The Instigator
Leugen9001
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Aguilajoyce
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

THBT the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of 'gay-bourhoods'.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Aguilajoyce
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 90252
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Leugen9001

Pro

Motion: This house believes that the gay rights moement should mourn the emergence of "gay-bourhoods". (Motion taken from: http://www.debate-motions.info...)

Rules:

This debate is structured like a CNDF debate. This means that its structure is as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance, no arguments
Round 2: Pro presents two constructive points and models the debate. Con makes rebuttals and presents two constructive points.
Round 3: Pro makes rebuttals and reconstructions and presents one constructive point. Con does the same.
Round 4: Both sides make conclusion speeches (speeches that summarize the debate biasedly to show that one side won.) Unlike in CNDF, conclusion speeches go in the same order as in the rest of the debate.
Aguilajoyce

Con

I would like to accept this challenge.

I will be arguing that the gay rights movement should NOT mourn the rise of "gay-borhoods".

The best of luck to my opponent!!!
Debate Round No. 1
Leugen9001

Pro

Introduction

In our world where gay people are routinely socially stigmatised and discriminated against, making the LGBT community more distanced from mainstream society could only make them more ostracised. Thus, as the only debater on team proposition, I support the resolution that this house believes that the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of “gay-bourhoods".

Model

For the purposes of this debate, a “gaybourhood” is a quasi-ghetto for homosexuals, such as the Castro district of San Francisco. The gay rights movement is the social movement to defend the rights and ensure the welfare of LGBT people. As such, to win this debate, I have the burden to prove that gaybourhoods harm gay people in some way as to make them regrettable.

Signpost

In order to fulfil my burden, I shall put forward two points in this debate: exclusion from mainstream society and social stigma. In my next round, I shall argue about how gaybourhoods help the spread of sexually transmitted infections, and why that’s bad news for the gay community.

Constructive points

1.Exclusion from mainstream society

By definition, gaybourhoods are akin to ghettos. Since gay people often find them to be more welcoming to them, they might flock to them and make them a permanent place of residence. While this may initially appear like a good thing, it actually harms the gay community’s chance of becoming accepted in the long run. This is because gaybourhoods segregate gay people from mainstream society; instead of there being gay people scattered everywhere, we have a few gay people concentrated in one place. This means that fewer people know open homosexuals, which is a detriment to their acceptance because people are less likely to understand that homosexuals are normal people due to having less interactions with them. Since gaybourhoods encourage homophobia, they also encourage more gay people to move in; after all, strong psychological stress is enough to persuade anyone to move. Thus, they contribute to a cycle of segregation and non-acceptance.

2.Social Stigma

Gaybourhoods are full of raunchy places and exhibits, including adult clubs and more.[1] Since they are full of people who escaped from homophobia, they are also full to the brim with rebellion against traditions such as modesty that are held by homophobic religious leaders and Conservatives. I argue that this harms the public perception of gay people because it makes them appear promiscuous and their living places appear full of vice; because of gaybourhoods, many of us understand gay people as rebellious, promiscuous, hippy-like drug users. The promiscuious public image of gay people is used to justify criticism of homosexuality by religious leaders and more. [2]

Conclusion

As demonstrated above, gaybourhoods encourage homophobia on the long run. While they may temporarily serve as an escape from homophobia for some gay people, they ultimately encourage homophobia against all homosexuals, including the majority that cannot or aren’t willing to move. Thus, they are counter to the welfare of homosexuals and their formation should be mourned by gay-rights groups.

Sources

[1]http://touch.metro.us...
[2]https://carm.org...
Aguilajoyce

Con


Opening Statement:


The gay rights movement in the united states is simply yet another a demand, like the many before it, that the American government and public recognize the equal value and rights of all people. The struggle of minority groups to be accepted into/recognized as equal by the majority population is as integral to our national identity as the stars and stripes or the bald eagle. [1] We are reminded of this ongoing struggle each time we read the fine print that closes applications/petition for services from sectors both public and private: "[Equal opportunity laws prohibit] discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, veteran status, disability unrelated to job requirements, genetic information, military service, or other protected status."


Upon the government’s fulfillment/acknowledgment that protection is necessary for marginalized groups, these Americans are left to fall into the fold as best they can. This is not to say that the road to social justice is not entirely without incident, but rather, historically this is something that marginalized groups endure on their quest for social equality in America [1].


It is this fold, which I believe to be the basis of this debate. That is, how various social and ethnic groups typically 'carry on' in our society.


The melting pot long has been a widely misused analogy to represent the diversity of American Society. The ideal that groups of varying backgrounds mix and blend to contribute their 'flavor' to a unique, homogenous American identity, though the case for a few select places, is much more the exception than the rule [2]. Around the globe, people have come to lament assimilation and the erosive effects on language and culture [3] So the more accurately descriptive metaphor would be the tossed salad, where groups approximate and engage other groups out of necessity, but hold fast to their distinct identities within the society [4]. Whether its attributed to poor social cohesion policies of federal/local governments, or biological hardwiring, most Americans value their social identity and are content with such affiliations, as long as they are not denied equal rights or opportunities.


Constructive argument:


So the case that I aim to present is that:


1. the more group identities you share with another person, the more likely it is that you will share some other social affiliation with them, even that they will be your neighbor, and that this likelihood is anything but revelatory, as we all desire to be valued [?6?], and being surrounded by those who share and respect the values that we hold is a practical means of achieving this.


2. The fact that we do seek refuge in commonality does not, in and of itself, hamper any group identity's cause (movement for that cause) to be recognized/valued by the society at large. Many social scientist view enclaves as a secure starting point for minority groups from which they eventually integrate into the larger society [4].


Rebuttals:


1.Exclusion from mainstream society


My opponent precludes the agency inherent in the usage of the terms 'exclusion' and 'segregation'. These usages in the context of civil movements have always meant that one is forced into exclusion by a society. The fact that gay individuals choose/seek out these neighborhoods and settle without coercion, and that all gay individuals do indeed live or settle outside of gay-borhoods, nullifies such a claim. If I choose to book a vacation in Las Vegas, affectionately nicknamed 'Sin City', it can hardly be said that I was forced into (or am subjecting myself to) exclusion. I simply choose to go that offers the experience I want to have.


2.Social Stigma


Though it cannot be denied that social stigma exists, it cannot be said that acting on stigmata toward gays is more legally tenable than acting on the stigmata towards any other marginalized group. This is the whole point of the movement, not to ostensibly eradicate stigmata, but rather to protect their rights pursue their livelihood, and preferred lifestyle, like any other American. This is a toil they will endure whether they isolate themselves in ‘lavender ghettos’ or not.



Conclusion:


In earnest, we simply have not seen how solely living closely with people who share one's social identity has impeded a group's chances of being valued by the society at large. My opponent mentions 'quasi-ghettos', a reference to Jews, who are known for their isolationist ideology. This however, has not caused our society to dismiss the amazing contributions they've made to it, or the world. In light of this, and the fact that gays are more likely to have to encounter the world outside their enclaves, e.g., work/business, vacation/travel, legal/public services), and that their numbers cut across many social cleavages (race, religion, class, political affiliation), they have many resources at their disposal for their movement. Of course there will be those who still choose not to accept them, but this won't be a ground breaking discovery either. Lol




http://cw.routledge.com...


http://fivethirtyeight.com...


http://www.un.org...


http://www.nyu.edu...


http://www.theguardian.com...


http://www.stat.columbia.edu...


Debate Round No. 2
Leugen9001

Pro

Introduction

In a world where homophobia, though declining, is still alive and well, having homosexuals flock to gaybourhoods is a short term solution that ultimately harms them through isolation and a tarnishing of their public image. Thus, gay rights movements should mourn the emergence of gaybourhoods that have harmed social acceptance due to their negative effects on homosexuals’ interactions with mainstream society.

Signpost

In this round of arguments, I shall first show why my opponent’s arguments are wrong, then show why their criticisms on my points are incorrect, and finally bring forth a new point: sexually transmitted infections.

Rebuttals

1. My opponent has presented the point that gaybourhoods make homosexuals feel valued. While they may make a minority of homosexuals who are willing to stay in one feel valued, they ultimately harm more people than they protect because of the fact that they worsen homosexuals’ public image and lead to less social acceptance. On principle, we should favour the majority over the minority, and the minority of homosexuals protected by gayborhoods is small compared to the majority of homosexuals who receive homophobia partially due to stereotypes gayborhoods reinforce.

2. My opponent has made the argument that enclaves are a great place for minority groups to start gaining acceptance. While other enclaves, such as Chinatowns and Jewish Ghettos, may present their cultures in a neutral or favourable light and therefore aid minority groups in gaining public acceptance, gayborhoods do not. Gayborhoods are full of homosexuals who have experienced homophobia and therefore resent mainstream society and traditions. As such, they are full of nightclubs and other raunchy places that pop up, as if in protest of the rejected traditions. [1]These raunchy places ultimately present homosexuals in a less favourable light than, say, Chinese seafood restaurants do, because they irk off the traditional ideas their operators resent and thus lead to homosexuals becoming more conflicted with mainstream views.

Reconstruction

Exclusion from mainstream society

In response to my point about how gaybourhoods make homosexuals interact less with the outside world and therefore make them gain acceptance more slowly, Con focused on my usage of the word of “exclusion” and went on an irrelevant rant about how homosexuals weren’t forced to live in gaybourhoods. They have missed the essence of my argument. To add on to my original point, due to homophobia, gaybourhoods might become one of the few places where homosexuals are willing to “come out of the closet”. Thus, while they might currently be a safe place for homosexuals, they ultimately harm acceptance for homosexuals on the long run because fewer people would have experience with publicly homosexual people. One can say that they create a divide between homosexuals and non-homosexuals in such a way.

Social stigma

My opponent, in response to my point about how social stigma caused by the raunchiness of gaybourhoods can affect public acceptance, claimed that stigma would occur regardless of isolation. This is essentially irrelevant, because my opponent did not analyse why gaybourhoods do not cause social stigma. When homosexuals who have long endured stigma gather together, the first thing they would do is organise mass-rejections of the traditions that have caused them misery. Thus, gaybourhoods are inherently full of exhibits that blatantly violate our mainstream ideas about modesty and so on. With their rise, homosexuals’ reputations have been harmed by these anti-traditional exibits because they are hard to swallow by mainstream society; the flambouyantness caused by isolation is undeniably a detriment to acceptance. In addition, gaybourhoods isolate the public homosexuals from everyone else because they are one of the few places where they would feel comfortable coming out; thus, they contribute to isolation that ultimately makes people have less experience interacting with gay people.

Constructive points

Sexually transmitted diseases

As I have explained before, gaybourhoods are, by nature, places that encourage promiscuity. This has led to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases within the gay community. There are two reasons why this should bring the gay rights movement to regret gaybourhoods. Firstly, sexually transmitted diseases lead to discrimination by people who became homophobic because they perceive homosexuals as “unclean”. In addition, it has led to homosexuals being unable to do the same things as others, both because of homophobic hysteria and actual concerns over STIs. Many places bar homosexuals from donating blood. [2] Secondly, sexually transmitted diseases directly threaten the welfare of homosexuals because they can cause death and health issues.

Conclusion

In this debate, I have demonstrated how homosexuals can be harmed by gaybourhoods due to many reasons—social stigma, isolation, and sexually transmitted diseases. My opponent’s points have not stood up to scrutiny. Thus, let it be resolved that this house believes that the gay rights movement should mourn the emergence of “gaybourhoods”.

Sources
[1]http://touch.metro.us...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Aguilajoyce

Con


Introduction


Gay neighborhoods are not the origin of gay culture, so it is illogical to assume that any social stigmata inflicted on gay individuals refers to the neighborhood in which they live, rather than the ‘culture’ in general. There is nothing exceptional about the critique of the ‘overcharged sexuality’ of our culture as a whole. Women are expected to look younger, adolescent girls and boys alike, are pressured by the media to fit into superficial ideals of beauty, and many a marketing strategy sells products via sex e.g., scantily clad entertainers, apparel worn and modeled in a seductive fashion, food and other products sold under the guise that it will increase one’s sexual appeal. The evolution in perspective from the traditional view of sex (only permitted within the sanctity of marriage) to its more permissive form, has been documented since the 60’s. The rise of single parenting and divorce, children born outside of marriage, and the sharp decline in the number of people getting married, or identifying as religious (the basis for these traditional views), all attest to this cultural change. The fact that these civil statuses, once seen as aberrant, are now accepted as commonplace (or not a reflection on the person’s value in society), is a positive prognosis for the LGBT community and evidence that all minority groups endure this transition of social acceptability.


Signpost


This round I aim to demonstrate how the overall weakness of Pro’s argument, the sources, the unfounded claims on which pro relies, along with self-contradiction.


Rebuttals



1. Sources


My opponent has cited two initial sources as a basis for their argument. The metro article only offers the opinion of a writer, identifying as a homosexual, who believes that the overemphasis on sex in the gay communities has a demoralizing effect on their public image, and is damaging to the movement. In the article he refers to a community Facebook page that is littered with lewd advertisements. This implies that his criticism is not limited to the geographical locale, but rather the branding of the LGBT community as a whole (those who live within and outside the gayborhoods.) There is little evidence that makes this the case for all gayborhoods, or that a representative sample of people (advocates or opponents) share his view. Most importantly, the article attributes the ‘over-sexualizing’ in the gay community to be detrimental to the LGBT cause, not the gayborhoods themselves. The second source is written by a Mike Slick; a religious leader who has pieced together a what seems like a scholarly article. Pro references this source as though it is something to which gays have to answer, but the author’s apparent bias and scholarly dishonesty, shows that his viewpoints would be the same whether gays lived in gayborhoods or not.


2. Self-Contradicting Claims


My opponent initially states that gayborhoods are detrimental to the gay cause because of exclusion from mainstream society: This means that fewer people know open homosexuals, which is a detriment to their acceptance because people are less likely to understand that homosexuals are normal people due to having less interactions with them.”


However, this round, my opponent says,While they may make a minority of homosexuals who are willing to stay in one feel valued” and “we should favour the majority over the minority, and the minority of homosexuals protected by gayborhoods is small compared to the majority of homosexuals who receive homophobia [have not headed for the homophilic hills] partially due to stereotypes gayborhoods reinforce” which changes the impact and contradicts the base of the entire argument. If the majority of homosexuals are living outside of gayborhoods, then contact with the outside world (which eradicates stigmata) is inevitable. This undermines my opponent’s exclusion argument, because on principle, the majority of a group is more likely to have more interactions (person to person) with mainstream society, than the minority group (who live inside gayborhoods), which means that even if gayborhoods do perpetuate stigma, the requisite interaction for the upward mobility of the gay community has not been hurt by the few that reside in gayborhoods.


My opponent also says that the gays are trying to achieve social equality and that gayborhoods hurt their cause, then answers my rebuttal about enclaves with,While other enclaves, such as Chinatowns and Jewish Ghettos, may present their cultures in a neutral or favourable light and therefore aid minority groups in gaining public acceptance, gayborhoods do not.” And then describes gayborhoods as “full of homosexuals who have experienced homophobia and therefore resent mainstream society and traditions.If the gays now want separation from mainstream society, then what is the point of Pro’s argument? What cause are they hurting if they don’t want to integrate into the larger society? And why are they in the throes of such a large scale social movement to for equal rights? But moreover, it’s just not true that gays are rejecting of traditional values and social approval. Instead, a growing body of proves the contrary. Not only do gays contribute to the gentrification of the depressed urban areas, but they also attract straight couples to the area! There are countless articles on and sites that map out gay neighborhoods precisely because they are popular, affluent places to live, and not because people want to avoid the wrath of would-be scholar, Minister Mike Slick!!!


Baseless claims


My opponent continues in vain, stating that, “these raunchy places ultimately present homosexuals in a less favourable light than, say, Chinese seafood restaurants do, because they irk off the traditional ideas their operators resent and thus lead to homosexuals becoming more conflicted with mainstream views.but historically, this is flagrantly untrue. Xenophobia has long been a challenge to social integration in America. Immigrants/minority groups were hardly ever accepted with open arms. All customs distinct from the native customs were considered aberrant, or ungodly, or un-American, at some point in the settlement of these individuals. Again, I give the source of atimeline of immigration in the U.S. and the conflicts that arose during those epochs. My opponent is mistaken to think that homosexuals are the only minority group who preferred their own values to mainstream America, that those values were deemed more favorable/traditional by Americans , or indeed that their location of residence had anything to do with how rapidly/slowly they were accepted by society!


Exclusion from mainstream society/BoP


Pro claims that I “missed the essence”’ and ‘went on an irrelevant rant’ in my rebuttal. I think Pro would do well that if they make a claim littered with loaded language, they should be prepared to answer for it. The way the warrant was presented with ‘loaded words/language’, with words like ‘ghettos, exclusion, and segregation, it implied that gays were being victimized, while also saying that gays choose gayborhoods which is really just poor form. So it was not irrelevant to point. Nonetheless, Pro goes on to clarify the original point, but claims however that they are “add[ing] on to my original point”, when they are clearly restating their initial claim, for which I am grateful!!!


Social stigma and Burden of Proof


Here my opponent attempts to reverse BoP, by saying that I did not “analyse why gaybourhoods do not cause social stigma”. Firstly, I have yet to see how any evidence supports Pro’s claim that gayborhoods do cause social stigma. This means that Pro has yet to prove, (beyond one man’s opinion about one community), that gayborhoods alone, are the cause for the the persistent stigma, and non-integration of gays in our society. This means Pro would have to distinguish the stigma that stems from society’s view of homosexuality as an immoral practice, from the specific conditions (worsening) that gayborhoods create.And with two (no, three) sources, I seriously doubt such a burden has been satisfied.


I do not have to prove or submit evidence that gayborhoods do not cause a social stigma, only evidence against your claim that they do cause social stigma. I have also shown that historically that many minority groups experience the same transition to the larger society.


I have shown how your argument is riddled with claims such as, “When homosexuals who have long endured stigma gather together, the first thing they would do is organise mass-rejections of the traditions that have caused them misery” and that gaybourhoods are inherently full of exhibits that blatantly violate our mainstream ideas about modesty and so on.” and so many more, have no factual foundation at all!


Sexually transmitted diseases


Again this addition does not have anything to do with gayborhoods. Pro assumes so much in order to make this data pertinent. 1. That there is some correlation between one’s sexual partner and the proximity with which they live to you (lol). 2., that promiscuity is not based on the values of the person, but the availability of sexual prospects, or the spread of STD’s among gays is lower in the portion of gay community living outside of gayborhoods….and only by offering the proof (by the source) that homophobic tendencies exist in the medical field…. I just.. I just.. Don’t know anymore...


Conclusion


I can only conclude at this point that the Pro clearly does not have a firm grasp of the logical argument. I do humbly beg his/her forgiveness but my faculties are not purposed at reining in their irrational/unfounded judgments about homosexuals and the exposing their disingenuous concern for the LGBT movement. There is a register for intelligent discourse and my opponent has failed on many occasions to rise to this standard. I will complete the debate, but my I must confess that I have grown a tad impatient...lol



Debate Round No. 3
Leugen9001

Pro

Introduction

In this debate, my opponent and I focused on two main points of contention. First, how do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals who live outside of them? Second, how do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals living in them? I shall show that my arguments have successfully proven that gaybourhoods harm all homosexuals.

1. How do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals who live outside of them?

I have made several uncontested points to prove that gaybourhoods harm homosexuals who live elsewhere. In my first round, I argued that because, as a rule, gaybourhoods necessarily include exhibits of immodesty and lewdness; thus, they give homosexuals a negative public image and lead to social stigma. In response, my opponent argued that stigma would also occur without gaybourhoods, an absurd argument that was taken down when I pointed out its irrelevance to the issue; an increased social stigma from gaybourhoods could make homosexuality harder to swallow for mainstream society, and this is important because stigma could cause homophobia and hatred. At the end, my opponent could only muster a seriously flawed response to my point; they argued that they have shown that many minority groups have become more accepted because of ethnic enclaves, but never successfully refuted my distinctions made between gaybourhoods and other enclaves such as Chinatowns. Thus, we can see that gaybourhoods ultimately harm the reputations of homosexuals and therefore ought to be mourned by gay rights groups.

2. How do gaybourhoods affect homosexuals who live inside them?

In my second round, I explained that since gaybourhoods encourage promiscuity, they also encourage the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. The STIs harm homosexuals both physically and socially; they are perceived as unclean and are barred from donating, say, blood. In response, my opponent asserted that I haven’t proven that gaybourhoods encourage promiscuity, despite me having done analysis on the topic in my arguments on social stigma. My opponent also claimed that since I couldn’t find a source that stated exactly what I said, I was wrong, while ignoring the fact that debate arguments could be also based on logical analysis. Thus, we can see that my opponent has failed to show that gaybourhoods don’t harm homosexuals who live in them.

Conclusion

As demonstrated above, my opponent has clearly not sufficiently addressed my points, which still stand strong. As such, vote PRO.
Aguilajoyce

Con

In conclusion, I will only recap the major points made by my opponent Pro, to demonstrate how the argument has proceeded on egregious assumptions.

1. Rd 2 Intro: Gays are routinely socially stigmatized and discriminated against, making the LGBT community more distanced from a mainstream society could only make them more ostracized.

Although the grammar is a bit shaky, Pro, claims that simply because a community suffers discrimination, they are distanced from mainstream society… There are many advocates for LGBT rights, including the recent recognition of the Supreme Court to allow them to marry… all of which are a part of mainstream society, so Pro makes a claim without showing exactly how this ostracism is automatic.

  1. 2. Round 2. Constructive Pt. 1: Since gay people often find them [gayborhoods] to be more welcoming to them [gays], they might flock to them and make them a permanent place of residence.”

Despite what Pro believes, ‘might’ does not equal ‘does’ or ‘do’ so this point is purely speculative. Pro has shown no statistic that supports the migratory tendencies of homosexuals to gayborhoods…lol

  1. 3. Round 2. Constructive pt 1 cont’d: “Since gayborhoods encourage homophobia…”

Pro has not proven that homophobia has been exacerbated by the emergence of gay neighborhoods.

  1. 4. Round 2 Constructive Pt. 2: I argue that this [the raunchiness and rebellious life style of gayborhoods] harms the public perception of gay people because it makes them appear promiscuous and their living spaces (lifestyles, maybe) appear full of vice.

There are many seedy areas in our neighborhoods/communities in the U.S., but it does not necessarily follow (or has yet to be proven by Pro) that mainstream society believes that the inhabitants therein do not deserve equal rights (aim of the LGBT movement). Neither does it show how homophobic religious leaders or Conservatives are the spokespersons for the whole of American society. Point and case being the legalization of marriage for Homosexual couples…lol

  1. 5. Round 3 Rebuttal 1. While they make a minority of homosexuals who are willing to stay in one [a gayborhood] feel valued, they ultimately hare more people than they protect because of the fact that they worsen the homosexuals public image and lead to less social acceptance. On principle we should favor the majority [those that do not live in gayborhoods] over the minority [those that live in gayborhoods]

Pro has set up the whole argument against gayborhoods on the principal of social exclusion, which wasn’t proven, but I was willing to accept. Here however Pro states that it’s only a ‘minority of homosexuals [who are] protected by the gayborhoods [which]is small compared to the majority of homosexuals who receive homophobia [are discriminated against] partially due to [the] stereotypes [that] gayborhoods reinforce.”

If the majority is admittedly ‘out there’ interacting with the mainstream society, Pro has yet to prove how the actions of the minority of a group can influence public opinion beyond the day to day interactions of the majority group, which is said to be the principle combatant of social stigma.

  1. 6. Round 3 Rebuttal 2: While other enclaves such as Chinatowns and Jewish Ghettos, may be present their cultures in neutral or favorable light and therefore aid minority groups in gaining public acceptance, gayborhoods do not.”

Our immigration history does not show this to be the case, or Pro has not demonstrated any proof regarding the comparative transition of immigrants or minority groups based on the common values held with the American population

  1. 7. Round 3 Social Stigma: Thus gayborhoods are inherently full of exhibits that blatantly violate our mainstream ideas about modesty and so on. With their rise, homosexuals’ reputations have been harmed by these anti-traditional exhibits because they are hard to swallow by mainstream society.”

Despite the fact that we have gays in prominent roles in our society, laud the roles of homosexuals in movies, talk shows, and as entertainers, Pro still claims that this minority group sets back the movement.

These and sundry other inconsistences taint Pro’s argument. They have neither attended to them, without making other wild claims, and have even attempted to shift the burden of proof to me

Hence, I beg of all subscribers of reason to vote Con…

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
[[ RFD Part 2 ]]

Meanwhile, Con's main point is that being surrounded by those who share and respect our values is a practical means for social affiliation. Throughout the debate, he argued that seeking refuge in like-minded commonality does not, in and of itself, hamper any group's movement or cause to be devalued by society at large. Theoretically Pro challenged the latter statement by suggesting negative stereotyping and the spread of risky behavior ultimately harms the group. But since Con pointed out that (by Pro's own admission) the MAJORITY of gays (which is allegedly what matters, according to Pro) live outside the gayborhoud, and thus they will help influence society's views, this argument is seemingly moot.

The fact is that Con did not necessarily have a BOP, Pro did, and Pro's two main arguments failed to withstand Con's scrutiny. Furthermore, Con's investigation and criticism of Pro's sources was perfectly valid. Pro did not attempt to argue this. Con used better sources more effectively. Both contestants had clear arguments and decent S/G. I thought their conduct was about equal. Some of Pro's claims were harsh but Con brushed them off okay.

Ultimately I agree with Con that Pro has not proven homophobia has been exacerbated by the emergence of gay neighborhoods. He also did not prove (with empirical evidence or reasonable logic) that gaybourhoods are risky. But I maintain that at least until the last round, this was a sold debate. Great job to both.
Posted by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
[[ RFD Part 1 ]]

First off, I want to congratulate both debaters on a very well executed debate. It's not often that I go into a debate without a preemptive opinion toward either side. This debate started off strong and I was sad to see Pro seemingly give up the last round.

Pro begins by saying so-called gayborhouds make the LGBT community more distanced from mainstream society, and therefore they can be ostracized. This is negative because gay people should be assimilated into society to promote tolerance. Con replies that segregation is okay, because gay people voluntarily exclude themselves for comfort, familiarity, and to separate their (perhaps raunchy) interests from everyone else. Pro responds that this still has a harmful impact on the majority of gays who live outside of these spaces. But Con asks - if the majority of gays live outside of these spaces, then aren't the majority of gays assimilating into society per Pro's valued standard? Pro completely dropped this argument which I thought was a pretty brilliant response from Con.

Next Pro claims that gayborhouds promote promiscuity and thus harmful consequences and reputations for gays. Con remarks that Pro hasn't proven a correlation which is true. Personally, I believe it's pretty obvious and self-explanatory why Pro's supposition is correct. However since he didn't make the argument, I cannot insert my own; that is not being a fair judge. In the final round, Pro repeats the STI argument, but fails to address Con's points about his failure to prove the link between gayborhouds and STIs.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
Leugen9001AguilajoyceTied
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: RFD in Comments Section
Vote Placed by SolonKR 1 year ago
SolonKR
Leugen9001AguilajoyceTied
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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mN99-ES0FqXjY41fqFjbG-kSIaIhk6v6tuEXXCZXhvE/edit?usp=sharing