The Instigator
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 13 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,175 times Debate No: 43450
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (124)
Votes (13)

 

bubbatheclown

Pro

I'll let you go first.
However, before we begin I'd like to say what I think was responsible for the emergence of the GLBT movement.

It had to do mostly with the sexual liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s, but it also had to do with Loving v. Virginia, which caused interracial marriage to be legalized in the United States. Yes, that is right: the legalization of interracial marriage had a role to play in today's Gay Marriage. I am not against interracial marriage, but in this case it cracked open the door to gay marriage. If we could've had interracial marriage without it ultimately leading to gay marriage, that'd be great. But the damage has been done.

Anyhow, you don't have to give an answer to my above theory. It's just something to think about. If you accept my debate, we'll debate on the topic at hand: Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope.
TUF

Con

Resolved: Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

To start this debate off I think we should clearly establish the correct meaning or interpretation of this resolution. Slippery slope means two different things. It could refer to 1. The logical fallacy of a slippery slope, or 2. The noun.

I think based on the context of round 1, we can safely assume that the logical fallacy wasn’t meant here, as it doesn’t make sense. I am going to assume he is referring to the dictionary definition which is properly defined in the Encarta Dictionary as: “A dangerous situation that can lead to ultimate downfall.” (1)

So in this debate, my primary goal will be to defend that the acceptance of Homosexuality is not a downfall. The resolution doesn’t specify in context the area, but I am going to safely assume this is for the United States, again based on the context used in Round 1. The statement of the resolution would under normal circumstances place the Burden Of Proof in the hands of the pro. However he has turned this debate over to me to “start”. Since he is instigating the claim however, I am forced to go off of the “arguments” laid out in his opening round. Though I will provide my own arguments at any rate, because that is how I roll…

Rebuttal 1: Loving VS Virginia

The main “argument” here seems to that the interracial marriage trial between Loving and the State of Virginia, ultimately led to gay marriage, and this was classified by my opponent as damage. What is slightly humorous is that this argument successfully leads this debate into a play on words, as this argument would fall into the category of a slippery slope argument. We haven’t concluded or been shown in evidence that homosexuality is damaging or harmful in any way, nor has an argument for this assessment been given yet. Thus this fully qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy which is defined as: “Slippery Slope can be described as an analogy to take the argument in one direction with a series of steps leading to a much more extreme outcome.”(2)

To sum it up, my opponent my opponent has already concluded D, before establishing A-C, and presented as fact. This presumption should thus be dis-regarded. My opponent cites that the Loving Vs Virginia cased might have played a role in the legalization of gay marriage in certain areas. I don’t know how much substance this assertion has, as the trial was only cited according to Cornell Law (3). In fact it was rejected in one case as a proper citation In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, that state's highest court, declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case”(3)

In fact it did uphold in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case of 2010, but was used as citation for conclusion only, in which it’s real effect was limited. (4)

According to Cornell Law, the only real link between this case and homosexuality was the statement from Mildred Loving “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.” (5)

This statement was more broad then anything, and wasn’t supposed to be a push for homosexuality.

So while I shouldn’t have the BOP here, I will go ahead and create a case anyways.

Contention 1: No physical Harm to a society

Homosexuality can bear no physical harm to a society. Outside of merely disgusting an individual who chooses not to be open to certain things, homosexuality does zero harm to anyone. It cannot be argued that homosexuality in and of itself is a physical detriment to any individual who doesn’t so choose to be affected by it. Society cannot therefor be affected in the manner of a slippery slope. Physical harm is defined by Webster’s dictionary as: “Physical or psychological injury or damage.”(6) Psychological damage in this case is definitely a non-issue, as being affected by the thought can happen regardless of legality, and can even happen with-in heterosexual relationships. Thus meaning that the legalization itself, does no damage outside of a personal choice. This is a compelling argument in negation of the resolution, because it holds a proof value that must be detained by the pro in order to successfully continue argumentation in this area, and on the topic in entirety.

Contention 2: Societies Acceptance

Because the United States Government and most United States societies already largely accept homosexuality, my opponent must prove how society already meets the definition provided above of a slippery slope. In what way is the anti-homosexuality community being more negatively affected, than the homosexual community who has faced hundreds of years of discrimination before finally being granted their societal acceptance? Following this answer, pro should also effectively answer how this supporting the anti-homosexual community is better for society, than rejecting the homosexual community in and of itself. The answers to these questions are essential before moving on with the debate, and until they are answered I happily await my opponents response.





1. Encarta Dictionary

2. www.fallaciesfiles.weebly.com/slippery-slope.html

3. Hernandez VS Robles (2006)

4. Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

5. www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

6. www.thefreedictionary.com/harm
Debate Round No. 1
bubbatheclown

Pro

Hello, TUF. Thank you for accepting this debate. According to your profile (which may or may not be truthful) you are an important figure on DDO, and you probably had a lot of other stuff to do.
Anyway, what I stated about interracial marriage was not the foundation for my argument. As I stated, it was just something to think about. My foundational argument is to be a lot different.
Okay, first of all you're probably right about interracial marriage not being a cause of homosexual marriage.

Now, my real arguments shall begin.
I will cover Incest (Adult), Bestiality, and sexual relationships between teenagers and adults.

1. Adult Incest
They're both adults, they both consent, they love each other, their love doesn't affect anyone else.
Sound familiar? These are some of the same arguments used to argue in favor of gay marriage. I'm now using them to justify Incest.

2. Bestiality/Zoophilia
The animal does not refuse to consent, the person loves the animal and the animal feels affection for its owner/partner. It doesn't affect anyone else, so we should stop being "bigots" and legalize Bestiality.
Once again, I've used some arguments used to justify gay marriage.

3. Sexual Relationships Between Minors and Adults (Consenting)
First of all, by the strict definition of the word, this would not be Pedophilia. Anyway, the teenager consents, the teenager and the adult love each other, their love doesn't affect anyone else, and if the teenager gets pregnant she can get an abortion (you Liberals do love your abortions, after all).
Guess what! Once again, I used some pro-gay arguments.

I have been arguing in favor of the "Slippery Slope," often used in arguments against gay marriage. If all the above arguments can be used for what I used them for, then the slippery slope argument is not a logical fallacy.

P.S. Actually, homosexual people do get AIDS more than straight people. A group that makes up 2% or so of the US population make up about 60% of AIDS victims. My source for this claim was an article from the AFA Magazine.

I await your response.
TUF

Con

Thanks for the response, I will cover your arguments right away.

Rebuttals

1. Adult Incest

My opponent makes an anology comparing arguments against Incest to arguments against homosexuality as well. However I think it is important to note that I at this point, have not argued (nor will I), against incest itself. Let's define incest.

1. Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
2. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative. (1)

The purpose of defining this is to show the important part of the definitions, which are "illegal, forbidden by custom, crime". The ideaslism against Incest, is the same as it is based on the original similar perceptions that have caused such a stir with homosexuality and marriage. Perceptions based on what is already illegal and percieved as wrong, influencing bias towards a totally different subject. At any rate, is this "argument" really applicable? Let me explain. categorically, it can be argued that there is a difference. Heterosexual relationships include one man, one woman. Homosexual relationships include two men, or two women. Incest can encompass either of the two, but is strictly defined by the relationship tied by close family. There is really two ways I can look at it. The first being that each category is entirely different subjects, and should be analyzed seperately. If this outlook is the outlook used, than my opponents argument is completely irrelevant as it proves this has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. The second way I look at it, is that marriage is between individuals of consent who love each other, in which every category is the exact same. In this case, the Pro should have no arguments against homosexuality. Point is, this is not an argument against homosexuality, it is an argument attempting to compare either two different things, or three similar things. I am left asking: What was the point of this argument?

2. Bestiality/Zoophilia

To start addressing this argument, let me explain what my opponent has done here. My opponent has used informal un-affirmed logic, through the use of a prepositional fallacy. The fallacy used is called "affirming a disjunct" (8). Specifically, affirming a disjunt means to assume that because the answer isn't "A", then the answer is automatically "B". By saying "the animal does not refuse to consent" and assuming the animal has given consent. To debunk that anyway, let's define consent.

1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree.(9)

Because an animal cannot knowingly consent on the same mental plane that humans can inter-connect with each other and communicate. The argument is thus irrelevante at this point. But let's go even further and adress my opponents statement of "the animal feels affection for its owner/partner". How exactly do you know what those feelings are and what they entail? Are you suggesting an animal is capable of loving a human on the same level as two humans can love each other? And believe me, I am not saying they cannot, but I am just curious as to how you know that, and what the difference between an animal feeling "love" as between two human partners, and an affection based on being cared for. Is it instinctual, and what does it entail? Again the topics are entirely different, and but your argument assumes a lot of unknown factors. The main point I am getting accross here is that in homosexuality there is consent from a knowing, mature, adult presence. Such physically cannot be the case with animals.

3. Sexual Relationships Between Minors and Adults (consenting)

I think I may be mis-understanding exactly what the Con's point here is specifically against Gay Marriage. Do you realize you are not expliciting a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality? Consent or not, the same situations are frowned on in heterosexuality, but homosexuality doesn't automatically entail sexual relationships between minors and adults. Anyways, I think the biggest problem in this debate, is that you are arguing other people's weaker arguments, while ignoring my own (which might have been avoided upon reading my earlier contentions. In that I didn't make the statement that teenagers and adults should be together simply because they love each other, nor did I make that argument itself at all. The resolution is specifically referring to Homosexuality, thus I need to hear some actual arguments pointing out why homosexuality is so much worse than heterosexuality, such that it will result in a "slippery slope" or downfall of society.

4. STD's

"Actually, homosexual people do get AIDS more than straight people. A group that makes up 2% or so of the US population make up about 60% of AIDS victims. My source for this claim was an article from the AFA Magazine."


How do individuals STD's effect straight couples? Do all straight couple's with STD's equally effect homosexuals? Why is this point even pertinent, if it only effects the parties involved? Also doesn't this "point" just automatically assume every homosexual couple will be engaging in sexual activity? Kind of unfair to those who don't isn't it? And finally this point completely centers around part of the gay population, and completely dis-regards gender orientation between two females. In fact, straight woman who perform anal sex have more of a chance of getting STD's than a lesbian couple have the oppertunity to.

If you could please adress my first two contentions in the next round, that would be great. Thanks, and good luck.


Sources:

7. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
8. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
9. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
bubbatheclown

Pro

First, this is not a debate on homosexuality all by itself. It is a debate on society's acceptance of homosexuality being a slippery slope. Therefore my points are not "irrelevant."
Also, I would like to add that I do not actually advocate Incest, Bestiality, or Pedophila. Well, provided they abstain from sexual relations, a simple romantic relationship between and 18 year old and a 17 year old would be okay, as well as an 18-16 matchup or even an 18 year old and 15 year old matchup. Incest and Bestiality would not be justified under any conditions, but in this case I'm arguing for them to prove my point and win the debate.

1. I did not say that homosexuality and Adult incest are identical. I said that the same logic can be used to justify either one. I used pro-gay arguments to make a pro-Incest argument. Incest, like homosexuality, only hurts the two partners, provided they don't have a kid, and if the two relatives are of the same gender they won't.

2. You define consent as agreeing to the act. But if you don't object to it, wouldn't that also be consenting?

3. If did not say during this debate that homosexuality and pedophilia (not literal pedophila) are the same. But as I've stated above, the same logic can be used to justify both. Please note that in this usage, I'm talking about consenting sexual relationships between 14+ year old teenagers and adults.

So what is my overall point? What am I trying to argue in this debate? Well, I'll tell you.
If you just use logic, you can find a logical justification for just about anything, just as you can use logic against these things. There has to be some other standard, an ultimate absolute standard, a place where you draw the line, and declare that society must never cross this line. Homosexuality is the first time we crossed this line, and what honestly prevents us from crossing the line further in the future, maybe 20 or 30 years from now? What prevents us from crossing that line right now, aside from the beliefs held by society? And let me remind you that what a society believes changes over time. 50 years ago society shunned homosexuality, the same society that encourages it today.
This is why I say that society's acceptance of homosexuality is a slippery slope. I await your rebuttals.
TUF

Con

To start off, I'll briefly address this comment by my opponent that had me slightly confused.

"First, this is not a debate on homosexuality all by itself. It is a debate on society's acceptance of homosexuality being a slippery slope. Therefore my points are not "irrelevant." "

In what way does the resolution change my arguments? In fact all of my arguments were centered around how societies acceptance of homosexuality meet the definition you provided of a slippery slope, or a "down fall" to society.

1. Adult Incest

It is hard to argue a lot of the points, because they are mostly made up logical fallacies, as I pointed out in the last round. Let me point out the ones in this point.

The first fallacy here is the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. (10)

"correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hocrequires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type ofcum hoc fallacy."

So this leaves me wondering by how my opponent is linking societies acceptance homosexuality to societies acceptance to incest? This is why I expressed dis-belief in my opponents correlation, because they are not the same. I could argue the same way and say that heterosexuality leads to acceptance of incestual relationships as well.

The point is, my opponent has not given any examples to prove that the two have ant correlation, thus the argument is completely empty and bewildering. This is something I see in many anti-homosexual arguments, and is something that makes debate very irritating and impossible. I am essentially arguing assertions, not actual arguments with evidence and impact.

This point actually has multiple logical fallacies that are used within the other points as well, in which case later I will just point to each link subsequently.

The next logical fallacy here, is assuming the incest is a problem. Based on the words of my opponent, it seems he is using an argument from nature (further exemplified in the comment section in this debate), which is effectively a "naturalistic fallacy". (11)

"Arthur N. Prior defined it as

…the assumption that because some quality or combination of qualities invariably and necessarily accompanies the quality of goodness, or is invariably and necessarily accompanied by it, or both, this quality or combination of qualities is identical with goodness. If, for example, it is believed that whatever is pleasant is and must be good, or that whatever is good is and must be pleasant, or both, it is committing the naturalistic fallacy to infer from this that goodness and pleasantness are one and the same quality. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them."

Even without the comments section to further proof of fallacy here, my opponent has yet to prove how incest is a problem, and without arguing unatturality, I have yet to see how this is at all applicable. I refuse to argue a logical fallacy however, and wish to argue a good solid point about how homosexuality itself is a downfall to society. I have yet to see one argument made relative to the topic.

The final fallacy used is not in the argument, but in the way it was argued. My opponent has been straw manning me throughout this entire debate by saying "I used pro-gay arguments to make a pro-Incest argument."

Not only are you assuming that all "pro-gay" arguments are exactly the same, but you aren't referring to MY arguments. You are using some made up arguments I haven't even seen or used in this debate and arguing against them. In which case I ask you, what is the point of wanting to debate me? You are not debating me, you are debating someone else entirely. I have stated my own case in Round 1, as well as addressed your points. I asked you again to refute my case in Round 2, yet you have still been arguing other people's points rather than my own in this debate.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." (12)

This is very annoying, because this isn't even a debate, since all my opponent has managed to do is completely just repeat the same things over and over again, refusing to acknowledge any of my actual arguments.

2. Bestiality/Zoophilia

"You define consent as agreeing to the act. But if you don't object to it, wouldn't that also be consenting?"

Absolutely not! Listen to this argument. Think about it. If a mute girl is raped by a man, is it consent because she does not have the physical ability to express verbal rejection? Same with animals. They don't have the physical or mental ability to understand consent on the same level a human does, and they operate completely off of animal instinct. They cannot tell you they consent. But we shouldn't even be talking about this in the first place, because as pointed out in the first round, it is completely irrelevant. Homosexuality isn't purely sexual, niether is all heterosexuality. The love and affection you talked about in Round 2 is completely different from the romantic connection that homosexuality is about. You have the BOP here, and consistently refuse to defend it. Again, I refer you to source number 8, about affirming a disjunct fallacy. Not giving consent, does not mean you automatically give consent.

3. Pedophilia


As the debate goes on, my opponent continues to grow farther and farther away from the actual topic. If what you say is true, and you don't think they are not the same, or anything close to being the same, then what is the point of this argument? Again, I can easily say that acceptance of heterosexuality leads to pedophilia, and just like you I would have no evidence or impact to support this point. You said the "logic can be justified to explain both". Please elaborate on this. You keep making an assertion, but not providing an actual argument to back this up. If you agree that they are completely two different things, why do you continue to use the the correlation does not imply causation argument? I absolutely cannot debate you period until you give me your impacts, and evidence to prove that there is any link.

Conclusion

Based on the arguments from my opponent in this debate, and furthered in the comment section, I think it's safe to assume that there probably will not be any further justification for his case, effectively making this debate pointless. Every single argument my opponent has made is based off of logical fallacies, which I refuse to debate. Lack of evidence is completely ridden in my opponents points, which also makes this widely redudant.

That, and my opponent continues to argue someone else's points entirely, while completely ignoring both of the contentions I outlined in Round 1. He doesn't want to debate me, he wants to stubbornly hold the same opinion he already holds, without actually having to look at the value and merit behind different arguments. With all due respect, these are the absolute worst arguments I have heard from any member of the anti-homosexual community.

My opponent is right in saying that society changes over time, though, and despite those out there who feel there is no hope for our country, I think this itself evidences the opposite. 50 years ago, our society was too shocked at the concept of homosexuality because it was different from what they were used to. 200 years ago, someone might have been flogged or hung for even mentioning having feelings towards the same gender. It is this shock value itself that is harmful to a society. It is why many of the anti-homosexual community makes arguments that link this to other things like incestual relationships. They are so shocked at the concept of something existing that has been different than whay they have been exposed too, that they choose to automatically assume it is a problem rather than weighing it on merit alone and finding similairites to it within heterosexuality. Again if we went back over 200 years ago, many people would be shocked to hear that blacks could be accepted in to todays society. Society has molded to the point now where that group is in minority, and people understand that is was wrong to deny them the same right based on being different. I strongly believe this will be the case with homosexuality as well. If I am to have any hope in humanity, it has to. But I can only base my hopes off of the past, and I honestly think that in 50 years this will have long been blown over and homosexuality will be just as accepted by society and as the difference of culture has.

I pass the debate back to my opponent now, in hopes that he will actually argue my points this time around. :)

10. http://www.princeton.edu...
11. http://www.princeton.edu...
12. http://www.nizkor.org...

Debate Round No. 3
bubbatheclown

Pro

First, you claimed my whole argument was based off logical fallacies. The "slippery slope" argument is considered a logical fallacy. HOWEVER, I am trying to prove the exact opposite. I am trying to prove that in this usage it is not, in fact, a logical fallacy.
If I ignored your arguments I did not mean to do so. By defining the objective of this debate I was not trying to discredit any of your arguments. I was saying that my supposed logical fallacies are legitimate arguments.

1. You pretty much said I cannot prove that homosexuality leads to Incest. Think about that. I spent the last few rounds posting arguments similar to those used to justify homosexuality. As you have stated, there would be many such arguments. However, I am sure many of these other arguments would also apply to Incest, or perhaps bestiality and pedophilia. If you can argue for homosexuality through Argument X, then if somebody argues for incest using Argument X, effectively the two should be treated the same. Where do you think the pro-incest people would be getting Argument X? Who do you think inspired them to rally for their "rights?" I'm telling you...that's not as much of a straw argument as you think it is. And the two of them do love each other. If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument for pro-gay usage.

2. As I've stated on the comments arguing with Shootzilla, if somebody touches a sexually mature animal's parts, it should be able to know exactly what's going on. If it's not being forced there against its will yet it doesn't run or resist, that IS effectively, the same thing as consent. So, in this hypothetical scenario, the man/woman loves the animal and the animal effectively gives something that is close enough to consent, since it knows what's going on yet it doesn't resist or run. Therefore, this is NOT rape. In this scenario, it literally hurts no one (except maybe through the contraction of an STD). This is one of the arguments used for homosexuality. If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument from pro-gay usage.

3. The teen and the adult love each other. It hurts no one else. And actually, unlike the other two, it quite literally is natural. In this way it is like homosexuality (except gayness isn't actually natural in humans). If you dismiss all these arguments, you dismiss them for pro-gay usage. Therefore you don't have very much left to support homosexuality with, unless you accept these arguments for pro-pedophile usage. Was that elaborated enough for you?

You keep saying that you could argue heterosexual relationships could lead to this. Not with monogamous heterosexual relationships. You see, this all leads back to my main point. When you get to bestiality, you can't skip homosexuality.

Since I initiated this debate, I have the burden of proof. However, do you not also have a responsibility to prove me wrong? Pretty much all you've done is say I have no proof. But I do, because the animal smoochers and the sister smoochers and the 40 year olds with the 15 year old girlfriends are inspired to fight for their "rights" by the homosexuals. If the homosexuals never won, these other movements (which I do admit have not emerged yet) would not have emerged. You have never given I response to my argument about the line, the line that must not be crossed otherwise the depravity will get worse and worse.

Post Scriptum: If my arguments are not sufficient, if I haven't answered something that you want me to answer, if I haven't proven something, please specify. Tell me exactly what questions, what challenges you raised, that I haven't answered. Tell me plainly so I can give you an answer. I guarantee that I can give you some kind of response, hopefully a decent one, if I know what it is you're looking for.

Post Post Scriptum: Yeah, I said I'd cover AIDS on this round. My point about AIDS is that it costs society money to treat AIDS. That was my point there.
TUF

Con

I am going to completely throw out the previous structure of the debate, as it has just become repetitive and we haven't gone anywhere with it.

Concerning logical fallacies coming into play with the slippery slope, it is important to remember this entire debate is based around multiple fallacies. This is getting repetitive and annoying that my opponent still is having a hard time understanding the problem with his arguments, to the point where he is repeating them ad naseum without even trying to understand what I am saying"
So here is the best way I can some up the majority of my argument.
My opponent says he is trying to prove how in context, this type of slippery slope is not a fallacy. It is entirely a fallacy however because he has refused to acknowledge and prove how homosexuality leads to this massive chain of events, and how heterosexuality differs so that it doesn"t. There is literally no link between the perceived problem, and the outlandish conclusion, which for the umpteenth time, makes this debate unbearably pointless. The icing on the cake, is that he doesn"t go to explain how these are actual problems, just says that they will happen as a result of "A" without providing evidence to support this BOP, or even attempting to give a valid reason as to how "A" concludes to "B-D".
So due to the repetitive nature this debate has taken, I am going to accept my opponents offer.
"Tell me exactly what questions, what challenges you raised, that I haven't answered. Tell me plainly so I can give you an answer. I guarantee that I can give you some kind of response, hopefully a decent one, if I know what it is you're looking for."

For the rest of this round, I am going to ask my opponent direct questions, that I hope he can answer directly in the final round of this debate. Maybe then we can start establishing some effective conclusions about this resolution.

Question 1: In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to incestual relationships?
Question 2: Why does heterosexuality not lead to incestual relationships?
Question 3: Why is incestual relationships a problem?
Question 4: How did you come to the conclusion that an animal "not running away" means the animal gives consent to a human? Do you have statistics and evidence that demonstrates an animal"s psychological reactance and behaviors?
Question 5: In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to bestiality?
Question 6: Why does heterosexuality not lead to bestiality?
Question 7: Is homosexuality to you 100% about sex, is it about human romance?
Question 8: In what ways does bestiality have anything to do with human romance?
Question 9: In the last round, you said this a few times: If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument from pro-gay usage. Can you explain your thought process on why you feel it is necessary to argue other people"s arguments rather than the 2 clear contentions I laid out in Round 1?
Question 10: Do you find it contradictory at all that all of your arguments can be re-directed back to heterosexuality? If not can you explain in detail how they are not?
Question 11: In what way do you perceive homosexuality leads to pedophilia?
Question 12: Why does heterosexuality not lead to pedophilia?
Question 13: In your last round you said this "gayness isn't actually natural in humans". Can you provide me the source of where you got this information?
Question 14: In your last round you said this "the animal smoochers and the sister smoochers and the 40 year olds with the 15 year old girlfriends are inspired to fight for their "rights" by the homosexuals" Can you provide me with the source of where you got this information?

Now I will address other comments made by my opponent:
"However, do you not also have a responsibility to prove me wrong? Pretty much all you've done is say I have no proof."
Everything you are arguing requires proof before I can even refute it. You have not given me a single shred of it, so how can I even begin arguing it? The resolution YOU started, requires substantiating so the opposition can understand, and debate it properly. But not only have you not provided evidence for your case, you have not given any impacts for why each contention is important (or even relevant in this case). Based on how this debate has been going so far for 4 rounds, I do not expect a decrease in ignorance any time soon, but I sincerely hope you can muster some humility up for Round 5 at least.
"You have never given I response to my argument about the line, the line that must not be crossed otherwise the depravity will get worse and worse."

What is this line, and when was it drawn? You have not proven to me that this line even exists, and how it will be crossed. I don"t know how many time I can re-word the same statement before you understand how weak your "arguments" *cough* assertions *cough* are.
So now we have 1 round left, and nothing productive has been established. This last round is make or break for my opponent. This is his last chance to decide whether he wants to engage in debate, or willingly argue fallacies based on made up evidence. I sincerely hope that Pro can finally understand where the problem in this debate has been since Round Back to you.
Debate Round No. 4
bubbatheclown

Pro

You want to play? All right, I'll play. First of all, I thank my opponent for finally laying down in plain language what questions he expects me to answer.
You said a whole bunch of other stuff, but I'm going to skip down to your 14 questions.

Q1. In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to incestual relationships?
A1. When society decides they're going to throw away an ancient taboo concerning who you can and who you cannot marry, why won't they throw away other millenia-old marriage taboos?

Q2. Why does heterosexuality not lead to incestual relationships?
A2. Not closely related heterosexual relationships are not taboo in any culture. No taboo is thrown away through this.

Q3. Why is incestual relationships a problem?
A3. Aside from the fact that it is also a taboo and that its emergence can get rid of further taboos, it's problematic genetic-wise, and society could only withstand a small minority engaging in these kind of relationships.

Q4. How did you come to the conclusion that an animal "not running away" means the animal gives consent to a human? Do you have statistics and evidence that demonstrates an animal's psychological reactance and behaviors?
A4. Likewise, do you have any evidence that an animal "not running away" is evidence that it is frozen with fear or that, in spite of being sexually mature, does not understand the nature of what is going on?

Q5. In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to bestiality?
A5. Same as incest. It's a taboo that can get thrown aside after the first taboo is thrown aside.

Q6. Why does heterosexuality not lead to bestiality?
A6. Same as incest. Not closely related both human heterosexual relationships are not a taboo in any culture. No taboo is thrown away through this.

Q7. Is homosexuality to you 100% about sex, is it about human romance?
A7. It is the byproduct of sexual depravity. Yes, unless it is about dominance it is about sex.

Q8. In what ways does bestiality have anything to do with human romance?
A8. Well there's a human involved, isn't there?

Q9. In the last round you said this a few times: If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument from pro-gay usage. Can you explain your thought proces on why you feel it is necessary to argue other people's arguments rather than the 2 clear contentions I laid out in Round 1?
A9. This debate is about the slippery slope argument.

Q10. Do you find it contradictory at all that all of your arguments can be re-directed back to heterosexuality? If not can you explain in detail how they are not?
A10. As I've stated before, same-species not closely related heterosexuality isn't a taboo in any culture. No taboos are broken through this.

Q11. In what way do you perceive homosexuality leads to pedophila?
A11. Actually, pedophilia was not a taboo in most ancient cultures. By pedophila i'm referring to teenagers entering relationships with adults. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, neither one leads to something that has already existed. I give you this one.

Q12. Why does heterosexuality not lead to pedophilia?
A12. Actually, according to nature pedophilia is natural. I give you this one too.

Q13. In your last round you said this "gayness isn't actually natural in humans." Can you provide me the source of where you got this information?
A13. I don't trust the pro-gay data coming in from scientists who are pro-gay, the same way I don't trust pro-climate change data coming from pro-climate change scientists. You cannot always trust slanted studies.

Q14. In your last round you said this "the animal smoochers and the sister smoochers and the 40 year olds with the 15 year old girlfriends are inspired to fight for their 'rights' by the homosexuals" Can you provide me with the source of where you got this information?
A14. Well, I honestly don't yet, since the pro-incest, pro-zoophilia, and pro-pedophile movements have yet to emerge. Neither of us can either confirm this or un-confirm this until it happens. However, it makes sense that one group of people fighting for their "rights" leads to a group of similar people fighting for their "rights."

There, I answered your 14 questions. You say I haven't provided any proof, but that's because I cannot offer you concrete proof, considering the movements mentioned above are yet to have emerged. But in 20 years or so, you'll see that I was right.
All you need is a really smart guy who can argue his case well and you can justify well-night anything. If all you have is logic and statistics, you can find ways to justify homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia, as well as adultery, one night stands, illicit drug usage, and maybe even cannibalism (with limiitations, of course). Heck, I could advocate child abuse by telling you it makes them tougher. Logic will betray society one day and give way to the legalization of various behaviors. It already has with homosexuality. The only thing standing in the way is this line, the line I mentioned. The line that no matter what kind of justification you have this line must not be crossed.

Doubtless you'll think that I still haven't answered your contentions. You'll think my arguments are "irrelevent," "straw arguments," "beating around the bush," "ridiculous," "lacking proof," bla bla bla. And you're not the first one. There was another debater here on DDO who did the same thing when I debated him. So it is not enough for you people simply to provide a rebuttal for my arguments?! If this is what every debater I come across does to me, I'm not going to play this game anymore. Bubba the Clown is finished with organized debates, or at least for the time being. Maybe I'll still hang around the polls and forums. Feel free to declare yourself the victor here.
TUF

Con

Since this is the final round, I'll offer a conclusion as to why my opponent has failed to uphold the resolution properly.

Conclusion

If we take a look at the resolution independently of the argument made in this debate, we should understand that ultimately the point of this debate is for pro to prove how homosexuality itself, is the leading factor in societies downfall. Every single one of Con's arguments explained a proper link between homosexuality, and any one of these percieved downfalls which were each of his conentions. On top of that, none of the percieved downfalls were properly justified as downfalls by my opponent, so how can we conclude by affirming the resolution? The questions I posed in the last round held burdens that meant the answers behind them would be the only factor to uphold my opponents case. Let's look at some of those answers.

The answers (A1-2, A5-6), is basing the entire argument around ancient taboo's and their sanctity. At the same time, my opponent never said why violating ancient taboo's is wrong. I shouldn't even have to get into how breaking many of those ancient taboo's has bettered societies, freeing many from slavery, oppression, discrimination, etc.

A3 assumes that relationship automatically = acts, without bearing recognition that same detriments can come from all different sexuality preferences.

A4 shifts the burden of proof. I did not make the claim, why do I have to prove something someone made up is actually made up?

A7 provides a claim once again not supported by evidence.

A8 AGAIN only assumes the involvement of one party. The other party not being human, Pro has destroyed his own point.

A9 Has left me completely confused.

A10 Fails to prove how they aren't closely related to heterosexuality.

A13 Data that doesn't suit my opponents bias, will relentlessly be ignored, as admitted by himself.

A14 So every group fighting for anything, is only inspired to do so because of the homosexuals? Wow, pretty broad assessment with no actual statistics to back it up.

By the end of this debate, I am left having to argue lack of statistics, other people's arguments that I did not make, logical fallacies, and am being asked to provide the BOP on claims I didn't make. This debate was never really a debate, is was a chance for my opponent to continue to show his ignorance. There was no room to argue, because my opponent was never ready to be convinced.

On to the voters.
Debate Round No. 5
124 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shootzilla 3 years ago
Shootzilla
I'm pretty sure you made it up.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
No, I found a reference to it somewhere on the internet. I don't know how reliable the source was, but I can assure you I did not make it up.
Posted by Junja 3 years ago
Junja
bubbatheclown, you just completely made up the "supreme court ruling" of America being a Christian nation." Tuf clearly wins this debate because you had no sources, and you yourself admitted that the accepting of gay marriage has not led to pedophilia, beastality, and incest rights.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
And no, I did not mean to spam. My computer is being absolutely horrible right now.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
All right then, Shootzilla. Clearly ignoring you doesn't make you go away. So, I'll conclude all my posts that occur on this debate:

A. Under the correct conditions Pedophilia does not necessarily victimize the minor.
B. Same applies with Bestiality.
C. Even if a child is born through incest it's not guaranteed the child will be deformed. It's likely, but not guaranteed.

Whether or not America is a Christian nation or not, marriage has religious significance, and fighting gay marriage is not us imposing our standards on them, but them imposing their standards on us. All three Abrahamic religions oppose homosexuality.
Here is the solution: give civil unions equal legal benefits as marriage. Then, separate the two. Make marriage specifically a religious matter, with no greater legal benefits as a civil union. Have atheists do civil unions. They can still call themselves husband and wife if they feel like it. But if you separate the two and make them completely equal in the eyes of the law...MARRIAGE WOULD BE ONLY FOR THE RELIGIOUS, such as Christians, Muslim, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainism adherents, Rastafarians, New Age, Mormons, and even Satanists. Homosexuality has no place in religion, and if marriage becomes religious only, with civil unions being available to everyone who is not religious, then homosexuals would have absolutely no place marrying, because many, many religions oppose homosexuality.

I could continue, but if I do you'll simply continue to harass me, perhaps even after this debate comes to an end. Three hours remain before the voting periods ends. When the voting period ends, leave me alone, period. You got that, Shootzilla? Never post on any of my debates again, unless you're posting other than to troll.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
All right then, Shootzilla. Clearly ignoring you doesn't make you go away. So, I'll conclude all my posts that occur on this debate:

A. Under the correct conditions Pedophilia does not necessarily victimize the minor.
B. Same applies with Bestiality.
C. Even if a child is born through incest it's not guaranteed the child will be deformed. It's likely, but not guaranteed.

Whether or not America is a Christian nation or not, marriage has religious significance, and fighting gay marriage is not us imposing our standards on them, but them imposing their standards on us. All three Abrahamic religions oppose homosexuality.
Here is the solution: give civil unions equal legal benefits as marriage. Then, separate the two. Make marriage specifically a religious matter, with no greater legal benefits as a civil union. Have atheists do civil unions. They can still call themselves husband and wife if they feel like it. But if you separate the two and make them completely equal in the eyes of the law...MARRIAGE WOULD BE ONLY FOR THE RELIGIOUS, such as Christians, Muslim, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainism adherents, Rastafarians, New Age, Mormons, and even Satanists. Homosexuality has no place in religion, and if marriage becomes religious only, with civil unions being available to everyone who is not religious, then homosexuals would have absolutely no place marrying, because many, many religions oppose homosexuality.

I could continue, but if I do you'll simply continue to harass me, perhaps even after this debate comes to an end. Three hours remain before the voting periods ends. When the voting period ends, leave me alone, period. You got that, Shootzilla? Never post on any of my debates again, unless you're posting other than to troll.
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
All right then, Shootzilla. Clearly ignoring you doesn't make you go away. So, I'll conclude all my posts that occur on this debate:

A. Under the correct conditions Pedophilia does not necessarily victimize the minor.
B. Same applies with Bestiality.
C. Even if a child is born through incest it's not guaranteed the child will be deformed. It's likely, but not guaranteed.

Whether or not America is a Christian nation or not, marriage has religious significance, and fighting gay marriage is not us imposing our standards on them, but them imposing their standards on us. All three Abrahamic religions oppose homosexuality.
Here is the solution: give civil unions equal legal benefits as marriage. Then, separate the two. Make marriage specifically a religious matter, with no greater legal benefits as a civil union. Have atheists do civil unions. They can still call themselves husband and wife if they feel like it. But if you separate the two and make them completely equal in the eyes of the law...MARRIAGE WOULD BE ONLY FOR THE RELIGIOUS, such as Christians, Muslim, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainism adherents, Rastafarians, New Age, Mormons, and even Satanists. Homosexuality has no place in religion, and if marriage becomes religious only, with civil unions being available to everyone who is not religious, then homosexuals would have absolutely no place marrying, because many, many religions oppose homosexuality.

I could continue, but if I do you'll simply continue to harass me, perhaps even after this debate comes to an end. Three hours remain before the voting periods ends. When the voting period ends, leave me alone, period. You got that, Shootzilla? Never post on any of my debates again, unless you're posting other than to troll.
Posted by Shootzilla 3 years ago
Shootzilla
Exactly, this is exactly what I thought. You have no real basis to prove that homosexuality creates nearly as many victims as pedophilia, bestiality, or incest that involves a child being born. The US is not a christian country, and it has no right to enforce christian customs onto its citizens, and that along with other traditions is the only reason homosexuality is taboo in the first place.
Posted by Shootzilla 3 years ago
Shootzilla
Bubba stated in earlier comments that the only things against homosexuality that truly matter are in the bible, and after I tried to explain the separation of church and state to him, he then went on to claim that the US is a christian nation, and it has full right to enforce its customs by citing it back to a supreme court case from the 1890s. You can look for yourself, i just don't want the same cycle to start again. What Bubba cant understand is that homosexuality is genetic, along with bestiality, and pedophilia, but the thing is homosexuality does not create victims like the other 2 do, and thats why we should tolerate it. Some people are born with homocidal tendencies, but we dont tolerate it because its directly harmful to others and society, so we put those people on medications to help improve there mental state, and people with pedophilia and bestiality are treated with sexual drive reducers, intense hormonal medication, and stablizers to prevent further harm to others. But, we should not do it for homosexuality because it creates no victims, therfore, trying to stablize homosexuals does not do any good for society, its an uneeded prevention because its not detrimental to society.
Posted by SocialismBeatsGreed 3 years ago
SocialismBeatsGreed
If A =/= B, then A does not prove B. This is simple causation, simple logic.

Point I: The removal of the taboo against homosexuality =/= the removal of the taboo against incest, zoophilia, or statutory rape. This is a pretty simple statement - there are differences between homosexuality and the other things, namely who is being slept with and in the case of zoophilia and statutory rape, their ability to consent.

Point II: Since Homosexuality =/= incest, zoophilia, etc, then accepting one does not prove that the other will be accepted now or ever. Once again, simple causation. This is why the slippery slope argument is not valid here. The two things are not perfectly equal, thus the occurrence of one does not prove the occurrence of the other. If anyone disagrees, state your case. I have seen Pro's argument that civil rights movements for black people led to similar movements for women.

Fact is, you would be completely blind to think that the only reason the women's rights movement occurred is because of racial civil rights. In reality, there are a TON of other things that had to happen to create rights for women. Each movement was caused by their own leaders organizing and making logical cases as to why they deserved equal rights, mostly by proving that they could do work and make decisions in an equal capacity.

---------------------------

So, abandoning the idea that homosexuality is a slippery slope, is there any real reason that it is bad?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Con for making more convincing arguments and for providing numerous sources to support his position. Pro's arguments were weak and his attempt to link incest and bestiality to homosexuality was desperate and unconvincing. He barely used any sources at all. Con won this debate by a large margin I felt.
Vote Placed by abyteofbrain 3 years ago
abyteofbrain
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: As for the resources, I don't trust thefreedictionary.com, as they've mis-defined words before. Frankly, I think TUF crushed his opposition. Both tried hard, and the debate remained calm and to the point.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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: Only CON had sources. For me, PRO failed to uphold the resolution and demonstrate that homosexuality is a slippery slope. PRO argued that he was trying to prove homosexuality was a slippery slope but not a logical fallacy, but CON adequately refuted this and made several arguments of his own, many of which were dropped. S&G were about even. PRO openly admitted to skipping most of CON's case in the last round and then displayed an immature and unsportsmanlike breach of conduct, so conduct goes to CON.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 3 years ago
mcc1789
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove his position, and justify that his argument was valid rather than merely the well-known slippery slope fallacy, even admitting that no evidence of his contention existed, but only that movements in favor of bestiality, incest and pedophilia using the same arguments in favor of homosexuality "might" emerge in the future. Many of Pro's arguments, such as an animal's inability to verbally refuse sex with a human equaled consent, were not only bizarre but disturbing, as Con successfully showed.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Best debate on this topic I've read since I joined this site. Conduct to Pro because of Con's obsession with fallacies. There's a Fallacy fallacy, too. Con also strawmanned Pro's position in the very last round; Pro's position wasn't to prove that homosexuality is harmful. It was that society's acceptance of it is a slippery slope... as made obvious in the very title of the debate. Con's point about animal consent fell to Pro's rebuttal. Sorry, Con, my own experience demonstrates that animals will not only consent, but initiate sex with a human. LOL. Con loaded a gatling gun with questions, and fired. Pro fired back with cannon fire. Spelling and Grammer go to Pro because round 2 shows that Con obviously didn't spellcheck his arguments before posting, and demonstrated by his ugly misspellings and lack of capitalization at the beginning of at least one of his sentences. Don't get me wrong, Con, I still enjoyed reading your arguments, and you get sources.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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: Pro has shown that arguments for homosexuality can be also used for pedophilia, etc. However, the arguments stops there: There is no justifcation on how it is a slippery slope, and that Homosexuality is the cause of it. Also, TUF was the only one to use sources, which were pretty reliable.
Vote Placed by Ian159 3 years ago
Ian159
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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: Wow. Pro literally used 0 sources. It surprises me, but pro used none. Even after seeing con used one, pro continued to not use sources. Also, pro's argument AND conduct were appalling.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro used no sources whatsoever to back claims. Arguments: Cons strongest points here (besides the fallacious nature of Pros arguments) are that the arguments Pro says can be used for both homosexuality and other taboos can be used in defense of heterosexuality as well, and that Pro does not even show why these taboos should be taboos. There are good reasons that argue against these taboos, but unfortunately for Pro, any such arguments that I am aware of do not apply against homosexuality. When I have time, I'll explain all of this in more depth in the comments section.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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: Slippery slope can be a valid argument; but in this case, it is not. Pro claims he "used some pro-gay arguments", but for it to be a valid slippery slope argument Pro would have to show that ALL the reasons for accepting homosexuality apply to his stated consequences.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
bubbatheclownTUFTied
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: Wow. Reading this debate was painful, though I give TUF major Props for sitting through it and arguing it out. I could vote on literally anything here and still end up voting Con. I could point out that Pro hasn't upheld the topic, as defined by Con (which was never responded to). I could point out that, on all three of the issues presented, the same arguments that Pro states are slippery slopes could be used by heterosexuals. I could point out the plethora of logical fallacies in Pro's case, not to mention the fact that his entire side of this debate purports a logical fallacy to be true. I could vote based off of a complete lack of statistical analysis or reason in Pro's argument. I could just look at the series of absolutely baffling answers to Con's questions in R5. It's just mindblowing how ridiculous this round became, and if I wanted to, I could vote against Pro just for making it a muddled mess with little to no actual engagement on his part.