This House Believes That Homosexuality Is Immoral!
Debate Rounds (4)
This debate entitled: This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts are Immoral. This is ROUND 3 of WODC hosted by edeb8 and larztheloser.
Now I believe that I should clarify the rules, the order, and some principle definitions which will be referred to throughout the debate.
1. The first argumentation rounds of both parties must be positive material only, no refutations will be allowed in the first argument.
2. The first round is for rules, orders, definitions for Proposition, and Nye may only engage in pleasantries and accept the debate.
3. There may be no positive material in the last rounds of the debate.
4. The order of the debate is of 5 rounds (with the first round being for acceptance, 10, 000 characters per round, 48 hours to post a round, and a Judge Voting, where the judges are: Envisage, bsh1, Sargon, Ragnar, thett3, Wylted, bladerunner060, whiteflame, phantom, and Raisor.
5. If any party forfeits two times, they automatically lose.
6. Each side is allowed to provide references from journals, books, essays, and blog entries so long as the pagination are cited, and easy access is made available.
7. As this is a Philosophy debate all definitions should come from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Penguin Philosophy Dictionary, the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, or any well respected philosophy text. Some definitions have been provided:
(i)morality:The term "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
(ii)immorality: will then be the opposite of morality so is can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct , that given specif circumstances, would be opposed by all rational persons.
(iii)homosexual acts: refer to sexual acts between members of the same sex.
8. None of the parties are allowed to take help from any other party in this debate.
With that I hope we can engage in a wonderful debate, and it provides us with a productive experience. Please welcome my opponent!
I accept the full burden of proof.
Oh yes, I do accept this wonderful debate,
I wish to exploit gays have rights like straights
Go ahead with your argument good sir
I want to see what philosphies you spur
1. The Argument:
1. All sexual activity that is moral, is rational.
2. All sexual activity that is rational, is reproductive* in nature.
3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral is reproductive in nature.
4. Homosexual acts are not reproductive in nature.
5. Ergo: Homosexual acts are not moral.
*With the intent of reproduction, which should occur in reasonable circumstances.
1. all S* is R
2. all R* is N
3. Ergo: all S is N*
4. all S* is N
5. no H* is N*
6. Ergo: no H is S
The syllogisms pass the star-test and so we know that this is a logically valid argument, insofar that it makes logical sense.
2. The First Major Premise:
(2.1)Derivation Ex Vi Termini:
1. The first premise states that all sexual activity that is moral must be purely rational. To justify my premise I shall argue from the definition. Now I need to show that morality=rationality. Here I shall remind the voters of the agreed to definition: that "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. This was accepted by kbub.
2. This entails then that morality is rational, for purely rational entities would bring about a code that is rational. This can easily be shown by logic where necessarily rational according to a modal operator directly means necessarily neccesarily rational. Which means that if A is the set of necessarily rational people, then they will necessarily come up with a neccearily rational code. Therefore according to our definition all morality is rational.
(2.2)Derivation from Causality:
1. It is a simple principle, that of causality. This principle exists in all of human kind and is fundamental in passing judgements. Now consider an action, any action, let's suppose X. Now action X is necessarily moral. So action X will be an effect, right? The effect is a moral action. Now since there is X, there would be a cause action Y. Since there is no need to believe that causality does not apply here, as it does not in Quantum Physics, one can understand that since there is a connection of causality, this can be gauged by reason. We have then, both through definition, and through causality shown that morality is in fact rational.
Critique of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant; Of Time, pagination 57
3. The First Minor Premise:
(3.1)The Establishment of a Rational Grounding:
1. Now that we have established a link between moral and rational sexual activity, we need to create a fundamental link between rational and reproductive sexual activity. For this we will establish the 'rational grounding' or the primary reason behind sexual activity. This is the primary reason behind anything, here in sexual activity. There can not be two rational groundings, for that would betray the Law of Non-Contradiction. There cannot be two distinct rational primary groundings.
(3.2)The Rational Grounding Established Via Evolution:
1. Evolution then is the: "theory of the change of organic species over time, with different conditions." However when one studies this more clearly then one learns that evolution is the name given to thar force which changes organic species, in accordanance with enviroment, so that the "fittest may survive." To connect this with our above rational grounding argument would entail that the rational grounding of sex, viewed from an evolutionary perspective*, is reproductive in nature. This would mean that if evolution is taken as a law of science, and it entails that the rational purpose of sexual conduct is reproductive in nature then my argument is sound.
*This argument assumes that evolution is a law of science.
2. We must then before stating the argument understand the difference between instinct, and a secondary precept of nature. An instinct is innate, and therefore universal. This, although drifts from the topic, is because such an idea is not genetical, rather natural. In any case lust is an instinct because lust while may be specified on a certain object, occurs on its own. Furthermore lust transcendent of time insofar as it is a priori to exist. That is that each man/woman/child possesss lust. Then homosexuality, hetrosexuality, and bisexuality or sapiosexuality is a secondary precept of nature. Thus to show the rational grounding of sexual activity we must not limit ourselves to one particular case but to the fundamental force behind it all. This force is lust, and so we shall show the rational grounding of lust.
3. Let us then begin, lust then as already shown is an instinct. This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized. This rational purpose may be understood quite easily when we realize that evolution, as the noun of a force, makes redundant any such instinct not neccessary for survival. In such evolution has not made lust redundant, as it has to other forces such as nervousness which used to be much stronger and used in battle, now it is much less feeling. Since that we understand that lust is neccessary for survival. It is important to note that lust is important for survival because lust directly causes sex, and without lust people would not have sex (see Freuds above essay). Lust is neccessary for survival only so far as it results in sec which reproduces to carry on the human race. Therefore since morality entails noramtive rationality, which may be connected the rational grounding of sex, which is further connected to lust, and lust is justified evolutionaly by reproduction then sexual activity is moral only when it is reproductive in nature.
On the Origins of Species, by Charles Darwin, On Instinct, pagination 189
The Psychology of Love, by Sigmund Freud (The entire book focuses on this, for summary see Beyond the Pleasure Principle, or the summary provided above)
(3.3) The Rational Grounding Established from Pure Theology:
1. Theology is not neccessary Chrisitian, as not am I. I find this worth mentioning in the case where I am criticized for Christian reasoning, theology seeks to establish principles, logically set, only with one conclusion: that there is a God. There are those who deny evolution and so this argument is meant to convince them, my opponent however, regardeless of his beliefs, will have to attack this argument.
2. Insofar we may set a rational grounding from Theology where we consider an infinitely just and loving God. This God endowed man/woman/child with lust, and then considers some conclusions of lust sinful. It does not matter which religion one follows because one must believe that (from a theological perspective) that God is love, and that the blasphemy of this love by embracing erotic love is displeasing to God.
3. It then leads us to conclude that a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race. This then concludes that the rational grounding to lust, if theology is assumed correct, is that the only way sexual activity is moral is if it is reproductive in nature (following the same links as above).
Theodicy, by Leibniz, 'On the Justness of God from a Logical Perspective', pagination 33
Critique of Practical Reason, by Immanuel Kant, 'The Existence of God as a Postulate of Pure Practical Reason', pagination 329 (The Cambridge Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy)
The Metaphysics of Morals, by Immanuel Kant, 'On Defiling Oneself With Lust', and 'Marriage Right', pagination 329
The Berne Fragments by Hegel, (only 23 pagination)
On Love by Hegel, (only 6 pagination)
Since homosexual acts are not reproductive, they are immoral.
Since no refutations are allowed, I'll just ignore my opponent's arguments and construct my arguments for this round.
1. Homosexuals help adopt children...which is more moral than straights
Straights can just produce children, so they don't need to adopt the poor orphaned children. So straights are actually in this case more IMMORAL than gays. On the other hand if homosexuals want children they need to adopt, helping the public and the poor children, which is MORAL. In fact, no negative effects have been shown from gay parents' adoption , and in fact actually do quite well under homosexual parents.  Because there are more than 100,000 children waiting to be adopted , the homosexual parents will definitely do a lot good to the public and be MORAL instead of immoral.
2. It can't go wrong with gays.
With straight people, young women tend to get pregnant without wanting to do so. In fact, the vast majority of teenagers have vaginal sex by the age of 18!  Not to mention 80% of teen pregnancies are accidental.  This is an IMMORAL act because the young women don't want to get pregnant yet they still got pregnant, so this would be widely dissupported by any rational person, and thus is IMMORAL. On the other hand gays cannot get pregnant no matter what, so getting children becomes a responsible decision rather than an accident. Furthermore it also ultimately prevents abortion, as accidental pregnancy leads to abortion. Therefore gays' sex activity would be more moral than straights', since straights can go wrong but gays can't.
3. It should not be considered irrational, and thus should not be considered moral
Many people think that because something is irrational, it shouldn't be considered moral. However I can prove otherwise. Homosexuality actually does not belong to the "immoral" category because unnatural sexual activity is the people's rights, the people's choice, and is universally accepted as NOT irrational, except for religious circumstances.  But even then, my source tell us that "those who distinguish morality from religion do not regard homosexuality, per se, as a moral matter."  Thus religious arguments are useless because they commit the strawman of not looking at homosexuality from a moral matter.
4. Homosexuality is natural
I am almost certain Ajabi made arguments about how homosexuality is natural. Don't blame me if I "refuted" his arguments, I didn't read his opening so I don't know. Anyhow, homosexuality is natural because it began long long ago, way before it was opposed. Many ancient civilizations respected gays, and even accepted them. These include, but are not limited to, Azande , Ancient Egypt, Ancient China, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome. 
Your argument, I am certain, is easily flipped over and destroyed with these positive evidence for my side. Even though I didn't read anything you typed up.
Interested to examine and rebut your arguments next round,
R1: That homosexuality is natural therefore moral.
> We need to study this argument from two perspectives: that homosexuality is natural, and therefore moral. I think I should point out that Nye gives no evidence for any of this. S/he does not give me any reason to believe homosexuality is in fact natural, or why natural should be moral. This argument then fails here and now.
> On the first tier let us try to understand if homosexuality is in fact natural. Now those who propose this quote the gene named Xq28. Well I have a few answers to this. Firstly what we need to understand is that even if Xq28 is true then it would only effect one becoming gay to twenty or thirty percent. This is over run by the fact that there exists a stronger nurturing capability. Now Xq28 contains 8 Mb of genetic data and was made famous by Dean Hamer in 1933, however it is a genotype. Now genes resolve themselves into two categories: genotypes and phenotype. What you experience in hair, color et cetera is based on phenotypes, genotypes are nearly impossible to prove. In fact the same genotype which could result in a person being feminine could result in a person being more anxious, as Xq28 shows. You see relating genotypes to phenotypes is impractical. In the words of Denis Noble (an Oxford Professor): "Relating genotypes to phenotypes is problematic not only owing to the extreme complexity of the interactions between genes, proteins and high-level physiological functions but also because the paradigms for genetic causality in biological systems are seriously confused." So in essence this argument falls.
> In any case for Nye to bring such an argument is abhorrent. After all pedophilia is natural, rape is natural (following one's desires), psychopathy is natural, however we regard none of these things as moral. For none of them are rational, even if they are natural.
> Since however Nye never proved this argument I use Hitchen's Razor and his argument should not be counted in any case. Also since Xq28 is only found in guys and our argument is about homosexuals in general (including lesbians) this argument does not address the issues at hand.
R2: It can't go wrong with gays:
> In my opponent's argument there is a logical fallacy. You see while he seems to be using the second law of thought, he is in fact not doing so. My opponent says that when girls have sex and become pregnant this is immoral because they did not want the child (how does that make it immoral in matters of our definition) and since gays cannot get pregnant it must be moral. This represents as:
all S* is I
no S* is G*
ergo: no G is I
This fails the validity test and Nye's argument is nonsensical. You see by not doing something immoral, the action you do is not moral by its very nature. While making a girl pregnant may be an immoral act (something he never showed) it is not the ONLY immoral act. There are other immoral acts which can apply to gays, this just shows that THIS act does not apply. The argument fails.
R3: Homosexuals adopt children which is a moral thing to do:
> Here again is a logical fault. I never said homosexuals could do nothing moral. The resolution states that homosexuality is immoral, and homosexuality was defined in the rules as: acts of sex by members of the same sex. The reason for this is that homosexuality is only made homosexual when a sexually charged act takes place. The debate here is about sexual activities, not about their personal life. If a gay person helps an old lady cross the street it may be a moral thing to do, but it does not make homosexuality moral, it makes the homosexual moral in that regard.
> My opponent's argument is the same here: it makes no difference to the resolution. His argument is in fact besides the point. That aside heterosexual couples adopt way more kids than homosexuals do.
R4: It is not irrational:
> I think the best response for this can be found in my argument above, where I systematically show how it is, in fact, irrational.
> More importantly however my opponent strawmans my arguments by making them something they are not. For he says that I base it on religion when I do no. There is also an ad populam fallacy as he says it is rational because people consider it so, this should reflect negatively upon him.
> In any case my opponent concedes (:P) when he himself says: 'it should not be considered moral". I am of course joking.
With that the motion is upheld, and my opponent'c contentions collapse.
Let me rebut my opponent's arguments in round 2 first.
1. All sexual activity that is moral, is rational.
2. All sexual activity that is rational, is reproductive* in nature.
3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral is reproductive in nature.
4. Homosexual acts are not reproductive in nature.
5. Ergo: Homosexual acts are not moral.
I will begin by attacking number 2. Why does Ajabi think that all sex activity that is rational is reproductive in nature?? If two people were really being rational, and they wanted to have safe sex, then certainly they would put on condoms and thus have zero possibility of reproduction, showing us that in this situation rational sex=/= reproductive.
My opponent tries to support this crucial point with the fact that within evolution, only the "fittest may survive", which means people must reproduce, which means rational sex would be reproductive. However, not all people want to go with evolution--I.E., not the entirety of "this house" may want to reproduce. Again, some people get it on for pleasure. Other people may be rational and think "let's not give birth for a baby under these circumstances, let us wait a while for a safer environment". Again, unlike birds who may accidentally lay eggs in a tree high up where thunder storms happen super often, we are smart, we can predict, if "this house" means any rational person, then any rational person would try to give birth under the safest conditions possible. So, if the conditions are too dangerous, then reproductive sexual activity is although "rational" under evolution's theory, it would not be "rational" neither "moral" because the baby is very likely to die. In addition, even if my opponent shows that homosexual acts are in fact "not moral", that does not mean they are immoral!! By the definition of immoral it means the opposite of morality. But "not moral" is just zero, neutral zone. If I randomly say "Blahg", and ask you whether philosophically this is a moral statement, you could argue that it is not moral, since it does not help you or anyone else in particular, but you cannot say it is immoral, since I did nothing wrong and did no harm with the strange statement of mine. And of course, my statement "Blahg" is irrational, making no sense, yet it still does not fit in with the definition of "immoral"...thus, irrational =/= immoral.
"This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized." That is indeed correct. Most of our instincts are right, but some are wrong. We may panic in a fire when the best thing to do is to stay calm so you can think carefully and find a way out of the danger. Similarly, we want food, a basic necesity for survival--but should we eat junk food everyday even though our brains are yelling "YES" out of our instincts? No, of course not! (Unless you are starving to death, but let's assume this is a normal, healthy person living a good earning life) In this case, our inate instincts have gone too far and betrayed ourselves. Thus this is proof that we need some instinct, but not necessarily all of it. Therefore we don't need all of lust and we don't necessarily need to get it on in order to reproduce
" ...lust is neccessary for survival....directly causes sex" What??! Lol, that's totally not true. Without sex we can still live, and sex only carries on our genetic traits, which may or may not matter to us depending on who we are.
"...a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race." Uh-huh.
My opponent makes a load of errors in this argument:
-No proof of God's existence
-No justification for an infinitely just god
-No justification for an infinitely loving God
Plus, my opponent contradicts himself especially with the "infinite". How can someone, or something, be "infinitely just and loving"? And if God was really infinitely just and loving, would he not love gays too and be just (fair) and as a result give men the lust to love men as well as women, in order to be truly INFINITELY just and loving!? Under my opponent's suppositions, God would really make men and men also able to reproduce, because it would not be fair or just to only allow a man + woman to reproduce. Thus my opponent's God arguments easily fall apart because they contradict themselves.
Reconstructing my arguments:
1. Homosexuality is natural, thus moral
Homosexuality started a long long time ago, before Christianity or any anti-gay religion started. This shows that religious arguments are biased and ineffective. In addition it was considered normal from a long time ago, showing that it was considered natural for many people. My opponent makes inappropriate comparisons to pedophilia, rape, and psychopathy, they are completely different and all have negative effects. On the other hand gay sex has no negative effects and on the contrary is even more positive than straight sex, since straight sex can bring unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and many many diseases .
2. Can't go wrong with gays
My argument does not fail. Here is how my arguments go:
-If girl does not want to get pregnant (get a baby), and she gets pregnant (gives birth to a baby), it is immoral (Because she got something bad that she didn't want, since she probably can't take care of the baby)
-If a gay does not want a baby, and he does not get a baby, it is moral (Because the gay knew he couldn't take care of the baby, and he didn't get the baby, showing a responsible choice which is moral)
You see, I am showing a positive benefit that gays have. I showed that with gays it is a choice and the gays can decide whether or not they get the baby. The girl on the other hand can accidentally do immoral actions, which shows that straight sex can be more immoral than gay sex. Once again, my opponent must show that gays can somehow cause harm which is immoral.
3. Homosexuals adopt children
"The debate here is about sexual activities, not about their personal life. If a gay person helps an old lady cross the street it may be a moral thing to do, but it does not make homosexuality moral, it makes the homosexual moral in that regard." You are right, but if gays are more likely to help old ladies cross streets than straights, then they are more moral than straights. Similarly, if more gays adopt children than straights, then they are definitely more moral than straights, and are overall moral because of their good actions.
4. Not irrational= moral (sorry about the typo last round, I meant to say "It should not be considered irrational, and thus should not be considered immoral")
"my opponent strawmans my arguments by making them something they are not."
Impossible. I never read your arguments before your round so I could not have possibly made a straw man misinterpreting my arguments. I researched online to find that proponents of homosexuality's immorality usually talk about how homosexuality is irrational, and thus isn't moral. I therefore counter that point by telling us that homosexuality isn't considered "irrational" from my source  from round 2, which is actually one of the trustworthy websites (Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy in particular) Ajabi mentions that definitions come from, it counters his own arguments. And to say this in a clearer way, no, I did not concede. I made an error.
To strengthen this argument further, let me talk about how even the most rational people support homosexual behavior . This source shows that many famous, rational people think that homosexuality is moral, and thus "this house" has a bunch of notable exceptions to who believes homosexuality is immoral, and thus you cannot just make a general statement about how "This House Believes Homosexuality is Immoral" since I show it is in fact rational, supported by many famous rational people.
>That homosexuality is natural:
Firstly this argument commits a logical fallacy i.e the appeal to nature. It is therefore invalid, also 9space never mentions my analysis of genotypes to phenotypes nor answers my contentions on that tier. If the argument is that it is moral for it is natural (against our definition) then s/he must show why this cannot be reduced to pedophilia, and psychopathy being moral.
>Can't go wrong with gays:
This argument bases itself of a crucial point. It says that all P is I, h is not P, therefore h is M. This is a false syllogism, for unless getting a girl pregnant is the only immoral thing (9space never showed it is immoral), then its negation does not make one moral. Also the resolution is not Homosexuals are immoral, it is homosexuality (here homosexual acts) are immoral.
>Homosexuals would adopt children:
Once more besides the point or a red herring. This argument does not provide any statistic that gay people are nicer than straight people, also once more it argues nothing in relation to whether homosexuality ought or ought not to be.
>How it is not irrational, and therefore not immoral:
Firstly there is a ad populum fallacy again, with reference to certain people. No reason is give for why it is not irrational. This House means a place where there are purely rational entities, which means these entities are theoretical, not real. I will answer this further in my own argument.
Now on to my counter-rebuttals:
>My opponent makes a crucial mistake in so far as s/he ignores what I established: the rational grounding. I had established, in accordance with the rules of logic, a rational grounding. Now should this grounding be negated, which I show is done by homosexuality, the act would be irrational. An irrational act would be opposed by all rational people. This is a crucial link which I make very explicit.
>I am glad my opponent does not deny evolution. Now I use evolution to find this rational grounding of sex, or the fundamental reason for lust which I connect to sex above. Now from an evolutionary point of view lust has not been made redundant. Since it has not made this redundant and lust is only directly productive when it leads to reproduction we can conclude that this rational grounding is reproduction.
>Since my logic was never attacked I do not know what to write more. As to show irrationality and rational grounding I have given the above argument.
>My opponent even admits that an instinct has a rational grounding. S/he admits this openly, which means that they accept that this fundamental reason for something exists. Now anything which breaks this "rational grounding" must ex ve termini of rational grounding be considered irrational, and then by our definition once more immoral.
>My opponent says that we can survive as a race without having sex for reproduction. 0.0 That is partly freaky, for while it may theoretically possible to give artificial births it is in no way enough to sustain the human race. Not only that but we are talking about the rational grounding of sex.
>The second form of my argument was assuming God exists. I cannot write the entire argument however I posted a link which talks about how if a God exists then He must be an all loving and all just God. In itself this proof is for those people who would deny evolution as a fact and believe in God. Now if this God is involved in human affairs (for in the other condition we have no use for Him in our argument) then it follows that He would not have endowed people with lust without a reason behind it. This is of course always secondary (to you bunch of atheists anyways *coughs*) to the above point regarding evolution.
Therefore my opponent's contentions collapse, and the resolution stands. I thank 9spacking for this debate, and I hope he also had fun. I thank the readers and the Judges for their time. Please vote Con, please vote rationality, not emotion.
Why homosexuality is moral and why not pedophilia and psychopathy.
Because pedophilia can harm privacy, invade, and is considered weird by most people. Pyschopathy is dangerous, as insanity is hard to stop and most people are either put in insane asylums or have a death penalty/life sentence for killing people. On the other hand homosexuality is usually not invasive, and gay people aren't put in insane asylums, showing us that in fact homosexuality is more moral than psychopathy or pediphilia. If my appealing to nature is invalid, then your appealing to nature (Evolution) is also invalid. As for the phenotype/genotype, I answered it in my other rebuttals in the previous round.
Can't go wrong with gays:
I showed getting a girl pregnant is immoral. I already stated that if the girl does not want it, and she gets it, then it can't be acceptable. If a rational person does not want something that harms him, but you still give you that thing, then certainly it is immoral. Similarly, a girl's unwanted pregnancy is definitely immoral. Homosexual acts are moral in comparison since if you don't want a baby, you don't get a baby, and if you want to get a baby, you can just go adopt one.
Homo's want children:
Yes, there is a statistic that gay people are more likely to adopt children than straight people.  
" An irrational act would be opposed by all rational people. "
Exactly, I showed a bunch of rational people that didn't oppose homosexuality (see last round), thus, it is not an irrational act.
Rational grounding is reproduction...I already showed that you do not have to be reproductional to be rational. I already showed we can live fine without reproduction and we have live a rational healthy life. It is our choice whether or not to give birth as pass on our traits. In fact, as I already stated before, too much innate behavior can be counter-productive. What has over population done to us? Jobs are running out everywhere, leading to more poverty around the world; in order to provide these babies, we need to produce more, but in the process we pollute the air more...If we keep on exponencially growing eventually we'll reach a point where we can't sustain life any more and just halt growth almost completely while we continually pollute the air, try to open up new jobs and keeping the resources flowing. In fact I think the human race should actually slow down reproduction. While sex itself has a good rational grounding for reproduction, in our modern society with all our harms done, I think it would be alright to keep reproductional sex in moderation instead of just keep on reproducing for the sakes of reproducing.
" He would not have endowed people with lust without a reason behind it...." Yeah, the reason is to love like God loves. Therefore he would let everyone love each other, regardless of race or sex.
-" If two people were really being rational, and they wanted to have safe sex, then certainly they would put on condoms and thus have zero possibility of reproduction, showing us that in this situation rational sex=/= reproductive." From last round
-Not all rational people may want to produce, some may want it to do it for pleasure
-Not moral =/= immoral
-Our instincts are not always correct
-God's infinite justness and lovingness counters my opponent's own arguments
-Gay sex is still more moral than straight sex
-Gay people do MORAL stuff that straight people don't do as much (adopt children)
-Not all rational people dispice gay sex, thus, homosexuality can't be said as irrational neither is it immoral
I think I won against the odds. 50-50? Please, I can do better than that. I had many irrefuted arguments on my side and I refuted my opponent's arguments. And keep in mind Ajabi accepted full BoP in round one, so vote accordingly.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a strictly philosophical argument; Con failed to meet him on this level, and thus inadequately combated Pro's case. Pro argued a specific moral grounding, based on rationality, which he developed from to prove the resolution. Con never refuted Pro's fundamental moral statements, and failed to dissolve their link to the resolution. Some of Con's attack was fairly superficial. Con could have chosen better arguments to make a case around. Con frequently goes off-topic and misses the point--e.g. it doesn't matter if gays are moral in other ways. I found Pro's argument quite flawed, but Con didn't expose these flaws.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: There are a lot of flaws in Pro's argument. Consider that he claims: "There can not be two rational groundings, for that would betray the Law of Non-Contradiction." The law of non-contradiction states that it is incorrect to say that "A is B" and "A is not B" as the statements are in logical opposition to one another. However, to say " A is B, C, and E" is not necessarily contradictory. A baseball bat may be metal, 2 feet long, and heavy, and none of these qualities contradict. It would, however, be wrong to say that a particular baseball bat was metal, and that it was also wooden. Essentially, Pro is erroneously applying the law. Regardless of these flaws, I am not sure Con is doing enough to win the debate. Con doesn't really explore Pro's arguments at the depth needed to defeat Pro's case--Con's points seem nit-picky at times, superficial at others, and irrelevant at additional spots. Thus, I reluctantly Vote Pro. (P.S. - Pro should use rich text to make his points more readable.)
Vote Placed by Sargon 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did an effective job of defending his premises. Con either chose not to attack the premises of the argument, or he chose to attack in equivocal ways (e.g. equivocating on the word 'rational'). Often, Con's arguments were red herrings which did not relate to Pro's premises (that homosexuality is natural is irrelevant to its moral standing as a practice). Therefore, I am forced to conclude that Pro upheld the burden of proof by stating a logically valid argument (the validity of which was not disputed by Pro) and more effectively supporting the soundness of his premises.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Test
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.