The Instigator
Human_Joke65
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
DoctorDeku
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

Should homosexuals flaunt gay pride when they're ashamed of it as a sinful choice?

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 8 votes the winner is...
DoctorDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,282 times Debate No: 29225
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (8)

 

Human_Joke65

Con

Pride and shame are mutually exclusive. Compartmentalizing it isn't mentally healthy. How do you say you're fully proud when a part of you is afraid of it being a choice?
DoctorDeku

Pro

I'm going to take a moment to clarify the parameters of this debate for the clarity of all those reading it. If I am wrong in my interpretation of this debate's boundaries, then I invite my opponent to correct in latter rounds and to post the true burdens of both the Pro and the Con.

It is my understand that Con wishes to debate that homosexuals should not express pride in their sexuality because being a homosexual is a choice. She goes on to argue that taking pride in homosexuality is unhealthy implying that there are alternatives to such a lifestyle (presumably heterosexual).

Again if I am wrong in my interpretation, I invite my opponent to correct me. As it stands I offer the following premises which I will expand upon in later rounds.

First; Homosexuality is not a choice

Second; Con fails to meet their burden of proof

Third; Con's alternative is more unhealthy than their advocacy

I hand it back over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Human_Joke65

Con

If you can choose how gayly you can express yourself, then you can choose with whom you can express it. Even if it were unhealthier to admit shame, then it's cruelty to be kind so as to prevent complacency and render the blissful ignorer aware so that diagnosis of sinfulness is probable.

Promiscuity is not healthy. If heterosexuals and homosexuals are equal, and heterosexuals can possess the power to choose with whom they engage in intercourse, so can homosexuals. Why does the power to choose become an inconsistent tool of convenience in relation to sexuality?

The genetics of homosexuality are not an excuse to evade accountability.
DoctorDeku

Pro

Thanks Pro!

First; Homosexuality is not a choice-
As any Gay will tell you, their sexual orientation wasn't a choice. And even if it was, in a culture such as ours where acceptance of homosexuality is so hit-or-miss why would anyone ever choose such a life for themselves? I'm don't intend bash homosexuality here, but I do intend to argue that it isn't something met with all that much tolerance.

On a more empirical level, we can see that in the case of David Reimer; nature not nurture wins out in the end[1]. One's sexuality and gender identity aren't things that a person consciously chooses, but are things inherent to their nature.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

The initial impact here is quite obvious, that homosexuality is not a choice, however a further conclusion should be that if orientation is no a choice then neither is the expression thereof.

Second; Con fails to meet their burden of proof-
With a simple glance at my opponent's argument, one will see that he has failed to warrant his arguments with qualified evidence. Furthermore he has also failed to support his claim with an manner of compelling syllogism; there is no reason to believe that she has prove the resolution to be true.

Furthermore my opponent goes on to conclude that homosexuals are inherently promiscuous. While there are certainly those within the gay community who fit this stereotype, it is but that -- a stereotype. There are plenty of heterosexual men and women who are promiscuous.

Finally; Con's alternative is more unhealthy than their advocacy-
We've already concluded that homosexuality is not a choice, with this in mind we must address my opponent's alternative to homosexuals 'flaunting' their sexuality -- repressing it.

As I've said before homosexuality is a product of nature, not nurture. So accordingly the expression of said sexuality is something that they cannot control. To force one to repress their sexuality is to place an unjust burden on them. Furthermore, it does massive damage to their mental health when they are made to feel bad or something beyond their control.

If this were not enough, we see overwhelmingly the hypocrisy of sexual promiscuity in heterosexuals. Examples of this include the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders[2], Sport Illustrated's swimsuit edition[3] and every college campus in the United States.
[2] http://www.dallascowboyscheerleaders.com...
[3] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...

The fact is, humans are sexual beings. To deprive one of a natural urge because another feels uncomfortable about it is inhuman; but to go so far as to make one feel bad about their orientation is outright discrimination.
Debate Round No. 2
Human_Joke65

Con

Natures aren't automatically good. Genetic accountability applies to all; without that responsibility, the slippery slope descends toward criminals getting a free pass. Without genes, do you see them making the same choice without a hereditary stimulus? No. They're hiding behind their DNA and putting up a prideful front to cloud their doubts. That's what I would do to protect myself.
DoctorDeku

Pro

Con has failed to refute my arguments, made a slippery slope fallacy in refutation and has equated homosexuals to crminals.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
Human_Joke65

Con

Sinners are moral criminals.

Pro has stated, "to deprive one of a natural urge because another feels uncomfortable about it is inhuman."
I don't want to imply something by dragging sexual criminals into the equation, but if DNA absolves them of responsibility, then discomfort is the least of Pro's argument.
DoctorDeku

Pro

Con has still failed to refute my original argument or provide a compelling course of advocacy to vote otherwise.

Furthermore my opponent is bringing a religious element into this debate that was never established prior to my acceptance.

Please reflect the inappropriateness of this by the vehicle of your vote.
Debate Round No. 4
Human_Joke65

Con

Religious element previously unestablished?

All is fair in love and war? If this statement is flawed on my part, then its tainted use is a risky move on yours.

Introducing 'tangential" arguments that explore the material as a subtopic; how is that inappropriate?

This anecdote is exceptional: I can choose to entertain homosexual thoughts and be aroused by them. It is a year-old ability. It never occurred to me to think to this way as a teenager. I was bored.
DoctorDeku

Pro

Welp, here's why you should vote Pro,
First; My opponent has dropped their initial point of contention to defend that making arguments with a warrant of religion is valid in a debate that did not have a previously established religious element.

Second; My opponent has failed to refute any of my arguments.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MikeFarquar 4 years ago
MikeFarquar
What are you even trying to debate here?
Posted by Dragourfer 4 years ago
Dragourfer
Your debate topic statement should Not be leading, insulting, and/or poorly worded. This debated statement is all three of those. Good luck.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
I think formality has something to do with what's wrong with this debate. People need to know what they're debating, so you need to have some specific resolution in mind, and you should try to be clear about it.
Posted by Dragourfer 4 years ago
Dragourfer
Being formal or informal is not the issue. It's your assumptions and choice of words that are a huge turn-off. First, only a very small percentage of gays Might be "ashamed". And If a few are ashamed, as you assert, they are made to feel ashamed by ignorant religious zealots with hateful agendas.

Your statement is leading and ignorant; not much to do with being "informal".
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Yes. You have to tell the potential opponent what they'll be expected to defend.

As it stands, if someone says "Hey, I don't think all homosexuals ashamed of it as a sinful choice", they're technically avoiding the debate as phrased, because you phrased it on the supposition that they ARE all ashamed of it as a sinful choice, and your further comment in R1 presumes they're all afraid that it's a choice (which, by the way, does not necessarily mean they're ashamed; if you're AFRAID something is a wrong, you aren't ashamed of it necessarily).
Posted by Human_Joke65 4 years ago
Human_Joke65
It's more of a curiosity than a challenge. Am I being too informal?
Posted by Dragourfer 4 years ago
Dragourfer
This is the second extremely poorly worded debate statement in as many days here. How could any clear-thinking, rational person accept such a ridiculous premise for a debate? If you re-state your debate to something logical, we can have a good debate, but as is; it's really, I'm sorry to have to say, rather ignorant.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I also don't follow. Consider making a one-line statement of what you believe. In the debate, you will be tasked with presenting arguments in favor, and your opponent arguments against.

So far, your only statement is, "Pride and shame are mutually exclusive."
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
It's not clear what the resolution of this debate is. What point of view do you want to argue for?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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: Con drops any semblance of an argument for blanket claims and assertions. Pro's arguments remain uncontested.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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: Con had BoP and failed. Further, even R1 begged the question.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Per DoctoDeku's request, I am expanding on this RFD. I voted for Con because I believe homosexuality is a choice, thus I saw Pro as having the burden of proof; he didn't meet it according to my standards, so I voted Con as more convincing.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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: Con didn't really debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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: Con has 1) conceded every point made, by not refuting it; 2) failed to meet burden of proof; 3) provided no sources; 4) attempted to redefine the debate in the middle. No points awarded for S&G; all of the rest go to Pro.
Vote Placed by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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: Con made no attempt to present evidence or counter the evidence presented by pro. I agree with Minstrel it seems like con didn't really want to debate this topic. I would call that bad form to waste someone else's time with a debate that you seemingly don't care about.
Vote Placed by minstrel 4 years ago
minstrel
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't seem all that interested in debating. Con did nothing but assert their personal opinion as fact and present logical fallacies. Con also presented no sources at all.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Human_Joke65DoctorDekuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's quite simple--"Con has still failed to refute my original argument or provide a compelling course of advocacy to vote otherwise." Con did not provide evidence in support of his claims.