The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Tied
9 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Tied
9 Points

Resolved: Parents ought be banned from forcing minors into ex-gay therapy or conversion practices.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,045 times Debate No: 23737
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

First round acceptance.
larztheloser

Con

It's the first round. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate (excuse the rather last-minute debate case), and I would like to affirm the resolution and stand on the PRO end of this debate with the following parameters to establish, beginning with the definitions of the resolution:

Definitions

ought(v.): Used to indicate duty or correctness; moral should

force (v.): To gain by the use of force or coercion.

ex-gay therapy (n.): a type of sexual orientation change effort that attempts to change the sexual orientation of a person from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual.

I establish the following observations for this debate:

Observations
Observation 1: The scenario being evaluated for the qualification of banning is the following: a parent wants to place their child (a minor) into any sort of therapy or practice that attempts to change their sexual orientation through means of coercion.
Observation 2: Based on the definition of ought in the resolution, the evaluation in this debate on the ban is a moral one.

With the establishment of morality as the lens at which this debate will be evaluated, I establish my lens for which I am looking at morality: consequentialism, harm principle, and justice.

With my parameters established, I move on to the iteration of my points:

Contention 1:
Ex-gay therapy is inadequate and immoral
The practice of ex-gay therapy is completely contradictory to the general intent of the practice of psychology, causes negative effects to the individual in the long run, and perpetuates a general ideology that causes harm to the members of the LGBT community. For these reasons, ex-gay therapy is inadequate and immoral for society in general, let alone children.

Sub-point 1a: Ex-gay therapy is inherently immoral.
Because the general idea of ex-gay therapy inherently condemns homosexuality in general and aligns itself with a mindset prejudiced against this group of people, ex-gay therapy is inherently immoral in reason. The Pan-American Health Organization commented: "Health professionals who offer “reparative therapies” align themselves with social prejudices and reflect a stark ignorance in matters of sexuality and sexual health. Contrary to what many people believe or assume, there is no reason — with the exception of the stigma resulting from those very prejudices — why homosexual persons should be unable to enjoy a full and satisfying life. The task of health professionals is to not cause harm and to offer support to patients to alleviate their complaints and problems, not to make these more severe. A therapist who classifies non-heterosexual patients as “deviant” not only offends them but also contributes to the aggravation of their problems."

Sub-point 1b: Ex-gay therapy causes harm in the long run.
The practice at which ex-gay therapy is done and its effects further invalidate ex-gay therapy as anything moral. The APA reports:"The APA's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation reached its conclusion based on a lengthy (137-page) review of over 80 studies conducted from 1960 to 2007. They found an overall abysmal state of research, with "serious methodological problems" in most of the studies. The reputable studies, they found, overwhelmingly show that long-term change in a person's sexual orientation is "uncommon." Those who underwent such therapies frequently reported subsequent difficulties, including loss of sexual feeling, suicidality, depression and anxiety. As a result of these findings, the group passed a resolution warning its over 150,000 members not to advise clients to attempt to use therapy to change their sexual orientation...Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, chairwoman of the task force that presented the report at the group's annual meeting in Toronto, Canada. "At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex." The inefficiency of this practice further contributes to the idea that this practice is impractical and immoral with consideration that it receives money in order to do a practice that is potentially harmful and generally dysfunctional.

Sub-point 1c:

"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:
  • Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
  • Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
  • Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
  • Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
  • Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health

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:

  • 8.4 times momore likely to report high levels of depression
  • 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
  • 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex
  • 4.0 times more likely to commit suicide

Contention 2:
Coercion to enter ex-gay therapy is a violation of rights.
When looking from the scope of human rights, we can see that ex-gay therapy is a complete violation to the inherent rights of the minor not only for the reason of being exposed to potential harm by the parent, but also for the reason of the fact that the minor in question is being coerced against his will. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which specifically iterates the human rights of people and provides a universal and ubiquitous template for human rights, states in Article 20 that humans have the right not be forced into associations along with Article 3 describing the human right to life and the security of the person.
larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent for opening this debate.

Definitions clarification

In my round, I'm going to differentiate between ex-gay therapy and sexual conversion practices. My opponent defined ex-gay therapy as being a sexual orientation change effort - that's actually what sexual conversion practices are. Ex-gay therapy, by contrast, is for people whose orientation has been changed IN THE PAST (hence the title "ex-gay"), to help them atone from their previous sinful ways.

Sources

I'd appreciate a link to any sources cited in future.

BOP

BOP is held by my opponent in this debate.

Why there is no inherent immorality (response to 1A)

By exactly the same logic as what the Pan-American Health Organization espouses, Mardi Gras should be banned because it is prejudiced against those who run these camps. The logic goes, essentially, that they believe the homosexuality is immoral (of course, as with all matters of spirituality, nobody really knows for certain who's right), which causes pain and suffering to homosexuals. Exactly the same thing happens if you say bashing homosexuals is immoral - it causes pain and suffering to homosexual bashers. Inherently, none of these groups is more important than the other.

Why long-run harm won't accrue (response to 1B)

My opponent cites the APA at length, who essentially argue that therapy is inefficient and not tested thoroughly enough. It's important not to overlook the obvious here: these conclusions are contradictory. If something was not tested thoroughly, how would one know whether it was inefficient? Furthermore, it asserts the practice to be immoral, but provides no evidence for it. That's because it's a pseudo-scientific body: science cannot prove morality because science must be testable, but with morality you cannot exclude alternatives, meaning it is not testable. It's true that there isn't much research into this but that's no reason to call it immoral. Lots of research has been done into murder, but that doesn't make murder moral, does it? By the way, if you're wondering how this relates to the long-run any more than pro's previous point, I'm just as confused as you.

Why discrimination will accrue anyway (response to 1C)

I agree discrimination is bad, but people who don't like gays will discriminate against them whether they go to these camps or don't go. If they don't go to the gay camps, they'll get bullied for being queer. On the other hand, if they do go, even if the gay camp is 100% successful in every way, they'll still get bullied for being "that kid who had to go to gay camp". So while I agree discrimination is a problem, people who discriminate aren't discriminating because of the camps, they're discriminating because they're homosexual. If causing discrimination is my opponent's standard of morality, then I suppose he must believe homosexuality is immoral.

Why human rights is not affected (response to 2)

My opponent believes that children have a "human right" not to be put in a position of potential harm, and not to be coerced against their will. If the former were true, then parents should not be allowed to send their child to swimming lessons because of the potential for drowning. If the latter were true, then taxes would be a gross violation of human rights. He cites article 20, that people should not be forced into associations - does that mean states violate human rights by giving residents citizenship? Human rights are not absolutes - they exist to guarantee us basic dignities as humans, but not to entitle us to complete freedom of action and total anarchy.

A more pertinent example is the UN declaration of the rights of the child (http://www.un.org...), which specifically states "The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination." Which brings me on to my next point...

Tale of Two Discriminations

On the one hand, you can't discriminate against people's religion. On the other, you can't discriminate against sexuality. Trouble is, religion discriminates against deviant sexualities all the time, and equally (though arguably as a response), deviant sexual groups discriminate against religion. Being spiritually and sexually secure are both important to being human. The existence of gay people means that one of these rights must be privileged over the other.

So on what moral basis is sexuality more important than religion. Surely, sexuality is premised on religion in every way. For instance, if nothing existed there would be no sexuality. Religion is a metaphysical concept, and sexuality is a physical concept. The sheer scope of religion demands that it is of a higher moral order. An analogy to this might be asking whether electricity or the electric light bulb is more important - the answer is obviously electricity, because it is of a higher order than the light bulb. One depends on the other making it a more fundamental thing to discriminate against.

Conclusion

My opponent has failed to meet the BOP. I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Definitions: When you look at the general definition of ex-gay therapy, it mainly focuses on the reparative therapies dedicated toward chaning sexual orientation. To clarify, what we're focusing on in this debate are the attempts to change sexual orientation.
Immorality of therapy: There is a difference between causing pain and suffering to homosexuals and causing pain and suffering to homosexual bashers, and this contradicts the general idea that my opponent puts forth about how one group is not inherently more important than another: it is morally permissible to cause pain and suffering to homosexual bashers. First, there isn't any warrant on the side of the opposition that states that any sort of harm comes to homosexual bashers because of the perpetuation of a mindset of tolerance in the community, just to make that clear. Second, homosexual bashers as a group have inherently done something to cause harm to others with no warrant, making them punishable. Not only that, but my opponent excessively simplifies the argument for sub-point 1a. Ex-gay therapy not only harms the gays who enter and perpetuates a social idea destructive to a population within the community, but it inherently takes advantage of the gays who enter with the use of psychology in a way not meant in accordance with the mission and protocol of psychology research--especially in the matters of sexuality and sexual health.
Long-Term Harm: First, I'd like my opponent to tell me exactly where in my citation from the APA did it state that the therapy was not tested thoroughly enough considering that it even spoke about the 80 studies compiled into a 137-page report between 1960-2007. This means that the claim that the therapy itself is generally inefficient is still standing. He talks a bit into the incongruous nature of science and morality and of the pseudo-scientific body, but it really doesn't make sense here. I'm not really understanding what my opponent is saying that because alternatives cannot be excluded, morality is not testable, nor am I understanding the general idea that science cannot be used to determine morality because of the idea that science is testable and morality is not (giving my opponent the benefit of the doubt). Morality requires the evaluation of an action and/or its effects, meaning that something testable is needed in order to determine the evaluation itself anyway.
The accrue of discrimination: If my opponent is saying that discrimination will continue if the children go or don't go, this is only proving my argument because it proves the idea that there's no practicality in sending children to ex-gay therapy anyway considering the consequences will be all the same. My case is in no way using discrimination as a standard of morality--although only unfair discrimination is really was is condemnable since there are many forms of discrimination that aren't inherently immoral or at the very least morally permissible, like an employer giving more attention or benefits to those with higher merits. I'm not sure where my opponent got that idea from at all. This is not the main point of my sub-point 1c. This is to further prove the inherent immorality of ex-gay therapy by perpetuating this mindset, furthing proving that the research is inadequate for society at a moral level.
Human Rights: My opponent does a lot of prefacing when it comes to his initial arguments, especially when it comes down the argument about taxes. I'm trying to state that coercion in this situation would be a violation of human rights with citation to Article 20 (ergo, I state that a child's human rights are being violated because he/she is being coerced to belong into an association), and he brings out something about taxes which doesn't fit into the scope of my argumentation. He talks about states granting citizenship, but (1) If he's talking about nation-states, citizenship has to be acquired by the person entering into the country by himself/herself anyway. (2) Even if it were given out to people like that, the people have CHOSEN to be part of that said association, meaning that this is not a violation of human rights. It's evident from all these arguments my opponent makes that he has no real understanding of human rights.

larztheloser

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for continuing his case.

Inherant Immorality

My opponent comes up with three basic counter-arguments.

First he asserts that it's OK to cause pain and suffering to homosexual bashers, as they have caused harm without warrent. I disagree with the "without warrent" part here. If it is really true that, as many of them believe, some God is up there who hates gays and will send them to hell upon their death, then sending minors to gay camps would, in fact, be a helpful and charitable act, as well as entirely warrented. How is he so sure their religion is false? As with all morals, who knows what consequences they will have in the future? Science can't prove morality (I proved that last round), so I'm still waiting warrent for why he knows that his beliefs are the only "moral" beliefs?

Second he argues that pain and suffering does not result from promoting tolerance. This assumes that tolerance will actually accrue under his model, which it won't. Homosexual bashers will always be just as intolerant whether they run gay camps or not. Besides this, my opponent is being particulary intolerant of the religious view that gay kids need gay camps. He presents no warrent as to why the one is tolerable and the other is not.

Third he argues that the camps misuse science. I question the arrogance of the American Psychological Association in determining what is right and wrong for psychological research. I am particulary offended at this as a student of psychology (among other things) in a country other than America. The American Psychological Association does not have a monopoly on psychological research, and could not have conducted much of its research if it wasn't for researchers in countries like mine. Besides this, science was always meant to be pushed into new directions. When Copernicus challenged the existing scientific hierarchy, Martin Luther made the same argument as my opponent does now. That didn't stop Martin Luther being dead wrong. There is no "correct" way to use science, and no institution has a monopoly say on the moral laws of psychology.

Long-term harm

Again, my opponent runs three counter-arguments.

First my opponent questions whether the APA really said that there was insufficient good-quality research. The answer is in the very passage he cited in round two. If you'll scroll back up, you'll see that of the 80 studies indentified "They found an overall abysmal state of research, with 'serious methodological problems' in most of the studies... Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation".

Second my opponent hints (forgive me if I read too far "between the lines" here) that you only need a single study to prove inefficiency. This is true, but only given one sample. You can't start making inferances about the population of the thousands of gay camps out there in the world, given only a select sample of a few studies. If you actually go back to the APA metastudy and check back on many of the "reliable" studies, you'll see that many are post-treatment studies, meaning they are unlikely to have many "fundamentalist" participants who "truely believe" and are thus most likely, in their faith-based healing worldview, to have truely changed their behaviour. Of those that did take consideration of the treatment given, they only looked at places that allowed this to happen, which is itself a skewed and biased sample. None of that proves inefficiency, and that's (apparently) the best data we have.

Third he argues that you can prove a moral belief with science (although he claims not to "understand" my argument - some more direction as to what exactly is not understood would be appreciated) because "morality requires the evaluation of an action and/or its effects, meaning that something testable is needed in order to determine the evaluation itself anyway". Morality would only require this, however, if you could prove it. Since morality needs something testable however it cannot be tested, morality cannot be proven. If you accept your argument is a moral one, I contend this is equivalent to accepting defeat.

Discrimination

While it is true that discrimination-stopping is not a reason why going to gay camps is good, this does not prove they're useless. The main merit in having gay camps is that they stop religious families from breaking apart just because they have a gay kid. It has happened often enough that families have literally abandoned their teenage children because of their sexual orientation and the family's religious belief. Gay camps help these families stay together because they allow the families to believe the gay minors have redeemed themselves in the eyes of God. This is particulary so because the gay camps are often run by churches themselves.

My opponent admits that some discrimination is morally permissable, and yet continues to use discrimination as a moral standard for excluding gay camps (or as he so eloquently puts it, they are "inadequite for society at a moral level"). What he needs to tell us is where he draws the line - why is some discrimination OK, and other discrimination not OK. Until he does this, his point is void.

Human Rights

In the same way as children around the world are coerced to go into school boards and healthcare districts, so is there nothing inhumane with coercing them to join this association. Why? Because children have other rights that are in conflict with this right. They have a right to free education, for instance, and social security, as outlined in the UN declaration of the rights of the child. The same thing is true here. Children have the right to spiritual development, and also to free association. According to the legal doctrine of Lex Specialis (http://en.wikipedia.org...), the more general rule must be ignored in favour of the more specific one - and in this case, the special rule for children in terms of spritual development over-rides the general rule for humans giving free association. That having been said, this debate is not about whether such camps are illegal (overwhealming case law says they're not), this is about whether they should be made illegal.

Children do not choose a nationality upon being born - they are forced into it by their families. It is NOT something they have "CHOSEN" (capitalisation is my opponent's). And no, children do not have to acquire a nationality themselves, it is presented to them with their birth certificates. This is legal because the UN declaration of the rights of the child gives all children the right to a name and a nationality, again over-riding the general rule of free association.

My opponent says it is evident I have no understanding of human rights. If so, I ask that he please enlighten us, given that he couldn't even present the relevant law in round two, which isn't the Universal declaration of human rights but the UN declaration of the rights of the child. I'd appreciate it if personal insults like this could be kept out of the debate.

Two Discriminations

Yes, I did make a case of my own! My case was that sexuality is premised on religion, and thus it is only just that religion governs sexuality. I ask my opponent to respond.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

A Tidbit on Morality: Under the mindset that my opponent is trying to emphasize, in which there is a relativistic threshold on morality that can create a warrant for almost any perspective of morality, it's perfectly fine and okay for homosexual bashers to cause harm to homosexuals because under a certain form of morality (this being Christianity or religions in general). The question then comes down to why my version of morality is paramount and why my opponent's is wrong. Actions do need a warrant through a perspective of morality, but a perspective of morality needs a warrant as well. Morality has a purpose, as Professor of Philosophy Bryan Benham (source cited at bottom of round) explains, where it is not only to guide actions for society, but the end result is to promote social harmony and ameliorate suffering. The entirety of my Contention 1 explains exactly why my version of morality promotes this general purpose: it actually betters a population of people within a community at some level by reducing their risk of stigmatization and eventual mental illnesses and issues. A homosexual basher's morality is not this way. Not only does their mindset and morality have no sort of validation that their purpose is being achieved other than what they believe will be achieved, although it is not proven, but their mindset does nothing but the opposite of the purpose of morality: undermines the purpose of justice by placing judgement or punishment on people based on religious belief rather than the objective analysis of a person's actions, harms an entire population of the community under a mindet with no warrant, and otherwise brings unnecessary conflict all based on this mentality.
Pain and Suffering/Tolerance: My opponent pretty much misinterprets everything I said and turns it into a strawman argument. The entirety of my sub-point 1a and 1c aims to explain the inherent immorality (with a moral perspective I just gave a warrant for in the previous paragraph) of ex-gay research and the inadequacy of it from a moral perspective toward society in general, let alone children. He, however, perceives this as some sort of implicit notion stating that tolerance will accrue from this, even though my only intention was to prove that the inadequacy of the research exists. If there is anything that I'm trying to prove will reduce pain or suffering at any level is the information posted in sub-point 1b, where it explains the danger of people entering the research in the first place, which moves toward the argument that ex-gay therapy should not be used for children.
Misuse of Science: First, my opponent needs to understand my intention in bringing the APA into this matter. I needed a point source of credible opinion which is directed at providing the reason as to which the field of pscyhology exists. My opponent seems to be mistaking the research I post up with a sort of authoritarian claim from some sort of "big daddy" of psychology (even though the APA is the largest psychological association in the world and one of the most respected). Ex-gay therapy misuses science because they use pscyhology in a way that harms people, which is contrary to the general objective of science toward building up a better world and thus achieving morality. If anything, the ex-gay therapy here is unethical based on my evidence (and it's not just because the APA said it was, even though they hold a certain credibility when they do).
Long-Term Harm: It's very evident that my opponent completely misunderstands everything that the research talked about. When they talked about the conclusions they came from the 80 studies, they were talking about the conditions of ex-gay therapy itself, and when they talked about insufficient evidence, they were talking about the proof that sexual identities were changed beyond a shadow of a doubt after the ex-gay therapy. This was done by analyzing people after the research, and while they found little to no evidence stating that there was a change in sexual orientation, there was ample evidence to state there were harms from the research. I'm not sure where my opponent believes that I need a single study to prove inefficiency (even though this was not a single study but a general conclusion from the 80 conducted by the APA), but that was never my intention. I'm sorry if my opponent misunderstood that. I hope that my opponent can also run by me a stronger explanation as to why my information from the APA is biased in its sampling in order to provide a more effective rebuttal. My opponent states that I would need to prove morality, but I already talked about how morality has an inherent purpose for society and explained that morality needs to fit along those purposes in order to be valid. This would require only further study based on making decisions in order to prove the validity of a moral perspective, meaning that at the end of the day, something testable would need to be used in order to evaluate not only a moral decision but the validity of morality itself. This still, however, doesn't answer the general idea about something testable cannot be used to prove something untestable, however, when even through analyzing the action through a moral perspective, a look at the effects or on the action itself, meaning evaluation would need to be done.
Discrimination: At the point where despite everything my opponent has said about my evidence, even though my opponent seems to have mostly misunderstood it or misinterpreted it, that my opponent has no warrants for the information that he's talking about when he says that ex-gay therapy isn't entirely useless under the idea that ex-gay therapy will be successful (begging the question), the fact that I have evidence on the effects of this research and he doesn't means that this debate will lean more toward my side of the debate when it comes down to the evaluation, and what I have been able to show is that not only are these institutions pretty much virtually useless, but also greatly harmful to the mental health of its patients. Second, paints a black-and-white scenario of this religious family where it apaprently seems like the only option is ex-gay therapy or face the disassembly of the family itself. The cohesion of the family in question depends on the parents' tolerance, and the alternative exists where the parents can just get over the differences. As for the warrant for my drawing the line on discrimination, I believe I had touched on it before: discrimination against a group is morally permissible when the group in question has done something in order to make them punishable. Under my form of morality, homosexual bashers would be punishable because they violated the rights of a person. Under their form, they would not be punishable, but their morality has no warrant anyway.
Human rights: I was looking at a general context when it came to human rights. If my opponent wants to talk about the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child, he should've taken note of section 2, which states that spiritual growth is a right, but this needs to be done so in a healthy and normal manner--a manner which ex-gay therapy does not provide, in conditions of freedom and dignity, which parents do not provide since the action is coerced anyway rather than allowed to have a personal approach to the situation. Whether you look at it through either document, either way, the coercion violates the human rights. I never meant the comment to be insulting, and for that, I apologize.
larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent for continuing his case. Note that while my opponent comes up with new names for the points, they are really still the same. I'll be using the original names to avoid confusion.

Inherant Immorality

My opponent's case is essentially that the moral view of homosexual-bashers is unwarrented. I don't defend homosexual bashers, I defend gay camps. The two are not exactly the same. A Christian may genuinely love homosexuals but wish for them to change their behaviour, sort of like how I like people who eat at McDonalds but would love for people to eat healthier food. Such a Christian would not be a homosexual basher, but may well choose to send his kids to gay camp if they turn out gay. So is this view of morality warrented? My opponent claims a moral view is warrented if it leads to a happy and harmonious world. If the common gay-camp conception of God is real, then yes, gay camps do lead to a better world. The practice of homosexual bashing may not, but that isn't the topic of this debate (recall that I've already proven that the motion in no way impacts gay discrimination and stigmitisation). If such a God is not real, then no, gay camps fail to lead to a better world. So the big question is really whether this God is real is not.

You'll recall that last round I stated that since my opponent has the burden of proof and is bringing the claim, it is he who must provide the justification for why he is so sure that their moral beliefs are unwarrented. Since he has defined his warrant in terms of the harm, and since the harm is entirely premised on the existance of this diety, he must disprove their God in order to carry the moral point with his own criterion. My opponent's latest round adds nothing new to this except to label everybody who works at a gay camp a homosexual basher. That's unfair, and besides, gay camps only reflect the problem, they do not cause or proliferate it into wider society.

Validation is inherantly deeply subjective. Is that particular miracle, or other sign from God, validation or is it something else? Validation is thus also not a good standard. Objectivity is also deeply problematic as a standard because the whole message of tolerance and "being gay is OK" is not an objective belief. So I agree that the gay camps do not match these moral criteria, however, denying parents the power to send their children to any center that allows them to explore how their sexuality and religion relate is not morally better in this regard. Besides this, my opponent presents no warrent for why validation or objectivity are necessary grounds for allowing something to happen. You might as well stop all religious belief because the validation is uncertain and the beliefs are inherantly subjective.

Ultimately, as I've said right from the start, every belief is biased against everybody who believes the opposite. Subjective "feelings" of minority groups, be they hardcore religious fundamentalists or super-proud gay people, is thus an insufficient standard. As to tolerance, I never even suggested gay camps lead to tolerance. My opponent still presents no evidence or analysis as to why not sending kids to gay camp creates tolerance.

Finally, with the APA point, he continues to assert his own and the APA's divine authority to say what is the "right" use of science and what is the "wrong" use of science, regardless of how many members they have or what support they claim. I continue to maintain this point is both disrespectful and counter to the very ideals of science, as I explained last round. Claiming that science is "for" one thing or another is not evidence, it's an assertion. You also need to respond to my material to make this point stand.

Long-Term Harm

My opponent conceeds that the APA found that the studies were inadequite at determining that sexual identities were changed by gay camps. Absence of evidence for the efficiency of gay camps is not evidence of absence. Recall that the APA ignored most of the 80 studies because of methodological issues.

The biased sampling thing is this - if a person is a hardcore Christian, they're less likely to agree to be sampled by the APA because of the APA's longstanding anti-gay-camp stance. Hardcore Christians, however, are also more likely to have more effectively suppressed their old sexual identity because of the added impact of faith.

My opponent asserts that the validity of morality requires some evaluation to test. I agree fully, however, that assumes that a moral belief is "valid". I've been asserting all along a relativistic view of morality, that doesn't have valid or invalid dichotomies. The whole notion that one set of actions will make the world better while another will make the world worse is flawed because different people have different standards of what is "better" and what is "worse".

Discrimination

The first half of this point is a single sentance that is, unfortunately, so grammatically wrong that I cannot interpret it without some serious judgement on my part. Given how we've already seen I'm prone to adding in extra arguments to my opponent's case, I'd prefer that my opponent take a moment to get that sentance in order, and then I promise to give it lots of attention.

About family cohesion, I don't think a particulary tolerant family is relevant to this debate as they're unlikely to force their kids to gay camp. We're talking about the extremists, the people who'd prefer not to know their kids than to not know their God. For many, that's not an irrational calculus.

About punishing based on violation of rights, that's both an arbritrary standard and, more importantly, a non-applicable one. The reason why it's not applicable is because no rights are violated at these camps - it's not like people have the right to not know about what their religion says about their sexuality.

Human rights

Section two is an interesting right because there's an issue of normalcy - all kids must have normal spiritual development. Gay camps do provide spritual development, and it isn't unhealthy in a spiritual sense, but it isn't normal. The law here varies by country. In the USA, for example, there is a constitutional over-riding privilege of freedom of religion. Other countries, particulary Islamic countries, force kids to have the same spiritual development as every other kid in the country to ensure that their spiritual development is "normal". I think the latter view is inappropriate as it turns the right into a restriction. Gay camps are about offering kids choices, and helping them if they choose to accept their faith over their sexuality. If they don't make that choice, then at least they can overcome the insecurity about their sexuality and religion. Weirdness in puberty is normal, but being gay presents unusual challenges that inherantly make spiritual development of these children anything but. Unusual challenges demand unusual treatment. It's a false assertion that everybody who goes to gay camp goes to get treated - many go just to explore their faith and their sexual identity, given the difficulties and uncertainties all teenagers face. Is it a human right to be normal? If so, we wouldn't be human.

Two Discriminations

This point still awaits a response.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I'm just going to do a quick run through the arguments and explain why I should be the winner of this debate.
Validation/Inherent Morality: My opponent claims that validation is inherently subjective. This is not true. Harmony can be measured at an objective level by the means of observation of social interaction and conditions of the environment. Suffering can be measured at an objective level by analyzing the conditions at which the general public is subjected to. Considering that, as I have explained, these are truly the arbiters as to what determines what morality is suitable and valid for the evaluation of action, validation, even at some level, is objective. Since my opponent argues in no way against this premise, we will now use this in order to evaluate his standard of morality. My opponent has it all twisted when he states that I need to disprove God in order to knock down the idea of his morality even though that (1) His own premise and logic for his standard of morality is based on this ambiguous either-or situation depending on the existence of God, which he himself provides no evidence for, meaning that at the end of the day, even if I do not disprove God (which my opponent does not explain how I can disprove God either), his logic holds no water. (2) I've already proven that his standard for morality is invalid at an objective level with consideration the risks this research brings to the table and the rights harmed as a result of this coercion. My opponent's burden is to contradict what I'm saying in this debate, meaning some warrants of his own would've been great in doing so, but since he has no proof of his own showing that my morality is invalid according to this standard or anything of the sort, my opponent has not reached up to his position in this debate.
Tolerance: Hopefully this will be the last time I have to repeat this. In no way did I say that tolerance would accrue, and I explained why my argument doesn't even imply that it would accrue under my model. This was only an explanation as to why the therapy is inherently immoral: because it supports this sort of ideal.
Morality/Science: The very ideal of science is to find knowledge in an ethical and safe manner, and at the point where this practice is harming people in the long run, the practice is considered to be unethical not by the standards of the APA, but by the standards of science itself. I have responded to the things that my opponent has said, and when you look back at what my opponent HAS said in his own rebuttals and his own logic, you'll see that many of the things he said are assertions.
APA Research: Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. While this may be true, the fact that there is no evidence doesn't aid to my opponent's case at all nor does it prove any of the assertions he himself made when talking about how this research would be beneficial for families. My opponent doesn't prove that there is any biased sampling either. He doesn't go into my research and explain the subjects themselves, meaning that this bias may or may not exist. This ambiguity in the argument cannot make it stand.
Discrimination: What I'm saying is this: I have more evidence than my opponent. About tolerant families, he also misunderstood this. What I'm saying is that my opponent creates an either-or scenario instead of seeking all of the alternatives. To be honest, if families are not able to accept their children's sexuality and the calculus only comes to this scenario rather than just adapting and becoming tolerant, this is more of evidence that there's problems with families rather than there is a need for this research.
Human Rights: My opponent just assumes that the text means that they should be able to reach spiritual optimization through healthy ways spiritually. In no place does the document state that the health is measured in means of spirituality, and considering my evidence, this is not a healthy way in order for children to develop spiritually.
larztheloser

Con

My opponent has kept his final round quite short, so I'll just go through each of the points he raised and explain why he has failed to meet his burden of proof on them.

Two Discriminations

My opponent has ignored my point throughout this whole debate. Since he did not answer any of my material and I answered all of his, I guess the point is conceeded. That alone should be enough to prevent my opponent meeting his burden of proof, since the point rebuts all his other arguments. This is despite me wasting characters every round telling my opponent to answer it.

Validation/Inherent Morality

My opponent presents no further warrent for why tolerance is moral, other than a long list of assertions that I've already explained gay-camp-runners do not grant. The fact is that some aspects of morality are not universal, and it's my opponent's burden to prove that wrong, not mine (since my opponent is the one brining the claim about validation). Since the only basis for their morality is God, he needs to disprove that.

That was one of my two responses. I guess the other one's dropped - that every belief is biased towards the opposite. My opponent has failed to show any inherant immorality in anything, but rather has attempted to impose his own values on what he calls "objectivity."

Tolerance

My opponent admits this will not accrue as a benefit. In round two he claimed it would twice, as a flow-on from 1C and in 1A. Both of these claimed benefits he now admits will not accrue.

Morality & Science

My opponent has failed to present any justification for why his view about what should and should not be moral when using science is true. I've gone from Martin Luther to modern-day psychology to prove my view, and my opponent has only asserted his. It's my opponent who should be having the burden of proof here, but I've been the one doing the proving.

Long-Term Harm

My opponent has done nothing to refute my sampling claim. He claims I don't prove it, but does not engage with my analysis. He has not rebutted my analysis on the validity of moral studies either. My opponent has only pointed to an absence of evidence. For sure, that doesn't help my case either, but remember, my opponent has the burden of proof. If niether of us proves our cases, burden of proof means I win the debate.

Discrimination

Less discrimination means more tolerance. Since my opponent now admits tolerance won't accrue, he also conceeds discrimination. He claims to have more evidence - if he did, then he would have presented it. My opponent also completely drops his point about punishing based on violation of rights as a universal standard. With families, my opponent says the family has issues. If so, then the family is already broken apart. My claim is that it's possible for even extreme fundamentalist religious families to stay together.

Human Rights

My opponent has dropped normalcy. In round five he brings up the new argument of spiritual "healthiness", without any explanation of what he considers healthy in a spiritual sense. The context of the law is such that healthiness refers to whether the practice violates the principles of the same declaration, which in this case it clearly does not. Overwhealming legal evidence is on my side on this one. My opponent has failed to show any illegalty to the camps under international law.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
LAME TIE!!! p
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Damn...an inconclusive debate. lol
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
Sources to Con for Effort, Args to Pro based on RFD.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Oops, forgot to add the source from the last round: http://www.hum.utah.edu...
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
I wonder how many rounds will be forfeited here...
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
I agree, that I disagree.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Laws are driven by morality. Pro showed gay therapy was likely ineffective as well as immoral. Pros case seemed better to me. Con, as always, brought up great points but failed to convince me in the end. Sources are obvious. Pro won (3-2) he also showed it hurt the gays. Had harm to society etc.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
ScarletGhost4396larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better sources.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
ScarletGhost4396larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate kind of got lazy near the end. Con I feel took kind of a relativist approach in this debate, while Pro more straightforward. While I feel Con presented some accurate arguments, I don't think this debate was arguing on an objective morality on ex-gay therapy. More-over, I am saying I would have loved you to argue for your own ideals rather than other peoples. For example, citing specific reasons why they shouldn't be ban, rather than saying "bashers are harmed equally!". Points to con
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
ScarletGhost4396larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro was able to uphold her Burden of Proof by stating specific reasons for the immorality of Sexual change standards.Larz brought up some interesting points on the morality of the round, but in the end it didn't convince me that that the immorality was not proven by the Pro
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ScarletGhost4396larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. I believe Con defeated Pro's morality argument because Pro could not prove that the standard of morality he was using was actually moral. Con's argument would not have stood had he had burden of proof, but it did stand as a counterargument. Con is also right that Pro completely dropped the argument he brought up, because as far as I could tell it was fully ignored. In general, I think Pro failed to uphold his burden of proof.