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

Should Gays be allowed to eat Corn?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 463 times Debate No: 79958
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Despite my distaste for political discourse, I feel it is time I chime in on one of the more important issues of this modern age: namely, whether or not gays should have the right to eat corn.

Corn is as American as apple pie. It"s more American than apple pie! Corn was here long before pie crust. The fabric of our nation is woven with corn husks, and whether you roast it, pop it or wear it: corn is as much a part of our American heritage as Nancy Reagan.

Yet, certain people seek to defile that heritage. There are icky heavy metal bands who soil the name "corn" with misspellings (eg: Korn). There are pesky minorities (eg: "blacks") who dare to wear their hair in fashions that mock our American livelihood (eg: "corn rows.") And now, after years of respectable silence, the gay community wants our American government"the government we finance with our tax dollars"to allow them to eat corn!

I find this repulsive. Corn-eating should be between a heterosexual and his cob. No thought is more repulsive than the thought of a homosexual plucking an ear of corn from God"s green earth and stuffing it into his gay gay gay mouth. But while I admit I"m slighlty biased (a gay killed my hound dog), I firmly believe that allowing gays the right to eat corn will not only be detrimental to our community, but to our entire country.

Take this child for instance:


As you can see, this sweet, innocent God-fearing daughter of Heaven is eating corn. As her small body imbibes those kernals, think of the values each yellow nugget is instilling in her: God! Country! Heritage! Tradition! Reba!

Now think of that same corn, only now it has been touched by the hands of a recently empowered gay corn eater. This American daughter"one who might have made her family proud, marrying a football star or a televangelist"is now poisoned by the gay seed. Her values will evaporate, leaving behind a raging, seething corpse; fiery nostrils and hooves to boot. America, do you want your daughter to look like this?

It is with great pride, then, that I recall the president"s words today to our great nation. His decision to support an ammendment ending gay corn consumption is a sign that American values are not a thing of the past, they are a thing of the future. If we allow gays to eat corn, what next? Give midgets the right to eat bacon?

Please, America, urge your Congressman to ban gay corn consumption. The future of our great nation depends on it. Do it for the children:


First off, I must commend my opponent on the opening argument. To see such effort put into an argument of this type is rare. Furthermore, the humor in that argument shows extreme cleverness, and therefore I expect this to be a challenging debate. Now to the topic at hand:

Although my opponent feels that gays should not be allowed to eat corn, I wholeheartedly disagree. My opponent starts off by stating "Corn is as American as apple pie. It's more American than apple pie!"

Immediately, I have to disagree. Corn may have become an American staple, but it is not more American than apple pie. In fact, corn as we know it was NOT domesticated in the United States. Rather, it was domesticated in Mexico.

From this simple fact alone, the whole argument about defiling the American heritage of corn is nullified.

My opponent also states "And now, after years of respectable silence, the gay community wants our American government"the government we finance with our tax dollars"to allow them to eat corn!"

Well, I do agree that we should be concerned with how the government spends our tax dollars. To that effect, it seems to me like banning the gays from eating corn would result in wasteful spending. If we did not allow gays to eat corn, we would need to monitor the gay population. Having tax dollars spent on enforcing this ban is outrageous! Almost 4% of the U.S. population falls into this category.

That means that 1 out of every 25 individuals would have to be monitored to prevent said individual from eating corn. That would be a waste of both time and money. Such a ban for the gays is clearly not pragmatic.

On this point: "I firmly believe that allowing gays the right to eat corn will not only be detrimental to our community, but to our entire country."

Gays have been eating corn just as long as everyone else. Although being gay is now more accepted in society, this does not mean that there are more gays now. It is just witnessed more. But the gay community always existed, even if it was hidden from public view in years past. If communities have not disintegrated and our country has not collapsed by now, then clearly there is no correlation between gays eating corn and the fall of society. If there was such a relationship, society would've crumbled many years ago. In fact, we haven't seen anything drastic happen in the 11 years that have passed since this topic was first posted in a blog (hopefully your blog, otherwise I'm debating against a copy and paste argument). So if this threat was imminent, we would've seen some decline since this argument was first posted on the internet, and we have seen no such thing.

As far as any disgust you may feel by thinking of a gay person eating corn, that is definitely a YOU problem. If such thoughts repulse you so much, then why are you even fantasizing about gay people eating corn? Just think of something else, and the problem is solved.

You ask "America, do you want your daughter to look like this?" but you failed to insert the picture of Ellen DeGeneres shown in the blog post, so I will respond as though the picture is there.

When it comes down to it, I think a lot of people would not have a problem with a daughter that is popular, rich and famous. Even if that person is gay. But whether or not someone in America would want their daughter to turn out like Ms. DeGeneres is irrelevant. The desire to not have a daughter like Ellen has no bearing on the issue of corn consumption. Maybe there are people that would not want to have a gay daughter. But how will stopping the gays from eating corn help? It won't!

As far as "I recall the president's words today...", clearly this is not true. For starters, the president today is different from the president back in 2004 when this was first posted. Secondly, as much of a southern boy as George W. Bush is (the president when this was posted), I don't think he would ever speak out against gays eating corn. Especially since his vice president's daughter is gay. So there are no words from the president on this topic, and therefore nothing to rebut here.

As far as gay corn consumption leading to other things like midgets eating bacon, I would welcome such a consequence. I think EVERYONE should be allowed to eat bacon! Bacon is delicious. Why deprive the midgets?

In conclusion, the future of our nation may depend on many things. But gays eating corn is certainly not one of them. An amendment to end gay corn consumption would be a huge drain on the economy and a huge drain on manpower. The nation cannot afford such a ban, or if such a ban ever were passed, then the nation cannot afford to enforce it.

Debate Round No. 1


DebateThat123 forfeited this round.


In the previous round, I showed the flaws in this proposition from a purely logical standpoint. I.e. I demonstrated that the logic is flawed and that such a ban is not feasible.

But this proposition can also be argued from a human rights perspective. These are rights that belong to all human beings regardless of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation. One of the basic tenets of human rights is that people should be treated equally and be free from discrimination.

Clearly this proposition is a violation of human rights. There is no need to show proof that your proposal is discriminatory towards the gay community, because the discrimination is so blatant that everyone can see it.

So in addition to this proposal being completely illogical and not at all pragmatic, it also violates human rights.

With the lack of anything else to rebut, I will keep this round short and I will await further points from you supporting your position.
Debate Round No. 2


DebateThat123 forfeited this round.


GaryBacon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
This is just gay bashing..
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
It would be so easy to semantic the entire debate
Posted by Sravaka 1 year ago
lol, ill be watching this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.