The Instigator
BlackHomophobicAtheists
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Homosexuals who are intolerant of all homophobes are BIGOTS

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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 81898
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)

 

BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

Round 1
Pro states claims
Con challenges pro's claims

Round 2
Pro disputes con's challenge from round 1
Con defends his or her challenge from round 1

Round 3
Conclusions

Rules
No new claims in rounds 2 and 3.

Bigoted -
having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Bigot -
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Homosexuals treat homophobes with hatred and intolerance simply because they don't agree with our disgust In which is a human emotion. Hating a group of people for being disgusted by a particular behavior is bigotry. Homosexuals are prejudiced against homophobes because homosexuals dont agree with our disgust.

It is bigoted and irrational to hate people for being disgusted by having sex with animals. Therefore, it is bigoted and irrational to hate people for being disgusted by having sex with the same sex. Better yet, it is bigoted and irrational to hate people for being disgusted by anything. There's no way around it. Hating people because you don't like the fact that they are disgusted by a particular behavior is in fact bigotry.

1. All homophobes don't discriminate against gays.

2. All homophobes are not prejudiced against gays

3. But all homophobes are disgusted by gays

An 'Aversion to' Is a part of the definition of homophobia.
Gays constantly use race as a faulty analogy. " Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust

On the other hand, disgust of a particular behavior is not "bigotry".

The definition of bigotry is NOT disgust Of a particular behavior.

Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001) "

Disgust -
a feeling of revulsion or profound disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive.

Defending Disgust: Why Disgust Is Morally Beneficial (Jason A Clark)"
http://emotionresearcher.com...;

Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour (Valerie Curtis et al 2011)"Published 3 January 2011 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0117"Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B"12 February 2011"vol. 366no. 1563"389-401

Disgust: the disease-avoidance emotion (Graham C. L. Davey 2011)"
Published 31 October 2011 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0039 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 December 2011 vol. 366 no. 1583 3453-3465

Homophobia is rooted in unwanted sexual advances (Pirlott, Angela et al 2011)"
lannan13

Con

I shall be the first person to state that my opponent's arguments by their very own nature are incorrect. In this debate I will show why his logic is flawed and how I can win this debate with this altrusistic resolution. The debate resolution can be simply almost eased up to the bellow picture.



First I would like to argue on the grounds of certain semantics. My opponent defines Bigot and a key word within the definition that the entire definitions henges on is the word prejudices. Let's define it.

Prejudice- an R03;unfair and R03;unreasonable R03;opinion or R03;feeling R03;formedwithout enough R03;thought or R03;knowledge: [1]

In this case all I have to do in this debate is to show that there is reason in said hatered or that homophobia is unreasonable or illogical then I would win the debate on these grounds. Next I shall define homophobia.

Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals [2]

Now let's apply this to my opponent's Argument. By Homophobia's very definition it is prejudice and discrimination against gays. This outright shows my opponent's argument here to be an inavlid one and must be thrown out of the debate as such.

Now as for reason. What reason could the homosexual community could have against the homophobes? Things like public attacks, stonings, executions, being forced into insane asylumns, conversion therapy, discrimination, and much more. First I would like to twist this resolution a bit and make it something more relatable to my opponent that I have seen in another debate of his.

Under this scenerio the resolution would be, "Blacks who are intollerant against White Suppremisists are bigots." Under this case my opponent would be arguing that "not all White Suppremisists hate blacks or are prejudice against them, but they are disgusted by them. You can see that by this disgust we must keep them seperate because blacks are appaling subhuman creatures." Do you see the redundency behind this mode of thinking? We can simply see that through this term of reversability since my opponent would not like the said flip on him then it shouldn't be applied. When made back to the original resolution, by the same mode of thinking, my opponent would not enjoy the current status quo if he were homosexual and by this regard the resolution fails.

Rawls's Veil of Ignorance

In order to fully refute the resolution we must use the theories of John Rawls. Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [3] Since the person's sexuality and sex orientation is discarded under the Veil of Ignorance there would be a justifiable reason to hate someone who openly discriminates against you and everyone that is like you. This is also a key thing as your enemy would choose your place in society and thus your enemy would make you the one being discrimated against. Though you can hate your hatered cannot justify your rights which have been trampled by those who discrimate against you. Thus we can see under Rawls's Veil of Ignorance this resolution would flow towards my side in this debate.

Do to the above arguments we can see that the resolution and my opponent's arguments have been negated.



Sources
1. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org...)
2. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
3. ( http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Debate Round No. 1
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

"In this case all I have to do in this debate is to show that there is reason in said hatered or that homophobia is unreasonable or illogical then I would win the debate on these grounds.

This is FALSE

Homophobia is rooted in disgust and disgust is biologically reasonable because disgust is an evolutionary defense system which is still beneficial today. Since disgust is biologically reasonable, homophobia is biologically reasonable because homophobia is rooted in disgust.

Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001) "

Defending Disgust: Why Disgust Is Morally Beneficial (Jason A Clark)"
http://emotionresearcher.com......;

Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour (Valerie Curtis et al 2011)"Published 3 January 2011 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0117"Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B"12 February 2011"vol. 366no. 1563"389-401

Disgust: the disease-avoidance emotion (Graham C. L. Davey 2011)"
Published 31 October 2011 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0039 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 December 2011 vol. 366 no. 1583

"Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals [2]"

Con's flawed logic fails to see that the broad definition of homophobia covers a wide range of behaviors.

1. 'Aversion to' ALONE is considered homophobia even if it's passively expressed..

2. My premises includes ALL homophobes meaning passive and humble homophobes included.

3. "Discrimination", "prejudice" and "irrational fear" aren't required for homophobia since 'aversion to' could be expressed by quitely walking away, kindly avoiding friendship, kindly avoiding association, kindly avoiding hand shakes, kindly refusing to embrace homosexual behavior in the name of marriage, ect.

4. Regarding "irrational fear and the suffix "phobia", not even one person has been diagnosed with homophobia using the basic diagnostic criteria for all phobias . Better yet, the study I cited shows homophobia is not even rooted in fear.

5. Con fails to see that people's disgusts and dislikes are expressed in various ways. An 'aversion to' could be fueled by disgust in which could be passively expressed.

"Now let's apply this to my opponent's Argument. By Homophobia's very definition it is prejudice and discrimination against gays."

AGAIN, Discrimination", "prejudice" and "irrational fear" aren't required for homophobia since 'aversion to' in which could be fueled by disgust could be expressed by kindly avoiding friendship or kindly avoiding association

"What reason could the homosexual community could have against the homophobes?"

The homosexual community is intolerant of anyone who shows that they are disgusted by homosexual behavior even if it's passively expressed. Gays are intolerant and hateful towards a group of people simply because of evolutionary defense emotion. This clearly a case of BIGOTRY

"Blacks who are intollerant against White Suppremisists are bigots"

This is a FAULTY ANALOGY

1. Unlike homophobia, not even one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. Blacks are intolerant of racism. Gays are intolerant of a particular disgust even if it's passively expressed since homophobia is rooted in disgust.

2. Race and a sexual behavior are completely different. White supremasists are against a group of people regardless of their behavior. Homophobia is fueled by disgust of a specific behavior.

3. Using con's logic, hating and being intolerant of people for being disgusted by sex with animals is somehow not bigotry.

The theories of John Rawls does not apply to people who passively express disgust of bestiality, incest, homosexuality, drinking urine, ect. On top of that, study shows disgust is an evolutionary defense system
lannan13

Con

My opponent starts out by attacking my definition of homophobia, but yet as the pratice of debate here on this debate results in the Instigator in defining all terms. The rest of the terms are left to the opposition to decided. This is the series of debate philosophy and argument known as Topicality. Due to my opponent's inability to properly define homophobia it was my job to do so. Pro then goes and challenges my definition, but results back to vaguness. At this point you have to take my definition over my opponent's as not only is it more specific, but I have fulfilled Topicality in this argument. The second portion of Topicality is that the Judges are to discard all of my opponent's arguments until a full accuate response is made on Topicality and that he agrees to my definition that he has failed to acknowledge.

My opponent targets the definitions that I have provided from a noteworthy source and yet attempts to broaden it without a reasonable justification. Again resulting back to the Topicality argument we must officially take my argument over my opponent due to mine being more specific and his definition being way to vague.

The ironic part is if you take any of my opponent's arguments and you change it to the scenerio that I provided you get a self-defeating argument as my opponent has fell for the trap. Let's observe this.

My opponent's definition of disgust, "Disgust -a feeling of revulsion or profound disapproval aroused by something unpleasant or offensive." Now we can see that its a profound disapproval aroused by something unpleasant. My opponent's response is that Blacks are in tolerant of racism, but if this is the case if I can bridge racism and sexual behavior together then I, once again, win this debate on the grounds of semantics by showing that there is a direct connection of which my opponent has already condemned one of the the argument, that blacks are intolerant of racism thus not bigots, by this if I can show that there is a connection then my opponent concedes the debate by me showing that the resolution can be flipped.

Race is defined as, " a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics." [1]

This is the fact that the individuals that are unified by an interest or habirt. We can see that homosexuality is in fact a race. They are unified by the simple fact that their characteristics of homosexuality in itself unifies them and hence by definition makes them a race. Thus showing a direct connection and since there's a connection my opponent indirectly concedes to another key argument by showing that homophobes are intolerant and are against homosexuals regardless of their personality for the sole fact of their race, that they are homosexual.


I extend across my Rawls Veil of Ignorance as it can still be used for the examples that Pro has provided as it's main goal eliminates bais. This argument by my opponent is DROPPED and due to this there is no other choice, but for you to vote Con!

Now tell me how these two pictures are different.



Sources
1. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

In conclusion,

Homosexuals have taken full advantage of the BROAD definition of 'homophobia'. Even if homosexuals can't prove a person is irrationally afraid of gays, homosexuals have pinned the label 'homophobia' on people based on any indication of an aversion/disgust even if it's expressed in the most passive and humble way. People have been labeled 'homophobic' for stating comments that homosexuals simply didn't agree with. Homosexuals use the 'homophobe card' as grounds to be hateful and intolerant towards people who they disagree with on nearly any subject concerning homosexuality. Paris Hilton was labeled a "homophobe" because she mentioned that "most gay men on Grindr probably have AIDS". This was her opinion that had nothing to do with "discrimination" or "prejudice" but since gays disagreed with her, they labeled her a "homophobe" to have grounds to practice bigotry.

My opponent is simply not considering the broad definition of homophobia that homosexuals have used as grounds to practice bigotry. My claim is 'Homosexuals who are intolerant of ALL homophobes are BIGOTS'. ALL homophobes include the most passive and humble homophobes who express disgust of gays in the most passive and humble ways.

My opponent's entire argument is based on a hasty generalization and a faulty analogy. My opponent is insinuating that 'homophobes deserve to be mistreated and hated because of the way they mistreat gays'. My opponent is insinuating that any person who simply believes that gays are disproportionately infected with HIV deserves to be hated, mistreated and downplayed. My opponent has attempted to persuade readers to side with him by spewing faulty analogies to appeal to emotions by comparing white supremacists to homophobes AGAIN, race and a sexual behavior are completely different. White supremacists are against a group of people regardless of their behavior. Homophobia is fueled by disgust of a specific behavior. I proved that. Con has failed to successfully dispute my argument
lannan13

Con

The term of homophobia has become broadend in today's world, but the actual definition is the one that I have provided which my opponent has dropped the Topicality argument which alone wins me the debate, but I will continue on with the debate for the sake of debate. My opponent's AIDs argument is irrelivant as it is a selective argument and doesn't include the ALL portion of the debate, but if my opponent insists Lesbians have a lower AIDs rate than straight people. [1] Does this case a demonization of straights then since the same way as the gays to straights comparrison? Pro himself answers no in several other debates of his meaning that we have a by definition homophobe who is prejudice without logic.

My opponent is incorrect as I have provided effective logic in this debate with well read sources to back my own arguments to show that what I'm saying is true as my opponent has dropped several arguments including the analogy of which my opponent conceded to my stance.

My opponent has dropped the following:
-Rawls Veil of Ignorance
-Topicality
-Blacks analogy
-My opponent arguing for me

With that I see no other reason, but to vote Con! Thank you.


Sources
1. (http://www.gmhc.org...)
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I would like to point out that BlackHomophobicAtheist has referred to me as a biased homo, and I voted for him in this debate.
Notice BHA didn't reference me as a biased voter in this debate, because I voted for him.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
The site counts it.
Posted by BlackHomophobicAtheists 1 year ago
BlackHomophobicAtheists
2 biased votes from homos doesn't count.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Haha, victory is mine! LGBT wins again.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Oh and I firmly believe that Pro is in fact a bigot himself, and I am intolerant of homophobes because I think they are ignorant and irrational, but nonetheless in this particular debate, the intolerant bigot wins on arguments.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
RFD
Conduct equal, Con's S&G was pretty bad, but since it did not affect his arguments, he got away with one here...Con you need to be more careful with your subject-verb agreement and spelling.
Sources were equally reliable and equally used to support each side's arguments.

Arguments:
As a voter, I have to look at the resolution directly. I also have to consider the 1st round definitions provided by Pro, without contention, they stand.
The most important definition?
bigot - one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Con points out that the definition makes homophobes bigots, unfortunately this is unrelated to the resolution which is about whether or not homosexuals, not homophobes, are bigots.

Con only has a contention with the definition of "bigoted" which is also not in the resolution; Con points out the use of the word prejudice, but prejudice was not mentioned in the definition of "bigot" rather only in the definition of "bigoted." For a voter, this particularity matters.

Con points out that homosexual's intolerance of homophobia is justified, given public gay stonings, executions and discrimination...the problem? The definition of "bigot" which is uncontested by Con does not include unjustified intolerance..."treats members of a group with intolerance" does not mention with or without justification.

Con mentions that blacks who are intolerant of white supremacists would be considered bigots. Con's correct, given Pro's definition of bigots, so while I agree with Con that Pro is inconsistent on this issue, it doesn't change the definition from round 1 that bigots are intolerant towards a group, contradictions or otherwise.

I hate that this sounds like a simple RFD, but because Con never challenged the specific definition of "bigot" not "bigoted" I must accept Pro's definition, and "intolerant of all homophobes" satisfies "bigot" in this debate. Reluctant arguments to Pro.
Posted by BlackHomophobicAtheists 1 year ago
BlackHomophobicAtheists
Disgust sensitivity causes disapproval of gays

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Posted by BlackHomophobicAtheists 1 year ago
BlackHomophobicAtheists
Studies show homophobia is rooted in DISGUST, not fear

http://mentalhealth.about.com...

Homosexual activity elicits disgust

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Homosexuals induce disgust
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
And you know, after reading through most of BHA's debates, the one interesting thing about the all, once you remove all of the filth, is the "disgust as a defense mechanism" argument. The papers he references there do make a compelling case that disgust can be beneficial (though the papers don't mention homosexuality.)

BHA, I'd like to debate you on this topic: The disgust experienced by homophobic people is, on balance, rational.

I would be Con, obvs.
Posted by Cobalt 1 year ago
Cobalt
BHA, you have repeatedly used that Olutanji reference. I tried to find it, but it doesn't appear that Olutanji published any papers in 2001. Can you provide a link to that paper/study? I'd just like to read. it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
BlackHomophobicAtheistslannan13Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro evidentally carried a large portion of the BOP. In order for pro to win he must prove that his arguments are correct whilst con's are not. The biggest problem here was that ultimately I was given no other option than to vote con since a major argument was dropped by pro - this is a form of concession to the argument and conceding to the opposition's view results in the failure to meet your burden of proof. The key factor in this debate was Rawls's veil of ignorance and due to the fact that it was dropped and therefore conceded by pro means thay con wins on arguments. Whilst I am tempted towards awarding con an additional point on conduct, I will overlook it since the resolution was not really argued in an overly offensive way by pro. Next time make the resolition more subtle to avoid losing points for conduct.
Vote Placed by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
BlackHomophobicAtheistslannan13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate and I feel that Pro played a difficult hand reasonably well. What made my decision final was the attempt to suggest that homophobia was different to racism ie that a sexual disgust existed in one but that a non existence of disgust was apparent in the other. Pro dropped the ball just there. It is obvious to anyone who studies racism that disgust is a key ingredient of irrational or feigned indignation. As Con correctly stated, the key component is the irrationality of the thing. Pro never gave a deep justification for considering homophobia as a natural defensive 'disgust ' reaction. Male primates are always making out . Check your nature books. Good/Fair debate. I feel that Pro had an idea but little else. IMHO
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
BlackHomophobicAtheistslannan13Tied
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: RFD in comments.