Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

Posts: 24,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:58:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is my rebuttal to Round 3 of my debate with mikal on "The United States Should Adopt No-Gay Zones". Because the site is having technical errors, it is impossible for me to post my argument, and it will thus end in a forfeit. I am making this thread to write my debate round. I will post screenshots as evidence that this is within the alloted time from of the debate. My debate rebuttal will remain within the 5,000 character limit as well.

The debate can be found here:

As of 12/9/15, I still have 18 hours remaining to post my argument. You can cross verify this win the time in the lower right hand corner of this screenshot:

Here is my debate rebuttal that I will ask my opponent to put at the beginning of his round (assuming the glitch is fixed by the time he can respond).

Anti-Gay zones are unrealistic and non-beneficial

Pro summarizes my point here to be ad populum. This is a complete mis-reading of my point. My point is that the entire resolution is looking at a minority, inside of a minority (Not just Christians who do not support Gay Marriage, but the radical ones who are so disturbed by them that they would move to an entirely different territory in order to be away from them). Am I saying that there opinion doesn"t matter? Yes, but not because of the fact that they are a minority, but rather because they are irrational if they want to be separated from a group of people who follow personal interests they do not agree with but do not have to adversely affect them. We don't create zone's for every group who simply despises another group of people, unless you count a mental hospital. But more importantly this point is about how making legislation to support a small group doesn"t make sense, which also feeds into my sub A about how doing this would open the doors for creating "Anti-Everything" zones.

Con next says that 50% of Christians "are not cool" with being around gays. On what basis does he stand to justify this point? Believing something is a sin doesn't mean they all want to remove themselves from people who sin. Unfortunately that would be impossible. Especially when there is so much in the world that Christianity views to be sinful. My opponent is specifying these people don't want to be around sinners, but is only talking about those who are Gay. What about the people who have tattoos, are alcohol drinkers, aren't monogomous, have had underage sex, etc? While these "sins" vary from religion to religion, my opponent is saying that Christians have lived around these types of sinners for years just fine, but only now need to move to their own zone? Is homosexuality so much worse than all these other sins that people commit daily? Just because Christian's don't like something, doesn't mean they all can't live in a world that legalizes it. My opponents critiques on my stat's are completely innacurate. I cited a wikipedia source showing several polls, and deduced that to be a good example of the majority of Christian's stance on Gay Marriage. It in no way is an accurate source of the beliefs of the entire population, and I was vocal about that during my round. There is actually very little reliable info that I could actually find on population source data for mass political data on people's stance on Gay rights, at least that I could actively find in the first few pages of my google search. My opponents ravings that this is a utilitarianistic is invalid. My argument is on realism, and I think I have proven that it is not realistic or feasible to focus a government endorsed zone when private ones already exist, especially for a group of people who are so small.

Sub A: Non beneficial

My opponent responds to this point by saying people should be able to practice freedom of religion. They can. He follows this up by saying that they should be allowed to discriminate without causing harm to others.

1. Having a religious view that doesn't support an ideal is not active discrimination. I advise my opponent look up what discrimination actually is, if he mis-understands this.
2. Why would the U.S. have any interest in giving people the "Right to discriminate"? There is no Impact here. It's almost as If I were to say the government should support people's need to throw rocks at others by giving them their own unique zone.

Private Property Laws

My opponent suggests that the goverments needs to put out something official stating that these places are anti gay zones. Why? Private Property laws are as my opponents stated, very straight-forward. Re-writing them to pick on a specific group of people makes no sense, when they broadly already apply to the group in question, and many, many more.


Referring back to my source from last round, Anti-discrimination laws are slightly borader than jsut emplyoment. "You can refuse to serve someone even if they"re in a protected group, but the refusal can"t be arbitrary and you can"t apply it to just one group of people."

My proposal is that churches and homes being acknowledged and accepted as anti gay zones, in areas where religious people wish to make them so

This is a repeat of my opponent's previous point, which I have already argued.


My opponent is suggesting that hostile, crazy people deserve to be accepted in normal society, given the same freedoms as everyone else, and catered to specifically. Turns out we have plenty of places like this, called prisons. My opponents problems are solved, these zones already exist!

The only argument my opponent has is that the United States needs to clarify laws to discrimate specific a group(s) of people. I maintain that this is completely unnecessary and works against the United States Interest. The issue is simply not worth the time of Government officials to focus on over much more important problems.