The Instigator
Emilychance
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Multi-Wargasm
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Should teachers be fired because they are gay?

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...
Multi-Wargasm
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,055 times Debate No: 41852
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

Emilychance

Con

No, doing so is bigoted and disgusting. All that matters about a teacher is whether or not they are a good teacher. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it! Shockingly, I have a gay teacher; and shockingly, he is amazing. Even more shocking, though, is the fact that I am still straight. Cleary, he has extreme intentions of making me gay. Note the sarcasm. Your views are abhorrent. I would hate to have a teacher like you, because you would influence all of your students to be close minded and judgemental. That is an adgenda. The hateful, evil, judgemental adgenda. That is what this country needs to be afraid of, not the fact that there are gay teachers. What America doesn't need is more bigots such as yourself.
Multi-Wargasm

Pro

Con has absolutely no concept on the gay agenda to wipe out mankind with gayness. She has perfectly demonstrated that because her gay teacher likes men, she too likes men. What can be said for her male peers? No doubt some, if not all, are slowly becoming gayified. By acknowledging that I would influence my students into not being gay, she has set the precedent that a gay teacher is liable to teach his male students to be gay. However, i myself have been affected by this agenda and am bi sexual, or the technical term would deem, half gayed. Were I to teach my students, I would no doubt be subjecting them to a hybrid spawn of the agenda, which would lead to greedy lovers, indulging in both sexes. However, I must concede that my status instantly suggests that half gayed people hold the key to future acceptance of bisexual activities and thus, a future of acceptance of both hetero and homo activities, so long as people engage in both. However, I am not a teacher, and so such a utopia does not exist as far as i know. Finally, con is being subjective in describing me as evil, hateful and judgemental, no doubt taught to her by her teacher. Behold, the gay agenda.
Debate Round No. 1
Emilychance

Con

Of course I have no concept on the gay agenda, Pro. That is because it simply does not exist. In no way did I set any precedent saying gay teachers are liable to teach their students that, because clearly that does not happen. All my teacher does is teach, his personal life almost never comes up. Additionally, I have never been taught any mean of hate by him, in fact it is the contrary. Don't insult him, please. You being bisexual (of half gayed, as you so eloquently called it) is something you were born with, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you are so concerned about the future and acceptance, perhaps you should reevaluate your views. Perhaps evil was too strong a word, though hateful and judgemental are certainly true. Allow me to remind you we are debating a question of whether or not teachers should be fired for being gay. Somehow, you have equated that with the destruction of mankind. That sure is logical.
Multi-Wargasm

Pro

Talking of personal life does constitute a basis for gayifying students. The gay agenda, which does exist, gayifies more subliminally. I do not insult him, therefore, because even he has little idea of the gayness he's projecting on the impressionable minds of his male students. Do not make assumptions of my half gay status, as you do have no authority to comment on it. I have no hate for the gays as a whole, just a rational fear of the gay agenda and that is the basis of my argument... the gay agenda...
Debate Round No. 2
Emilychance

Con

If talk of personal life, though extremely rare, is an agenda is your view, then it can certainly apply to heterosexual teachers as well. What if a straight teacher talks about their divorce, do you think that their students suddenly will not want to stay married when they are older? After all, if they are so impressionable, something like that is bound to happen. You 'rational fear' is nothing more than another term for your unreasoned hatred of gay people. If you are so sure the gay agenda exists, and people are really influenced by gay teachers, then show me proof. Clearly you don't have any.
And again, you have never actually answered the question we are debating, just insulted the character of someone you have never met.
Multi-Wargasm

Pro

I apologise. I mean that it does "not" constitute as a basis and the following explanation outlines why. You mention the divorce agenda as well and I would, thus, answer yes to your question. We can see that with the growing rates of divorce we have these days compared to before. I have not insulted anyone's character. Just the gay agenda. The gays don't even realise when they push it. We can see failed gay agendas in civilisations such as Olympian Athens with pederasty and institutionalised gayity in Olympian Sparta, but neither of these were exposed to a global society with ease of communication. In this case, the communication of the subliminal gay agenda. This is the basis on how I am arguing that gay teachers should be fired. Indeed, the basis of your argument from the start of the debate was concerning my argument and you have given little objective evidence to suggest why gay teachers should not be fired. I could just as easily accuse you of ignoring your opposition of the motion and that you merely chose to oppose me ideologically.
So. Much. Gay.
You question my rational fear, but you describe the basis of my argument in round two as logical, which not only refutes this statement, but refutes your entire argument. I could query that it was due to sarcasm to convey satire of my argument. However, I could argue that I was already conveying the satire of my argument from the start and that any subsequent satire of that satire would render you the only serious party in this debate and that such sarcasm on your part was, thus, unrequired. However, this would be to the effect of undermining my argument, so I shall refrain.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cbcullen84 3 years ago
cbcullen84
When referencing the word "Good" one must take into account what is "Evil" as an abstract thought, the difference between the two are how we define them but in reality: The word evil is translated from the Ancient Greek word ubel, which is equivalent to the word azazel in hebrew. In Olde English, the word was spelt yfel and later ivell and evyl.

In the earliest meaning of the word, azazel was believed to be a demi-God cast down by the gods for his actions against humanity and doomed to wander the Earth never to escape until the end of time. In Biblican stories, this equates to the story of the archangel Michael and the story now associated to the history of The Devil.

Put it this way, where do you think the word "Good" comes from? When you describe yourself as "Good" do you know exactly how you're describing yourself? Argue that morality is different now and has nothing to do with religion...ok, then how about the principles of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Those principles are the very fabric of our nation and serve as the infrastructure of our ethics, morals and values in the U.S.. Those principles are what the Bill of Rights and the rest of our Constitution rest upon. The Declaration of independence states specifically the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given to us by our Creator. One might attempt to invalidate the term "Creator" as being religous but when taken into context there is no refuting the reference. You're Good? Say's who...you?
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
I don't think you were. Just convicted.
Posted by Emilychance 3 years ago
Emilychance
I apologize if I was perceived as being rude as well.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
Your welcome and thank you. Apologies if I was rude at any point. I have no hate for gay people or any other people, whether they be Hindu, black or Nazi.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
Your welcome and thank you. Apologies if I was rude at any point. I have no hate for gay people or any other people, whether they be Hindu, black or Nazi.
Posted by Emilychance 3 years ago
Emilychance
I respect your opinion, although I must disagree, thank you for engaging in a debate with me.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
And I think my argument was still more compelling.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
A troll you silly goose!
Posted by Emilychance 3 years ago
Emilychance
In any case, I don't know.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
It's an open question
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
EmilychanceMulti-WargasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: To be clear, trolling of this sort where both parties are not aware is rude and distasteful. Con likely wanted an honest debate on the matter, but Pro presented something he probably doesn't even remotely agree with and simply was "trolling." Vote bombing to counter the other vote bomb, as well as the proponent of someone who actually thinks there is a gay agenda...
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
EmilychanceMulti-WargasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: There really is a gay agenda and just being a role model encourages others to be like you. If part of that you is gay, it encourages others to be gay. Pro was talking in circles at the begining
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
EmilychanceMulti-WargasmTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter-vote bomb to the one below. Trolling can be "entertaining," but if it is not a style both parties are aware of, then it is viewed as little more than rude and childish. CON perhaps should have picked up on it, but she instigated this debate, and she wanted a serious debate. All points go to CON.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
EmilychanceMulti-WargasmTied
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: Pro won conduct point for Pro's angry opening rant, and his spelling was better too. But the trolling... Lolololol.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
EmilychanceMulti-WargasmTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Gotta love Multi-Wargasm. Thanks for making a mockery of the system! This needs to happen every so often. Kudos for the satire. Also, you seem to have one the flow.