Resolved: Disney World ought to continue hosting gay days.
First round acceptance.
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate (as if he would've done otherwise), and I stand on the PRO end of the debate affirming the resolution: I support Disney World's decision in hosting gay days. I have no particular parameters for this debate, so I will continue on to iterate my points for the debate at hand.
Contention 1: Gay Days help remove stigmatization of gay community.
The entire point of the Gay Days at Disney World is to promote the image of tolerance for the homosexual community, which is what is needed in order to create a better condition for homosexuals even at the local level if not that Disney's figurehead is so large that the entire American community can be influenced by this movement. The objective for public health in order to reach the maximum health of the American community can be aided in the continuation of hosting this event. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explain, intolerance is greatly negative for the health of the gay community:
"Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:
The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:
Contention 1: Resolution
Pro "[affirms] the resolution: [He] support[s] Disney World's decision in hosting gay days."
Because he puts in his case that he affirms the resolution that he supports the hosting of gay days, Pro initiates an impossible debate to win. The topic of this debate was yet another resolution, however, to debate effectively, and to refute Pros case, I must argue this new resolution. (This contention does not have to be argued, as it is only explanation for my next contention.
Contention 2: Impossible
Because Pro initiates this debate with a NEW resolution than that of the topic of this debate, I must debate the new resolution to refute Pros case effectively. Because this in an absolutely impossible resolution for me to prove stands on my side of the argument, this argument defaults to Con. There is no way that I can disprove Pros support of the hosting of gay days.
Contention 3: Youth
While Disney World may be extremely popular to the masses, most of it's audience or participators or whatever else you would like to call them are youth. And I'm not talking my age (16) but children under the age of 10 that usually have not been exposed to topics like homosexuality. Priding homosexuals in a children's theme park is overall not moral. Disney teaches these young kids about this topic when they may not be ready for it, and in turn, reshapes their mind in a way that cannot be reversed. Whether this be to accept homosexuals before they know what they are, or to hate them for taking all the fun away from a theme park, this is just conditioning of the children. For those of you who've read Brave New World, conditioning children is usually looked down upon.
Contention 4: Priorities
Now, the tag line of this contention alone says a lot about the general point I want to make here. Disney, for even just one day a year, is discriminating against all other forms of sexuality. There is no straight days, or transsexual days, or anything of the sort. Unless it is gay day, Disney World does not show appreciation of any other sexualities.
Contention 5: Meaning
Disney World was not created to teach about sexualities in today's society, it was created to give people a vacation spot or just general fun. Those that may not know about the gay days might end up getting turned off of Disney World in general. I will expand on this in my rebuttals.
Speaking of which, here they are:
1. Gay pride
There are so many gay-pride parades, and festivals, and informational sessions, and more that can teach the exact same lesson (if not in a much better way) as Disney World. Disney World is not the only organization that can show gay pride. Though it may be a large contributor, the amount of other organizations that can do the same way outweighs. Just proving that Disney World HELPS the issue of there not being enough gay pride events, it only contributes an extremely small amount.
a. Sure, gays are people with money, great, but the fact is that this is just exploitation of these people's money. Just having this as a contention proves that Disney World's intentions with Gay Days could easily be corrupt to the point of just wanting more money.
b. As I began explaining earlier in this round, people can get turned off by these gay days. There are many who would not accept this kind of kind of celebration, and would therefore get turned off from the entire park. Many conservatives and parents as well would avoid Disney World for fear of their children being exposed to blasphemy and other like situations.
I thank CON for his response. Just a road map: I'm going to go down the flow beginning with my opponent's contentions, then moving on to the rebuttals against my case.
Contentions 1 and 2: This argument legitimately doesn't make sense. When I stated that clause, I was only clarifying what is my stance on the issue in this debate. By taking on the position of the PRO, I was inherently supporting the decision, whereas CON is inherently in dissupport of the decision. As for the resolution, my support still reaches the burden of proof of the resolution because regardless of whether how I have seemed to word it or my opponent has seemed to word it (which comes to a completely incongruous conclusion), it still analyzes the main idea of whether or not Disney World should continue gay days. If you ask me, these two points are complete waste of time for the debate at hand and should be ignored completely. They don't add in any way to the understanding of the debate.
Contention 3: My opponent states several things in this contention without any sort of warrant. For starters, he talks about how children may not be ready for this subject matter but doesn't explain why. CON touches on the idea that children have minds at an early age where they are learning greatly about the world around them. If anything, this is the perfect opportunity for children to learn about the natural world and functionings of society in order to grow into more intelligent teens and young adults. Essentially what my opponent is doing is supporting the idea that children should be kept ignorant rather than being given learning at such a critical time for education and learning. Second, my opponent talks about the conditioning of children and brings up Aldous Huxley's Brave New World as well as touches on the idea that this is immoral, but he has no warrant for it either. He doesn't even have a solitary perspective of morality at which to analyze this from. I, in contrast, have provided a warrant in my contention 1 about why this is practical and beneficial for society. If you're looking at it from a consequentialist point of view, this action is benefitting an entire marginalized group of people in society. If it you're looking at it from a deontological point of view, you're teaching a child nothing evil or cruel: you're teaching about tolerance in the community and acceptance of others with differences.
Contention 4: My opponent misunderstands the intention and general message of gay days. It's hard to say that Disney World fails to appreciate other sexualities when the entire point of the day itself is to show that gay people should be treated equal to a straight person, implicitly acknowledging the value of heterosexuality. The idiosyncracy of discrimination (prejudiced discrimination, that is) is to try to treat one group of people with greater priority or treatment for no morally or practically relevant reason other than the fact that they're within this group of people. Even if gay days are inherently placing gay people on a stronger focus, my contention 1 describes the practical and moral relevancy of the action itself, meaning that it doesn't fit the criteria of being unfairly discriminatory. Furthermore, the actual message that they're sending in the gay days in no way promoted the message that one sexuality is better than one another, which only does more to disprove the entirety of the logic in my opponent's case. Furthermore, on a side note, "gay days" is a broad terminology, meaning that transexuals are included in this.
Contention 5: Cross-connecting this contention with the gay pride rebuttal, we realize that the general mindsets between these two are completely contradictory. He states that the purpose of Disney is to provide entertainment, yet he explicitly states that Disney World is at liberty to do the promotion of a mindset. Disney World is an individual corporation. Yes, although their main purpose is entertainment, they can do what they want when it comes to their political beliefs.
Gay Pride: When it comes to the situation of homosexuals in this country, every little bit counts. If even just one person learns from the experience that Disney World teaches, this is one step closer toward reaching the benefit of the homosexual community. The idea that the aid that Disney World provides is so small, it can just be eliminated anyway is a ridiculous claim because it's not an opportunity cost to something that can be much bigger. Furthermore, there are many corporations that can support LGBT rights, but there's no warrant that they will. It would be unwise for a company that beyond a shadow of a doubt supports LGBT rights to cut off their activities in exchange for companies that may or may not support LGBT rights. When my opponent talks about the alternatives, if we cross-apply his sort of logic from his Contention 4, the alternatives would also be discriminatory because they focus on homosexuals in order to better their portion of the community as well. In the CON world, everything that in any way tries to support gay rights is discriminatory because it focuses on homosexuality, meaning that NO pride event in any way is justified.
Economy: Regardless of what the intention of gay days are, at the end of the day, it promotes the very message that is needed for society while at the same time generating profit for Disney World. My opponent talks about the families that may be offended by this message, but he provides no evidence comparing the conservative families to the gay people or pro-gay people to show that the profits for Disney would be significantly lower. I've only been able to provide info about how many gay people come to this event, and I can provide information about the proportion of Americans that are pro-gay than anti-gay, which is generally higher according to many polls (evidence can and/or will be provided if needed).
whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
If there's anyone who understands people running out of time for debates, it's me. I'll leave out this round for my opponent to be able to post his argument.
whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
Everyone just ignore this debate and tie.
A large thanks to Pro for agreeing to call this a tie. I will make sure to post sooner in the next debate.