The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
seoa
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

killing some of these homos is not immoral (they are too different than us)

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 3 votes the winner is...
seoa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 61180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

linate

Pro

H. habilis
H. erectus
H. rudolfensis
H. georgicus
H. ergaster
H. antecessor
H. cepranensis
H. heidelbergensis
H. neanderthalensis
H. rhodesiensis
H. sapiens idaltu
H. floresiensis
seoa

Con

lol sure why not
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

con concedes. vote pro
seoa

Con

Pro does not understand the meaning of "lol sure why not," he interpreted it as "sure let's kill everyone" showing a mental state of aggression and a tendency to turn to acts of genocide before acts of diplomacy, whereas the true meaning of "lol sure why not" is actually one of acceptance of the debate. As his mindset is fundamentally skewed and we can not trust any of the words that come out of his mouth as they are the words of an instinctively aggressive killer, vote con automatically.

Additionally, as that is his only argument, I will now present my own arguments.

1. Definition of immoral: licentious (unrestrained by law or general morality) or lascivious (inclined to lustfulness) [1].
Killing homos is certainly immoral because it is unrestrained by the law. According to 18 U.S. Code " 1111 [2], it is illegal to kill anyone, including homo sexuals. As such, since the act of "killing homos" would be illegal, it would be defined as immoral. Thus, vote con.

2. Killing other people because they are "different than us" creates a dichotomy between an "us" and a "them," the root of all war and violence, emphasized in pro's statement "they are too different than us." When a person or group of people uses the words "us" and "them," it is a form of propaganda, a form of brain-washing that is both morally and legally unjust, one that was utilized by the Nazis to brainwash the citizens of Germany [3]. As such, vote con because of pro's unethical attempt to brainwash people into killing.

3. It is common knowledge that 10% of the population is gay. As such, killing all of "these homos" would end up amounting to the deaths of 700 million people - more than 5 times more people than were killed by Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler combined. What the pro is endorsing is mass genocide on an unprecedented scale. This is analogous to the legal murder of blacks centuries ago, to the genocide of Jews during the Holocaust, and to the murder of Americans during 9/11 and in the War Against Terror. As these empirical examples prove the flaws of pro's argument, vote con.

4. Pro is dumb. This is evident through the grammatically defunct sentence "they are too different than us." The correct version of the sentence would be "they are too different from us." Don't trust the words of a stupid psychotic killer, vote con.

Sources:
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[3] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

"Don't trust the words of a stupid psychotic killer"

i'm not the one turning the debate into something about homosexuals. clearly the debate is about relatives species to homo sapiens. and it's not psychotic, hunters of deer for instance are not considered crazy. the line between a human and a nonrelated enough homo is enough to draw speciation, and even killing. if the species can't breed with humans, it isn't even muderous, it's more analogous to killing a deer.
also 'different than us' v 'different from us' has no right or wrong. 'from' does sound better, but that's all.
seoa

Con

seoa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by shag-me-at-popsicle-stand 3 years ago
shag-me-at-popsicle-stand
yeah fellow homo here I just wanted to say I find this highly offensive since I mean the only way to kill a fagg is with another fagg amateurs
Posted by seoa 3 years ago
seoa
forgot to reply QQ
Posted by TruthGen 3 years ago
TruthGen
"Being too different" also doesn't make a point on whether it is good or bad to kill them, since again, it's a matter of perspecetive. Take bullfighting as an example. There are activists who think bulls should not be killed. Now who is saying the truth?

a. The bullfighter that kills the bull
b. The activist who loves animals
c. None, the only truth about this thing is that there is a dead bull.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Change it to killing Neanderthals is not immoral and I will take this debate on. Then we can keep it to one species. Also, are you talking about us killing or a god killing?
Posted by TruthGen 3 years ago
TruthGen
1.- You cannot kill these species since they are already extint.
2.- Even if you could make them come back to life, still morality is defined by perspective and as such could be both immoral and moral depending on the subject who observes it.
Posted by Evannnn 3 years ago
Evannnn
lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
linateseoaTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, so Conduct to Pro. Pro had terrible grammar so that point goes to Con. Arguments to Con as he showed doing this plan leads to discrimination and genocide. He also backed his argument with sources so he will also gain that point.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
linateseoaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
linateseoaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments, while Con certainly ran a strange case (if an understandable one due to the normal connotations of "homo"), it didn't touch the motion. But Pro didn't really justify the motion, either. So I'm nulling arguments.