Not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot.
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this debate, and will argue that everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot.
For the sake of clarity, here is Merriam-Webster's definition of 'bigot':
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
I have no issue with the definition you provided of the world 'bigot'.
'Disagree': To have a different opinion : To fail to agree.
'Homosexuality': (1) the quality or state of being homosexual. (2) Erotic activity with another of the same sex.
Lets break the definition of bigot into two parts as it is presented by the definition:
(1) A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.
(2) A person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as racial or religious group).
The definition of homosexuality best fits within the first definition provided within 'bigot'. As the definition of homosexuality does not classify itself as a particular group. It is better seen as a state of mind or action.
What the Pro/Con must argue:
Pro: Must convince the audience that it is possible to disagree with homosexuality without being classified as a bigot.
Con: Must convince the audience that if you disagree with homosexuality, you are a bigot.
I will base my arguments under the notion that people can disagree with homosexuality without being classified as a bigot. Based on the definitions provided, a person strongly AND unfairly dislike homosexuality to be considered a bigot.
Many people who disagree with homosexuality do so out of moral reasoning. Morality is a term that is encouraged by society in many ways. There are numerous laws established within the Federal Government and States that encourage morality among its citizens, it is illegal to murder, rape, steal, etc.
Questions for my opponent:
Do you disagree with the definitions provided, if so why?
Do you have any issues with the use of the first definition provided from the word 'bigot', if so why?
Do you accept the notion that society encourages some form of morality?
Should people make decisions based on morality?
Why can't a person disagree with homosexuality if their belief is based on morality?
Note: I do not agree with any type of HATE towards homosexuals. I believe that people have every right to disagree with homosexuality.
I'll answer my opponents questions first:
1. Do you disagree with the definitions provided?
No, they are perfectly acceptable.
2. Do you have any issues with the use of the first definition provided from the word 'bigot'?
That fine as well.
3. Do you accept the notion that society is based on morality?
I feel like this is a long debated subject of its own, but for the purpose of this debate we can assume it is true.
4. Should people make decision based on morality?
For the purpose of this debate, this can be assumed to be true.
5. Why can't a person disagree with homosexuality if their belief is based on morality?
I am not arguing that a disagreement with homosexuality is unjust, however I do believe that hostility based on morals is unjust. I am not suggesting that every person who disagrees with homosexuality is also hostile.
My argument is based on the assumption that everyone is a bigot. Every person strongly and unfairly dislikes at least one other person or idea. For a person to strongly dislike something is simple. However, to do so unfairly requires that their dislike is unfounded. For example, extremist Christians strongly dislike Muslims. They also dislike the Muslim religion, but the vast majority of them will reply that they dislike the people, despite never having met them. The majority of extremist Christians strongly and unfairly dislike Muslims.
Not everyone is an extremist Christian, but everyone does have a similar class that dictates they strongly and unfairly dislike another class. Even people that strive to be accepting dislike a group of people. They dislike people who are extremely and unfairly unaccepting of others.
My opponent's argument states that anti-homosexuals' morals justify their dislike, but they are still bigots, just in regards to other people or ideas. Also, they attempt to support morality using an appeal to authority.
Everyone is a bigot. All anti-homosexuals fall under the category 'Everyone', so all anti-homosexuals are bigots, regardless of their morals.
It appears the basis of your debate is that everyone is already a bigot, therefor people who disagree with homosexuals were already considered bigots.
Well, I like your style and it is superficially clever. However, if you want to use "everyone", you must include; infants, toddlers, kids, teenagers, and young adults. You must also include; nuns, Buddhist monks, and even the pope.
To call homosexuals bigots based on the notion that they already unfairly dislike someone else implies that the definition you are using is present tense. Believe it or not, not everyone is a bigot. There is absolutely no proof of that. The burden is on you to actually prove that everyone is already a bigot. I hate criminals, but it is justified. That being said, remember, there must be reasonable justification for the disagreement. There are people who can justify their disagreement. What about forgiveness. It's not only a religious term, if people have the ability to forgive, they have the ability to not be a bigot, I hope that makes sense.
In conclusion, I would just like to know how everyone is a bigot, especially since forgiveness is a practice humans can use at any time.
Thanks for the debate!
"However, if you want to use "everyone", you must include; infants, toddlers, kids, teenagers, and young adults. You must also include; nuns, Buddhist monks, and even the pope."
This is completely true. I will now refute all of those examples.
1. Infants have strong and unfair dislike of many people. They will discriminate based on a variety of factors far too vast to completely list, but not limited to size, facial hair, and ethnicity. Infants will try to avoid these people and cry for help if they encounter these people.
2. Toddlers retain their same dislikes from infantry. They're still too young to be properly educated to avoid bigotry.
3. As they continue to age, the kids can take a variety of paths, either having their infant bigotry trained out of them by parents or guardians, having it strengthened if they are taught to dislike a certain class, or retaining their infant style bigotry if it is not addressed. The children who lose their infant style bigotry become bigots in regards to the people who have not.
4. The changes of childhood are simply magnified as teenagers.
5. Young adults gain the ability to train themselves to avoid bigotry, but this brings about the same problems as when they are trained in childhood.
6. Nuns are bigots in regards to just about everything that opposes their interpretation of their religion.
7. Buddhist monks are people, just like everyone else. A perfect Buddhist monk would not be a bigot, but the perfect Buddhist monk does not exist. They've all been infants, and are faced with the same issues when they are trying to re educate themselves as everyone else.
8. Popes are similar to monks; the religion they have chosen recommends avoiding bigotry, but it is impossible to adequately re teach oneself without attaining new knowledge that it is possible to make yourself not a bigot, but then because you have this knowledge, being unfairly biased against people who can't be bothered to try to change themselves.
"The burden is on you to actually prove that everyone is already a bigot."
I have to disagree with this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that not everyone who disagrees with homosexuality is a bigot. That statement requires one example, unlike mine, which requires a bio of every single person who ever lived. Naturally, the BOP rests on the simpler case. Regardless, the assumption that just because proof hasn't been presented for my case actually validates yours is a burden of proof fallacy.
"I hate criminals, but it is justified."
I do not claim that all strong dislike is unjustified, just that everyone has at least one dislike that is unjust.
"There are people who can justify their disagreement."
It is true that some disliking is justifiable, but there is no practical limit to the number of things a person can dislike.
"What about forgiveness. It's not only a religious term, if people have the ability to forgive, they have the ability to not be a bigot."
For forgiveness to be a factor, there has to be an action by the opposing party that is to be forgiven. If there is an action that would qualify to be forgiven, it is clearly one of malice against the forgiver, therefore removing their status of bigotry in regards to the opposing party because they do not meet the 'unfair' constraint of bigotry, as they have been wronged by the opposing party. Therefore, forgiveness has no application to our definition of bigotry.
I have refuted all of Pro's examples of non-bigots, and clarified why forgiveness is irrelevant to our agreed definition of bigotry.
I'd like to thank my opponent for one of the best debates I've had in quite a while.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I like this debate- TIE.
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.