The Instigator
TheAmericanPatriot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nimbus328
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The gay Gestapo is preventing rational arguments against homosexuals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Nimbus328
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,493 times Debate No: 31533
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

TheAmericanPatriot

Pro

Whether or not you are from a religious background or one which believes in Evolution, you have several things in common, you believe gay behaviour to be unnatural and wrong. Yet whenever anyone points this out the gay Gestapo and their emotional backers barrage you into the ground calling you a bigot, how can we as a people prove them wrong if they just call us bigots without debate. Both evolution and religion are anti homo. As the bible is black and white on the issue hate the sin but no the sinner, and according to the theory of evolution is it is not a learned behavior then it should die out.
Nimbus328

Con

I do not think that gay behavior is unnatural or wrong. I agree with the ancient Greeks to some extent. A man on the receiving end of the penis tends to be more submissive than the normal man, and receives the respect due to a woman. This is actually the case in gay couples. I mean no disrespect to women, this is more historical than current. Hopefully gay rights will go the same way as woman's suffrage.

My opponent is weary of being called a bigot. This is the time and the place for intelligent discourse on the matter of homosexuality.

Religion is against homosexuality. Evolution is not.

Homosexuality is actually quite common in the animal kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sex is a form of grooming. I could get erotic with the details depending on my opponent's response.

I would like to address the point that it is not possible to "hate the sin and not the sinner." Try hating facial birthmarks. Everyone with a facial birthmark can tell that you treat them differently. Creepy.
Debate Round No. 1
TheAmericanPatriot

Pro

Despite what you may believe in regards to its prevalence in the animal kingdom, there is isolate incidences of such events occurring, but their is no concrete proof. http://www.conservapedia.com... This provides you with a compelling contradiction to your view that animals can be gay. Being gay is a choice, your race, skin color and background are aspects which an individual has no control over. Plenty of people who one identified as being gay have since changed their position and choose not to be gay http://en.wikipedia.org... Your sexual orientation, is the making of your 'programing' as a child not that this makes a person gay, just as a person who grew up as the son of a Hamas leader renounced murder and choose peace http://en.wikipedia.org... . Controlling desires, whatever their construct is part of controlling oneself. If someone tried to have such as a discussion in public, the Gestapo and 'Water Melons' (green political movement) would abuse and heckle the speaker.
Nimbus328

Con

Conservapedia "has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists, and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.[1]"

Conservapedia is most notibally incorrect about the age of the universe, stating that "Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old[2]" This has been proven incorrect by NASA, who state that the WMAP mission "is in the Guinness Book of World Records for "most accurate measure of the age of the universe." The mission established that the cosmos is 13.75 billion years old, with a degree of error of one percent.[3]"

With such a bias against science, Conservapedia cannot be relied upon as a reliable source. And even with this bias, even the article cited quotes several sources that confirm homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.

Note that homosexuality has some overlap with bisexuality. Animals that enjoy the sexual companionship of the same gender also enjoy the sexual companionship of different genders.

Note that the second article cited, regarding the Ex-Gay movement[4], supports my position. Quote: "A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. Because of this, major mental health professional organizations discourage and caution individuals against attempting to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, and warn that attempting to do so can be harmful."

My opponent stated that "Your sexual orientation, is the making of your 'programing' as a child" which relies on the obsolete cliam of the Tabula Rasa[5], meaning blank slate in Latin. This is the position of complete Nuture in the Nature vs Nurture debate. "This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge[6]"

My opponent stated that political extrememsts heckle. Note that extremests bomb abortion clinics, extremests claim that Obama is a muslim, and extrememsts kill in the name of Jesus.

There are many forums for rational debate. On a college campus, both sides would be taking notes as the two positions squared off. If one tries to argue a point on the street corner one would be thought odd and perhaps asked to leave. If a person writes a book for either side, it will receive critique in the press if it is popular enough. This is normal.

I challenge my opponent to come up with situations where heckling is allowed, and heckling is not allowed.

By comparing the gays with Nazzi, Germany, I respectfully submit that my opponent is a political extremist.

His conduct in the debate has been stellar. However, it has just occurred to me that the title of the debate allows me to win by default. There is no gay Gestapo. Nothing that comes even close.

The Gestapo is "the German state secret police during the Nazi regime, organized in 1933 and notorious for its brutal methods and operations."

The equivelant of the Gestapo in the United States is the FBI. They are not the ones heckling on the street corners. By definition, my opponent is stating that the FBI is conducting assanations on the anti gay movement. The very idea is ubsurd.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.conservapedia.com...
[3] http://www.nasa.gov...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheAmericanPatriot

Pro

Firstly 'the gay gestapo', is a collaborative term to describe the individuals and groups, which use emotion and abuse to prevent rational debate. The Chick-fill-a controversy is a prime example of an attack against a business for a comment of one of its executives which was anti gay. Former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd's (2007-2009) sister used the term the gay gestapo to describe the backlash toward anyone who expresses anti gay views. In future, do not attack the credibility of a supporting article without addressing its arguments. In the same way, to attack the credibility of the Ancient Greeks thought that women were a curse and many believed the earth was flat. However to directly contradict their argument of it being a higher form of love is that love and lust are to separate entities, that are often misleadingly used interchangeably. Please in future do not describe the interactions of gay males. If you wish to discuss such activities remember that there is medical evidence http://www.personal.psu.edu... which demonstrates the negative impacts of its practice. This debate was meant to be about whether or not the gay gestapo was sty-filing debate, not the cons of homo behavior. Geography, is the home of evolution, and they realize that humanity appeared in an already advanced state. You can't have it both ways, evolution denotes that if the practice of sodomy was 'natural' would have died out. Freashly colled magma, if taken to a scientist may be incorrectly dates as millions or billions of years old. http://www.answersingenesis.org... Check this out, for your 13.75 billion years. Explosions create chaos not order, and fossilisation can happen in a matter of years.
Nimbus328

Con

I stated "Homosexuality is actually quite common in the animal kingdom." citing Wikipedia.

My opponenet stated "their[sic] is no concrete proof" citing Conservapedia.

Please read both articles before reaching a decision on this point.

**************

My opponent states that "evolution denotes that if the practice of sodomy was 'natural' would have died out." This is an inferrence, not a fact.

**************

"Former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd's (2007-2009) sister used the term the gay gestapo to describe the backlash toward anyone who expresses anti gay views."

The first and second google result for "sister Kevin Rudd gay" state that Kevin Rudd did not approve of her actions[1] and she is involved in a "crusade against gays[2]"

My opponent cites an odd person to support his view.

And there is no proof of a correlation between the Secret Police in Nazzi Germany to the current gay community. This is a strong point that still stands.

**************

My opponent cited the "Chick-fill-a[sic] controversy" as the prime example of his position. This was a fued over money, not a debate over the issues on the merits.

My opponent claims that there is no forum for rational discourse on the topic of gay rights.

Fox News is generally conservative, and would tend to be against gay rights.

CNN is generally liberal, and would tend to be for gay rights.

After reading my opponenet's position three times, the spread of information about both sides is his main concern. There are avenues in the press, in the colleges, think tanks, and others, that allow both sides of the issue to be revealed.


[1] http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au...
[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot 4 years ago
TheAmericanPatriot
Yes, then you would realize, that if gay behavior is normal in animals then eating of young, cannibalism and abandoning of young is also acceptable practice in today's world.
Posted by Nimbus328 4 years ago
Nimbus328
I read the article, and quoted it actually.

I also refuted it.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot 4 years ago
TheAmericanPatriot
Someone should have read the article rather than dismissing the source as uncredible, due to its right wing tendencies. Raisor, the gay Gestapo is a collective term, not a physical organisation but stern to describe a general behaviour to quell, public face to face debate.
Posted by Nimbus328 4 years ago
Nimbus328
Homosexual behavior happens in the animal kingdom. Which Pro would not admit to in debate.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
Cannibalism and pedophiles are common in the Animal Kingdom too, you know. That must mean it is OK under Con's argument...
Posted by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
Sources to Con on the Conservapedia issue. I would not have voted on sources if Con had not made it an in-round issue and presented a fairly convincing argument that it should be discounted.

Con points out that Pro needs to prove a gay gestapo exists in order to win this debate (and on top of that he needs to prove they are preventing rational arguments). Pro doesnt come anywhere close to proving such a group exists.

Con also shows that forums exist for critiques of homosexuality- pointing out that public discourse is open to anyone and that books and news outlets frequently take anti-gay positions.

The only decent point Pro had toward affirming the resolution was the Chik-Fil-A affair, this is a point Con does not convincingly address. However, Pro himself describes the event as proving a "backlash toward anyone who expresses anti gay views." Even if I generously grant that this proves that a group exists that works to abuse people who make anti-gay remarks, I still have to weigh that against Con's points that venues exist for anti-gay arguments to be made. Since other venues exist rational arguments are not being prevented.

I think both sides got sidelined arguing about whether homosexuality is natural or not, which is irrelevant to the resolution.
Posted by TheBatman 4 years ago
TheBatman
Gay Gestapo, lol.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
TheAmericanPatriotNimbus328Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full seven points for CON. Conduct because CON did not make bare assertions; PRO did so straight out the gate putting words in my own mouth, not to mention CON's and everyone else's. BAD FORM. Spelling and grammar is clear from PRO's first post on, enough said there. Arguments... PRO does not in fact support the resolutin. His goal is to show that the gays are shutting down rational arguments against homosexuals, yet he continually uses faith-based assertions (I can't in good conscience call such faith based THINGS arguments; arguments are "A therefore B", whereas faith assertions are merely "B!"). Finally for sources, right out the gate, PRO is using Andrew Schafly as a source. We're talking the same guy who asserts the wrongness of relativity! I'm not saying the claim is wrong persay, but he'll need a more reliable basis than "Shafly said so!".
Vote Placed by DWolf2k2 4 years ago
DWolf2k2
TheAmericanPatriotNimbus328Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro first failed to prove that there is in fact a 'Gay Gestapo', and failing that the resolution falls apart. Sources went to Con since Pro's arguments came primarily from personal sites and Conservapedia. Conduct to Con since Pro even failed to define what he meant by Gay Gestapo in R1.
Vote Placed by Raisor 4 years ago
Raisor
TheAmericanPatriotNimbus328Tied
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.