Homosexuality should be socially accepted.
Homosexuality should be socially accepted in my opinion. I hope that this discussion will be friendly.
Each debator will have 24 hours to present their case. The max limit of characters is 10,000.
Now, onto the debate.
Am I right in assuming that you begin Round 2 with your arguments and then I respond with my substantive?
I was assuming you would present your arguments in round one, since you first have to prove homosexuality is something that shouldn't be socially accepted, but I can start by expecting some arguments and rebutting them before you present them.
1. It is unnatural
First of all, define natural. Most people would say that something is natural if humankind does not tinker with it. But you're going to have to explain why being unnatural is bad. You're in an air-conditioned house. Not very natural, is it? You are staring at a computer. That is nothing close to "natural".
2. Homosexuals cannot marry, because "Marriage" is between a male and a female
Well then maybe we should change the definition as our society and culture changes.
3. Their child doesn't get a female/male role model
The parent's sexual orientation does not affect the child. 
So firstly, some flaws in your case.
Social acceptance is different between allowing marriage between homosexuals. Because of the fact that this debate is centred around whether homosexuals should be 'socially' accepted, it does not hinge around marriage. One can marry another but not be socially accepted by the community. Hence, argument 2 is irrelevant and thus, invalid.
While the parents sexual orientation does not affect the child as you conveniently talked about, we do not feel that talking about how children are not affected dictates a compulsory social acceptance. Rather, we feel that this is an argument about whether children are inherently affected by homosexual parents, not about why people should accept homosexuals. Again, this argument is plainly irrelevant because it does not persuade people to accept homosexuals.
Now, onto my arguments:
1. There are significant consequences for making people 'accept' homosexuals in general. We feel that there is a large number of citizens in the world who have been against the idea of 'accepting' these people in general. We can correlate this to the people who detest sorts of food, religions, etc. These people do not like believing a certain way and we should not compel or enforce a black or white approach onto these people. We live in a generally free world when people are free to make their decisions. There should be no reason why we should force our ideas on others.
If we do, this can lead to many potential implications. These people may start riots, these people may start creating hate speech, etc. We are only going to inflame this situation further by enforcing the idea or notion that we should accept homosexuals.
2. People should have the freedom to choose whether they 'accept' homosexuals or not. Again, this can be related to whether people want to accept eating mushrooms as a regular staple or whether they want to accept watching a circus every week. No one should force this onto them or tell them 'you should eat mushrooms'. Sure, you can justify eating vegetables as healthy, but that does not necessarily give us the right to tell them that they 'should' eat something. This is giving them unnecessary social pressure to conform and there should be no reason, especially for an issue like this. If they break the law attacking homosexuals, they are still subjected to the same harshness of treatment as any other person attacking a 'non-homosexual'. There is no difference in the law.
That's all right, let's just get on with the debate.
I undestand that social acceptance is different from legalizing marriage between homosexuals, but I imagined "social acceptance" as giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. If you did not correctly understand me when you agreed to this debate, then I will drop that topic for your convenience.
In your words, in your particular example of smoking,
If you disregard and continue to smoke, it is undeniable that a considerable number of society LOOK DOWN upon you for smoking. It is no coincidence that many employers pass out actively on people who have nose piercings or belly piercings. They view these people as 'thugs' or people from lower socio-economic background.
So, UNLESS you are able to tell me why we should enforce an argument on why we should create active consequences for these individuals to socially accept homosexuality, your points are void.
Re-iterating my points, I wasn't confused, but you can, if you like, choose to explore my points in the context of giving people freedom 'without being judged' by members of the community.
-imagining social acceptance as giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals
This is flawed. YOU NEED to state this in your definition. If you do not define the topic, then I will define it for you, as I have in the beginning. My interpretations stem from your first argument, so technically you're in the wrong here.
-you can decide to forfeit if you would like
It seems quite redundant for me to forfeit when you've been orchestrating this falsely and lacking vital information which you conveniently decided to bring out as part of your final argument.
To summarise, homosexuality shouldn't be socially accepted because it creates unnecessary social implications on those who don't.
|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||3|