Resolved: Private corporations supportive of gay rights should turn neutral on the position instead.
While socialpinko provided an excellent argument that would've been difficult to refute by even the most experienced debater anyway, I feel that I could've been better in my previous argument of this resolution. I could say that I want a little redemption on this topic. First round is acceptance of the topic.
I thank my opponent in this acceptance of this resolution, and I stand on the CON in this argument: Private institutions supportive of gay rights should not change to a neutral position on the matter. I will provide the following parameters for the debate, beginning with the definitions of the resolution:
Gay rights (n.): Rights that specifically deal with the issues of homosexuals, including gay employment, gays in the military, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. [This is used as a general term]
With the essential definition in this debate case established, I move on toward the observation(s) for this round.
Observation 1: Gay rights are a subset of human rights because they deal with equalizing respect and status to homosexuals as human beings and citizens in the community. Therefore, the context of gay rights should be looked at through the lens of human rights in this scenario. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains the concern for gay rights through the context of human rights: "Concern for the equal rights of disadvantaged groups is a longstanding concern of the human rights movement. Human rights documents emphasize that all people, including women and members of minority ethnic and religious groups, have the same basic rights and should be able to enjoy them without discrimination. The right to freedom from discrimination figures prominently in the Universal Declaration and subsequent treaties... Minority groups are often targets of violence. Human rights norms call upon governments to refrain from such violence and to provide protections against it. This work is partly done by the right to life, which is a standard individual right. It is also done by the right against genocide which protects groups from attempts to destroy or decimate them. The Genocide Convention was one of the first human rights treaties after World War II."
Observation 2: The BOP is shared between the two opponents with consideration that both sides make a positive statement with regard to their position. The burden most particularly on the PRO is to prove that there is sufficient reason for private corporations to turn to such a position away from the support of gay rights.
I move on toward my contentions:
Contention 1: Gay rights should be indubitably accepted in society.
In order to maintain and preserve equality and dignity for all members of the community, gay rights should be accepted in order to equalize the status of homosexuals to those of fellow human beings of the counterpart sexual orientation.
Sub-point 1a: Human rights are important.
The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) explains the importance of human rights as well as reasons why they must be upheld by the society: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations"
Sub-point 1b: Denial of gay rights creates second-class citizens.
The systematic discrimination of gays via denial to recognize their rights designates gay people as second-class citizens of inferior status. Because of this treatment, they fit the qualifications of what is characterized as the second-class citizen:
A person considered inferior in status or rights in comparison with some others (The American Heritage Dictionary)
a person whose rights and opportunities are treated as less important than those of other people in the same society (Collins English Dictionary)
Sub-point 1c: Denial of gay rights causes negative social effects.
The CDC speaks on the effects of the denial of gay rights and equal recognition: "
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:
Private corporations have been considered a great asset in the scope of promoting gay rights in the society, especially when it comes to the matters of monetary concerns. Microsoft Windows, for instance, had donated $100,000 in order to support Referendum 71 in Washington, and additional dollars came in from Chairman Bill Gates and chief executive Steven A. Ballmer. Apple had donated the same amount of money against Proposition 8 in 2008 in California. Even if, however, organizations aren't supporting monetarily, they still provide great services toward the LGBT community through their support and actions. Oreo and Kraft Foods have posted propaganda in support of gay rights and pride, for example.
"Stigma and Discrimination." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 20 June 2012. <" target="blank">http://www.cdc.gov......;.
Observation 1: Gay rights might come under the human right but definitely should be least prioritise in the category of minor and disadvantages community until it covers sections like Prostitute, diseased group like aids, special religious society.
Even if we compare the violence and discrimination faced by the above sections, gays are already on the safer side.
Observation2: Corporations works very hard for the making profits and share few portions of the profit for the wellness of the society.
Until Community has major challenges like poverty, lack of basic medication, social differences etc, attracting a busy corporation over the gay right will not be good idea.
Contention 1: Gay rights should be indubitably accepted in society:
I agree with this point but approval of gay right should not be on the aid of the corporations, as this is a individual choice to be a gay and corporations may be responsible for the need of human but not for the sexual choice of human.
Sub-point 1a: Human rights are important:
All the details provided by the contender for the human right are important however not specific to gay as it implies to all human so it should be consider out of the discussion.
Sub-point 1b: Denial of gay rights creates second-class citizens:
I personally agree for the gay right but there may be following grounds for the denials:
A gay or lesbian may be a psychological or physiological disease which may be curable instead of considering the natural state whereas a well written gay right in constitution may be a cause for loosing an opportunity to analyse the abnormal state.
Any right in the history only created a well structured definition for the second class society so any right has not been successful ever. I wish to give following example for the argument:
Racism was in the society and still in the society. Any right has not been helpful to resolve this issue.
One could argue for the USA president as development in racism however news still on paper that: Barack obama first black president in the history.
So right only enforces individual to express thoughts in another forms and it is not an ultimate solution to problem. Expression and discrimination is open and direct before any right but after a well written right, it will be in more systemic.
Contention 2: Private corporations can be influential in promoting gay rights.
Private Corporations can influence to people, leaders and nations right now but the main discussion should be which is the priority;
A guy who, need food, house and cloth or a gay need a social status for the sexual choices.
My opponent doesn't really have a case at which to look at in order to explain why private corporations should turn neutral, meaning that in this shared BOP (since the debate is specifically about enumerating the number of reasons why a private corporation should or should not turn to a neutral position on either side respectively), meaning that it's already obvious that I'm fufilling my burden of proof better than my opponent because I actually have reasons outlined in a case statement.
Observation 1: My opponent works under the assumption that one person's protection of human rights can be more or less prioritized than another person's, which is a completely flawed concept. Human rights works in the way that every person is important regardless of distinction and holds that their basic dignities, necessities, and rights must be upheld by governing institution. Essentially what my opponent is implying is that one person's human rights can be more important than another's, including in the scope of protection. This runs completely contradictory to how human rights are even supposed to work out. My opponent upholds this reasoning by stating that gays are on the safer side of discrimination in comparison to these other disadvantaged groups, but it's fallacious due to the following reasons: (1) If there is any unfair discrimination at all whatsoever, this constitutes a violation of human rights, which should be protected at all times. Period. Because human rights must be protected at all times as I've argued in my case about how human rights are important and provide the basic downline of treatment of all human beings, I contend that regardless the degree of severity varying between the two sets of groups, gays' human rights should be protected anyways. For proof, the judges can look toward Articles 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explaining the equality of all mankind and its protection of all rights set forth. (2) My opponent makes the assumption that these groups of people are more discriminated and prone to violence than gays are. He has no way whatsoever of measuring the amount of discrimination faced between these two groups in order to make an accurate statement thereof and provides no evidence of the sort in order to even lead toward that conclusion. (3) Last of all, my opponent completely minimizes the concerns of gay people unfairly. The point is that these groups are treated against viciously by the general community: they are victims of hate crimes and bullying; they are victims of discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace and employment; religious groups work tirelessly to demonize this general group of people and have the government discriminate against them through the work of law; AIDS and other lethal STIs are soaring through that community as well as problems of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, and the list goes on and on. To just shrug these problems off as nothing is completely inhumane. My opponent, however, agrees that gay rights are indeed a subset of human rights. Henceforth, you can extend this observation.
Observation 2: What escapes my understanding is how nothing my opponent said with this observation had anything to do with the statement of the observation itself. For that reason, the judges will extend observation 2. Looking at what my opponent has said, he contends that the community has many problems that it faces. (1) He is once again minimizing the concerns of the gay community and has absolutely no balance for measuring the degree of the problems with the community in comparison to those of the gay population. It definately seems that my opponent has an arbitrary standard as to what encompasses a heavy concern for the community because I've also just listed many of the major problems that the gay community faces in this rebuttal as well as in my sub-point 1c. (2) My opponent presents a false dichotomy where a private corporation only has the decision of supporting either gay rights or these other concerns of the community. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Starbucks, and others generate heavy profits, enough to work toward a multiplicity of humanitarian aids. Microsoft, for example, works in college scholarships to help students enter to get good educations. My opponent, essentially, eliminates the possibility that these organizations can support both.
Contention 1: My opponent for one thing has absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. Not that it matters much anyway because he agreed with the overarching tenet of the contention that gay rights should be accepted. I wouldn't even need to argue my sub-points at this level because they function to uphold the main thesis of this contention, but since my opponent agreed with the thesis, the contention is already extended anyway. My opponent contradicts himself because he states that corporations should not aid to gay rights and implies a moral obligation to aid to the other problems of society under the implication that these problems must be solved, but if he's arguing that gay rights must be accepted and agrees with the thesis of this contention, then he's essentially stating that corporations must aid to these other issues rather than gay rights when both of them are an obligation of the community. He's holding a double-standard.
Sub-point 1a: My opponent states that because human rights are applied to everyone and not specifically gays, it should not be considered in the discussion. This is a complete contradiction to his earlier statement affirming that gay rights are a subset of human rights in the discussion about observation 1, and he fails to argue the information I had in that observation explaining how human rights includes protections of disadvantaged and discriminated minorities (like gays). At this point, my opponent's rebuttal here can be disregarded. Needless to say, my opponent hasn't argued anything in this sub-point nor my information from Observation 1, meaning this is all extended.
Sub-point 1b: My opponent once again displays his contradictory logic, first upholding gay rights but then providing conditions in which gay rights are not to be accepted. At this point in the debate, I'm very confused and wonder if my opponent actually knows what he's saying. Again, he has no evidence that homosexuality is a curable disease, so these comments should be disregarded for the moment. Furthermore, even if it is something that can be changed, he doesn't explain why the condition of it being changeable warrants a denial of choosing to be this sexuality. My opponent has no coherent logic here. He seems to argue that the existence of rights has not helped to resolve issues of discrimination (or something), but what I'm arguing here is that the denial for the recognition of gay rights creates second-class citizens. What really matters is the recognition. Of course groups can still be discriminated even if the right exists de facto. Which is only more reason why these rights should be recognized and supported by the community.
Sub-point 1c: My opponent holds no argument period against this sub-point. Extend it completely across the flow.
Contention 2: As I said before, my opponent creates a false dichotomy. He imagines an either-or scenario where a corporation can only support either the problems of the society that he lists or gay rights and eliminates the inclusion of any possibility that they can support both. Companies make substantial profits from the community, meaning that the ability to support both is at the very least greatly possible.
askforsanyam forfeited this round.
Extend all arguments across the flow.
My priority concept for human right is more practical and broad then a flawed concept.
Consider the situation of a public relation officer in a corporation when a question arise for the donation or social charity. They always select sectors of human society getting affected with the Fatal Diseases, Malnutrients, homelessness. You can refer, from bill Clinton to Warren Buffett, giving important to more serious issues, then a non issue; gay rights.
My opponent has given examples of AIDS, STI, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism etc which are common in all human in all sectors, from reach to poor, young to elder However I may agree that, there may be chances of bullying or rejection for gay/lesbian but again in this situation corporations should not be responsible to define moral and ethical rights to society.
Yes I do agree that my comparison was for the mass population to gay population because when corporation will decide an donation sector, they will think in the similar way as I described. Secondly, yes, they give scholarships but it is a constructive decision towards the society.
An scholarship is an investment for the future of society, an aid to good student and there may be many other constructive aids from corporations but scholarship can`t be compare to the gay aids because one is a constructive step and second just, facilitate a person.
My statements were crystal clear but it seems they I have to be more descriptive due to avoid my opponent confusion:
My opponent proposed that "Gay rights should be indubitably accepted in society". I agreed to that but even, If my opponent has been proposed; "Gay rights should not be indubitably accepted in society". I would be agree again because I am neutral on the gay right.
To avoid my opponent confusion i should give one example. If a representative of gay society will approach to the bill gates that they are requesting to parliament for certain law changes for the wellness of gay, bill gates may say, ok, if you wish to go parliament but it does not means that he is positive, It does not mean that he will donate 5 million to support.
A neutral accept the proposal and also do not mind the denial. It does not mean that it is positive, it means; it is not rejected.
Certainly I would have been arguing in section 1a, if it would have been debate for the human right important to the society or not. There was not certain description for the gays earlier however now my opponent has mentioned LIKE GAYS in brackets with the same disadvantaged and discriminated minority which is already has been discussed in the observation 1 so again this is out of the discussion now.
As I have already stated that accepting a proposal does not mean that supportive a cause. Either society make a right or law, even do some recognition, it is going to be second class citizen, because it does not represent mass. If this world would has been of gay and lesbian only, a limited group of straight people would have been arguing to not consider a second class citizen.
So Gay/lesbian are not at the natural stage of a mass mankind which will make them second class even after the law or even right as well.
I wish to clarify that under the scope of debate private organisations are neutral for the gay right. They are not denying it. However causes are non serious to get attraction of private organisation.
I request opponent to mention any further illusory dichotomy in my neutral views however my agenda is same that earning money is difficult corporations and donating is next stage.
It should be planned for the need of human, not for sexual choices.
Furthermore I would prefer to suggest corporations to invest money in diagnose the cause that why some people started to get attracted to the same sexes then opposite, in abnormal way, then to be positive to gay right.
Observation 1: My opponent's concept for human rights is not more practical nor broad because as I've explained, his functioning with human rights is not how human rights functions. Human rights are supposed to be protect across any spectrum. What my opponent is doing is prioritizing human rights, implicitly saying that one group or person's human rights are more important than another. As I've explained, my opponent continue to make this false dichotomy that corporations can only choose between gay rights and these other social problems, eliminating any possibility that they cannot support both. Corporations like Apple, Microsoft, Starbucks, and others make astronomical amounts of money, enough to go around for a variety of causes. Yes, AIDS, STIs, and these other problems are common in all human sectors, but they're incredibly prevalent amongst the gay community. My mentioning of them was to prove that gay rights isn't just a non-issue like my opponent states and to show that my opponent's reasoning for prioritization of issues is arbitrary and has no balance of measure. He says corporations should not be responsible to define moral and ethical rights to society even though his proviso asks for corporations to fund other causes, implying that corporations have a responsibility to the community. Corporations are not defining anything. They're trying to support rights that already exist.
Observation 2: My opponent argues absolutely nothing that I said in the previous round regarding this observation. Please extend it across the flow. Again, my opponent is just minimizing the concerns of the gay community where these problems are more prevalent than others and has no balance as to measure discrimination amongst other groups of people or the concerns they face. This doesn't matter because as I've explained, all human rights amongst all groups of people are meant to be protected whereas my opponent's system for protecting human rights makes some people's human rights more important than others, which is contradictory to the entire function of human rights.
Contention 1: The exact words that my opponent said on the contention that gay rights should be accepted were the following: "I agree with this point but approval of gay right should not be on the aid of the corporations, as this is a individual choice to be a gay and corporations may be responsible for the need of human but not for the sexual choice of human." What my opponent has done is only make this argument more confusing because he's switching up what he's saying. First he said he supports that position, but now he's saying that he's neutral on it. In the original statement, there was no implication whatsoever that he was neutral on the position. He said he AGREES, positively affirming my statement.
Sub-point 1a: This is not out of the discussion (1) Because my opponent hasn't argued anything I said in the previous round about this topic except for my quote saying "like gays." (2) He also said it should be least prioritized, which I've explained several times in this debate already is not the proper model for how human rights functions. What I've shown you is that human rights can be working in specific ways toward gays in order to deal with their concerns. This argument has been extended across the flow completely due to lack of any real arguments from my opponent.
Sub-point 1b: My opponent didn't just accept a proposal....he AGREED with a proposal. As I've explained earlier, my opponent's changing up what he said. I don't think that my opponent understands what a second-class citizen is. A law or legislation would only create a second-class citizen if it discriminates against that person unfairly. My opponent seems to discriminate against gays himself when he states that gays are not the natural state in mankind, so they're going to be second-class citizens anyway. My question to my opponent is: should gays be considered as second-class citizens?
Contention 2: For the sake of my opponent's understanding, I'll explain the illusionary dichotomy. My opponent keeps saying that organizations need to support these other causes over gay rights as if corporations can't help fund both. This immediately creates this false either-or scenario. My opponent has no balance for the need of humans because I've already explained several problems facing the gay community that are widely considered to be serious, and my opponent just shrugs it off as concerns that afflict everyone. These problems are greatly prevalent amongst the gay community and can be solved by demanding equal respect for homosexuals in order to reduce levels of bullying and low self-esteem within that community to prevent such problems. What I've shown here is that this is not non-issue. Again, my opponent has no evidence showing that homosexuality is just a sexual choice. My opponent further proves that his weighing of problems is arbitrary when he's supporting corporations to give money to research on sexual identity. Now THIS is non-issue. This doesn't help or solve anything, in contrast to supporting gay rights.
The reasons that I should be voted for today:  My opponent forfeited a round, meaning that the conduct vote goes to me for the better punctuality.  My sources are more plentiful and validate everything I said over my opponent's. My opponent has no sources to validate anything he himself is saying.  The argumentation vote should also go for me because my opponent's entire argument is filled with nothing but contradictory statements and reasoning, an arbitrary way of weighing and measuring the problems of society against those of the gay community, dropped points that prove wrong all of his statements, a false dichotomy, and an unbelievable disregard for the problems of the gay community, leaving him to just scoot the problems of the gay community to the back burner. My case is better because the logic has been sound the whole way through and acknowledges that all human rights for all people are important, in contrast to my opponent's perception, who states that one group's human rights should be prioritized.
askforsanyam 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:||1||0|