please understand that if you are not eligible however you feel you can debate this topic and will properly comment and I will make it so you can accept.
Burncastle

Con

I accept this debate, but I would like to say two things:

1) Using the same source my opponent has ( http://www.merriam-webster.com...), I present the other definition of homosexuality:

- The quality or state of being homosexual

By this definition, the debate is about whether the mere fact of BEING homosexual is immoral, not only ACTS of homosexuality.

2) This is more of a sidenote: I won't be using analogy with the British Parliament, I hope my opponent doesn't mind.

I hope for stimulating debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Ajab

Pro

Ajab forfeited this round.
Burncastle

Con

Burncastle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ajab

Pro

Let me start by thanking my opponent for accepting the debate, I hope it proves to be a productive one. I once more stress the importance to adhere to the rules which I have mentioned above, also while it is not part of the rules I would like to point out that I cannot use youtube due to my country's laws, and I would request my opponent to keep an easy font.

I am still sick so this is copy/pasted from an old post, I will be better by tomorrow hopefully. Please support your definition, I will count it as a challenge.

The Argument In Premise-Conclusion:
1. All sexual activity that is moral is also rational,
2. All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction,
3. Ergo: all moral sexual activity is done solely for reproduction.

The Argument As Syllogism (with star-test validity check):
1. all S* is R,
2. all R* is Q,
3. Ergo: all S is Q*.
By starring the distributed letters in the premises and the undistributed letter in the conclusion we see that there is indeed only one star on the right-hand side and that each letter is starred exactly one time, this means that the syllogism is logically valid: if the premise are shown to be correct then the conclusion must logically follow.
[1]http://www.harryhiker.com......

The First Premise (Major Premise):
The first premise that forms a general statement argues that any sexual activity that is moral, or that ought to be is also rational, so that there if any action is moral, it must be within reasonable grounds.
Definitions of the first premise:
1. Sexual activites here refer to in general those activities which have a sexual will or intent as their base and where there is vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by a penis, or penis like structure (includes everything from fingers to sexual objects, commonly referred to as dildos): this means that engaging in coitus is included as long as there is a sexual drive, or sexual base at the action's heart.
2. Morals are those actions of whose will's perfect fulfillment would lead to the summum bonum, or the highest good. Morals are those actions, which are identifies by will, so that is the will is carried out perfectly the action ought* to be, and will result in the highest good.
3. The highest good is when happiness arises out of virtue.
4. Rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. It is such that anything which is rational must be reasonable and explainable, it would not be something which is unjustifiable. In example one cannot justify raping a four year old because of lust, for the action was irrational, that is the opposite of rational.
Proof:
1. That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable. It is not that all that is reasonable is moral but it does follow that all that is moral is reasonable. For surely it is self-evident that unless you believe in absurdism of Albert Camus and anarchy that the highest good is attainable only by actions which can be expressed within the boundaries of reason. That is the basis of all court systems, human integrity and even morality. While that is a seperate discussion that morality can be realised through reason (something I would ask my opponent not to bring in) all morals once realized (through whiever means) will have a logical foundation.
*I wish to remind everyone that that which 'is' does not under any condition entail that which 'ought' to be. There is a major difference between them. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume writes: ' In every system...nor is perceived by reason.'
[1]A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, pagination 335
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org......

The Second Premise (Minor Premise):
Definitions:
1. Reproduction here entails the engagement of an act with a sexual will such that if the will is carried out completely, and is rational then there should be a direct result of pregnancy and child-birth. Reproduction here means that your sexual activities should, if there is no unexpected problem, lead to child birth. My argument however is satisfied simply with there being intent (by the definition used for morality) for reproduction. This does not mean that if homosexuals intend to give birth by sex their sexual activities would be moral, for it is within the bounds of reason that homosexuals not being able to make children is an expected problem.
Clarifications:
1. I will provide two proofs for my second premise. The first will address it from a Theological Perspective, and the second will address it from an Evolutionary Perspective. For my argument to fail both proofs will have to be shattered. However before moving onto the proofs let me explain the connection of reproduction to rational, as I have done for rational and moral above. My argument centers on the connection through rational grounding. In essence since our first premise already informs us that all actions that our moral are rational our second premise seeks to establish that the rational behind moral sex is reproduction. My opponent must argue or show that the rational behind moral sex is not reproduction, but there is some other rational.
2. It is worthy to state that this rationale will from this point be known as the 'rational grounding' of moral sex. Let us make it very clear that there may be many reasons however there is one primary rational behind a moral, and if that primary rational is established to be reproduction I will win this debate. So I believe that the connection should become clear now, that since our first premise states that that action which is moral is also rational, our second premise simply asserts that the rational is reproduction.
3. Since we have already spoke about how sexual activities bases lie in will, it neccessary to understand that my argument will show the rational grounding of lust. For that which drives sexual activities is lust. The connection is not lost, nor is it confused. It is simply so that the rational grounding of sexual activities is lust. This means that if there was no lust, men and women would not have sex, for man is led by desire in such circumstances, in this case sexual activites are inspired by an instinct: lust. Therefore we will seek to establish the rational grounding of lust, which will establish the rational grounding of sex, which will establish the grounds of moral sex. There is a clear sequence, even if it is slightly long.
The Theological Proof:
This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution and believe in God. I ask the opponent not to attack this argument with: 'How do you know there is a God?' as this proof is meant for those who believe in God.
It so claims that firstly God is infinitely just and infinitely good[1], and that He would not give man something as Lust which He knew would cause problems and sin without a just cause. We know from an areligious but theological principle that sexual activity is sin as it taints the atemporal, aspacial, anumerical, transcendental love for God. Now the argument states that the only just reason that God can have foe giving humanity lust must reside in something. That something is reproduction, that an infinitely good and just God would only give humanity lust because it aids humanity in carrying on. There is no other logical reason that states that God would have given man lust other than as a test which would automatically mean that lust leads to immorality. For a lenghty explanation see[2][3].
[1]Theodicy by Leibniz, pagination 33 onwards, Chapter: 'On the Justice of God...'
[2]Critique of Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant, pagination 329, Chapter: 'The Existence of God as a Postulate of Practical Reason'.
[3]The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, pagination 426, Chapter: 'Marriage Right' and pagination 548, Chapter: 'On Defiling Oneself by Lust'
The Evolutionary Argument:
This argument centers on the belief that evolution is a proven theory, and that through evolution one may explain the rational grounding of lust. As this is the argument most will go for let me start by giving it in premise-conclusion terms:
1. All insincts that are not neccessary for survival are made redundant by evolution,
2. Lust has not been made redundant by evolution,
3. Ergo: Lust is neccessary for survival.
Now onwards to the explanation of this argument. We understand that anything that is not neccessary or pertinent to survival is slowly removed by evolution[4][5]. Now we understand that lust is an instinct and is innate as it comes into exertion naturally by itself, and takes the form of a desire, these characteristics are of an instinct[5]. Now let us understand that evolution has not made lust redundant, our bodies have felt that lust is neccessary for our survival. That it is a quality of the 'fittest' and natural selection has kept it. This means that sex must lead directly to the survival of the human race. Sex only leads to the direct survival of the human race when it is done for sexual purposes. This means that the rational grounding, the reason why humans have lust is because of reproductory purposes.
[4]On the Origin of Species by Charles Robert Darwin, pagination 189, Chapter: 'Instinct"
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org......
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org......;

Derivation of Conclusion:
Once that we understand that morality entails rationality, we need only look for the rationality of the moral to understand the moral itself, amazingly we can do this without realizing what the moral entails we need only know the subject. The subject here is moral sex, so we must find the rationality of sex. We founf that rationality to lie within lust, therefore we looked to the rationality of lust from a theological and an evolutionary perspective. We found that the answer led to reproduction. So we may safely conclude that sex is moral only when done for reproduction.

Side Remarks:
1. I wish once more my opponent good luck in his answers.

3. I hope the voters will not go to emotion but think about this debate from a rational perspective.

Ajab
Burncastle

Con

Two things before I rebut my opponent:
1) I supported my definition with the same source my opponent used for his, so they should both stand equally.
2) BoP is on my opponent since he is making a positive claim.

A little reminder of my opponent’s argument:
1. All sexual activity that is moral is also rational,
2. All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction,
3. Ergo: all moral sexual activity is done solely for reproduction.

Premise 1: My opponent asserts that what is moral is also rational (his premise specifies sexual activity but his argument doesn’t really address that). He does not support this assertion; he merely defines each term and concludes with That which is moral must be explained by reason and must be justifiable, which is simply a rephrasing of his premise. He then goes on to say that it is self-evident that morality is based on reason, which is not really an argument. That being said, I will grant, for the sake of this debate, that morality is indeed base on reason simply because I actually tend to agree with that.

Premise 2: My opponent asserts that a sexual activity can ONLY be considered rational if it the goal is reproduction. But that doesn’t really fit with my opponent’s definition of rational; according to him, rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. If I have sex for sheer pleasure, isn’t it considered a justification? Isn’t it reasonable to want pleasure? I would posit that it is and therefore that having sex for something other than reproduction can be considered rational, according to my opponent’s definition. There is also a problem with the way this premise is formulated: my opponent says sexual activities that are rational are done for reproduction, which implies that some sexual activities are irrational and therefore escape my opponent’s syllogism. Nonetheless, my opponent tries to defend this premise with two arguments: a theological one (which he doesn’t want me to address, since I’m an atheist) and evolutionary one (which I will address). The evolutionary argument that my opponent gives is basically a weird version of a fallacy of appeal to nature; he states that since lust is the product of evolution and that evolution is only focused on survival, sex must only be used to facilitate survival. In other words, according to my opponent, sex should only be used for the purpose that nature has decided, which is a fallacy.

Now, even if someone were to consider my opponent’s entire argument to be good (valid and sound), it would still fail to address the definition of homosexuality that I gave, which addresses the mere fact of BEING homosexual. I’m looking forward to my opponent’s arguments regarding this.

My opponent’s whole argument is also based on the assumption that sexual activities are either moral or immoral, but I would posit that they are (in most cases) amoral, meaning that attributing a degree of morality to them is senseless. Before I go further into this, I need to ask my opponent some questions (which are all the same, basically):

Is watching TV moral or immoral?
Is playing monopoly moral or immoral?
Is singing moral or immoral?

I will explain these questions in my next round. If my opponent wants me to address the theological argument, I would like to know.
Debate Round No. 3
Ajab

Pro

Ajab forfeited this round.
Burncastle

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Ajab

Pro

Ajab forfeited this round.
Burncastle

Con

I understand that my opponent is sick and I am open to redo this debate with him if he so wishes.
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Burncastle, when you make an argument, it is your burden to explain that argument and support it. Your opponent does have the central burden of proof in this debate, but both debaters have the burden to support their arguments.

For example, you did state that pleasure is another rational function of sex. However, the topic isn't "Homosexuality Is Irrational," and in order to show that pleasure plays a role in whether homosexuality is immoral you have to show how the rationality behind having sex for pleasure makes it moral. I don't see that argument anywhere in your post. Pro took the time to explain how what is moral is inherently rational (something you didn't contest), and then proceeded to explain that sex with the purpose of producing children was moral through two different proofs. He gave me those solid links, even if I disagree with much of how they work. I never said he didn't meet his burden of proof - hell, I never even mentioned burden of proof in my RFD.

The reasoning you gave for not responding to the theological argument was flawed. Just because you cannot dispute the existence of that god to respond to this point doesn't mean you can't dispute the point. You can't just abdicate any responsibility to respond to one of his two major proofs on the basis that you can't use the most obvious argument.

I'm not sure why you think that my reasoning is based off of the fact that the debate wasn't completed, since I gave a number of pertinent reasons using what was said. I said that your best point in the debate was never completed in the round that you posted it, something you apparently could have done should you have decided to expand on it in that round, since you didn't get anywhere near the character limit. Perhaps you would have completed it in the following round if the debate had continued, but I can't assess it based on what you might have said. So the lack of a link story or impact on that particular contention makes it unimportant to the de
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
whiteflame: Your comment doesn't really make sense since it was agreed that I did not have the burden of proof; yet you claim that I didn't prove XYZ. The main point that I addressed was my opponent's claim that a rational sexual activity is necessarily done for reproduction. I answered this point by using my opponent's definition of rational (that which is justified) and by giving other reasons why one may want to have sex (i.e. pleasure).

And I've already explained why I did not answer the theological argument, plus how can you acknowledged that Pro did not meet his BoP and still give him the arguments?

It seems that your whole reason of voting Pro is based on the fact that the debate was not completed, which seems like a bad reason to me. But hey, you have the right to your opinion.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

Much as Pro forfeits most of the rounds, I still think he's winning this debate, which is the result of a lack of analysis on Con's part. The definitional debate isn't really taken anywhere, and much as I buy Con's definition, it doesn't change the fact that homosexual acts are linked to the property of being homosexual. Con needs to give me a reason why Pro's argument no longer applies through his definition, and I get none. Another possible way to utilize this would have been to show that being homosexual is moral, and one could do this from both a theistic (God makes us in His image) and evolutionary (look up "kin selection") perspective, as Pro did. These would have competed directly with his points under your definition.

Con grants premise 1, which seems to me to be a mistake, and then places his attentions on premise 2. In this, he misses the main point of Con's contentions here. He states another reasonable option for the purpose of sex (pleasure), but as Pro stated in premise 1, "It is not that all that is reasonable is moral," and so long as I'm given no reason to believe that pleasure is moral as well, it doesn't function as a counter to Pro's point.

Con's lack of response on the theological argument is glaring " it is entirely possible to respond to this point without questioning the existence of a god, mainly by countering that Pro is functioning fundamentally under the mindset that this god must be Christian and that there is an alternate need (which I'll get to shortly). So long as I'm buying this, I am buying that, in some circles, homosexuality is immoral, which Pro tells me is all he needs to prove to win. I don't buy that that meets his BoP, but Con needs to tell me that it's not enough in order to me to see it clearly. He leaves it up to me to decide.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
As for the evolutionary point, Con dismisses this without an argument. He just says it's a fallacy, but he never states why that it essentially utilizes two fallacies and thus should be disregarded, but I'm never given a substantive reason to ignore Pro's analysis. Simply stating that something is fallacious doesn't make it so, and Con needs to explain why these arguments are logically invalid. I don't see it from here.

The amoral argument Con starts to make at the end might have been a good route for discussion, but since it never gets fleshed out, I can't evaluate it.

Some arguments that could have been made here include that sex has other basic functions, in fact far more basic than reproduction, as sex will not always result in reproduction even in two fertile heterosexuals, as women are not ovulating most of the time. You could also say that this argument doesn't function for individuals who are infertile, those with altered genitalia, those who choose to engage in other sex acts than the usual intercourse, and those who use contraceptives, and therefore all of these people would similarly be immoral under Pro's argument. So we must look to another, more basic outcome, and that's creating strong relationships. Many studies have shown that sex strengthens relationships, which means we're more likely to stay together and lead happy lives, and yes, raise children as a two-parent household (though in that case, it doesn't matter where the child was conceived). I'd say this is a much more basic function of sex, whether it be homosexual or otherwise.

There are a number of other possible arguments, though I won't describe them here. Suffice it to say that, while the forfeits ended this debate early, more could have been said, even in R3, to secure this debate for Con. As it wasn't, I vote Pro.
Posted by Ambassador95 2 years ago
Ambassador95
Hey Burncastl, just checked in on my account and didn't see an argument posted by you on the abortion debate. Everything going ok?
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
I forfeit for fairness
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
LifeMeansGodidGood Call my prophet a liar, be prepared to defend it with arguments, or shut up. :)
I am sorry BurnCastle I am sick please let me get better and we will redo this debate.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Muslims must kill homos, the Quran says so. Muhammed was a liar, but he know homosexuality is wicked.
Posted by BradK 2 years ago
BradK
You can't just say that "society is morally degenerated because of homosexuals". That's the same thing as saying "middle-eastern countries are violent because of Islam". You cannot blame a problem on solely on one group, because it's an unsupportable blanket statement that ignores the complexity of the issue.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
BradK I was talking about moral degeneration in general
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
AjabBurncastleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Zarroette. No justification given for argument points.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
AjabBurncastleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by schachdame 2 years ago
schachdame
AjabBurncastleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Seeing that this debate has not been reopened and that it is the first out of the Pro's Series of six of the exactly same debate that he won by points; I am assuming that merely "winning" that "homosexuality is immoral" was the goal all along. In combination with the FF's I see a loss in conduct points justified. Both Con and Pro presented convincing core arguments, but as Con actually engaged in a proper rebuttal of the given counter-arguments based on what the opponent wrote, I am awarding the argument points to Con. Still, Buncastle has room for development here. Ajab's arguments were formal an structured but that could not overcome logical flaws. The source points go to Pro. Although I really want to critique that the most obvious and stereotypical sources Kant and the only work of Darwin that seems to be popular, are polarizing and partly outdated and developed. It's the 21th not the 18th century and biology has moved on.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
AjabBurncastleTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.