Resolved: Disney World ought to continue hosting gay days.
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:
I will present my own case before I attack Pros.
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).
Contention 3: My opponent here is simply arguing that I posed no warrant for my argument. However, this being (genuinely) a moral debate, I need no warrants for the point I am trying to make. In a sense my argument is that these "gay-days" are just a form of conditioning. Pro mentions teens and adults, where my main point is of 4 and 5 year old's that are going to this park. Surrounded by gay people would be a change for these children. One that will ultimately confuse them as to where they are. Disney world, being a place they look to for entertainment gets these young children consumed in political messages that they don't need to be concerned with. It is a topic that is not essentially for these children, and ends up confusing them, and tries to mold their political ideals. You are not teaching the children anything, you are surrounding them with people they are not used to. You are concentrating their surroundings with one type of sexuality, which would ultimately confuse anyone.
Contention 4: Pro decides to tell us the intention of gay-days as if he created them. This is funny because he didn't and ultimately does not even argue my point. All he does is reinforce his own ideals. My point is that if there are gay-days, why aren't there straight-days, or transsexual-days, or the like? This is discrimination. Favoring one sexuality (for even a day) sends out a political message. That message, not being Disney's to send out, is one that we should accept gays, and I understand that, mainly. However, at a deeper level we MUST realize that there is no acknowledgement of any other type of day. This leads us to the conclusion that these days are ultimately immoral for the simple reason that they show a preference to gays. Gay pride parades are different, however. They celebrate the pride of being gay, not the sexuality itself. Parades express the joy, and acceptance. Gay days do something much different in that they concentrate the certain sexuality in order to favor them. It makes them a holiday. Equality would have us assume that there is complete equality. If gays are to be treated equally, why give them a day that no other sexuality has? Asexuals don't get their own day. Heterosexuals don't get their own day. Only homosexuals get their own day. Giving one sexuality its own day and the other not is not equality.
Contention 5: Politics are complicated. Politics are something that an organization as a whole should keep to themselves. For, by exposing their political ideals, Disney world loses an entire group of goers. The recent protests of J.C. Penny for posting an ad with two gay males prove that interest is lost by entire spectrums of people just because of preference to a political idea. This will serve as my argument against the economy point as well. by expressing a political idea, an organization subjects itself to criticism and loss of revenue from certain consumers.
Gay-Pride: Pro attacks my point that ANY organization or activity that expresses gay-pride is one that is discriminatory. However, I have already explained how gay pride parades and Disney world are two completely different thing, so Pros arguments will be thrown out, here. The difference between the two is that Disney is a child theme-park that's primary purpose is to entertain. As I've already stated, it is not to express or idolize political messages. Celebrating homosexuality and surrounding 5 year old's with it is not education, as Pro would love to think.
Economy: I have already proven how Disney World can just as easily LOSE money overall because of this celebration. It loses an entire political spectrum of consumers. Just because it brings in homosexuals, does not mean it brings in a net total more than it would if it didn't. The homosexual population is more rare than parties that believe homosexuals in themselves are immoral. On NET average, Disney World is more likely to lose revenue.
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Contention 1 and 2: I'm pretty sure that I understood these contentions well enough, but since my opponent is going to drop them anyway, the judges can ignore them.
Contention 3: I should've made myself more clear. When I said he had no warrant, I meant that my opponent had no reasoning as to why children shouldn't be taught topics like homosexuality or other "adult topics." It implies that children are not taught "adult topics," although children have been known to talk about war, poverty, drugs, and other such topics, and they've been taught about such topics. My opponent provides no threshold as to what is considered to be an "adult topic" either, meaning that his reasoning about how children don't need to be taught about this is all based on a completely arbitrary mindset. I talked about how the time of their childhood is one where the brain can receive so much learning and experience to grow into smarter adults and teenagers; if there really is any reason as to why children would be confused by this exposure, it's caused by the very logic that my opponent is trying to emphasize: children don't need to be taught about homosexuality because it is an adult topic. My opponent arguing that children will be confused with the logic that he's trying to capitalize on is like me driving over someone on the sidewalk and claiming that walking on sidewalks is dangerous. At the very least, the children can discover what homosexuality is and come into contact with people who are homosexuals. At some level, it provides and experience that will be not only beneficial for the child, but for the gay community. He continues to capitalize on the idea that this is all just conditioning even though he doesn't explain why this is inherently immoral. Warrants may or may not be needed for a moral debate, but my opponent at least needs a reason for what he's talking about.
Contention 4: Gay pride events in general, including the Gay Days at Disney, are inclined toward promoting the idealism of tolerance in the community toward LGBT groups. The key words in my opponent's rebuttal that points out the misunderstanding in his part of the Gay Days are "favoring one sexuality." As I explained earlier, no one is favoring any sexuality. It's only making an emphasis on it and creating the awareness that homosexuals are there and that homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. My opponent tries to describe the difference between gay pride parades and gay days, but (1) He does the exact same thing as I do when it comes to trying to explain what gay days are, even though he didn't invent them either, meaning that he's completely contradicting himself when he criticizes me for it. (2) He is under the impression that the days were made to favor one sexuality even though at the end of the day, gay pride parades also capitalize on a particular set of sexualities just like gay days do and does try to express joy and acceptance rather than spread some message what one sexuality is better than another (something I talked about in the previous rebuttal, which he completely drops). In the end, there really is no difference between gay days and gay pride parades other than where they take place at. My opponent tries to make it seem as if Disney World is just favoring a sexuality even though they capitalize on the other set of sexualities in LGBT, try to emphasize that these sexualities and the people therein deserve equal amounts of respect as heterosexuality, providing the implicit, and are expressing joy and acceptance too rather than "favoring" as my opponent puts it. If there really is discrimination here, this is a necessary, warranted discrimination if anything considering the many issues facing the LGBT community. He talks about how gay pride parades celebrate being gay rather than celebrate a sexuality even though being gay is an offset of being part of a sexuality. The distiction between celebrating being gay and celebrating a sexuality is really ambiguous. I hope that my opponent can explain this a little more. My opponent even said himself that the main point of these days is to accept gays, celebrating the state of being gay. This is clearly contradictory to the intention of my opponent's argument.
Contention 5: Politics are complicated. I agree. If, however, the company is doing something that benefits a part of the community, aids with the reduction of public health problems among gay people because of their alienation, and just in general promotes the message that gays should not be treated as second-class citizens, the criticism shouldn't really matter because it makes the community better at the end of the day. The people who have a preference to another political or social mindset are doing nothing but harming a group of people and deteriorating the community by spreading the idealism of closed-mindedness. Allow me to be more blunt: who cares about these people? If these are people whose idealisms mar the sanctity of community, integration,and diversity, their opinions and criticisms ought not matter. It's almost like celebrating Black History Month but attaining the negative feedback from racists in essence.
Gay Pride: First, let it be reminded to the judges that in order to make the difference, my opponent had to provide a reason why gay days are there in the first place, meaning he had to do the exact same thing that I did when I explained what the purpose of them were even though I didn't necessarily invent them. This is completely contradictory and (at the risk of having more reason to lose the conduct vote because of my forfeit) hypocritical. The continues this when he says that the purpose of Disney World, at the least the primary, is only to provide entertainment, even though he's not the head of the organization of Disney World either nor part of the group that controls it, yet he feels as if he can describe what the purpose is. Back to the emphasis on the difference between gay pride events and gay days, (1) If gay pride events are celebrating being gay, wouldn't this involve expressing pride in a sexuality, inherently celebrating a sexuality? (2) Gay days does nothing of the sort to promote that one sexuality is better than another. Rather, it emphasizes equal respect and promotes the message of tolerance, which is exactly what gay pride parades do. (3) According to my opponent's logic, because gay pride parades are focusing on a particular set of sexualities, this is discriminatory. In the end, my opponent's rebuttal tried to knock down my own argument with an irrelevant point.
Economy: The only thing that my opponent has proven is that there are tradeoffs. Any action has a tradeoff--an opportunity cost. I've provided evidence as to how popular these events are to the LGBT community, bringing forth many people, and if anything, preparation requires commerce in this scenario, meaning that there will be a stronger abundance of economy activity as well. My opponent has yet to prove that this is a negative tradeoff. My opponent has yet to prove that the harms of such a tradeoff outweigh the benefits, especially in a growing culture were acceptance for the diversity of sexualities is becoming paramount.
whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
This is the final round of the debate, meaning that I'm going to summarize the debate and go over exactly why I should be the winner of this debate. Since my opponent has failed to respond to my previous points, it means that my arguments are extended across the flow, and with consideration that my opponent has also forfeitedin this debate, we've become balanced out in our merit for the conduct vote.
Contentions 1 and 2: My opponent and I cannot stress this enough. These points are irrelevant to the debate and should be ignored period because my opponent dropped them himself.
Contention 3: With everything in my previous rebuttal said, we can conclude that my opponent has no reason why children should not be taught homosexuality or other things that he arbitrarily considers to be adult topics. Children talk about war, poverty, drugs, and other such topics from a young age, and all of this is done in order to supplement the child's mind. If my opponent wants to disagree with teaching children about such adult-themed topics, he would also have to disagree with teaching children about drugs and violence as well as other adult themes that would be important to be taught at such an early age, and based on my case, I have proven that homosexuality is another one of those adult topics that absolutely need to be taught. If children are confused, it is only because the world of his case has failed to try to teach these children a basis as to what homosexuality is, meaning that this is a highlight on the flaws of my opponent's case and not my own. He also doesn't explain why conditioning is immoral in any way or what context of morality he's using in order to evalute the morality thereof, meaning that we should look through my lens of morality where I'm trying to emphasize community benefit and consequentialism, and through this lens, the end result is betterment for a section of the community, an increased respect for the minority, and increased tolerance. Henceforth, this "conditioning" of children would be moral.
Contention 4: As I explained, it is clear that my opponent not only misunderstands the intention of Gay Days since it isn't favoring a sexuality, but emphasizing on LGBT and working toward emphasizing on the idea of pride of being a homosexual and deserving equal respect like a Gay Pride parade does, but he slams me for trying to interpret Gay Days without being someone who organized or invented it, yet he does the exact same thing when he tries to outline the differences between gay days and gay pride parades. My opponent fails to answer any of my question related to the gay pride aspect of the debate. In order to be proud of being a sexuality, the sexuality itself needs to be considered as something being worth proud of and needs to be highlighted, so at the end of the day, gay pride parades would also be inherently celebrating a sexuality just like how my opponent claims that a gay day is celebrating a sexuality. Under my opponent's case, gay pride parades would be just as discriminatory as gay days. Plus, even if this is really discrimination, it's warranted by the necessity of promoting gay pride, meaning that the discrimination would at least be morally permissible.
Contention 5: The opinion of those who would rather support intolerance than tolerance should not hinder an organization from promoting tolerance. This is all I will say on this subject.
Economics: The only thing that my opponent has shown us is that a trade-off has taken place. As I said before, every decision economic or otherwise would require a tradeoff. Economists don't say that there's no such thing as a free lunch for no reason. I have also explained that the increased commerce would be good for the economy as well. In order for my opponent to win over my point in this matter, he would have to prove that the cost of the losing of conservative customers would be higher than the benefit of acquiring liberal customers, which he has not.
Summary: The reasons why the judges will be voting for me in this debate are because my opponent's points are filled with contradictions and misunderstandings. He has no explanation as to why adult topics should not be taught to children. He doesn't have the morality explanation behind the conditioning of children. Everything that he stated in Contention 4 is based off misunderstanding of what encompasses Gay Days and contradictions on his own previous statements. For these reasons, the argumentation point should be mine.
whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.