The Instigator
Riversidegirl4life
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Homosexuals shouldn't be hired as teachers

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Riversidegirl4life
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,064 times Debate No: 21338
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (12)

 

Riversidegirl4life

Con

It seems like there is a lot of controversy revolving around this issue, so I'd like to debate it. Rules:

1. All stats must be sourced
2. Lets not bring the religion of the debators into this (although religion is allowed as a debate topic)
3. No personal digs at opponents.

Lets go! First round is acceptance
InVinoVeritas

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Riversidegirl4life

Con

Thanks for acceptance, this should be a very interesting debate.

I beleive that teachers should be hired based on their qualifications, experience and how suitable they are for the job; not their sexuality. For this reason, I beleive that not hiring someone because they are homosexual is wrong, as this shouldn't be a higher priority than their suitability for the job. (1)

Another point is that it is setting a bad example for students if the school discriminates when hiring. How can a school tell its' pupils to be kind and accepting when the school itself isn't? By being hypocritical, it is setting a terrible example for kids, and they could easily follow the school's example and be mean and bullying. Students are suposed to see their head-teachers as role models, and if they are being discriminative this could have a bad effect on students who look up to them. What kind of message are we passing down to students if the school ITSELF isn't being kind and accepting?

If it begins here, where does it stop?
By not letting homosexuals teach in schools, how long will it be until we don't let black people, or Asians, or Muslims, or any other nationality/ethnicity/sexuality teach at schools? It could be the start of a very discriminative system in schools.

Sorry I don't have many other arguments to present at this moment, but I look forward to rebutting those of the Pro. Thanks!

1. http://wiki.answers.com...


InVinoVeritas

Pro

Argument 1:
"A. Teachers are role models for their school pupils.
B. Some teachers are homosexuals.
C. Some homosexuals are role models for school pupils.
D. A role model serves as an example through his/her traits
E. Some homosexuals serve as examples though their traits
F. I think, therefore I am."
--Rene Descartes

Argument 2:
Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 people. He was a cannibal. He was also homosexual. Would you let Jeffrey Dahmer teach your children? Neither would I. [1]

Argument 3:
According to the ontological argument by Descartes, God exists. According to the teachings of God, homosexuals are going to be condemned in hell. We should not let Satanists teach our children in schools.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's refutations.


[1] http://www.adherents.com...


Debate Round No. 2
Riversidegirl4life

Con

Rebuttal of argument 1: This isn't really an argument as to why homosexuals shouldn't be teachers. All you state is that homosexuals serve as examples through their traits. By no means do students "become" homosexual because they may have a homosexual teacher, in the same way that a gay or lesbian student is unlikely to become heterosexual if they have a teacher who isn't a homosexual.

Rebuttal of argument 2:
Anders Behring killed 77 people. He was Christian. He was also heterosexual. I certainly don't want this man teaching my children, so it's a good job that one heterosexual killer does not mean all heterosexuals are mentall unstable murderers. So there was a heterosexual terrorist. Does this mean that heterosexuals shouldn't teach our children? You may say it's preposterous to generalise all heterosexuals because of one man, but you have done the same just with homosexuals.

Rebuttal of argument 3:
There is no proof that homosexuals are Satanists, or that Satan exists at all. This argument is invalid as it doesn't have any evidence to back up your "homosexuals are condemned" argument.

I hope that you take my rebuttals into account, I look forward to your future arguments.
InVinoVeritas

Pro

1. Students become homosexual because homosexuals have cooties. [1] The opponent seems to believe that we should expose our children to cooties.

2. Anders Behring was not a Christian, but rather a homosexual. He was hiding his homosexuality behind the guise of Christianity.

3. Read the Bible. Based on the testimony of the prophets, God is Great... And He is against homosexuality. Those who are homosexual will be banished to Hell. Children should not be exposed to them.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Clearly the opponent has no clue about the dangers of exposing cootie-infested homosexuals to our youth. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yurlene 4 years ago
Yurlene
Ahh feeling that christian love...
Posted by Alarbi 4 years ago
Alarbi
For God's sake girl, don't consider anybody against your point as an enemy! I have here in my House a friend from Cap Town! And my son in London has a South African fiancée (Kemo)! What I meant by Cap Town is simpler than what you thought. I know that in South Africa a long fighting has been going on for democracy (I helped in that direction) and I should be moderate with you if you aggressively defend your point. My generation here did not fight for basic rights and it is me who has to be patient and explain and give you plenty of time to see that I am not against Riversidegirl4life but against homosexuality not you but what you defend. Homosexuality is a practise which is directly against God's politics and you should never defend it because then you are against God your Creator, and He said in all revealed Books that He will put His enemies in eternal FURNACE.
Posted by Riversidegirl4life 4 years ago
Riversidegirl4life
@Alarbi, my name is RiversideGIRL4life because I'm a girl, and that's my screen name.
Yes I opened up my debate to a public platform, and I do accept how people judge me, but I am just expressing that I found your arguments narrow minded.

How does my age and where I come from give you any right to forgive me? You wouldn't "forgive" a 20 year old from Boston, or a 33 year old from London, so why do you feel you have the right to forgive me? My age maybe.... but do you have something against South Africans? Not clever enough?
Posted by Alarbi 4 years ago
Alarbi
@RiversideBOY4life! By accepting to debate in a public platform in which people are welcome to give their judgements, you have also to accept how people judge you. Be for your point or against it and not immediately stamp them by narrow mindedness as soon as they go against your point!
I see that you come from Cape Town and that you are 15 years old, so I forgive you, but think a little bit about it and tell me which of the following two persons is narrow-minded:
1)A person who can distinguish between natural and artificial behaviours
2)A person who mix them up and cannot sort them out
Posted by Riversidegirl4life 4 years ago
Riversidegirl4life
@Alarabi, If it's a disease why people get off work by calling in "gay"? Also, you're no doctor so you can't really define something as a disease on your own premisis of narrow mindedness.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Alarbia, excellently said. I'm glad that at least someone is reasonable around here. Anyway, I'll see you and socialpinko at the bathhouse later. Buh-bye. ;)
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I'll see you at the bathhouse on Thursday Alarbi.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
So, Alarbi, want to debate the morality of homosexuality? You seem to be representing the opposition quite horrendously.
Posted by Alarbi 4 years ago
Alarbi
Why Homosexuals shouldn't be teachers, Hmmmmm? Let's first do one disguised mathematical experiment, push the arguments to the extreme by supposing that we can inject ‘homosexuality' to group A of 8 male rats and 8 female rats in Area (1). In Area (2) we do the same but injects to the rats heterosexuality to group C of 8 male rats and group D of 8 female rats and allow them to live together with all necessary food etc. After few years we go back and discover that Area (1) is a desert, no Rats at all, all life is gone… and area (2) is full of life, why this happened? Let's see, is the cause clearly ‘homosexuality', or maybe something else?
Homosexuality is a VERY DEEP MENTAL DISEASE, so deep that the individual is UNABLE to make a correct definition of himself/herself, he/she is unable to recognise himself/herself as a man or women and behave in a healthy way that can have a POSITIVE EFFECT on society. People with this disease are PURE POISON for society and should be corrected with punishment applied to murders if we apply the result of area (1).
How can somebody who is unable to identify himself/herself be allowed to become a model for our kids, or to represent us in politics or any social endeavour?
Anyone who is homosexual or defending homosexuals is LOGICALLY against nature and against a healthy society. People with limited horizon tend to see that sex is something private. It is not! you are having a sexual intercourse with somebody from the society, and the effects are social.
Sodom and Gomorrah accepted homosexuality and were irradiated from the surface of earth. Anybody accepting it too, will have the same fate
Posted by kyro90 4 years ago
kyro90
This was a really funny topic! xD Though I totally agree. Homosexuals should be teachers. :)
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nonentity 4 years ago
nonentity
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro must have been being facetious :/ His arguments were um... Yeah. Con used sources. The only problem I have with Con is that she started a debate using a negative as the resolution, and then chose "Con"--that doesn't make sense.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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: Pro's arguments made no sense, which seems to have been the point. Con's stronger arguments stand.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: No strong arguments made by Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Dang! Counter alkid
Vote Placed by alkid96 4 years ago
alkid96
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has no idea what the hell he is talking about
Vote Placed by Mestari 4 years ago
Mestari
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Disappointing debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro went against the rules be bringing in religion so he loses conduct. Con arguments had more focus towards the resolution and gave a more compelling arguments.
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 4 years ago
Zetsubou
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con. Pro brought religion into the debate which was against the original terms. Pro's fallacies: causal oversimplification, appeal to religion.
Vote Placed by wierdman 4 years ago
wierdman
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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: Absolutely no liable argument made by pro. His arguments although weak were quite offensive. H,osexuality is not a disease and isn't contatious
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Riversidegirl4lifeInVinoVeritasTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: o_0