Resolved: Disney World should continue to host its "gay days."
I remember how much you wanted to debate this topic instead of having American5 do it. If you choose to accept this debate, the first round is 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:
Thank you for posting
Contention 1: Children
Disney world is a children themed park. Homosexuality is an adult topic. Kids these days are taught about sex in 8th grade. It is not appropriate to advertise homosexuals in front of 4 year old.
Contention 2: Discrimination
Seriously, by doing this, Disney world is advertising homosexuality above other sexualities. Why does one sexuality get it's own day while the others don't? This is unfair.
Contention 3: Purpose
The purpose of Disney world is to entertain, and not show political messages.
Rebuttal: Gay pride
Yes, I get the concept of gay pride. But that is why there are such things as gay pride parades, that are not in the center of a child themed park. Gay pride parades and other events also have the benefits you listed, but is not in a child themed park for 4 year old.
Alternative events with same benefits
Gay pride parades
Educating people about this
Gay pride festivals
The list goes on.
Yes, and they also scare people away.
People that would not go that day:
Parents who don't want their 4 year old children exposed to adult subjects
People who don't want a whole day celebrating someone's sexuality.
Also, the amount of preparation would take so much money.
I thank my opponent for his response. I'll basically go down the flow with my opponent's case beginning with his own contentions and then his rebuttals:
Children: First of all, my opponent states that homosexuality is an adult topic with no real warrant as to why it should be an adult topic. This argument is pretty much begging the question. Childhood is one of the most critical learning periods for children, and with more and more experience and learning they attain during this time period, this only makes them grow into more knowledgeable teenagers and young adults in the future with consideration that this learning period was used wisely. If my opponent disagrees with any of what I just said, I can definately find scientific data explaining the enormity of the learning period as well as its existence. It doesn't make sense to keep children away from learning about different topics just because we feel it's "too strong," whatever my opponent's threshold for explaining what that is. This is all, of course, under the assumption that my opponent implies that parents in no way discuss "adult topics" with children. The only evidence he sort of gives is that kids these days are taught about sex in the 8th grade (which is sketchy all on its own considering his link didn't work), and in essence what he's implying is just to accept the status quo and leave it that without any sort of defense for the status quo itself. Connecting this response to my opponent's rebuttal, by the way, my opponent states that there are alternative pride events that can be used in order to spread the message of equality, but these can take place in large cities, where children can also come into contact and witness as well, meaning that there is still some possibility that a child can be exposed to this anyway.
Discrimination: This doesn't make sense. Disney World is trying to advertise that homosexuality is equivalent to the need of respect as other sexualities, and based on the evidence that I have provided in my case, the public requires such an assimilation of mindset in order to protect the more marginalized minority. Disney World in no way is trying to advertise one sexuality over another because of this. They're in no way stating that heterosexuality or other sexualities are lower in respect or quality. If my opponent could please explain why this is discrimination in any way, this would be much appreciated.
Purpose: This one doesn't make sense either. Yes, their main purpose is to entertain, but at the end of the day, corporations have the liberty to place an opinion about a topic or political affiliation. There is absolutely nothing prohibiting Disney World from doing this.
Moving on to my opponent's rebuttals:
Gay Pride: In my first rebuttal, I already explained that children have some possibility of being exposed to the alternatives considering that they take place in large cities. Looking at my opponent's alternatives: Gay pride festivals and gay pride parades are in essence the same exact thing: LGBT groups gathering in an area of a city in order to celebrate sexual identity. When you look at educating to the masses, my opponent provides absolutely no means of achieving this. If anything, Disney World's actions are educating the masses by doing this. He talks about how the list goes on, but he provides no sort of evidence about the other aspects of the list. Furthermore, if reaching benefits for homosexuals is the goal and earning the equal respect for the community is optimal, only using the alternatives will not reach that full potential. Branching out in the methodology could appeal to more of the masses.
Economy: In this country where homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted at a national level as a result of the numerous events and ideologies promulgated by the LGBT community and its supporters? The amount of people in support of homosexuality is increasing whereas people in dissupport are decreasing in the United States (if evidence is needed, I will post in the second round). This means that increases in profits would ensue anyway under this function. He talks about how there would be such a high iput of money for the preparations, but the preparations require the input of other companies through commerce. What my opponent just said helps my case: it just turned from Disney World making a profit to more than one corporation making a profit because of the input needed to prepare. This inspires commerce, which increases the GDP.
Thank you for posting.
Why is homosexualitty an adult topic?
Well first of all, what is homosexuality? Homosexuality is that sexual orientation that makes one sexually attracted to those of their same gender. (1) It is a sexual topic. Sex is an adult topic. Children are not mature enough to understand sex.
Children: My opponent then goes on to say that childhood is one of the most critical learning periods. I agree, but homosexuality is an adult topic. 4 year olds don't need to know about sex.
Discrimination: Sorry for not developing my point. The reason why it is discrimination is that no other sexualities get their own day. Asexuals don't get their own day. Hetrosexuals don't get their own day. Only homosexuals get their own day. My opponent says that gay days promode that homosexuality is equal to the other sexualities. But giving one sexuality its own day and the other not is not equality.
Purpose: Yes there are nothing prohibiting them. But this is about if they should, not if they could.
Gay pride: The difference is that it is not in a child-themed park that's purpose is to entertain and not show political messages. Yes, children could be exposed to it, but it is not in a park aimed for children. Celebrating homosexuality in front of 4 year olds is not educating them. Teaching older kids in school is.
Look here for a list of all the events: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Economy: One day would not help the economy much. Yes, the amount of people accepting homosexuality is increasing, but that does not mean they think it should be celebrated in park aimed at children. Take me in example. I accept homosexuality, but I do not think it should be celebrated in a child-themed park.
Conclusion: Celebrating homosexuality in a park aimed for children is innapropriate, discrimination to the other sexualities, and there are many alternatives.
Children, Homosexuality, and Adult Topics: My opponent pretty much responds to one fallacy of begging the question with another fallacy of begging the question by stating that sex is an adult topic and that's that. He places no threshold or idiosyncracies that specifically define an adult topic. Furthermore, even if sex is an adult topic, my opponent also doesn't respond to the general idea about the learning period of children and teaching children as much as they can in order to grow into more intelligent teenagers and adults. While the PRO world makes use of the time period where children can learn in order to benefit them in the long run, my opponent's world pretty much emphasizes the idea of keeping children ignorant as long as possible. He doesn't explain why children shouldn't be taught about something like this, neither does he provide any warrant that children are not talked to about topics that are considered "adult topics," including war, disease, famine, etc.
Purpose: Moving on to the purpose argument, the fact that they can and do have the liberty in order to uphold a political mindset brings out the "should" in this arguments, where Disney can either support a mindset that helps the gay community or destroys it based on what I've explained in Contention 1. In my personal opinion, it takes a village to raise a child. It is not only the influence of the parents, but also the conditions of the milieu at which children are exposed to that determines their general upbringing, and as Disney World is a part of the community as a business, even if it's only in Orlando, FL, it holds even a little bit of responsibility in aiding the upbringing of children. Furthermore, even if everything I said is false, my opponent in no way holds any evidence that this is the only purpose for Disney World at all. My opponent is neither a representative of the corporation nor does he hold any evidence from a representative of the corporation tstating that the solitary, single purpose of Disney World is entertainment. His argument in this part holds no water because of this simple fact.
Discrimination: The fact that Disney World is trying to emphasize the idea that heterosexuality has a worth and homosexuality has a worth equivalent to that already provides the implicit recognition of that sexuality. We must understand that discrimination is only to treat one group of people distinctively from the rest, and it becomes immoral when it emphasizes that this group is better for no morally or practically relevant reason. Gay days do neither with what they are advertizing. Not only does it emphasize that the sexuality is equal, but the fact that LGBT groups face so much scrutiny warrants the need for a day individualized to them, justifying the discrimination if there is any. "Straight days" would not be warranted as such.
Gay Pride: His rebuttal here is pretty much every single argument that he stated in his arguments about the purpose of Disney World and adult topics, meaning that most of his rebuttal here is moot. The only thing that remains is the idea of alternatives and that this event does not educate, even though it provides a first-hand look at homosexuals themselves and gives them an experience itself, which is one of the techniques of education. Furthermore, he talks about the alternatives, but I explained that while the alternatives are there, there is room to branch out with the techniques used by LGBT supporters.
Economy: My opponent assumes that the benefit to the economy is just one day, even though he stated himself that the preparations would be costly, and considering the largeness of the event, they would require much time in order to get done. This is not even to mention the tickets bought for planes or gas used to drive there, the food, the hotel stays, etc. Furthermore, even if it is only one day, the fact that so many people come to this event shows the largeness of the profit that would come. My opponent only seems to be looking from the perspective of the profits of the company itself in a one-day basis even though this is something planned out in the long-term. What he's saying about the proportions of people that will not come may be true, but there's no way of knowing considering he has no evidence to contradict my own.
I would not like to leave this debate as just a tie, but I would like to ask that this debate not discount my opponent on the conduct vote because he won't be able to show up. Rather, it would be best if this debate is judged based on the rounds we were able to complete and the arguments we were able to make. My opponent had the opportunity to at least make some closing arguments, but he really didn't in the fourth round. Nonetheless, I'm just going to give a quick summary of the debate and a general conclusion as to why I should be the winner. I will be going over through his case and then through the general arguments he had through mine.
Children and Adult Topics: The entire basis and foundation for this argument was nothing more than circular reasoning: homosexuality is an adult topic, so children should not know about it. Children should not know about it because it is an adult topic. There are absolutely no warrants in any of the arguments that he makes. He doesn't explain what is the threshold at which something is an adult topic. He doesn't explain why children shouldn't learn about said adult topics. He doesn't provide evidence that children indeed do not learn about adult topics at such an age. Like I said, while the PRO world tries to make use of the child's critical learning period in order to make them more knowledgeable teens and young adults more tolerant to homosexuals, the CON just wants to keep them ignorant for no reason other than the idea that homosexuality is an adult topic, and because it is an adult topic, children should be kept ignorant of it.
Discrimination: Under the world of the CON, any gay pride event would be discriminatory because it focuses on a sexuality or a set of sexualities, meaning that even if there are said alternatives, my opponent's logic would condemn them anyway. I explained what discrimination is and when it is immoral, and based on the conditions on which discrimination is immoral, I explained that gay days do neither promote that any sexuality is better than another nor hold such an event with a paucity of morally or practically relevant reason.
Purpose: Just like my opponent didn't have any warrants on the children and adult topics argument, he didn't have any warrants for trying to outline the purpose of Disney World. First, neither is my opponent a representative of Disney World nor does he provide any information from a representative of Disney World that proves that Disney World's solitary purpose for existence is to provide entertainment. It is the people that run the company not the clientele that provide the purpose. I also talked a hint of the moral aspect of this company doing this as well, running under the old "it takes a village to raise a child" mindset, explaining that this company is not only morally encouraged but morally obligated to propose a mindset of tolerance for the children of the community.
Gay Pride: My opponent goes on and on about alternatives even though I already explained that under his logic, the alternatives would be immoral and discriminatory anyway, and I talked about how it was good for gay pride groups to branch out anyway using as many methods as possible rather than only focusing on the same method the same exact time. This is generally inefficient to achieve the result that is desired by these groups.
Economy: In the beginning, it was only focusing on the profits of Disney, and when my opponent came to bat about this topic, his idea pretty much emphasized my idea by insinuating that commerce would pick up from this decision. Not to mention that I have much more ample evidence about this topic than he does.
Summary and Conclusion: I already explained to ignore the conduct vote in this debate out of courtesy for my opponent, but when you look at all the argumentations and the sources I've posted, it makes me the most eligible candidate for the argument and sources vote in this debate. First off, my opponent failed to even provide a final argument before leaving for his vacation, so pretty much everything I said in the previous rebuttal is extended across the flow anyway. Instead of actually rebutting anything I said, my opponent pretty much just reiterates his position rather than providing counterarguments, meaning that he wouldn't have been arguing against anything I said throughout the course of this debate. My opponent's only sources have been to provide definitions, but that is about it, whereas my own evidence cited in the constructive everything that supported my points. For these reasons, I urge a vote for me in this debate.
1dustpelt forfeited this round.
|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:||4||0|