The Instigator
1dustpelt
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
acvavra
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

"Pinning the homosexuals" is a terrible idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
acvavra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,529 times Debate No: 24886
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

1dustpelt

Pro

Full Resolution: Penning the homosexuals as suggested by my opponent is a terrible idea.

First, let us clear this up. My opponent has made an outrageous post in the forums suggesting that we should "Pin the gays" from society so that they eventually die out.

Here is the forum post he made so you can see what he is suggesting:
http://www.debate.org...

My opponent has suggested to:

"Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there. Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out…and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out…do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

In order for me to win this debate, I have to show that:

1. True Christians as defined by the Bible would not support this.
2. This entire idea would not work.
acvavra

Con

Accepted, as a note, I would prefer that all sources used to back up argument 1 that my opponent is trying to prove be from the Bible.
Debate Round No. 1
1dustpelt

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting.

Definitions
Christian- of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country. (1)

BOP 1: True Christians would not do this

Argument:

P1. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus
P2. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality
C. Christians would not do this


P1 is pretty obvious, as the definition.

P2 is what I am going to prove now.

For the last 1,900 years, Christianity had been assuming that ancient Jewish law was divided into two categories: morality and ritual. The historical record documents that this simply wasn’t so. Christianity had been interpreting Jesus’ teachings based on an erroneous assumption.
The ancient Jewish nation divided the commandments of their
law into Justices and Jobs:
  • Justices were all the commandments based on “Love your neighbor as
    yourself.”
  • Jobs were all the rest (such as ritual and sexual taboos).

    As scholars on ancient Jewish law attest:
“all of the commandments between man and man are included in this
precept of loving one’s neighbor.”—Pinchas Horowitz
“forbidden sexual acts are classified as transgressions between
man and God.”—Maimonides
The commandments within people were the Justices. They were based on, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The commandments were between people and God were the Jobs. They included the rituals and sexual taboos.

Examples of Justices and Jobs
Justices
(Love your neighbor)
Jobs
(Ritual and sexual taboos)
Do not murder Do not eat shellfish
Do not steal Do not wear garments made out of two
fabrics
Do not lie Men with genital injuries cannot enter the
congregation
Do not rape Do not engage in homosexual
intercourse
Do not commit
adultery
Do not have sex with your wife during her
menstrual cycle

In the first century, the Justices were designated on the precept, "Love your neighbor as yourself"—the group of commandments that didn’t include the prohibition on homosexuality. Christians overlooked an important pattern about the New Testament’s use of this. Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they:
  • Only list Justices
  • Cite the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Consider this:
And someone came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, which good thing must I do that
I may have eternal life?” (Matthew 19-16)
But he answered him, “Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only
one who is good. But if you want to enter into that life, keep the
commandments.” (Matthew 19-17)

The man said to him, “Which ones?”

And Jesus said, “Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t
lie, honor your father and mother—love your neighbor as
yourself.” (Matthew 19-18)

Notice that Jesus:
  • Only listed Justices
  • Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
When the man asked which commandments he must follow to inherit eternal life, Jesus said, “Only the Justices.” All the Jobs, including the prohibition on homosexuality, were deliberately and purposely excluded.
Consider the following teaching of Paul.
He who loves others has fulfilled the Law because “don’t commit adultery,”
“don’t murder,” “don’t steal,” “don’t covet,” and if there is any other
commandment it is summed up in these words: “Love your neighbor as
yourself.”
Notice that Paul:
  • Only listed Justices
  • Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Anyone who loves others fulfills the entire Law because only the Justices are the Law. None of the Jobs, including the prohibition on homosexuality, were part of the law. Consider the following teaching of James:
If you are fulfilling the King’s law according to scripture, “Love your
neighbor as yourself,”
you are behaving well. But if you are showing
partiality based on personal appearances,
you are committing sin, and are
indicted under the Law as lawbreakers.

For anyone who keeps the whole law, but is at fault on one count, has turned
guilty on all counts. He who said “Do not commit adultery” also said
“Do not murder.” If you are not going to commit adultery, but are going
to murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Speak and act like people who are about to be judged by the Law of Freedom;
for judgment without compassion will be for the one who has not shown
compassion. Compassion triumphs over judgment.

Notice that James:

  • Only listed Justices, and
  • Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
James taught that everyone will be judged by the Justices (what he called ’the Law of Freedom’). Therefore, he concluded that everyone who treats others compassionately will triumph on judgment day.
Here we have an undeniable pattern! Jesus, Paul, and James:
  • Only listed Justices, and
  • Cited the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Christianity overlooked this important pattern. Jesus, Paul, and James each taught about the Justices—the group of commandments that didn’t include the prohibition on homosexuality. And each, in their own particular way, taught that the Justices were the entirety of Christian obligation!
Jesus told the rich young ruler that everyone who keeps the Justices will
inherit eternal life.

Paul taught that everyone who keeps the Justices fulfills the entire
Law.

James taught that everyone who keeps the Justices will triumph on judgment
day.

Lack of the knowledge about Jobs and Justices has caused confusion for 1,900 years!

Summary of P2:

      P1. The condemnation on homosexuality was a job
      P2. Jesus taught that only justices matter.
    C. Jesus was not against homosexuality.
Jesus taught five times that only the Justices matter. Paul taught three times that only the Justices matter. Historical reality was very different than religious scholars had previously thought. (2) (3)

Conclusion of BOP 1

P1. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus
P2. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality
C. Christians would not do this

My BOP 2- It would not work anyways

My opponent has suggested to:

"Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there. Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out…and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out…do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

Why won't it work? Well look at it. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, my opponent has conceded that. So where did they come from? Heterosexuals! So because heterosexuals produce homosexuals, the entire idea would not work.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. Jesus on Homosexuality by Micheal Wood Layman Edition
3. http://www.bible.cc...

acvavra

Con

First off, my opponent tries to create a distinction between justices and jobs based on what Jewish men wrote. This debate is to be focused on the Bible, though, so lets see what it has to say.

Pro says, "Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they: only list justices and cite the precept, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Well, Pro is wrong. Jesus said, "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, OR THE PROPHETS: I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL"(Matthew 5:17). The Law includes the first five books of Moses as any Biblical scholar will admit. Well, what is in the first five books of Moses, then? Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with woman, both of them have committed an abomination: THEY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH." If Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law, then he must be in agreement with this verse.

Plus, Jesus also said, "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO SEND PEACE ON EARTH: I CAME NOT TO SEND PEACE, BUT A SWORD"(Matthew 10:34). Jesus didn't just cite, "Love your neighbor as yourself." The problem with people citing that verse is they never consider any other circumstance. Suppose a murderer broke into your house, raped your wife, and killed your kids. Would you love him as thyself? Or would you defend your family? Jesus believed in protecting yourself. He told his disciples, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: AND HE THAT HATH NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT, AND BUY ONE"(Luke 22:36). Thus, you can't love everyone as yourself.

Paul condemned homosexuality in THE NEW TESTAMENT. Romans 1:27 says, "And likewise also the men, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER, MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error(AIDS/HIV) which was meet." Verse 32 says, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that THEY WHICH COMMIT SUCH THINGS ARE WORTHY OF DEATH." No, my friend, they did not "only list justices."

What my opponent needs to remember is that when they listed a few of the Ten Commandments as the Law, that was apart of the first five books of Moses. The Commands against homosexuality were included in the first five books of Moses. This makes it apart of the Law. The words "justices" and "jobs" are not apart of the Bible as my opponent uses them.

Also my opponent should remember something else:
The law of Moses is NEVER called the Ten Commandments. It comprises only statutes and judgments which God gave him to communicate to the people. The difference between the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments is that God spoke the ten words, but MOSES delivered the statutes and judgments.

Now, let us recall that when Moses first delivered the statutes and judgments, THE LAW OF MOSES HAD NO SACRIFICES CONNECTED WITH IT. Jeremiah said so! (Jer. 7:22).

The law of Moses was originally the civil law based on the principles of the Ten Commandments. These civil statutes and judgments are right and good (Psalm 119:7,8).

But AFTER the close of the old covenant (Ex. 24), the Levitical priesthood was established and the laws regulating offerings were added (Exodus 28:1). (Prior to this time offerings were voluntary and young men were priests -- Exodus 24:5.)

Therefore the law of Moses HAS MORE THAN ONE PART!

Notice God's definition of the original part of that law in Malachi 4:4: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and judgments that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel."

THIS law we are not to forget. We are to keep it!

BUT ADDED TO THIS LAW LATER WERE OTHER STATUTES REGULATING MATERIAL RITUALS, SUCH AS SACRIFICES, LIGHTING OF CANDLES, BURNING INCENSE, AND VARIOUS WASHINGS FOR THE UNCLEAN.

This almost unnoticed fact is what causes so much difficulty in understanding that the LAW OF MOSES WAS COMPOSED OF TWO DISTINCT PARTS: THE CIVIL AND THE RITUALISTIC!

Part of Law of Moses Still in Force!

Jesus said the two great commandments were love to God and love to neighbor. Do you know from where He quoted these laws?

Out of the book of the law! -- the laws that Moses spoke to the people. Read it in Leviticus 19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And Deuteronomy 6:4: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might."

There is no difference then between the "justices" and "jobs." Both are apart of the the Law.

Now if we built a large fence to contain the queers on one side, and lesbians on the other, they would die out because they can't reproduce. There is no argument there. My opponent is arguing, though, that heterosexuals would still be giving birth to queers. This is not true. First, queers are not born, they choose to be that way. If someone was considering being a homosexual, they would think twice if they knew they would be locked behind an electric fence!

Further, I would like to ask my opponent a question. If God created everyone the way they are(meaning queers are born that way), then why would God condemn it in the Old Testament, as well as by Paul in the New Testament? Surely, God is being unfair if he is condemning homosexuals, but He made them that way? No, my friend, God DID NOT MAKE THEM THAT WAY! Homosexuality is a sin!
Debate Round No. 2
1dustpelt

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting.

The character limit has prevented me from typing all my arguments in thelast round, I will introduce the rest of them here. Please note that only oneof them have to prevail for me to meet my BOP.

Argument 2 for BOP 1: Love your enemies

Jesus said, ""But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. (2)

Even if my opponent is correct in that homosexuality is wrong(which still does not make homosexuals enemies), would penning your enemies in an electrified fence be loving them? Jesus taught redemption, not condemnation.

Argument 3 for BOP 1: Sin

My opponent has made two statements:

1. Homosexuality is a choice
2. Homosexuality is a sin

I will use my opponent's own statements to refute himself. If homosexuality is a choice and a sin, why would it be any different from any other sin? You do not see people saying to put people who steal inside a electrified pen to die out. My opponent must admit that we have all sinned in one way or another, but because of Jesus' forgiveness, we can be redeemed. So what makes homosexuality
so different for homosexuals to deserve to be thrown into a electrified pen and die out?

Refuting my opponent's arguments

"First off, my opponent tries to create a distinction between justices and jobs based on what Jewish men wrote. This debate is to be focused on the Bible, though, so lets see what it has to say."

Historical evidence is equally as important. This debate is NOT entirely focused on the Bible, it is about whether your idea is consistent with it and whether it will work or not.

"Pro says, "Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they: only list justices and cite the precept, 'Love your neighbor as
yourself.'"


No, I never said that they only have teachings like that.

"Jesus said, "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, OR THE PROPHETS: I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL"(Matthew 5:17). The Law includes the first five books of Moses as any Biblical scholar will admit.
Well, what is in the first five books of Moses, then? Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with woman, both of them have committed an abomination: THEY SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH." If Jesus didn't come to destroy the Law, then he must be in agreement with this verse."


Ah, but my opponent here has only posted part of the entire sermon.

The Law and the Prophets are mentioned twice in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:

Jesus said, "Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets: I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill"

Later, in the same sermon, Jesus said:

"In everything, therefore, treat others the same way you want to be treated for this is the Law and the Prophets."

We see that the Golden Rule (which designated the Justices) was the entire Law and Prophets for Jesus. When Jesus said that he didn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, he was referring to preserving the Justices.

The notion that the Justices are the entire law was central to Matthew’s depiction of Jesus. But my opponent lifts a statement out of
context and uses it to repudiate five teachings within the very same book!

The meaning is so simple. In essence Jesus stated:

I haven’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets because only the Justices are the Law and the Prophets.

This was the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount! The pattern is as follows:

• Cite teachings on relations between man and neighbor, and
• Reference the precept, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

"Plus, Jesus also said, "THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO SEND PEACE ON EARTH: I CAME NOT TO SEND PEACE, BUT A SWORD"(Matthew 10:34). Jesus didn't just cite, "Love your neighbor as yourself." (1) (5)

Again, my opponent has picked specific verses out of the entire context in order to delude the audience.

It must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of "sword" in Matthew 10:34:

32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the
earth, but a sword
. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father,a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6] 37 Anyonewho loves his father or
mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (5)

It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the function
of a metaphorical sword.

"The problem with people citing that verse is they never consider any other circumstance. Suppose a murderer broke into your house, raped your wife, and killed your kids. Would you love him as thyself? Or would you defend your family? Jesus believed in protecting yourself. He told his disciples, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: AND HE THAT
HATH NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT, AND BUY ONE"(Luke 22:36). Thus, you can't love everyone as yourself."

Loving everyone does not mean no self defense.

"Paul condemned homosexuality in THE NEW TESTAMENT. Romans 1:27 says, "And likewise also the men, LEAVING THE NATURAL USE OF THE WOMAN, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER, MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error(AIDS/HIV) which was meet." Verse 32 says, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that THEY WHICH COMMIT SUCH THINGS ARE WORTHY OF DEATH." No, my friend, they did not "only list justices."

This is the third time my opponent has pulled a specific verse out of the entire meaning of the passage.
The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. This is what Paul was condemning. (5)

And right after that passage, Paul warned not to condemn others:

"Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)" (5)


"What my opponent needs to remember is that when they listed a few of the Ten Commandments as the Law, that was apart of the first five books of Moses. The Commands against homosexuality were included in the first five books of Moses. This makes it apart of the Law. The words "justices" and "jobs" are not apart of the Bible as my opponent uses them."

The historical evidence for justices and jobs is plentiful. Jewish law was divided into Justices and Jobs, which includes the law of Moses. (1)

Due to the character limit, I will post my last rebuttals in the next round.

1. Jesus on Homosexuality by Micheal Wood
2. http://www.jesuswalk.com...
3. http://www.answering-islam.org...
4. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...
5. http://www.bible.cc...;
acvavra

Con

I'm sure my opponent believes that Jesus CANNOT contradict the Bible; (after all, he states that he is a Christian). If so, then Jesus MUST consider homosexuals to be enemies according to Leviticus 20:13. Jesus said, "The Scripture cannot be BROKEN"(John 10:35) and the last I checked, Leviticus 20:13 is still Scripture.

Pro said, "Jesus taught redemption, not condemnation." Yes, Jesus did teach that, but he also taught condemnation. Matthew 23:14 says, "THEREFORE YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GREATER DAMNATION." Sounds rather harsh, don't you think, Pro? If homosexuality is a sin, and Lev 20:13 says it is, then homosexuals are damned to Hell. Jesus will not contradict His Word.

Pro said, "You do not see people saying to put people who steal inside a electrified pen to die out. So what makes homosexuality so different for homosexuals to deserve to be thrown into a electrified pen and die out?"

Well, some sins are worse than others. For example, a murderer is worse than a jay walker. A serial killer is worse than a drunk speeding through a red light. And ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, God burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground for homosexuality(Genesis 19). That is, He burned ALL THE WOMEN, ALL THE CHILDREN, ALL THE QUEERS, AND ALL THE ANIMALS, save Lot and his daughters. By that standard, putting the homosexuals behind an electrified fence is not harsh at all, when you consider Sodom and Gomorrah! Now, if some of those homosexuals got right with God and accepted Christ as their Saviour, I would have NO PROBLEM LETTING THEM OUT. But until then, they should pay for their sins.

Pro says, "No, I never said that they only have teachings like that." Really, I will repeat YOUR WORDS as your memory seems to be failing you. Pro(YOU) SAID, " Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they:

Only list Justices "

You said "ONLY" my friend, not me.

Now, the Golden Rule was considered "the entire Law and Prophets" as Pro stated. However, Jesus also said in Matthew 11:13 that John(the Baptist) was the end of the Law and the Prophets. Thus, the Golden Rule is no longer something you have to live by. Matthew 11:13 says, "For all the prophets and the Law(Golden Rule as Pro stated) prophesied UNTIL John." Luke 16:16 says, "The law and the prophets WERE UNTIL John."

Obviously, Jesus was AFTER John, so when He said He came to FULFIL the Law(Matthew 5:17), He must have been refering to the Old Testament, NOT THE GOLDEN RULE! Further, Jesus said in Matthew 5:18 that, "ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE shall in NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED." Not the slightest detail of the Law shall be null or void(that includes Leviticus 20:13)!

Pro said, "It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the function
of a metaphorical sword. " That still doesn't really "jive" with "bless your enemies" now does it?

Pro said, "Loving everyone does not mean no self defense." Okay, but then you still can't love the murderer who raped your wife and killed your kids "as yourself" now, can you? You have to apply certain limitations to Sermon on the Mount verses. After all, those verses were to a bunch of Jews any way, there wasn't a single church age Christian there.

Pro said, "The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. This is what Paul was condemning." Well, prove that to me from the Bible. Paul makes no mention of that in Romans chapter 1. Homosexuality is what he is condemning.

Romans 2:1, which my opponent quotes,(finally citing a Bible chapter and verse) is refering to judging WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. Christians most certainly will judge the world(I Corinthians 6:2) and angels(I Corinthians 6:3)! You make judgments to stop at red lights. You make judgments about what to wear, when and where. You make judgments about what to drink, or what to eat, and what not to eat. My opponent makes judments every day of his life, as does everyone. Don't give me this gas about "judge not, lest ye be judged." Those verses are refering to making judgments without evidence. Further, to say homosexuality is a choice and a sin is not even my judgment, it's THE BIBLE'S JUDGMENT!

I will let my rebuttals of round 2 stand for now, until they are answered.
Debate Round No. 3
1dustpelt

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting and apologize for the late post, so I might be in a rush a little.

Disclaimer: Because of the dropped arguments, I may not believe everything I say in this argument so this round may not reflect my views.

The BOP

I will concede Argument 1: Jesus was not against homosexuality for time purposes. However I still have too other arguments to fulfill BOP 1.

Rebuttals

"Pro said, "Jesus taught redemption, not condemnation." Yes, Jesus did teach that, but he also taught condemnation. Matthew 23:14 says, "THEREFORE YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GREATER DAMNATION." Sounds rather harsh, don't you think, Pro? If homosexuality is a sin, and Lev 20:13 says it is, then homosexuals are damned to Hell. Jesus will not contradict His Word."
Basically we are all doomed to hell unless we accept Jesus, so homosexuals are no different. The thing is, Jesus said to save everyone we can, however there will be those who do not accept. That is not condemntion.

"Well, some sins are worse than others. For example, a murderer is worse than a jay walker. A serial killer is worse than a drunk speeding through a red light. And ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, God burned Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground for homosexuality(Genesis 19). That is, He burned ALL THE WOMEN, ALL THE CHILDREN, ALL THE QUEERS, AND ALL THE ANIMALS, save Lot and his daughters."
I do not see anywhere in Genesis 19 where it said God burned them down for homosexuality. God burned them down for sin, including all kinds of sin.

"By that standard, putting the homosexuals behind an electrified fence is not harsh at all, when you consider Sodom and Gomorrah! Now, if some of those homosexuals got right with God and accepted Christ as their Saviour, I would have NO PROBLEM LETTING THEM OUT. But until then, they should pay for their sins."

I was going to say seperation of Church and State, but that is not what this debate is about. Anyways, that is another reason of it not working. Everyone in there would just pretend and get out.

"Pro says, "No, I never said that they only have teachings like that." Really, I will repeat YOUR WORDS as your memory seems to be failing you. Pro(YOU) SAID, " Jesus, Paul, and James all have teachings in which they:

Only list Justices "

You said "ONLY" my friend, not me."

I said they have teachings where they only listed justices. However, I did not say that they only have teachings where they only listed justices.

You were using the only in the wrong place. Anyways, that argument was dropped anyway.


"Pro said, "It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the function of a metaphorical sword. " That still doesn't really "jive" with "bless your enemies" now does it?"

It may split the family up because not all members may accept Jesus. I do not see how that contradicts "Love your enemies".


"Now if we built a large fence to contain the queers on one side, and lesbians on the other, they would die out because they can't reproduce. There is no argument there. My opponent is arguing, though, that heterosexuals would still be giving birth to queers. This is not true. First, queers are not born, they choose to be that way. If someone was considering being a homosexual, they would think twice if they knew they would be locked behind an electric fence!"
First, I have already proved with science that homosexuals are born. A homosexual may not engage in homosexual acts, but he would still be considered a homosexual. And yes, they would think before engaging in homosexual acts, but again, you would think that thieves would think before stealing, etc.


Anyway, no sources for this round except for the Bible.


acvavra

Con

I'm not sure how to proceed. If Pro has conceded argument 1, that's fine with me, but then he lists more rebuttals for it!
I will answer these rebuttals, then focus on argument 2. I have to admit that I am a little confused by your post, so forgive me if I do something wrong.

Pro said, "Basically we are all doomed to hell unless we accept Jesus, so homosexuals are no different. The thing is, Jesus said to save everyone we can, however there will be those who do not accept. That is not condemntion."

Really, because to sentence someone to Hell is to CONDEMN THEM! Jesus said, "FEAR HIM WHICH IS ABLE TO DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY IN HELL(Matthew 10:28). He said he casts souls into Hell.

Pro said, "I do not see anywhere in Genesis 19 where it said God burned them down for homosexuality. God burned them down for sin, including all kinds of sin."

May I first mention that the term "sodomite" that is used for homosexuals comes from this story in Genesis 19. Sodomy refers to anal or oral sex my friend. Now in Genesis 19:4-5 it says, "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people frm every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that WE MAY KNOW THEM." They wanted to have sex with angels who they thought looked like men.

Pro said, "Everyone in there would just pretend and get out." They would try that, but they would then go back to their sin, and so we lock them up again. If they flee to another country, GOOD. WE DON'T NEED THEM!

Pro said, "You were using the only in the wrong place. Anyways, that argument was dropped anyway."
Sorry, I didn't know that you had dropped this argument.

Pro said, "It may split the family up because not all members may accept Jesus. I do not see how that contradicts "Love your enemies". Well, for Jesus to split up families seems rather "contradictory" to "love your enemies." Do you mean to tell me that Jesus said, "Love your enemies" then turned around and said, "I'm going to split up your families." All I'm saying is that "love your enemies" has certain limitations to it. After all, are you going to "love" the murderer that raped your wife and killed your kids? Jesus didn't believe in letting sin run rampant when he said "love your enemies" now did he? Putting these homosexuals behind a fence prevents sin from running rampant.

Pro said, "First, I have already proved with science that homosexuals are born. A homosexual may not engage in homosexual acts, but he would still be considered a homosexual. And yes, they would think before engaging in homosexual acts, but again, you would think that thieves would think before stealing, etc."

Really? Where is this proof that they are "born that way?" Again, PRO, YOU NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION OF ROUND 2! Let me repeat it: "Further, I would like to ask my opponent a question. If God created everyone the way they are(meaning queers are born that way), then why would God condemn it in the Old Testament, as well as by Paul in the New Testament? Surely, God is being unfair if he is condemning homosexuals, but He made them that way? No, my friend, God DID NOT MAKE THEM THAT WAY!"
Please refute this PRO! Otherwise, you might as well concede this argument too.

Further, don't you think all the men that CHOOSE TO BE QUEERS OR LESBIANS MIGHT CHOOSE DIFFERENTLY IF THEY KNOW THEY WILL BE PUT BEHIND AN ELECTRIFIED FENCE? And EVEN IF THEY STILL CHOSE TO BE HOMOSEXUAL, THEN BEHIND THE FENCE THEY WILL GO! A thief still goes to jail for stealing my friend!
Debate Round No. 4
1dustpelt

Pro

1dustpelt forfeited this round.
acvavra

Con

I let my arguments stand then. Jesus hated homosexuality, and homosexuals should be put behind an electrified fence.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
Teachable moment time: Here's a thought experiment to illustrate the point. Let's say theoretically that you make a claim about an issue that is controversial. Let's stipulate that your claim is -aside from being ludicrous- that I challenge you to prove it. Now, let's suppose that I have now challenged you to defend your ideas against me.

Because you would have made the original claim, the duty to substantiate it is on you. Otherwise, it would be the responsibility of the rest of the world to prove you false (which would be patently and categorically absurd).

That's why (in a libel/slander suit) the responsibility is on the accusing party to demonstrate that the claim made is, in fact valid. It can be confusing when debaters make statements that would seem to conflict with that, but the point remains.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Dustpelt gave himself burden of proof when he wrote in Round 1

In order for me to win this debate, I have to show that:

1. True Christians as defined by the Bible would not support this.
2. This entire idea would not work.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
The resolution was a debate about a claim made by CON that PRO challenged him to, it is therefore appropriate that (because it was CON's original claim) that he bear the BOP. The specific claim to be proven was that various actions outlined by CON should be taken to eradicate homosexuals. CON accepted, and stipulated that his arguments would be biblically grounded. PRO's arguments were perhaps questionable, but rather than substantiate his claim, CON (only) refuted PRO's case in the first round. This was a largely pointless exercise, which continued until PRO forfeited round 5. Arguments ultimately go to PRO because CON's arguments largely did not support his original claim, and therefore prevent him from satisfying his BOP.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
Ha ha ha!
Posted by WMdebate 5 years ago
WMdebate
Dude why did you concede argument 1?
Posted by angrymen 5 years ago
angrymen
I use to have a friend who thought that this was a good idea. But then he grew up and went on to middle school.
Posted by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
"I intellectually destroyed this person in my debate, here it is."
lol that was a debate with no arguing
Posted by acvavra 5 years ago
acvavra
Thank you
Posted by MattDescopa 5 years ago
MattDescopa
True Christians uphold the old testament which explicitly condemns the horror and curse of homosexuality.

I intellectually destroyed this person in my debate, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hopefully you'll benefit from this and come to logical conclusions.
Posted by acvavra 5 years ago
acvavra
I refuted your argument in the forum. Go see it!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
1dustpeltacvavraTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON because of PRO's single round forfeit, spelling and grammar to PRO because PROs rhetoric and formatting was less schizophrenic then CONs. CON also seemed prone to employ colloquial phraseology, which was irritating (among other things). Arguments to be explained in comments. Sources were a wash. RFD continued in comments.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
1dustpeltacvavraTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro. I am unsure about whose arguments were better, but I vote for Con because Pro failed to uphold the second part of his BoP as he himself defined in the first round.