The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
17 Points

Resolved: The Boy Scouts of America should end its policy banning gay membership.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,221 times Debate No: 24071
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (3)




First round is acceptance. The next few will be for argumentation


Debate Round No. 1


I think I'll take up on that offer, actually...


My opponent and I agreed to skip this round. Please ignore this round when considering your final vote.
Debate Round No. 2


I affirm the resolution and stand on the PRO. There will be no parameters established on my side, so I will only move on toward the points of my case.

Contention 1: The policy is discriminatory.
By maintaining this policy in the organization, the organization is being discriminatory against the homosexual minority. This organization is treating members of another group of people differently than they would if they were from the heterosexual male majority, which is the epitome of what characterizes discrimination.

Sub-point 1a: Discrimination is based on reasoning inherently prejudiced against homosexuals.
When done based on necessity or merit, discrimination can be permissible to some extent, but this is not what the organization does. Based on the commentary exemplified in the following, the action of prohibiting membership is influenced by the organization's proclivity against homosexuality: "While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA...The organization further stated that, while it does not condone same-sex attraction in the BSA, it does not condemn anyone who wants to talk about same at home, with caregivers or spiritual advisers." This case from one of the parents of a boy scout member explains the reasoning as to why homosexuals are banned from the organization: "

My 7-year-old son, Cruz, loves being a Cub Scout, and he really loved when I got to be his pack’s den leader. But the Boy Scouts of America asked me to step down as the leader of my son’s group — just because I’m gay. Cruz doesn’t understand why that matters, and frankly, neither do I.

When Cruz told us last year that he wanted to be a Boy Scout, my partner and I were concerned. We knew the organization has discriminated against families like ours before. But the other families in Cruz’s group were so welcoming and supportive — they even asked me to be a den leader on the first day.

One year later, our fears came to life. A representative of the Boy Scouts of America abruptly told me I was no longer welcome — that because I’m gay, I didn’t ‘meet the high standards of membership that the Boy Scouts of America seek.’

Sub-point 1b: Defense of the discrimination is based on incongruous reasoning.
Not only is the claim that there is no agenda inconsistent with previous statements made by the organization on this issue, but the defense for the discrimination is incongruous because the action at which they are handling the situation in no way relates to the intent, based on a comment by a spokseman of the organization: "
We don't have an agenda on this issue. We don't ask about people’s sexuality. The policy is the way it is, because we do not believe that our youth development program is the right place to have this discussion."

Contention 2:
The policy conflicts with the integrity of the community.
Rather than emphasizing diversity, this organization's sanctification of discrimination does nothing but polarize the mindset of youth in their attitudes toward homosexuals, jeopardizing the relationship between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This, in turn, can jeopardize the tolerance of homosexuals or the plight toward it.

Sub-point 2a: Denying the exposure to BSA members in group activities only serves to emphasize condemnation and stereotyping of homosexuals.
Comparing the policy to the recently-repealed DADT, the effect of denying exposure to heterosexuals of homosexuals only serves to emphasize negative stereotyping as a report on the repeal of DADT explains: "
More are left to only imagine what service with an openly gay person would be like – the circumstances in which misconceptions and stereotypes fill the void, for lack of actual experience,” the report states.
Those who do have experience with gay service members in their troops don’t seem to uphold the same stereotypes bcause of their real experience."

Sub-point 2b: The condemnation of homosexuals in the community leads to negative consequences.
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



I thank my opponent for his reasoned arguments. The resolution is seeking to convince you that The Boy Scouts of America (hereafter the BSA) should end its policy of disallowing gay membership. The resolution could be taken one of two ways based on the various meanings of the term "should": the BSA is morally obligated to end this policy or the BSA would benefit from ending this policy. I will respond to both interpretations.

The Question of Moral Obligation

This is where my opponent focuses his arguments, insisting that the BSA is engaging in immoral behavior. The problem is that Pro's position is arbitrary. Why is discrimination against homosexuals better or worse than discrimination against girls? The BSA will certainly never allow female membership, yet such discrimination is acceptable because the BSA is a club. This puts my opponent between a rock and a hard place. If he agrees that the policy on banning female membership is permissible, then he must admit that discrimination is indeed within a club's right. If, on the other hand, he agrees that all discrimination—even female membership—is immoral, then all scouting clubs are immoral.

Moreoever, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizens the right to peaceably assemble, and clubs are groups "of people organized for a common purpose." [1] It is impossible for a club centered on certain values to do so without discriminating against people with opposing values. If they allow membership to everyone—even those with directly opposing values—then they cease to be a club and risk falling into disarray. Indeed, it is human nature for like-minded people to congregate. Even homosexuals have their own organizations. So, to what authority does my opponent appeal when he insists that any organization must adhere to his own values?

As long as the BSA is not breaking any laws, and there are alternative scouting organizations in existence, the BSA is under no moral obligation to change its membership policies. That is my simple thesis for this defense. Whether such policies are old fashioned, mean, and negative for our community is ultimately irrelevant. The BSA has the federally granted right to govern its membership as it sees fit, especially since Americans are free to choose any competing scouting organization.

The Question of Benefit

The Boy Scouts of America® is a brand—and a strong one at that. Strong brands take years to build and regular effort to maintain. A strong brand is powerful when it evokes a predetermined response from people. The Coca-Cola Company likes it when Coca-Cola® evokes thoughts of refreshment. But a brand's real power is when the thought moves in the opposite direction. The Coca-Cola Company loves it when people think of Coca-Cola® in response to thirst. That's the power of branding.

While the Coca-Cola Company wants their brand to apply to everyone (since the goal is profit), clubs such as the BSA neither want nor need to be all inclusive. From the BSA website [2]:

The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.

For over a century, the BSA has helped build the future leaders of this country by combining educational activities and lifelong values with fun. The Boy Scouts of America believes — and, through over a century of experience, knows — that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society.

Notice how the BSA is a values-based organization. While the BSA can choose any set of values under the sun, they have settled on the current ones for a reason. According to a study of American values conducted by Harris Interactive and commissioned by the BSA in 2005 [3], they want the BSA brand to primarily equate to family values, personal life satisfaction, and community involvement. For whatever reason (and the reason itself is irrelevant), the leaders of the BSA have determined that gay membership does not comport with their vision for the BSA brand. While that might turn away Americans with more progressive values, it also attracts Americans with more conservative ones.

The BSA is defined by its values, and to insist on gay membership is to insist on a change in brand. Looking again at the Coca-Cola Company, we can see the pitfalls of redefining the brand. New Coke [4] was introduced in 1985, halting production of their then 99-year old formula. While this moment in marketing history will live in infamy, it's interesting to note that New Coke was not a commercial failure, but a social one. New Coke was selling well on target with company predictions, but ironically, bashing New Coke became a sign of loyalty to a suddenly unavailable product. Angered consumers inundated the company with angry letters and phone calls. Months later, Coca-Cola Classic was reintroduced and within six months was outselling Pepsi at more than twice the rate.

That's the power of a strong brand. It's easy to conceive that a change of the BSA brand is not something the organization can take lightly. It is unlikely that ending the ban on gay membership will happen without some kind of fallout. Remember, existing members have chosen the BSA for its values, much like soda drinkers are loyal to Coca-Cola for its taste. There is every reason for the BSA leadership to expect a strong backlash to such change. Moreover, there is no guarantee that even experimenting with this policy will not result in permanent loss of support and irreparable damage to the brand.

As I stated before, the BSA is neither (a) the only values-based organization available nor (b) a public institution. There are other scouting organizations such as Navigators USA, which is "coed, non-religious, and inclusive." [5] All competing scouting clubs were created precisely because their founders wanted to reach an alternative demographic. The fact that the BSA has competition is another good reason for the BSA not to allow gay membership, as it serves to increase their distinctiveness, which again, is good for the brand. While Coke wants to sell to everyone, clubs do not want everyone. The BSA is targeting a particular demographic, and the more the BSA stands out to certain like-minded individuals, the better.

Whether my opponent likes it or not, there is still a massive population of Americans with conservative family values. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that maintaining their current membership policies is in their best interest for the foreseeable future.


If you want to support a scouting organization that allows gay membership, then do it. They already exist. Support them. It's your right and, dare I say, your duty to do so if you want to send a clear message to more conservative minding organizations. Perhaps twenty years from now the BSA will fade away as progressive values become dominant in America. Perhaps then the BSA will reconsider their membership policies. In the meantime, the BSA is under no moral obligation to admit members that are not in line with their preferred values.

The leaders of BSA should end its policy on banning gay membership if and when they feel a need to rebrand themselves. Until then, it is in their best interest to institute policies that satisfy their constituents.

So, from both a moral and cost/benefit standpoint, the BSA should not end its policy on banning gay membership.


Debate Round No. 3


Sources: Just a disclaimer about the sources, I accidentally forgot to put them on my previous round. I will, however, provide them before the end of this debate in either the comment section or at the end of this particular round.
Discrimination: The entirety of the argument in the first paragraph rests on the implication that I would agree that discriminating on the girls joining the organization would be morally permissible. If I did so, then he would have an argument and hence, a contradiction in the reasoning I'm establishing. This is not the case. I don't believe that discrimination is immoral in every single scenario. It is morally permissible when when the basis of the discrimination is on individual merit rather than generalization or belonging to a particular group of people. This would be justified discrimination (in case if I hadn't mentioned that earlier in my case). My opponent would be right in stating that because the organization discriminates on girls (just as the opposite organization discriminates against boys), both scouting organizations would be immoral not just for the discrimination, but for the pressing of gender roles on the members therein. This is an irrelevant point however. We're not examining the discrimination against the other genders in this case; what we're looking at is a boys-only organization who treats one group of boys differently from another group of boys simply based on sexual orientation. Considering that this organization is kicking out members only based on their sexual orientation rather than their individual merit, this organization is committing unjustified discrimination.
First Amendment/Peaceful Assembly: The counterargument my opponent makes here rests on two things: (1) A club or organization requires discrimination in order to emphasize values. (2) Disarray will follow when people with opposing values fit into one group. Both of these premises have counterexamples that completely destroy the entirety of the basis of my opponent's argument. Discrimination comes along only when a person is treated differently from another based on something, and this "something" is what determines the justification or lack thereof of the discrimination. My opponent implies the generalization that every organization with a certain value requires this different treatment in order to capitalize their values, meaning if I can find even 1 example of where this is not the case, this means at some level, discrimination does not need to be held. This is going to seem like a pretty distant comparison in order to provide one example, but Rick Santorum's previous campaign before dropping out of the race is the perfect example. Rick Santorum's campaign spearheaded idealisms against gay marriage and seemingly even gay relationships all the while there were gay people working under Rick Santorum's campaign with Santorum's orders not to have them being treated differently or discriminated on basis of their sexual orientation. Although his campaign wasn't successful (in no part because gays had been part of his campaign), his values had been spearheaded effectively regardless the existence of gays in the organization. This same idea applies to his second poin which is all based on the premise that organizations with people with differing values cannot compromise and disarray will follow although many an example in history proves that to be completely wrong. During the Clinton administration where the president was a Democrat and there was a majority of Republicans in the House led by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), there was many a time where bills were passed based on compromise, including DADT and several economics bills to stabilize the economy during the 1990s. During the Kennedy administration, despite the obvious differences between the functionings in the Soviet Union and the United States, both worked effectively toward brinigng an end to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. There are certainly more examples big and small, but the fact is that compromise can occur.
Thesis: My opponent's thesis is questionable since it seems to equate the law to moral obligation and holds a non sequitir argument with the alternatives argument. My opponent's thesis implies that if something isn't against the law, there's no moral obligation to stop doing whatever it is that the law would or should prohibit. At one time, there was no law prohibiting the discrimination of black people, meaning that at one point, there was no moral obligation to stop discriminating against African Americans. The same goes for slavery, where there was no law prohibiting it, meaning that at one time period, beating, enslaving, abusing African Americans had no moral obligation to be stopped. If you want to look at a modern example from a non-American context, under my opponent's logic, there's no moral obligation to stop the harassment, violence, and executions of gay people in countries like Iran, Iraq, and Uganda because it isn't against the law to do so. My point is that the law is not the arbiter of moral obligation. Morality is the arbiter of moral obligation, and while my opponent seems to focus only on what an organization can and can't do, my case is focusing on the should and looking in the moral scope of benefitting the community rather than the inherently arbitrary nature of the law. In this case, morality is the only authority that I'm appealing to, which is the correct context of this part of the debate rather than the law. The Boy Scouts in some way impact the community and while there are other scouting organization, it is questionable they are even conspcious or not obscure, let alone ubiquitous, meaning that the Boy Scouts would still have a moral obligation regardless.
Brand: To state that the reason for the denial of gay membership is irrelevant makes no sense because this is the warrant or piece of logic that satisfies the necessity of denial of gay membership. My opponent's begging the question here by just assuming that the reason is practical and legitimate. I've proven earlier that the basis of such an argument only flows on the implication that compromise cannot exist, and I have clearly proven to you through examples that it can. This argument is also on the implication that there will be more cost than benefit by making this change, and this is all based on the public opinions of the consumers of the product. In America, conservative values are on the decline, especially in the perceptions of the gay community. In a recent Gallup Poll, about 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage. Growing numbers of people are supporting the idea that homosexuality is just fine. My opponent's entire rebuttal rests on the idea that the public opinion is inclined toward conservative values and this will without a doubt lead toward the degredation of the product toward the consumers. Even within the organization itself, there is a schism in the beliefs of gay membership, let alone in the rest of the community. Bottom line, my opponent implies change=bad when he has no warrant to say that it will exactly go this way and begs the question on the reason for the gay denials. If my opponent is looking at this from a cost/benefit analysis, to appeal only to a certain demographic is not just discriminatory, but it's bad business especially in a society turning more toward the left. My opponent states that there is a massive population with traditional conservative values. As arbitrary and questionable as that sounds, I don't really particularly have evidence against that claim, so I'll give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, but this is once again falling against my opponent's premise that compromise cannot occur. This is based on the idea that conservative families don't at some level try to tolerate or even accept gay people, so this is not really a point that helps my opponent out either if he has no warrant to show that compromise cannot occur.


I extend my thanks to ScarletGhost4396 for his latest round. Before I break this down point by point, it's important to keep in mind what Pro is asking of us: he is arguing that a privately run club in "the Land of the Free" ought to alter its membership policies. His is an argument against liberty.


Pro starts by imposing a double standard. He says, "[Discrimination] is morally permissible when when [sic] the basis of the discrimination is on individual merit rather than generalization or belonging to a particular group of people." To be consistent, he agrees that the BSA (as well as the Girl Scouts) is immoral in discriminating against the opposite sex, though he also insists it is ultimately irrelevant. On the contrary, it is absolutely relevant because under Pro's line of reasoning, clubs should are immoral for discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and even age. So, the BSA is just as immoral for not allowing 40 year old men to be boy scouts as it is for not allowing girls to be boy scouts.

In other words, clubs are immoral for being… well… clubs. We are not talking about public school admissions, government positions, or private sector job interviews. We are talking about a private club. Clubs are ubiquitous in both number and variety. Clubs are designed specifically to give people a place to feel comfortable. If one club is unsuitable, there is surely another. Better yet, new clubs can be instantly created to fill a missing niche. But according to Pro's logic, even these simplest of social organizations are inherently immoral unless they allow membership to absolutely everyone. Hispanic-only clubs? Immoral. Senior-citizen-only clubs? Immoral. Female-only clubs? Immoral. Muslim-only clubs? Immoral. Pro's position reduces to absurdity.

The BSA wants its club composed of certain members of society, just like a church wants its members composed of those committed to that organization's faith. Even if more than 50% of Americans support same-sex marriage, the BSA should still be granted the liberty to define its membership policies, especially given the fact that there are alternative choices.

Santorum/Clinton Allegories

The stories regarding the Santorum campaign and Clinton administration are false analogies. The main issue is that the BSA is a values-based organization, and homosexuality is a value. In this case, there is no room for compromise. In the case of campaigns and administrations, these are based on productivity even if values ultimately factor into the final product. Pro's allegories are also a red herring. The issue is not whether or not compromise is possible, but whether or not a private club should be forced to compromise in the first place.

Defending my Thesis

My opponent criticizes a straw man version of my thesis. He focuses on the legality portion rather than the thesis as a whole. In no way was I suggesting that "legal" equals "moral." The whole thesis is saying that a law abiding private club should be allowed to make its own policies. Now, if it became illegal for any club to ban homosexual membership, then my opponent would win according to my thesis. Thankfully, such draconian laws are not in place, and liberty still holds some value.


My opponent criticizes my argument from the perspective of branding by arguing that statistics favor more progressive values in this nation. So what? The point is that the BSA should be able to define its membership. Even if it's a huge mistake, who is Pro to decide? Why should his values be forced upon the BSA? If Pro is right and the costs of the BSA's current policies are severe, isn't that a good thing? Certainly such costs will either force the BSA to change its policies or it will become defunct, leaving a large gap for more progressive clubs to fill.

I must also point out the lack of conclusions that may be drawn from Pro's statistics. Even though 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage (a legality issue) it does not follow that the same percentage of Americans considers homosexuality to be moral (an ethical issue). The BSA has no doubt examined the landscape of public opinion and either decided that it's not a threat or that it serves as an opportunity to acquire an even greater conservative following. Who knows? Who cares?


I think I have made it clear what's at stake here. Clubs like the BSA are not running our country. No one is forced into membership and brainwashed to hate homosexuals. Membership is voluntary and alternatives are plentiful. This leaves my opponent with one very crucial question:

Why the BSA?

Why must the BSA change its policies? Why can't homosexuals join Navigators USA instead? Is it because the BSA is more prestigious? If so, how ironic that Pro would criticize my arguments on branding when it's the BSA brand that he's ultimately after.

I should point out that despite Pro mentioning the First Amendment in one of his headings, he never actually addressed the issue that the First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble. He never rebutted my argument that clubs are, in fact, peaceful assemblies of people centered around a common purpose. This is easily the most damaging evidence against his position.

Pro has an uphill battle ahead of him. He needs to provide a solid argument that would warrant the elimination of constitutionally secured liberties. He needs to show us how it is better to force the BSA into submission over simply choosing a different organization. He should even make at least some kind of effort as to why homosexual discrimination is relevant while sexual discrimination is not. Until he summits this hill, I contend that the resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 4


ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.


How disappointing (and unsurprising given my opponent's reputation) that after so many rounds of back-and-forth, the debate will now be seen by no one. I'm not sure if my opponent knows this, but debates with at least on forfeit in them do not appear on the home page and become lost in debate purgatory, save for the few people that favorited it.

My opponent failed to show up for his final round and defend his position. As such, my arguments stand and I recommend granting me the vote for most convincing argument. Moreover, my opponent failed to show up, making all my efforts amount to nothing, and so voters would be justified and granting me the conduct vote as well.

As for the topic itself, I find it an interesting one. The comments for this debate brought up two aspects of the issue. First, there is the issue of liberty, which is where my opponent and I seemed to focus a majority of our time. I tried to argue--and I truly believe this--that since we're talking about a club (which I might classify as a luxery of life) and not something like job (which I would consider a necessity of life), there is no reason the BSA should be morally obligated to change its policies. I think this discussion was straight forward.

My arguments surrounding the BSA brand was meant to address the other side of the issue: that the BSA would benefit from changing its policy. I hope some readers found the idea, at minumum, thought provoking. It struck me that the BSA has been a conservative minded organization for such a long time that I wondered how difficult it would be for them to integrate more progressive ideals. The BSA is big everywhere, but it's really big in the Bible belt. It seems to me that the leaders of the BSA have to take that into account in some ways.

At any rate, I hope at least a couple people got something out of this debate. For those that did read it, I think you for your time.
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
Ehh... I think it's simply a matter of sociocultural homophobia. But is it reasonable to not want teenagers of the opposite sex to share tents? We live in a pluralistic society. Parents get to answer that question for themselves. Would I let my teenage son/daughter (if I had one) go camping with his/her boyfriend/girlfriend? I have no idea. I'm not a parent.
Posted by yoda878 4 years ago
Sure, but i don't think they will for the same reason they don't let Girls in. Ask your self as an adult should we let teen boys and teen girls sleep in the same tents? Is this a responsible decision??
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
@yoda (pertaining to parents pulling their sons out of boy scouts)

In the northeast and in california, probably not. Everywhere else, that is probably the case.
Posted by yoda878 4 years ago
Less Boys in Boy Scouts, let the parents decide i would say.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
@yoda878, what's the relevance?
Posted by yoda878 4 years ago
I think many people would pull their sons out of Boy Scouts.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
I'm not sure if helps in any way, but I changed the resolution from "ought" to "should" in the case where there's a fallacy in the resolution. Did that change it at all, or should there be a different wording to it?
Posted by YYW 4 years ago

The resolution is about whether the BSA should THEMSELVES end their policy of banning gay membership. This is the status quo. Pro can (and I expect will) make the argument that because discrimination based on sexual orientation is in some way not acceptable, and this policy has the effect of discrimination based on sexual orientation, that it should be changed. I'm guessing that pro will argue that because the BSA, though technically a private organization, has a duty to operate in a nondiscriminatory manor, because of the public nature of their organization. Con's case, whoever takes it, could argue that given that the BSA is a private organization, and sexual orientation is not recognized as a suspect class, the BSA has no reason to change its policy. I suppose that con could argue that it is legitimate to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but I don't see that happening unless we get a far-right loon. The legal argument, for con, is a clever way do dodge pro's moral cause. But we'll see how it goes. Recognize though that the resolution doesn't require con to determine or argue why or that the BSA should have banned gay membership. Con only has to argue that the status quo shouldn't change. Now, "because the BSA doesn't" want to change" is a sufficient legal reason, but it's a weak argument. And gov. intervention is beyond the scope of the resolution, btw.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Grr, it double posted on me. SCREW YOU DDO!!!!!
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago

Is/Ought fallacy is basically just when someone takes a situation that's happening (say, for an extreme/clear example, mass genocide) and derrives an ought from it, which is basically saying "It's happening now, so it's probably a good thing to have around!". This, of course, just begs the question of why genocide is good in the first place, which is why we cannot derrive an ought from an is. Hence, the Is/Ought fallacy.


Sure, 16k is technically right, but again that falls into the Is/Ought fallacy, and doesn't actually provide a warrant for why they OUGHT to prohibit gay membership, as the resolution asks. Sure, they technically CAN all they want to, and the government would have no right to step in. But that doesn't mean that they can't change it themselves.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit!
Vote Placed by Sojourner 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I was really looking forward to Pro's final round response to Con's argument. Oh well...
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.