The Instigator
KingofHarlem
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RossM
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

This is Gay Recruitment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
RossM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,027 times Debate No: 52919
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (5)

 

KingofHarlem

Con

The Huffingtonpost is one of the most popular news sites on the net. Huffpost, a thoroughly gay run organization, continuously runs articles extolling the wonders of homosexuality with accompanying photos like this:

http://i.huffpost.com...

Well, folks, this is recruitment. It's implanting in the minds of youth the notion that gay culture is incredibly cool and everybody's trying it -- "why don't you?"

In other words, the liberal is asleep at the wheel. While gay activists assure him only those "born that way" can become gay, these same activists are assaulting Little Johnny's mind with imagery showing homosexuals living a wonderful and incredibly cool life.

There's not a scintilla of evidence supporting "born this way." Bombard any boy with enough homosexual imagery and he'll end up at the front of the local gay pride parade in an erect penis hat and g-string.

In other words, you've been had, Mr. Liberal -- and your kids are the ones who'll pay for your unholy stupidity.
RossM

Pro

I do not believe the Huffington post is "recruiting" people to be Gay.

They are showing the diverse culture that exists in our society.

The simple fact of the matter is: Gay people exist! Homosexual relationships aren't just some made up fantasy. The huffington post are simply showing anyone who wishes to view their site what our world is like; the job of the news! Here are some examples of other photos they show in their articles:



They show heterosexual couples, and with the recent legalisation of Gay marriage in the UK, it is no wonder that they're showing pictures of homosexual couples! It isn't showing children that homosexual relationships are "incredibly cool", it is simply showing pictures that relate to the article. If we are to avoid discrimination of any kind, both heterosexual and homosexual couples must be seen in the media. Those who are Gay need to see people who they can relate to, otheriwse we risk damaging the whole community. Here are some statistics for Gay teens who commit suicide:

Between 30 and 40% of the Gay youth ( a collection of different ages) have attempted to commit suicide

The Homosexual youth are more likely to try to commit suicide than their Heterosexual counterparts

Here is an interesting statistic found by GLAAD on the media : homosexual couples make up about 4.4% of the media we see today (at the start of 2013). This figure is shocking! The only way we can hope to destroy the hateful discrimination the LGBT community faces is by showing the youth of today the truth! By shying them away from the reality will only push those who need help further away.


Debate Round No. 1
KingofHarlem

Con

My opponent opens with statement "Gay people Exist!"

Yes, of course they exist -- as do heroin addicts, pedophiles, terrorists, muggers, thieves, BDSM, crack heads, etc. Should we use imagery that glorifies these groups too?

Homosexuality is a destructive, soul destroying behavior that turns young people into sex addicts and worse. You and Obama would have us believe all gays are like Ellen Degenris and Anderson Cooper. You fellows go into the schools and teach children the gay lifestyle is wonderful and cool -- a viable alternative! But everywhere we look gay culture is destructive and dehumanizing.

Gay pride parades are a good example of this. Perhaps if you'd explain why they're a good Idea you'd have an argument. After that, explain gay bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenwich Village Docks, cruising, gay porn. Show us a gay event that isn't sex oriented. In another debate I called gays a "sex cult". Tell us why this is inaccurate.

And then there's the billion-dollar male escort industry. If that isn't evidence of sickness, I don't know what is. And I'm not just talking about the men who use this service, I'm talking about the thousands of "barely legal" boys who are roped into this life of disease and misery.

Here's the point: when news sites carry imagery that glorifies homosexuality, they're glorifying a life-style that is destructive and dehumanizing. A recent CDC report showed that young gay males are 72.% of all new HIV cases. This means homosexuality is a major public health hazard. How many of your gay public speakers are telling kids this when they go into the schools? Putin had the right idea when he made it crime to promote homosexuality. Idiot Obama tried to bully him on the point which is why we're on the brink of WWIII

This is the reality of homosexuality. This is why homosexuality SHOULD be discriminated against. This is why people need to stop believing all your self-serving fairy tals about homosexuality and get the facts.

To repeat: the reason why imagery that glorifies homosexuality is wrong-headed is because homosexuality is a destructive, dehumanizing, public health menace.

RossM

Pro

Yes, Con is correct, Gay people do exist, along with muggers, thieves, murderers etc. The arrogance which he has, to claim that a loving relationship between two consenting adults is the same as taking someone's belongings/life is beyond compare. We should not use imagery to glorify these things, as they are all considered wrong worldwide. However, you seem to make out that all homosexual relationships are sex orientated with inhuman people participating in them, but this isn't true. You are generalising each and every case of homosexual relationships here, which should never be done during a debate.
You fellows go into the schools and teach children the gay lifestyle is wonderful and cool
Again, people who go into schools, broadening children's minds about what a healthy relationship can be, reaching out to all Gay teens who are struggling with their sexuality and need these people's support, are not saying it is "cool". They are simply saying that it is a viable way to live, and these people shouldn't be ashamed of themselves and hide themselves away, which could possibly damage them further.
Gay pride parades are a good example of this. Perhaps if you'd explain why they're a good Idea you'd have an argument.
I don't need to. You have the BOP to say why they are bad, sick and twisted, which you haven't done. But, for the sake of it, Gay pride events are good because they allow Gay people, who don't have the same rights as heterosexual people, to stand up for what they believe in. You then go on to say about gay bath houses, etc, which only some gay people utilise. It is like saying that heterosexuals are all sex orientated because some go to prostitutes. You are using your own subjective opinions here, and are not using actual facts!


Show us a gay event that isn't sex oriented. In another debate I called gays a "sex cult".

Yes you did. That was factually inaccurate as most Gay people can have long and healthy relationships. Really, your arguments here are based all on assumptions and generalisations with no support to them. A normal homosexual relationship isn't sex orientated, just a heterosexual one isn't. Both contain two consenting adults who love each other. Sex is really just an optional way to deepen that love.

Here's the point: when news sites carry imagery that glorifies homosexuality, they're glorifying a life-style that is destructive and dehumanizing. A recent CDC report showed that young gay males are 72.% of all new HIV cases. This means homosexuality is a major public health hazard.
They aren't glorifying it! Again, for the third time, they are simply allowing those who are Gay a relateable person. Yes, Gay people may be the biggest contributor to HIV rates at the moment, but that does not mean that we shouldn't allow them to have relationships. If we teach these children about safe sex, what they should be having anyway, then there would be no problem. Just because people from African countries statistically have a higher chance to get Aids doesn't mean we should stop them from having relationships.
Debate Round No. 2
KingofHarlem

Con

If my opponent insists on invoking "gay teenagers" as much as he does, I think it only fair that he tell us what a gay teenager is and the process he uses to label a kid a "gay teenager.

This is part of the problem I have with gay activists in our schools. We know nothing about them save they claim to be gay. None are licensed to teach. all immediately go about labeling the kids gay, bisexual, transgender. Is that what you call "gaydar"?

Also, my opponent tell us gays have "long and healthy relationships", but if that is so, how does he explain 72.% of all new HIV cases are gay males?
RossM

Pro

If my opponent insists on invoking "gay teenagers" as much as he does, I think it only fair that he tell us what a gay teenager is and the process he uses to label a kid a "gay teenager.

I will also include some of the next paragraph in this argument. Firstly, I apologise, I assumed that "Gay teenager" was rather self explanatory. For my opponent's sake, I will clarify. A Gay teenager is, lo and behold, a teenager who identifies themselves as gay. It isn't the gay "activists" doing it, it is the teenagers themselves. I am using gay teenagers so much in my argument to make a point which you haven't refuted yet. The youth who watch the television, read the papers, listen to the radio, need to "see" some idols who they can relate to. It is the same with those who are black. We can't just dominate the media with a select group of people and then expect everyone to be happy about it. We can't just dominate the media and expect the young people who acknowledge themselves as that thing to understand why the domination is happening. This leads to discrimination and hate, which is never justified, no matter what your subjective opinions are.

Also, my opponent tell us gays have "long and healthy relationships", but if that is so, how does he explain 72.% of all new HIV cases are gay males?

Well, firstly, I looked at the statistics you claim to be true. The recent CDC report was only about 60%. Furthermore, 97% of people who have HIV live in low-middle income countries like Africa, so this statistic is not surprising at all (as they don't have condoms for safe sex). You are going on about this statistic, acting like every single homosexual will get it, but you aren't looking at all of the facts.

I apologise, I forgot to state my sources last round, but I generally used the same, so here they are:


Debate Round No. 3
KingofHarlem

Con

My opponent tells us there are students who self-identify as "gay" and expects us to believe this on face value. Also, he expects us to accept this as evidence the child was "born that way." I would ask my opponent this question. "Suppose the child self-identifies as a Ninja Turtle, do we start feeding him pizza topped with flies?"

My opponent works on the assumption that all schools have "gay children" who are being bullied and discriminated against. He provides no evidence to back up this claim. And incidentally, when did bullying become a strictly gay thing and why do gay students allow themselves to be bullied in the first place? It would appear that this so-called bullying epidemic is yet another way gay activists like my opponent gain access to our schools.

Gay activists like my opponent have no business in our schools labeling kids "homosexual" -- even if the kids self-identify as homosexual! Who thought this a good idea -- where's their science to support it?
Does it come from the same gays who thought up "born this way?"

Kids go through changes. The kid who self-identifies as gay today may self-identify as straight tomorrow. They should have that freedom, but the gay activists in our school have taken that freedom away from them. Now a kid is branded for life as homosexual because some gay activist we know nothing about informs his teacher and parents he's gay.

Here's the bottom line, sir: stop exploiting our children. You are neither licensed, trained, nor in any other way qualified to be talking to children about their supposed sexual orientation. No one else in our school system does it -- what makes you think you should be?

CDC STATS

And young gay men accounted for 72% of all new HIV cases. My opponent needs to improve his research skills before challenging mine:

In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM.
http://www.cdc.gov...


Finally, it should come as no surprise my opponent invokes African HIV in a debate that has nothing to do with African HIV. As we see in his willingness to exploit "gay teenagers" he resorts to misdirection rather than direct answers.

Here's the question again, sir. This time give us a direct answer instead of your chicanery:

"My opponent tell us gays have "long and healthy relationships", but if that is so, how does he explain 72.% of all new HIV cases are gay males?"

Summation:

My opponent deals in LGBT talking points not facts and introspection. In every instance above his rebuts have have been lifted word for word from the LGBT play book. He won't be able to defend his "gay teenagers" claim there's nothing in the LGBT playbook to support it. And dragging in African HIV whenever the question of America HIV comes up is the most shameless gay tactic there is.

To sum up, all my opponent has done here is serve up lame LGBT talking points -- nothing new, original, or even interesting. If you're gay, you will of course vote for him anyway. But if you're not, do not be persuaded by his LGBT agenda half-truths, distortions, and outright lies.

Gay activists are in our schools to recruit. They do this by labeling kids "homosexual" then grooming them. If this doesn't make you sick to your stomach wait until you have kids and when of them returns from school and announces "Good news, dad --I'm homosexual!"

RossM

Pro

My opponent tells us there are students who self-identify as "gay" and expects us to believe this on face value

Your denial of truths is astounding. You seem to think that there aren't, so to give you some small statistics:

In a survey in Seattle alone, created and carried out by Safe Schools Washington, 4.5% of students from years 9 - 12 identified themselves as Gay.

A national survey found that around 80% of homosexual people discovered that they were Gay in primary school/junior school/ secondary school.

So I just named but a few statistics which prove that there are gay teenagers who self-identify.


Also, he expects us to accept this as evidence the child was "born that way."

I looked back at every argument I made, and not once did I say this. Even though I believe that Gay people are born that way, I did not include it in my arguments as I didn't think it would be relevant to the point at hand. Stop lying to prove your ridiculous points.

I would ask my opponent this question. "Suppose the child self-identifies as a Ninja Turtle, do we start feeding him pizza topped with flies?"

This is silly. If a child identifies themselves as a ninja turtle (and is being wholly serious), then they need some psychological help. A child who identifies themselves as Gay is not the same thing, as they are sexually attracted to the same sex. Stop inflating my points to a degree that makes no logical sense to prove a point as well.

My opponent works on the assumption that all schools have "gay children" who are being bullied and discriminated against. He provides no evidence to back up this claim.

Well, firstly, if we are judging on assumptions, you take the biscuit. You assume that all homosexual relationships are loveless and revolve around sex. You assume that homosexuals are destroying our society through HIV. If you need some evidence to support a claim which is obviously quite factual, here are some more statistics:




You place such an emphasis on facts, yet you are totally ignoring them!

And incidentally, when did bullying become a strictly gay thing and why do gay students allow themselves to be bullied in the first place? It would appear that this so-called bullying epidemic is yet another way gay activists like my opponent gain access to our schools.

Bullying was never strictly a "gay" thing. If you will look at the above statistics you will find that Gay people are 2x more likely to be bullied, as homosexuality is still not accepted by the wider community. What do you mean "Why do gay people allow themselves to be bullied in the first place?" You are placing the blame on the victim rather than the perpetrators. That statement could also be placed on heterosexual bullying.

Kids go through changes. The kid who self-identifies as gay today may self-identify as straight tomorrow. They should have that freedom,

This is true. But at 14/15 we trust a child when they say that they are straight, so why not if they say that they are Gay? They do have that freedom, and the so called "Gay activists" are not taking that away from them. You act like these people are heartless monsters who would brand a child Gay without the child's permission or knowledge, which just isn't true. The point is, is that whether these children believe they are homosexual or not, this type of Imagery needs to be shown in the media to remove hate and discrimination.

CDC STATS

Time for some honesty here. I do apologise to my opponent, but he didn't claim his sources, so it was extremely difficult to validate his claim. Apologies once again.

Finally, it should come as no surprise my opponent invokes African HIV in a debate that has nothing to do with African HIV. As we see in his willingness to exploit "gay teenagers" he resorts to misdirection rather than direct answers.

This is a stupid remark to make. You obviously haven't seen the basis of this, even though I stated it in the same paragraph. 97% of HIV rates were found in Africa or low-middle countries, where they can't afford to educate their children about safe sex. This means that the homosexuals in that country who have HIV and go on to have sex will spread that around. It is not misdirection, it is a logical procession from the information we have. Therefore the HIV rates found in homosexuals will also rise significantly. You need to do more research in this case sir.

"My opponent tell us gays have "long and healthy relationships", but if that is so, how does he explain 72.% of all new HIV cases are gay males?"

See above for the third answer to this question.

SUMMATION:

My opponent here uses lack luster points about the LGBT community, assuming that all of their relationships are loveless and are all sex based. He fails to see how the representation of Gay people in the media will help those who are ashamed of their sexuality to be confident in who they are, and how it will remove hate and discrimination in the future. He also does not see how it is the job of the news to show our diverse society, which is the basis for the pictures found in the Huffington post.

Just as a last note, what my opponent did in his last paragraphs is frankly disgusting. The bigotry which he is showing is bordering on an obsession, and, once again, he assumes that if I win, it will only be due to the voters who, in his words, "must be Gay".

VOTE FOR ME!
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RossM 2 years ago
RossM
Sorry, your win rate comes to a grand total of 0%. Do you know why that is? Because your arguments are weak and have no basis to them. I am glad that people like you are on the way out. I am sure that you will now claim that every voter who votes against you is a homosexual? By the way, you haven't answered my question I posed to you about your views on safe sex. Why do you think heterosexual anal sex is inherently safer than homosexual?
Posted by RossM 2 years ago
RossM
Haha. You are pathetic, do you know that? You judge other people, failed to argue the resolution, generalised the whole Gay community and tried to argue that Gay bullying doesn't happen. You try to invalidate my arguments by attacking my sources, which are perfectly reputable, even though you didn't claim yours. You have an obsession with the LGBT community; one which is hate filled and only seeks to cause more discrimination. Did you forget the actual argument at hand? You had the BOP to prove that the huffington post's main cause was to recruit Gay people, and you didn't, so you failed. Do not attack the voters either just because you are losing. There is a reason why your win rate is only 25%.
Posted by KingofHarlem 2 years ago
KingofHarlem
Look, pal, if you don't know what CDC stands for, you should have looked it up. I suspect you knew and are just trying weasel your way out. I mean, honestly, the Queen allows internet access, don't she?

Secondly, bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenwich Village Docks, cruising, have no parallel in the straight community, which is to say your lame "straights do it too!" rebut is yet more chicanery on your part. Then again, do you even know what the Greenwich Village Docks and Fire Island are?

Let me help you: the Greenwich Village Docks is where hundreds of gay men go for quickie sex. They pack these docks 200-300 strong, in broad daylight groping each other 24-7, after which they go under the docks for sex. Now tell us where in England straights carry on like that? And be specific because I'll hop a flight over to be a part of that hot action.

Bottom line, fellow, you wasted a lot of time. You had nothing original or interesting to tell us, just the same warmed-over LGBT talking points -- "We wear penis suits and lead our half-nude bottoms around on dog leases because "you still discriminate against us!", "African HIV!" and of course that old chestnut -- "Straights do it too!"

Now take your 12 gay mates who voted for you and beat it. I'm done with you.
Posted by RossM 2 years ago
RossM
Firstly, you said that 70% of HIV rates were caused by Gay men. You never once stated "Oh, I meant in the USA". If you want me to paraphrase, here is what you stated: "A recent CDC report showed that young gay males are 72.% of all new HIV cases." No parameters, no links, no sources. You are giving us this bloody rubbish, expecting us to know exactly what you are talking about and then chide us when, lo and behold, we have no idea what you are actually trying to say. I am from England, so I don't instantly assume you are talking about the US, and I always try not to assume anyway, because as Oscar Wilde said: "to assume is to make an arse out of you and me".

You keep saying how homosexual relationships are sex based, how gay pride events are promoting sex, how everything that is even closely linked to homosexuality is based around sex. You state: "explain gay bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenwich Village Docks, cruising, gay porn", yet you fail to see how all of these things exist in heterosexuality as well. Porn, sex cruises, brothels...all of them can be found wherever you look. You say my rebuts are weak minded, yet you refuse to move with the times with this bigoted, uneducated crap.

Seriously. You really need to go back to school my friend, or at the very least, leave it before you start judging other people in this way. You are so convoluted that somehow you believe that heterosexual anal sex is safer than homosexual. Why don't you explain that to us?
Posted by KingofHarlem 2 years ago
KingofHarlem
First of all, Ross, your point about African HIV is so convoluted and rambling I have no idea what you're talking about. You presented it in response to my demand that you explain why gay males in America make-up 72% of all new HIV cases here in America. You obviously dont want to give an honest answer to the question so you misdirect and obfuscate with your African HIV crap.

Secondly, another example of how weak-minded you rebuts are is your defense of gay pride parades. Gay pride parades celebrate degenerate sex, but rather than admit this obvious fact you tell us "Gay pride parades are a response to how gays have been mistreated and discriminated against."

Honestly, how is a top leading his half-nude bottom down the street on a dog leash a response to discrimination? Were they doing that in the March on Washington? I must have missed it.
Posted by RossM 2 years ago
RossM
And L.D, the only reason he succeeded in making me believe I was Con was due to the fact that he argued for the wrong side. I am not at fault here, Con is. If you would give all of those points (7), even though I claimed better sources and developed my arguments (which actually made sense) to a better degree, then that is called "vote bombing", and I sincerely hope that you do not do it, or promote it, from now on.
Posted by RossM 2 years ago
RossM
I agree that Con had some strong points which, if he had developed further, could have won him some points. The point I was trying to make about the HIV statistics was this : If 97% of HIV cases lie in low - middle income countries (especially in Africa, shown by the statistics), where they do not have condoms and education for safe sex, then it is only logical that any Gay person in that particular country who has HIV will spread that on, therefore increasing the prevalence of HIV found in gay men.

Kingofharlem, stop attacking my sources just because you were proved incorrect by them. Just because the site's personal opinion was in support of the LGBT community does not mean that they somehow "fabricated" the results.
Posted by Chimera 2 years ago
Chimera
@KingofHarlem

'Gay activists are in the schools because they've convinced school boards only gays can help "gay" students.'

By gay activists I am hoping you mean gay activist groups. The groups at these schools, like the GSA, have straight members and staff as well. If they didn't have straight members it would defeat the purpose of the entire movement, which is equality.
Posted by KingofHarlem 2 years ago
KingofHarlem
Gay activists are in the schools because they've convinced school boards only gays can help "gay" students.

Should we conclude from this gay counselors are unqualified to help straight students?
Posted by 2Sense 2 years ago
2Sense
I honestly don't get the "labeling" thing. Since when has that happened? Gay and lesbian kids are identified as such because that is how they identify themselves. And that's what leads to them getting harassed by others.

Anyway, the only problem I had with Pro's argument was his generalization of the entire *continent* (not country) of Africa. You cannot criticize Con for generalizing, when you yourself use generalizations as your support. Other than that, Con failed to back his arguments and respond efficiently to Pro's counterarguments.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
KingofHarlemRossMTied
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: Con is using this site as a place to spread hate towards the gay community. His arguments lack fact and reason and are fueled by his desire to discriminate. Pro did an excellent job of countering this with calm, well-backed responses. Well done Pro.
Vote Placed by ZMowlcher 2 years ago
ZMowlcher
KingofHarlemRossMTied
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: I've never seen a train wreck of a debate quite like this.
Vote Placed by WheezySquash8 2 years ago
WheezySquash8
KingofHarlemRossMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro had better sources, reasons, and conduct.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
KingofHarlemRossMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Lack of sources for vital points in Con's arguments turned it into a homophobic rant. Pro had enough facts and sources to refute enough points for his arguments to be more successful.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
KingofHarlemRossMTied
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: Pro had better arguments by including information from many sources. What con was saying somewhat seemed that he has a homophobic tendency. Nevertheless, this debate was fun and interesting to read. PRO WINS!