The Instigator
BlackHomophobicAtheists
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Many gays were psychologically damaged and that's what made them gay in the first place

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 830 times Debate No: 81847
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

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.

Argument

1. Many gays hate for people to acknowledge the truth but the truth is, many gays are gay as a result of being damaged..

The largest and most reliable study on twins shows homosexuality is caused by mostly unique reactions to enironmental factors including but not limited to experimentation, peer pressure, gay pornography, bad experiences with the opposite sex, sexual abuse, childhood abuse, childhood gender nonconformity, biological randomness,ect.

If you don't believe me, download the study for yourself

Neither Genes nor Choice:
Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors
[Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)]
by Neil E. Whitehead8
V5RED

Con

Damage implies that the result of the initiating cause is something that is problematic. In Psychological terms, something must be a disorder for the term "damage" to even apply to the precipitating factors. If you look in the current manual for psychological conditions, the DSM-5 you will not find homosexuality as a psychological disorder. This is because barring bigots like Pro, there is no damage or pain associated with being homosexual.

Put another way, we call a bruise the result of damage because it is not desirable to have that change in your body. We do not call an orgasm the result of damage because this is something that is desirable. If people like Pro, who feel the need to denigrate people based on their sexuality, were to float off of the earth, there would no longer be any negativity associated with homosexuality. It would seem then that Pro is actually the damage and the solution is to eliminate pro by either convincing him that he is a bigoted jerk who should treat others with benevolence or by vaporizing him since he has made it a mission of his to hurt people he doesn't agree with for the simple fact that he disagrees with them. To counter a possible rebuttal, I suggested vaporizing Pro because he seeks to harm people, not because we disagree on the idea of homosexuality being acceptable.

http://www.terapiacognitiva.eu...
Debate Round No. 1
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

"In Psychological terms, something must be a disorder for the term "damage" to even apply to the precipitating factors"

Con starts off with DECEIT hoping I'm not educated enough to observe the DECEIT

In many cases, psychological damage doesn't trigger mental disorders. It depends on many factors such as coping strategies, support system, individual traits, and even genetics. The damage may not cause a condition that meets the diagnostic criteria to qualify as a mental disorder. The damage individual may use a coping strategy that impacts the mental condition in which prevents the individual from meeting the diagnostic criteria to qualify as a mental disorder. Using con's logic, every single person who's ever been sexually abused, physically abused and emotionally abused ended up with a mental disorder. This is not true. Con's claim is simply false. Therefore, con's first paragraph is invalid.

Common responses to trauma and coping strategies
http://www.trauma-pages.com...

"We do not call an orgasm the result of damage because this is something that is desirable"

This is FALSE.

Con's logic isn't rational because he fails to see that psychological damage often triggers a desire to behave a certain way. An example is, criminal psychologists investigate the upbringing of serial killers and in many cases, they discovered that childhood trauma influenced their desire to murder people. Many women who were sexually abused have the desire to prostitute.

According to the largest, most reliable study on twins, sexual abuse, child abuse and bad experiences with the opposite sex have made people gay. Therefore, psychological damage have made many people gay. Con has failed to debunk my claim
V5RED

Con

What drivel. Pro rebutted an argument not made, probably because his position is so weak and ignorant that it is indefensible.

Homosexuality, much like heterosexuality, is a psychological condition. Pro has claimed that it is caused by damage ergo he is claiming that being homosexual is a state of being damaged. If a psychological state is not a disorder, then calling it the state of being damaged is nonsense just like Pro's entire position.

Additionally, the study Pro cites neither claims nor even suggests that abuse causes homosexuality. Pro is simply lying.

Even if Pro could show that homosexuals tended to suffer abuse, he would be making an unjustified assumption about abuse causing homosexuality. The truth is that homosexuality leads to abuse by ignorant bigots like Pro and ignorant bigoted parents.
Debate Round No. 2
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

In conclusion,
Con's entire argument is full of deceit, false claims and personal attacks. I quoted his claims and clearly the debunked every one of his claims. in around 1. The largest twin study CLEARLY shows that sexual abuse, childhood abuse and bad experiences with the opposite sex are some of of the causes of homosexuality in which means some people became gay as a result of trauma and abuse.

All you have to do is download the study and read it to see that I'm correct.

Neither Genes nor Choice:
Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors
[Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)]
by Neil E. Whitehead8

No one in their right mind would believe sexual abuse, child abuse and bad experiences with the opposite sex never damages anyone in any way. Again, the study shows some gays became gay because they suffered trauma and abuse. The study researches the causes of homosexuality. All people who experienced trauma and abuse don't have mental disorders but they do cope and sometimes change their entire lifestyle to cope with what they've been through.
V5RED

Con

Pro never quoted the study he referenced because the study does not say what his bigoted, ignorant, intolerant self wishes it did. He is a liar whose arguments made no sense at all and clearly got his stupid butt handed to him here.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Bob13// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro has presented lots of evidence to support his claim, using reliable sources such as the Journal of Human Sexuality, while Con only argued that homosexuality is not damage, a claim that Pro negated by listing its harms. Overall, Pro's arguments had evidence, while Con's were mostly claims. Con lost points for arguments for the previously listed reasons, points for sources because he only used one source to make a single point while Pro used several reliable ones for his whole argument, and points for conduct because he insults Pro in his arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The justification for source points is insufficient. Merely stating that one side generally used more sources to support more arguments doesn't show that those sources were much more beneficial to his points, which is the threshold for providing these points. (2) The voter doesn"t assess any of Pro"s arguments, simply stating that he had reliable sources. A sufficient vote must assess arguments given by each side to some degree, and not simply assess the sources and the other side"s arguments to come to a decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sciguy// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Niether of the persons in this debate had decent conduct with Pro putting a cheap shot on Con with,"Con starts off with DECEIT hoping I'm not educated enough to observe the DECEIT." when there clearly was no "DECEIT" and Con with, "He is a liar whose arguments made no sense at all." that is how they both had awful conduct. Both had decent Spelling and Grammar in the debate which supports my reason to support my vote on that. The person who made more of a convincing argument and had more reliable sources was Con. Though they both had sources my vote here is justified due to the sheer fact that Con used a more reliable site to cite his sources which was an EU site which has had more of a reliable information than a .com site. If I wanted to I could easily go and edit that site and say what I think it a medical issue and what is not. That is how I thought and believed Con throughout this debate and I thought Con explained himself very well and presented the more proper until rnd

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter does not justify argument points beyond stating that Con "explained himself very well and presented the more proper", which doesn't examine any individual arguments and therefore is insufficient. (2) The reasoning for sources... makes no sense. Not all .com sites offer the opportunity to edit pages and sub in information. None of the sources presented by Pro appear to allow that.
************************************************************************
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
I am surprised Bob13 is still allowed to vote.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Bob13// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro has presented lots of evidence to support his claim, using reliable sources such as the Journal of Human Sexuality, while Con only argued that homosexuality is not damage, a claim that Pro negated by listing its harms. Con lost points for arguments for the previously listed reasons, points for sources because he only used one source while Pro used several, and points for conduct because he insults Pro in his arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The justification for source points is insufficient. Merely stating that one side used more sources doesn"t suffice, as their number doesn"t necessarily reflect their importance. (2) The voter doesn"t assess any of Pro"s arguments, simply stating that he had reliable sources. A sufficient vote must assess arguments given by each side to some degree, and not simply assess the sources and the other side"s arguments to come to a decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tajshar2k// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro argument simply consist of him quoting arguments, from biased sources. He failed to actually argue anything.Even though Con's argument was shorter, he actually gave a reliable source. When Con refuted his argument, his only comeback was he is deceitful. Terrible conduct by pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter has to directly assess the arguments made, even if they are all in quotes and short. Merely stating that one side was more persuasive because they argued is insufficient. (2) The voter seems to claim that Pro is making "deceitful" argument. While I can certainly understand his frustration with the point, the voter seems to be interpreting the voter's intent in an attempt to award an extra point.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: nikidavis// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Pro never exclaimed how being gay is related to trauma, only that trauma was bad. He claimed many things but did not provide evidence for them. I gave spelling and grammar to Pro because Con had a few slip ups.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter insufficiently justifies S&G. The bar for S&G points is set at one side's argument being difficult to understand. Merely having "a few slip ups" is not reason enough. (2) Failing to support certain points is insufficient for awarding sources. The voter may note that both sides had few sources, and that means that both sides failed to support many of their arguments. Source points require more explanation than a non-unique problem.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Bob13// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro has successfully shown that homosexuality is often a result of psychological damage. Con argued that homosexuality is a good thing and therefore not damage, but he has failed to present any evidence for his claim. I gave points to Pro for conduct because Con repeatedly calls him things like "bigoted jerk" and "ignorant liar". Pro used the Journal of Human Sexuality, which is definitely a reliable source for this topic, while Con only used one source to make an irrelevant point.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to do more than simply assert that one side proved their argument true. Even if Con's arguments were nothing but assertion, the voter needs to show that there's some better reason to buy Pro's arguments. Perhaps it is because of the sources, but even if that's the case, the voter needs to point to specific points made instead of just generally hand-waving Pro the victory.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Sciguy// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Neither Pro nor Con had any hint of good conduct and if anything it was quite poor. Both were using personal attacks and referenced one another by means of self gain. Both had decent spelling and grammar though I did not care for it. Once again the man who used the most reliable sources was V5RED (Con) who used an EU site which is more reliable in facts and information when it comes to using a .com site and this also explains how he had a more convincing argument. Thank you.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Using a more reliable source doesn't explain how Con had better arguments. The voter must directly and specifically examine arguments made by both debaters in order to afford these points to either side. (2) It's unclear how the voter's comparing sources. He seems to be ignoring sources based on their being links, but somehow finding an EU source to be more reasonable. While there is some discretion in determining which links are better, this is a weak justification for source points, and insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Also, we can see for the voting here why voting does not matter. One guy voted stupidly and called all factors ties based on conduct and another stupidly voted without reading the first post where I was restricted to counters. Yay Illiterate bob.
Posted by Sciguy 1 year ago
Sciguy
Funny song.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
BlackHomophobicAtheistsV5REDTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a terrible debate and neither of you deserve the win. Instead of actually taking time debating the topic all that you two did was insult each other wasting each other's time. Pro, when you reference a study actually explain why the study proves what you claim instead of just dropping the study in the debate. Con, you started off pretty strong, but you didn't extend your arguments all that well. Also your arguments really did not follow the resolution all that well. You talked a lot about how homosexuality should be accepted and I 100% agree with you on that. However, that doesn't follow the resolution.