Was the anti-LGBT bill in North Carolina just?
Debate Rounds (4)
I will be arguing the bill was fair.
Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair
1. No trolling
2. No frivolous semantic arguments
I am being mentored by the user Raisor, only accept if you are ok with that.
R2: Opening arguments
R4: Closing statements
72 Hours - 6000 characters
Hoping for a good debate.
Before we can rule whether or not a law is just, we must first identify what institutes an unjust law. An unjust law is called so if it meets the criterion of being harmful to human good, or conflicts with natural law.  ( precise description of how nature behaves under specific circumstances). An example would be the permittance of theft, or the enforcement of abortions in China. With human reason, we can determine whether or not a law is contradictory with nature. Naturalism theorizes that if a law is not morally permissible, then it is not a law. 
"Consequently, since law is chiefly ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some individual work must be devoid of the nature of law, save in so far as it regards the common good." - St. Thomas Aquinas
House Bill Two
House bill two was passed approximately on March 23, 2016. This bill states that the biological sex (The physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a birth certificate) of an individual must adhere to the sex on a facility"s bathroom door sign.  This is not mandatory, it is at the full discretion of the facility"s owner.  We live in an free market, this will be an advertising chip for certain businesses. The bill is not a prejudicial treatment or ostracization of a group, it"s merely enforcement of what should already be implied. Identity is irrelevant and entirely subjective, if law were to conform to it, what would prevent a burly man from entering the women"s room? Who are we to deny him? Remember, we are not in an argument for the end of urinary segregation.
House Bill Two Is Just
The chief disagreement is if the bill is fair, with the paradigm of a law being either just or unjust, we can easily decide that it is in fact, the former. The law isn"t harmful to human good, if anything, it prevents certain circumstances from transpiring under someone"s illusionment of self-identity. The law is also not in conflict with natural law, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. There is an obvious reason that women bathrooms tend to never contain urinals, they weren"t designed for men.
I think it is fair to bring up the 14th amendment in this case. This amendment guarantees that the states must follow the Bill of Rights and also to treat all people equally under the law. This amendment has been used to enforce the freedom of African-Americans, the suffrage of woman, and the right to marry for homosexuals. The next step is here. The pro speaker has brought up parts of the bill but now all of it. One which is most concerning is over school policy of bathrooms. "Local boards of education shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that is designated for student use to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex." This is not a option for the school. The problem is, is that those in the transsexual community are more likely to be depressed, bullied or assaulted, or commit suicide. This is from the lack of support in society and recognition of there gender identity. This bill will only push this problem further by not allowing the school from recognizing the chosen gender of the student. This delicate time in early life must not be a time for rejection and ridicule. Not only would this tie the school's hands in accommodating the student, but would also inadvertently promote more bullying. This can be seen by an experiment done by Jane Elliott, who observed that if the authority promotes or ignores bad behavior such as discrimination, the students who are "better" took that role and did better in school, and those who are "lesser" also took the role as not as good and lost self esteem and preformed more poorly. This bill directly hurts the individual, which following the pro side's definition, is not just.
But this bill extends further than schools...it also goes to businesses. These businesses are now allowed to legally discriminate just by the trait of another. This is just like when businesses were able to deny service to black Americans or other minorities. The pro speaker says that identity is subjective which can be true but so is how someone looks. We do not have a picture of a penis and a vagina on the bathroom doors to signify that you must have this to go in; we have are stereotypical pictures of what a man and woman looks like. This subjective trait of being trans now can be used to harm and discriminate someone.
NoahIKnight forfeited this round.
NoahIKnight forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.