Resolved: Canada law banning homeschools teaching against homosexuality is just.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals 1 and/or Cross-examinations
Round 4: Rebuttals 2 and/or Cross-examinations
Round 5: Rebuttals 3/Summary of Debate
Rules of the debate:
1. Any argument of any sort can be made. There are no restrictions to content.
2. No arguments whatsoever can be made in the comment sections.
I will accept this debate.
I ask my opponent provide more detailed parameters for just as used in the title of the debate.
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and I must stand with the PRO in this resolution, beginning wit a definition of the word "just."
Just (adj.): Having basis in or conforming to fact or reason; acting or being in comformity with what is morally upright or good. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
With this definition, I move on to iterate the following observation for this debate: The object of this debate is to evaluate the morality of the action itself as well as how reasonable the law itself is based on the definition of just. The Canada law in question does not ban homeschools from teaching homosexuality, but it does not allow the teaching of it as a sinful act. The Canada law also is not construed to homeschools; it is also applied to faith-based institutions within the country of Canada.
My evaluation for morality in this scenario is consequentialism.
With this standard of morality, we move on to the iteration of my case.
Contention 1: The law improves the condition of homosexuals in the country.
"Although there is not one definitive cause of homophobia, several factors may play a part in increasing an individuals fear of homosexuality. A few of these factors include: rigid societal expectations concerning gender roles, ignorance about homosexuality, environmental or social pressures to fear and hate homosexuals, institutionalized heterosexism and religious beliefs."
The institutionalization of the religious belief that homosexuality is sinful via the use of homeschools (which many are created in order to ordain adherence to religious belief) helps to create an environment of condemnation against homosexuals. Such a law like Canada helps to improve the condition they face as well as bring them steps closer toward eliminating the main causes of their negative statistics, such as AIDS, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. The following studies explain:
"Tolerance and HIV"--Francis and Mialon, 2009 (Emory University, Department of Economics)--http://userwww.service.emory.edu.........
"We empirically investigate the effect of tolerance for gays on the spread of HIV in the Unitedv States. Using a state-level panel dataset spanning the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, we find that tolerance is negatively associated with the HIV rate. We then investigate the causal mechanisms potentially underlying this relationship. We find evidence consistent with the theory that tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate."
"Gay Teens Turning to Drugs and Alcohol."-- Teen Drug Abuse, 2011 http://www.teen-drug-abuse.org.........
"A study by Dr. Michael P. Marshal of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center revealed that LGBT teens are 190 percent more likely to use drugs and alcohol than are heterosexual teens, and that the usage rate is even higher among certain subgroups...
Marshal, whose team analyzed data that had been collected during 18 studies between 1994 and 2006, attributed the spike in drug and alcohol use among LGBT teens to the considerable societal pressures faced by the members of this demographic group. “Homophobia, discrimination and victimization are largely what are responsible for these substance use disparities in young gay people,” Marshal said in a March 25, 2008 press release that was posted on the Addiction website. “History shows that when marginalized groups are oppressed and do not have equal opportunities and equal rights, they suffer. Our results show that gay youth are clearly no exception.”"
Contention 2: Discrimination, especially a prejudice against a minority, ought not be a part of curriculum.
An education valuing the equality of all human beings rather than institutionalizing a prejudice of any sort is socially optimal. A question is why the idea of discrimination being something barred in curriculums in the context of African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, and any other generally marginalized members of society cannot be applicable to homosexuals. By providing an unbiased education to children, we would improve the quality of the right to education among children as well as instill the value of equality in the community.
To begin I would like to offer some clarification to the topic at hand. The “law” in question is not an established law, but rather a set of proposed language to Alberta's Education Act of 2012. I ask any reader interested read further at,
Onward to the debate at hand, I would like to take a moment to better define the true heart of this debate, which is if a proposed law in Canada restricting the limits of education within the topic of homosexuality to not include any negative language can be described as just. While I do not disagree with my opponent's initial definition, I would move to provide a more thorough understanding of the word. As defined by Wikionary:
Through the definition provided by my opponent it is clear his intent is to limit this to fair through moral grounds, but I ask to take a moment to observe the common consistencies between the two definitions. By all meanings, for something to be considered just, it must be also fair. To this I move to make my first argument.
Contention 1: The proposed law cannot be applied to other basis of beliefs with consistency.
To hold true to the tenets of fair, the same argument would need to be applied to similar situations with equal results. In this application, a belief believed by some to be sinful is proposed to be limited in it's ability to be taught to others. A fair application could be focused on another belief considered by some to be sinful. As an example, if the government were to mandate that no home school or religious school teach that the consuming of pork is sinful, it would be a clear overstepping of the government and a blatant violation on the personal freedoms of the people. Why so then does homosexuality receive a special mention? Homosexuality as a sinful act is just a particular tenant of a belief set, in the same way the adultery is sinful act. The only dissimilarities between the two are that the state believes that in this instance one isn't sinful. Without consistency, the state has applied a monopoly on what can be considered sinful. This inconsistency cannot through definition, be considered fair.
Contention 2: The proposed law cannot be enforced as limited to home schools.
I must be honest, my education was through public schools, I have never attended a home school. However, I know through experience that a great deal of my applied knowledge comes from my parents. Their wisdom has been passed to me no doubt from living with them for twenty years or so. Because they were not my teachers, I have no trouble discerning what I learned at school and what I learned at home. But in an environment where the two are the same, I would think that the distinction would not be as clear. As proposed, would a family teaching their child that homosexuality is sinful alongside a multiplication table be any more guilty than teaching them alongside the family supper? What is the line between home and school within the home school? If this cannot be unerringly clear, then it cannot be enforced with consistency, and is most certainly not just.
Contention 3: The personal beliefs of a student have no bearing on their academic potential.
If the ultimate achievement for a student taught through home school is to be a Certificate of General Educational Development from their local jurisdiction, then whatever personal beliefs they may hold have no weight whatsoever on their ability to succeed. The purpose of education mandated by the state is wholly factual in scope. To be granted a diploma or any of its equivalents, one must demonstrate adequate knowledge of facts and the ability to apply them properly. The students belief on the basis of sin in the world is a complete non issue. In the event that as proposed, the law would arbitrarily hinder a select few students based entirely on their personal beliefs from a timely educational career, while allowing others a timely graduation, is by no means just.
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
I will concede this round and allow my opponent a proper opportunity to present his arguments.
I apologize. I must forfeit this debate.
It is with sorrow that I accept the forfeiture.
It is my wish that when my opponent is ready that this debate may be revisited so it may be seen to its full fruition.
Until that time I wish my opponent well in his travels.
We can re-do it right now if you want. I just didn't have the time earlier in the week, and now I do.
If these terms are acceptable please let me know.
|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||1|