Homosexuality should be treated the same as heterosexuality.
Debate Rounds (5)
-Lincoln-Douglas format: Value/Criterion, All contentions must be tied back to value.
-Good grammar (please.)
I will allow my opponent to use the bible as a source. This is a topic I feel strongly about, so unless you are serious about this debate, do not accept. I wish my opponent the best of luck.
Alright, I'm down.
I'll allow my opponent to have the first round for argumentation.
For clarification of today's round I offer the following definitions:
Homosexuality-A sexual attraction to (or relations with) persons of the same sex.
Heterosexuality-A sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the opposite sex.
Equality- The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities
Homophobia- An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.
The highest value to achieve within today's round is equity. Equity can be defined as she quality of being fair and impartial: "equity of treatment" and is the most important value to achieve within today's round because all human beings deserve to be treated the same regardless of their sexuality, race, gender, religion, etc.
The criterion I choose to uphold my value is love. Love can be defined as favorable reception; approval and upholds my value of Equity, because in order to have equity we must first accept each other as human beings which will be further explained throughout my contentions.
Contention 1: Homosexuals pose no threats to heterosexuals.
A.)Every day homosexuals face the challenge of being judged for their sexuality by others. Sexuality is something that is usually kept private by most people. Unfortunately Tyler Clementi, former student at Rutgers' University wasn't entitled to his privacy. Tyler Clementi's straight roommate Dharun Ravi was charged for allegedly recording Clementi kissing another man with a webcam and making a spectacle of it on the internet. This later lead to Tyler Clementi's decision to jump off a bridge and commit suicide. Observing the situation it is easy to see that Clementi had not threatened Ravi in any way, he even asked for the room to himself from the hours of 9pm-12pm. Ravi agreed to this, but decided to leave his webcam on, just so he could spy on Clementi. After discovering what Clementi wanted the room for, Ravi decided to post the video on the internet. He wanted everyone to see what was happening. He wanted people to see that Clementi was gay. Had Clementi been straight and kissing a woman chances are Ravi probably would not have cared and/or posted the video on the internet. The entire situation was completely and utterly unnecessary and only occurred because Tyler was gay. In conclusion, Tyler provided no threat to Dharun and was victimized for no reason.
B.)Heterosexuality isn't discriminated against. Today many straight men consider themselves "uncomfortable" around homosexuals, when in reality there is not much difference in heterosexuality and homosexuality. For instance, I recall a former friend of mine who claimed he didn't want to be around me because I was gay, he thought I was going to rape him. Allow me to present the fact that heterosexual men interact with heterosexual women all the time and the fear of one's sexuality is never a problem. I honestly don't remember the last time I've ever heard a woman say, "Oh my gosh, that man is straight..I don't wanna be around him..I might get raped." Simply because women don't say things like that, and for whatever reason, men have tendencies to feel uncomfortable around gay males. This is a clear example of discrimination and it needs to be put to an end. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to to decide that homosexuality shouldn't be treated the same as heterosexuality.
Contention 2: Sexuality is insignificant. People will always people regardless of their religion, race, sexuality, gender, etc. According to politician Hilary Clinton, "…in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes, and whether we know it or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends and our neighbors." Clearly Hilary Clinton has come to terms with the fact that there is so much more to people than their sexuality. Sexuality shouldn't define who anyone is or be a reason why a friendship ends. Sexuality is a small, insignificant part of a human being that has no negative impact on others. Nobody seems to be surprised when someone announces that they're straight, what's wrong with giving homosexuals the same calm, indifferent reaction?
Contention 3: There is little difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality. In today's society we have gotten into the bad habit of sexualizing everything. When someone says that they are straight, the first thing that comes to mind isn't necessarily their sex life. But if a homosexual declares themselves as gay the first thought that comes to mind is gay sex. In all honesty everything works the same. Straight couples go on dates, gay couples go on dates. Straight people live together sometimes, and gay couples live together sometimes. In every group of people there are good and bad people, but in order to achieve equity we should try to see the good in everyone. Therefore it is invalid to suggest that there is anything that only occurs in one sexuality.
Therefore I stand firmly resolved, homosexuality should be treated the same as heterosexuality.
My case is in the link below.
With that being said, lets adress my opponent's case.
Lets start with the opening adress before his definitions and framework. I'd like to point out a specific thing that my opponent says that's going to inevitably damm him this debate. He says that "because when it comes to homosexuality and heterosexuality there are few differences". While I agree there are few differences, the fact that these few differences exist mean that the two ARE different. Thus, treating them as the same thing would establish an arbitrary fixed identity which would prevent us from having moral discourse. He even admits the two are different with his definitions, which are CLEARLY not the same thing. Thus, my case is going to preclude my opponent's case this round. This means that before he can even gain offense off of his case, he must refute the entirety of my case. If he can't refute my case, then you pull the trigger con.
Now, lets look at his framework, which is his value and standard. Again, prefer my framework for the two reasons I listed and warranted with Butler 3 and 4, but also prefer my framework because my value encompasses him. Before we even have equality is beneficial, we must questioin why we want to be equal, which functions before his value. This is why you prefer my value of morality over his value of equity.
So from here, lets go to his contention level arguments, starting with the a-point of his contention one. My opponent only cites one example of how this happens, but ignores the opposite of the spectrum. Look to examples of homosexuals who HAVE posed a threat to not only heterosexuals, but society as a whole. Such examples are Jeffery Dahmer, Luis Alfredo Garavito, John Wayne Gacy, Patrick Wayne Kearney and David D. Hill, Wayne Williams, and many others. So some homsexuals DO pose a threat, and thus cannot be ignored. But even if this is true, this doesn't warrant why we should treat them as the same. It's a completely irrelevant point that literally proves nothing except for college life can be brutal sometimes. So don't look to his contention here.
But then off of his b-point, where he's saying that heterosexuality isn't discriminated against, my opponent makes the same assumption that treating things differently means that one is being discriminated against, which isn't true. Vanilla ice cream is treated differently than chocolate ice cream, but neither are discriminated against. White wine is treated differently than red wine, but neither are discriminated against. Baseball is treated better than football, but neither are discriminated against. We can stop discrimination, but still treat the two differently. Since the resolution wasn't "Homosexuality shouldn't be discriminated against", this point holds no sway on the resolution. With both of his contention one points defused, we can safely ignore his contention one.
Now lets look at his contention two, that says that sexuality is insignificant. The first thing that's wrong with it is there's no warrant for why this is even true. All he gives is a quote from Hilary Clinton, which really is just a fallacious appeal to authority to try and prove his point. There's no warrant for the truth of what he's saying, so there's no reason why his contention two is true. But secondly, there's no link between sexuality being insignificant and needing to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as the same thing. If sexuality really was insignificant, why would it matter if they were treated differently? It wouldn't matter. But then thirdly, this contention is just flat out false, sexuality is pretty dang significant. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this debate on whether they should all be treated the same or not. In so far as his contention two is self-refuting, we can push this to the side and ignroe it in this debate.
Now to look at his contention three, which says that there isn't many differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But again, this has already been refuted above with the definitions and his opening adress. We can clearly look at the two definitions my opponent provided, which I will agree with, that they clearly are different. So this argument just falls flat on his face.
With all that being said, let's summarize how this round went and why we can vote con right here without even paying attention to the rest of the debate.
1. My case precludes his and proves why we ought not treat homosexuality and heterosexuality the same, since it forms an arbitrary fixed identity and prevents our moral discourse.
2. My opponent assumes that if we treat two things differently, one has to be discriminated against, which I proved to be a false assumption. So in the con world, we can get rid of discrimination while still treating the two differently.
3. My framework precludes and functions before his framework. Without my framework, there's no warrant for why we should follow his. So you prefer my framework.
4. His contention level arguments are false and self-refuting. His entire case has been refuted.
Thus, we can vote con pretty easily right here without even needing to continue.
jd325494523 forfeited this round.
Sad birthday. So much for feeling so strongly about this topic.
Extend all my arguments.
jd325494523 forfeited this round.
Y'know, I'm starting to wonder why he isn't responding.
He's clearly been posting on other debates and submitting arguments there.
So is he scared of me? o.o I don't smell bad, do I?
jd325494523 forfeited this round.
I'm kind of curious. He said he was super into this debate, but as soon as I present my case, he forfeits all the rounds. But he's been active in other debates....
Did I scare him off? o.o
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.