The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Preston
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us)

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 5 votes the winner is...
Preston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 58826
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

dairygirl4u2c

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
Preston

Con

I stand in absolute negation of the Resolution, killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us).

I would like start by offering the following Observation, Morals are defined as [1] "considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior"thus we should limit this debate to general Morality and not the views of a few.

Senseless Killing is Immoral;
It is clearly immoral to kill anything without legitimate reason, it is especially cruel and hateful to state homosexuals should be killed because they different. They are human, they have feelings, they love, they live, and they shouldn't be killed for a belief my opponent considers to be "too different than us". We can look to Executive order 44, the Mormon extermination act, that was passed to kill because of difference. this order lead to the massacre in Hans Mill where unarmed Mormons were slaughtered, men, women, and children.

Note my opponent hasn't given any argument whatsoever but merely stated other Species in our family. They haven't shown that Homosexuals somehow stand outside of the law and can be killed without any consequence, Thus they haven't fulfilled the BOP.

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i dont know what con is doing referring to homosexuals. i am referring to species of the 'homo' clan.

if i said killing a deer is not immoral, most people would agree with me. given these are not homo sapiens, they are basically just animals, and can be killed.

at best con might havea point in saying senseless killing, even if it's just for deer for example, is wrong. but then again, there's a fine line between what's 'senseless' and what's a 'sport'.

in terms of a common vernacular way of saying somehting like 'hunting deer is not immoral', the same can be be said about the rest of the homo clan. there might be some understood exceptions, or possible exceptions.

to read so much into it 'senseless killing' is reading too much into it, and getting into semantics.
Preston

Con

Its not ok to kill my opponent is for the irradiation of species that are different from us, Hunting to keep a species from over populating is different from killing innocent entities. they were referring to homosexuals and we all know it, they still have yet to provide an argument supporting their BOP.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

is con being serious with all the homosexual remarks, or just joking?
either way it makes one wonder about his sexual security if he keeps harping on something that has been established to not be the case..... (semi joking, but there might be some truth to this statement

i don't know what you mean by irradiation, i think you might mean eradication. i didn't say to eradicate them, i just said it's moral to kill them. just like it's moral to kill a deer. and over populating isn't the only reason to kill a deer, and not here either. sport is permissible too.

i have to reiterate all the points above, about semantics and how to approach the idea of something like 'it's okay to kill a deer'.
Preston

Con

my opponent is again trying to play off the fact he wanted to kill of homosexuals, but again killing and ending life is still bad. they didn't answer my critic of their one argument so it falls, they don't have an argument thus we only see a ballot in favor of the neg.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
you never backed up the resolution and you had the BOP even if you weren't talking about homosexuals, which you were, you still didn't do your job as AFF
Posted by Astal3 2 years ago
Astal3
I would suggest not joking or stating anything like this unless you mean it. There are people who seriously believe this way and will see this post as a justification. This is a debate forum not a raunchy humor site. I appreciate the comment and attempt for humor but it is inappropriate
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 2 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
half serious but mostly a joke.

i might take the opposite position next, i'm not sure
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
This is a joke, Right?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
dairygirl4u2cPrestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Pro has either asked a misleading question or is trying to cover the fact that they want to kill homosexuals. S&G- Pro didn't use capitalization. Reliable Sources- Only Con used sources.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
dairygirl4u2cPrestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Im so confused as to this debate when arguments are put next to each other. . . But preston is obviously making a better argument.
Vote Placed by Gogert777 2 years ago
Gogert777
dairygirl4u2cPrestonTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Who I agree on is my business. Pros conduct suited me better than Con arguments. Grammar/spelling were evenly acceptable most of the time. Pro argued very well his points, and I agreed with them. Con did not understand homosexuals are not human. Con did use sources.
Vote Placed by SGM_iz_SekC 2 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
dairygirl4u2cPrestonTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Is there even... I can't... THE IDIOCY IT BURNS LIKE ACIDDDDDDD!!!!
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
dairygirl4u2cPrestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: This deserves to be a tie. The Bop wasn't fulfilled and CON may or may not have responded to the argument.