The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

It"s time to establish a national homeland for homosexuals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,750 times Debate No: 35063
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Wherever they have gone the Jews have always been widely despised and persecuted. Finally, after millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, on 10th May 1948 a Jewish homeland was created for them in Palestine. They called this new Jewish state Israel and the country now serves as a safe haven for oppressed Jews from around the world.

Like Jews, homosexuals are also widely despised and persecuted and, also like Jews, many gays ended up in Nazi gas chambers during the Second World War. So why isn't there a homeland for homosexuals? Don't queers deserve their own sovereign state where they can live free from prejudice and oppression just as much as the Jews deserve their homeland in Palestine?

Of course they do, the only question is what to call it and where it should be located.

Israel was created in a location that was already home to many Jews and it would make sense to locate a homeland for homosexuals somewhere that is already home to a large number of gay men and lesbians, but where would that be?

In the USA, the state with the highest number of same-sex couples is California with 92,138 (North Dakota has just 703 such couples) and the major metropolitan city with the highest concentration of gays is San Francisco, California with 15.4%. (1)

Moreover, California is huge: covering 155,959 square miles it is the 3rd largest state in America. Meanwhile, neighbouring Nevada covers 109,826 square miles and, as such, is the 7th largest state in the USA. (2)

Despite its huge land area, with 236 people per square mile, California is still the 11th most densely populated state in the USA, but neighbouring Nevada has a population density of just 24 people per square mile, making it the 42nd most densely populated state. Moreover, the population of California is concentrated in the coastal areas.(3)

So the ideal location for the new homeland for homosexuals would be partly in present-day eastern California and partly in what is currently western Nevada, though the exact boundaries would be a matter for further discussion.

Of course, this new state should be completely independent of the United States of America but it should still be founded upon democratic principles and, to this end, I duly propose the creation of a new homeland for homosexuals in the southwest of North America to be known as the American Independent Democratic State.

Thank you.

(1) http://facts.randomhistory.com...
(2) http://www.worldatlas.com...
(2) http://www.worldatlas.com...
drafterman

Con

Pro's argument appears sound on the surface, but that's it: it is a superficial argument and I will deconstruct it more visciously than a red neck appearing on "What Not to Wear"[1].

Pro's research is limited to the US. What Pro proposes is an international affair. It is clear, from a mere glance, that Europe and former European colonies is where same sex tolerance is at[2]. The national homeland should be there.

Pro considers only existing demographics. In the creation of a Jewish homeland, we didn't look at where they were at that point, but where they wanted to go. This dovetails into my next point:

Who the fvck wants to live in a desert? Not gays; with all of their exercising they need their hydration.

So where to put them? We need to put them in a place with water that is also visually appealing. That place is London.

Everyone already knows about the famous rainy weather in England, so the hydration part is covered. What about the visual appeal? Well, take a look at this:

http://www.standard.co.uk...

Apparently phallic buildings are taking over the London Skyline, much to the chagrin of its inhabitants. The solution is clear: they get out, and the flamers move in.

[1] http://www.tlc.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thanks my esteemed opponent for accepting this debate and to respond to his rebuttals in turn as follows:

"Pro's research is limited to the US"

If the homeland for homos were to be relocated from the US to Europe the name would have to be changed from the 'American Independent Democratic State' to the 'Former American Gay State'. Ok, I hear you say, so what? Well think about the resulting acronym: if the abbreviation for the 'Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' is FYROM, what would the acronym for the 'Former American Gay State' be? Think about it. highly inappropriate, I'm sure you will agree.

Furthermore, Europe is already chronically overcrowded whereas North America has plenty of vast open spaces that are just going to waste. (1)

"Pro considers only existing demographics"

Regarding the choice of Palestine as a homeland for the Jews, this part of the Middle East is barren and arid, I'm sure many Jews would have preferred their homeland to be located somewhere lush and tropical like Florida. One such Jew might be the wealth management tycoon Bernie Madoff: he had the opportunity to go and live in Israel but he chose to make Palm Beach in Florida his home instead. Indeed, despite receiving numerous anti-Semitic slurs on his business ethics, Madoff remains in the United States (although he now resides in North Carolina). (2)

Similarly, a homeland for homos cannot be located exactly where the inhabitants would ideally like it (even if they could reach an agreement on that) but rather where it would be feasible to locate it.

"Who the fvck wants to live in a desert?"

The good people of Las Vegas, for a start. And gays. The only thing homosexual gentlemen like more than working out down at the gym with the boys is topping up their tans, but the London is not a place that does a roaring trade in suntan lotion. Even in the driest, warmest Summer months of June, July and August, the average daytime temperature in London is a distinctly chilly 13.9 degrees Celsius / 57 degrees Fahrenheit while 371mm / 15 inches of rain drenches the city during those months. (3) Put it this way, you don't get much of a tan when you are wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella.

Meanwhile, in Las Vegas, Nevada, the average temperature during those same Summer months is a scorching 39.4 degrees Celsius / 103 degrees Fahrenheit while the city receives a paltry 23 mm / 0.9 inches of rain during that period (4), warm and dry enough to satisfy the most dedicated sun-seeker.

And Nevada has access to plenty of water: in addition to the Lake Mead Reservoir and the Colorado River, trillions of gallons of water are available from natural springs and from groundwater wells. (5)

Finally, it is true that there are many phallic erections in London (actually there are even more now than when the article my opponent referred to was published), but a homeland for homosexuals would also be a sanctuary for lesbians, and if you ask any feminist in London what she thinks of these dildo-inspired skyscrapers she will reply: "They are giant phallic symbols that rape the sky and pollute the air that wimmin have to breathe. They are oppressive monstrosities that should be pulled down and replaced with single-storey, environmentally-friendly, ethically-aware, wimmin-only, vegan wholefood cafes."

So, having reviewed my opponent's objections, I still maintain that it's time to establish the American Independent Democratic State homeland for homos in the southwest of North America.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org...
(2) http://money.cnn.com...
(3) http://www.metoffice.gov.uk...
(4) http://www.climate-zone.com...
(5) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
drafterman

Con

Acroynm:

I'm sure Pro doesn't want to get into another debate with me about amelioration of previously negative terms, so I'll just note that we can create whateve acrynom we wish.

Overcrowding:

Europe has higher population density than America. Yes, I concede the point. It is overcrowded! How shall we deal with this? Why not flood it with naturally infertile couples who will lower the rate of population increase while, at the same time, erode the foundation of traditional marriage which is the cause of the overcrowding to begin with!

Location:

I'll agree that London isn't ideal. However, what we have here is a clash between what London provides naturally (scenery) and what the gays can infuse London with once they are settled there (better food and dental hygiene). With the risk of skin cancer, no one gets "natural" tans no-a-days. Everyone uses articial tanning, and there is no reason why gays should be any different. Besides, England has beaches!

Lesbians:

Say what? I think Pro has fallen for the myth that lesbians exist. They don't[1]. Lesbianism is merely a front for a more insidious perversion: bisexuality. Unlike heterosexuals and true homosexuals, bisexuals are greedy. They aren't content with having half the entire population of the planet as there dating pool - they want both sides. They need no "homeland" since all the world, literally, is their oyster, metaphorically.

Conclusion:

I think it goes without saying that London is the prime choice for a homosexual homeland. The only drawback here is the fact that when someone in London asks for a "pack of f@gs" it's going to be an interesting conversation.

[1] http://www.landoverbaptist.net...
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MysticEgg 4 years ago
MysticEgg
This. Is. Ridiculous.
Did anyone consider that the problem of "too many gays will reduce the population" might actually come into play here? Anyone? Didn't think so. That problem is too overrated at the minute - but if you were to create a "gay country", so to speak; it could become a real issue.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
1. BoP is overrated. It's not even among the three DDO decisive factors to voting on argument.

2. Why would straying from BoP even affect more than just argument?
Posted by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
Though Con conceded the resolution, Pro decided against holding him to the resolution, as this was a joke debate. He should not receive an automatic loss, as the instigator essentially decided to go with it.
Posted by Rambulet 4 years ago
Rambulet
However, the extermination option should still be on the table.
Posted by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
i think pro should make the decision
Posted by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
@wri:

Read the argument:

"Of course they do, the only question is what to call it and where it should be located."
Posted by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
Good debate, but I think the location should be East Africa, in the Somalia area. Lots of sun, near the ocean, so it satisfies both those requirements mentioned by the debaters. Plus, there are already lots of pirates there, so it should be very easy for butt-pirates to assimilate. Seems like a natural fit.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
CON: "So where to put them? We need to put them in a place with water that is also visually appealing. That place is London."

This is a concession of the resolution. Establishing a national homeland for LGBTs in London affirms the resolution.

Arguments PRO.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Of course, this new state should be completely independent of the United States of America but it should still be founded upon democratic principles and, to this end, I duly propose the creation of a new homeland for homosexuals in the southwest of North America to be known as the American Independent Democratic State.

ROFL AIDS,...LOL
Posted by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
There is more at stake here. If you lose, Liberace gets to be your roommate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
brian_egglestondraftermanTied
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 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: Counter Rambulet
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
brian_egglestondraftermanTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't stick to his B.O.P
Vote Placed by Rambulet 4 years ago
Rambulet
brian_egglestondraftermanTied
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 wins
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
brian_egglestondraftermanTied
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: Con Con-cedes.
Vote Placed by medic0506 4 years ago
medic0506
brian_egglestondraftermanTied
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: Con concedes the resolution.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
brian_egglestondraftermanTied
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: see comments. AIDS and FAGS, lol...