The Instigator
NoahIKnight
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lyokowarri0r
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Was the anti-LGBT bill in North Carolina just?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 89993
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

NoahIKnight

Pro

I will be arguing the bill was fair.

Definitions
Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair

Rules
1. No trolling
2. No frivolous semantic arguments

Conditions
I am being mentored by the user Raisor, only accept if you are ok with that.

Framework
R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening arguments
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Closing statements

72 Hours - 6000 characters


lyokowarri0r

Con

I accept. No troll. I will argue that the bill in not fair and discriminatory.

Hoping for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
NoahIKnight

Pro

Moral Framework

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. [1] ( 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. [2]

"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. [3] This is not mandatory, it is at the full discretion of the facility"s owner. [3] 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.

[1] http://legacy.fordham.edu......

[2] http://home.wlu.edu......

[3] http://www.ncleg.net......
lyokowarri0r

Con

This debate is about morals. Now what is considered right and wrong can be subjective. In this case, it is best perceived in the way the pro speaker has but it. But if I may expand on it, I would argue that the most moralistic thing is to not actively try to discriminate or hurt another person. I see this bill doing just that.

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.

http://www.ncleg.net...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Debate Round No. 2
NoahIKnight

Pro

NoahIKnight forfeited this round.
lyokowarri0r

Con

The pro speaker has forfeited the 3rd round. As to keep this fair, I will also skip this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NoahIKnight

Pro

NoahIKnight forfeited this round.
lyokowarri0r

Con

I was hoping for a good debate.... Sad really. Okay...the bill of North Carolina allows for companies to discriminate on how someone looks. If the person is fully changed physically to their gender identity, then we might have men in women bathrooms anyway(FtM). This subjectivity is inherently allowing to discriminate, and by the pro speakers definition, is hurtful and not just.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.