The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Conversion Therapy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 3/9/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,940 times Debate No: 100729
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)




This debate will assess the effectiveness of Conversion Therapy, and whether it should even be legal.

Pro will argue that conversion therapy is a positive method that should be legal, while Con will conversion therapy is a negative practice that should be illegal.

1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.
2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.
3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.

R1: Acceptance

R2: Main Arguments
R3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
R4: Rebuttals (No new arguments)


My Sincerest Apologies:
I was unable to detect the profanity which eluded me, so I was forced to post my argument elsewhere.

It is the comment, submitted after, I shared Joshua Olorunfunmi's Post.
And it is currently at the top of my wall, and will remain there for at least 24 hours. at which post it will just shift down my facebook wall.

It IS technically, my Round 2 Argument, not my Acceptance Round, as it is that CosmoJarvis and Me are continuing a pre-existing debate.

Thank you for formally accepting this link as my Round 2 Debate Argument.
Debate Round No. 1


I. Introduction

II. Is Being Gay a Choice?
III. The "Success" of Conversion Therapy
IV. Is Conversion Therapy Torture
V. Sources

I. Introduction

I'm glad to be able to have this opportunity to debate GoOrDin, despite him forfeiting the previous debate on thsi topic.

My argument will enforce the belief that homosexuality is not simply a mere choice or "a fad." I will also analyze how "successful" Conversion Therapy is. My argument will primarily consist on reliable accounts, data and studies on conversion therapy.

II. Is Being Gay a Choice?

Is being homosexual a choice? Some may say "yes, it is a choice; an unnatural and sinful choice where people willingly turn their backs against God to pursue 'sexually immoral' acts." However, contrary to these skewed beliefs, modern studies have shown that homosexuality is natural. A founder of Reparative Therapy, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, claims that Homosexuality is a "social construct," and that "all people are heterosexual."

Recent studies have found that homosexuality is a genetic trait. According to a study conducted by Dr. Tuck C. Ngun and his team at the University California, a gene known as the "Xq28 Marker" is believed to be the genetic trait for homosexuality. To find this, Ngun and his team gathered 37 pairs of twins in which one was homosexual while the other was heterosexual. His team took a sample of blood from each volunteer and through DNA gel electrophoresis, his team was able to isolate what they claim to be the "gay gene," or Xq28 Marker (S1).

Bear in mind: Homosexuality is not restricted to just humans, and can be observed in other species. In fact, homosexuality is found in all living species, except for asexual organisms (S2). According to an observational study conducted in Yale University, researchers have confidently confirmed this belief (S3). Homosexual animals lack the ability to even grasp the concept of "sin" and "God," so to claim that homosexuality is a deliberate action against God is utter boondoggle!

III. The "Success" of Conversion Therapy

Conversion Therapy is a psychological treatment to change a homosexual person's sexual orientation to heterosexual, commonly through electroshock therapy. Conversion Therapy is fairly controversial, and for good reasons: practitioners rewire homosexual men and women to fear their homosexual impulses by associating homosexual ideas with pain (S4).

While some may argue that Conversion Therapy is effective in "praying the gay away," the actual success rate of Conversion Therapy ranges from 11% to 37% (S5), (S6). However, what is defined as "successful" varies. According to an article I previously stated,"success in therapy has been defined in various ways... [such as] behavior to continued homosexual attraction in the context of celibacy," (S7). Dr. Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 143 "ex-gays" who went through Conversion Therapy. He reported that 89% of the men still had feelings of attraction to people of the same-sex (S8).

Conversion Therapy is very counter-productive in fact. Many people involved in Conversion Therapy have committed or attempted suicide. For example, Bobby Griffith was a homosexual male who came out to his family at 17. Pressured by the stigma from his family and church against homosexuality, he committed suicide by the age of 20, (S9). And according to a study conducted by, out of fifty-five transgender teens, 25%, have committed suicide (S10).

Alan Chambers, former leader of EXODUS International, the largest ex-gay organization for over 30 years, has recently retracted his views on Conversion Therapy. He used to believe that Conversion Therapy was "righteous," but now believes that Conversion Therapy, as he says, is "I know that there are [homosexual] people that are so ashamed of who they are, that God couldn't love them for who they are, and that is something that will haunt me until the day I die... No, I don't believe [you can change someone's sexual attraction]." He said that practically 99% of people in reparative therapy, including himself, haven't successfully converted to heterosexuality.

IV. Is Conversion Therapy Torture?

Torture is, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary (S11), the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.

Conversion therapy is clearly a dangerous therapeutic practice designed to "pray the gay away." It usually involves using methods such as tying one's hands to a chair and putting ice on their hands, or shocking them while showing them pictures of homosexual acts to associate pain and fear with their homosexual urges. As I have explained before, Conversion therapy is no less than a fallable and flawed system, usually resulting in failure, and sometimes even suicide. The majority of patients still identify themselves as homosexuals, and those who aren't have said that they still feel these homosexual urges, and if not for the emotional trauma from the therapy, they would likely embrace it. For example, Samuel Brinton, at age 12, was forced to go to conversion therapy. In therapy, his hands were burned with wires and frozen with ice while he was shown images of men hugging. He was electrocuted for a month while shown explicit pictures of men (S12). The fact that a 12-year-old was forced to endure this torture simply because of his sexuality is appalling.

Many humans rights groups have called for the illegalization of Conversion Therapy for obvious reasons. In fact, the UN has publicly condemned Conversion Therapy (S13). On the 24th of January, 2017, the United Nations Human Rights Council presented the "Public Consultation on Protection Against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity." With this document, the UN Human Rights Council wished for the international community to implement "human rights instruments... to overcome violence and discrimination against persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and to identify and address the root causes of discrimination..." and to "end the practice of 'aversion'/ 'conversion' therapy (S14).

Conversion therapy is a flawed and harmful practice that profits off of the torment, and even suicides, of patients. According to many prominent anti-Conversion Therapy activists such as Samantha Ames, leader of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, it's practiced by either trained or untrained therapists or priests. As Ames claims, "Conversion Therapy supports an industry which is profiting off of the harm, and sometimes death of kids, and to one degree or another, conversion therapy is happening in every state of the country."

V. Sources



This is my Round 3 Argument.

You are obligated to and MUST, follow the link I provided to my Argument and argue against THAT argument as your criteria for this debate. Or you forfeit by default, and My argument provided in that Link stands as the Testimony For Conversion therapy uncontested - as that is not sources that support my arguments But is in fact My own personal contribution to this Debate.

Your argument failed to Enforce the Belief that Homosexuality was not simply a mere choice or a 'fad'.
2.) is being gay choice:
Your recent studies about genetics make you appear to be: very gullible, exceedingly; Biased; And without recognition of the term science. More over the validity of your sources were unsubstantiated. More over, if any such experiment was conducted, I am sure I can explain it: It doesn't find homosexual genes, they replicated a formula that produced expected results, and demonstrated it on various candidates.
3) The Success:
Referencing any conduct previously attempted does not testify against the validity of Concersion Therapy, because it can be suggested that the therapy was ill-conducted/ or miss-conducted. We are not defending any specific treatment nor Practitioner previously in practice, We are defending Conversion Therapy.
4) Is CT Torture:
NO. Conversion Therapy is not to get the candidate to Say or DO anything, but is in fact only to get them to Consider/Contemplate something, which they impudently refused prior in favor of insolently postponing acknowledgment to address their bigoted diversions from such a Thought on many occasions prior to the C.T.

I argue that my opponent neither considered the Subject, the Subject of C.T. nor the condition of available alternatives.

Fortunately for us, My opponent must address my Arguments before he gets to stipulate over these comments. However, this anti-summary of his arguments does not stand as a testimony for my understanding of those statements.

1) My opponent argues that his evaluation of the data, accounts and studies was competent and reliable in itself. Yet, we don not even know if the one recording the information was in himself reliable, competent or honest for that matter.

2) Being gay is an affliction. Is it a choice to act gay? Yes. Is it a choice to disregard the consequences of homosexuality on oneself or others? Yes. Your Motives are always apparent, and in your motives all alternative constructs are accounted for. Your brain is competent to render these result. Otherwise, we're just claiming Homosexuals are incompetent imbeciles of criminal offenses who are a threat to society via reinforcing a culture of criminal womanizers and capitalist whore-mongering ~ That is not my argument, I deduct Incompetent, which is the only thing they have going for them. Is a Homosexual responsible for all their own actions, the same way everyone else is? Yes.
And indeed, Is a Homosexual responsible for all his own behaviours + Attitudes, as is everyone? Yes.
Can I address scientifically a plethora of causes of homosexuality that collaborate to afflict an malleable vessel, indeed.
Can a homosexual Impose homosexuality upon a child? Yes. (in fact I know a child rape victim, who identifies as gay.)

3) A successful conversion, does not specifically render a fruitful citizen. So the success story could be rather mute. I am not suggesting there ever was one. The Success of a Conversion therapy is to not Associate one's personal Identity with Pain, But to force them to actually consider the Condition of the Initial Problem. Once they consider it, They can no longer deny it, and the resolution is solves.

Quote me. The full grand sum of my Argument that I provided a link to, that was in Quotes. Do so, and actually register those words. As apposed to skimming or overlooking them. And tell me that after Registering those thoughts, you haven't been properly treated.

The quality of Conversion is in the Quality of Treatment, NOT the variety ~ For a sexual topic, that should have been a front running Notion while posting "The "Success" of Conversion Therapy."

4.) But is it torture. Of Course Not. Has Conversion Therapy, like Consensual Sex become Rape or Abuse, perhaps more often than not? yes.
Hence one reason, that Even though I think Homosexuals deserve what is coming to them, I do not wish it upon children, or victims of psychopaths and perverts.

Social Equality is not when we all suffer equally, It is when only one person gets bitten by the snake, or only one person stubs there experiences the woe of a steep fall in naivety, It is when We don't all suffer at the expense of Making an idiot an Ideological Character - IN a world of Bigots.
Debate Round No. 2


I appreciate you coming to debate me, even after admitting to be quite a charlatan at this subject. I'm glad that you at least attempted to try debating this new topic.

Firstly, I apologize to my opponent, GoOrDin, because after viewing some of his argument, I was confused. He marks homosexuals as being "bigoted fools" for not submitting to their "obligations as a participant of conversation or as members of society when their impudence is addressed TO use the application(s*) of logic and acknowledgment." All I can say is that I'm confused, nothing less.

In fact, my opponent's argument is littered with this odd rhetoric. He seems to drone on, and on, about nonexistent things. His entire argument is composed of slander, homophobic slurs, and ridiculous hypotheticals. He accuses homosexuals of "endorsing a culture which is: structurally reinforcing the endablemnet of womanizers, criminals, capitalist wh***mongers, strangers, abusive boyfriends, drug addicts and perverts ~ to the children!"

I was left baffled, and a wee bit amused. This is clearly some sort of joke or troll. I could imagine that, because my opponent posted his argument on a Facebook post, he could certainly change the post into something more serious and presentable and call me outright ludicrous. For any spectator that wishes to look at my opponent's argument, I will be posting either the entire text or a series of screenshots of it.

But in all seriousness, to refute my opponent's argument, he doesn't provide any credible evidence, leaving only homophobic slurs and describes an unrealistic situation about homosexuals. Nothing in his argument even mentions the benefits or success of conversion therapy, nor is even relative to the topic.


I naturally assume my Opponent didn't actually read my argument. And to say the least, he may have almost skimmed it, without actually taking the time or effort to recognize the Ideas being presented.
In effect, I believe that he is not actually debating with me any more at all. But in fact fulfilled the prerequisites for being a candidate of Conversion therapy to my specifications: for not submitting to their "obligations as a participant of conversation or as members of society when their impudence is addressed TO use the application(s*) of logic and acknowledgment."

The Impudence being addressed, is in Fact their lack of Regard or Consideration for the consequences, agents and condition of all things including Human Behaviour.

The "Odd Rhetoric", was not referenced, to indicate where my comments lead to loose ends or poor presentation, or were incomprehensible. He states that I seem to drone on, Indicating, being the cause of my natural assumption that He didn't not read my Argument and therefor has forfeited the debate by default. Unless he can otherwise prove that he read my arguments In Favor of Using Conversion Therapy via the specific criteria I used through* Example.

I did not use hypotheticals. I was expressing when Conversion Therapy could have permitted physical abuse had an ARROGNAT or INSOLENT or IMPUDENT patient decided to reject the True, Significant and Imperative information being proposed for consideration on account of the patient's Consequential Behaviours, Attitudes and Actions.

I feel I am not obligated to stipulate over the whereabouts of my debate contribution, as I was unable to detect the profanity after multiple Microsoft word re-reads and application of Word-Finder.

This "Unrealistic Situation" that My opponent suggest I am presenting, IS clearly NOT about the subject of C.T. but is in fact the LGBT. WHILE, that situation I presented was NOT Unrealistic in the least. Not 1 iota of the things I theoretically presented to the client - in the act of associating Pain with Homosexuality - was fallible to any degree.

The success and validity of C.T. was argued for abundantly through: A provision, of Denying the patient the audacity to disregard what was being expressed to 'him'; and enforcing the application of discipline when the patient refused to pay attention ~ Because, what was being said was of consequence, that was NOT from a bigoted stand point, While the Patient was Clearly Proven to be.

Cheers Nuckas. I have no right to follow up from here.
But. As we can see:
My Opponent did not address CT from a realistic view point, but was instead a narcissistic one ; while in fact diverting your attention from what CT actually is, to what psychiatric practitioners manifested in allusion to CT which can easily be said to be inhumane.
He asserted my argument was profane, which is not an accurate summary;
and he missed what my argument was, and without making verifications in 'Comments' still had the audacity to refute my arguments. Which breaks an essential rule of Debate:

**No one can make reference to, theoretical or otherwise, A subject which they cannot comprehend.** Referencing the reference of such a subject is NOT, an application of that subject itself. The one incapable of comprehending a Subject cannot under any circumstance make reference to IT, as IT is, as IT is being stipulated nor otherwise. ]]

An example, for example of breaking this rule, IS Making a reference to "God", While proposing that "God is responsible for the action of men, as apposed to men being 100% responsible for their own actions.": That merely is not a reference to God. "GOD, IS Holistically Everything as a grand sum - Sin being will-full absence of consideration - in a Holistic condition to which Man is 100% responsible for his own actions." - Any reference to God in any other condition, Is NOT in any degree the least of a reference to the Character of God.

Good day, sir.
Debate Round No. 3


This round, I will respond to my opponent's rebuttals on my argument made in Round Two.

"Your argument failed to Enforce the Belief that Homosexuality was not simply a mere choice or a 'fad'... Your recent studies about genetics make you appear to be: very gullible, exceedingly; Biased; And without recognition of the term science. More over the validity of your sources were unsubstantiated."
Clearly, my opponent has failed to read through my argument. I have carefully refuted the belief that Homosexuality is a choice by both
explaining how it is abundant in nature, and recent studies conducted by scientists in the University of California that discovered the "Gay Gene," or Xq28 marker. Additionally, my opponent suggests that I am "very gullible" for having using the sources that I have previously chosen. This also suggests that my opponent has not even briefly viewed my argument or is simply using this idea because he fails to come up with a better rebuttal, as demonstrated by how he has not specifically addressed which sources appear to be "exceedingly biased" and invalid. Ironically, my opponent failed to use any sources in his argument. In fact, his argument is one hypothetical situation in which he is a therapist trying to convert a homosexual... (Yes, it is fairly ridiculous.)

"We are not defending any specific treatment nor Practitioner previously in practice, We are defending Conversion Therapy."
Again, my opponent is trying to find any excuse to make a rebuttal towards my argument by saying how my data is supposedly "inconclusive" because, at least he assumes, that the success rates I have taken were from a small group of patients, presumably of failed practitioners. However, I have reinforced the statistics I introduced of a low success rate of Conversion Therapy by using two credible sources, both agreeing on how Conversion Therapy, for the most part, is unsuccessful.

"Is CT Torture: NO."
I find this to be incredibly ironic. In my opponent's argument, my opponent names an imaginary situation where he is a therapist trying to convert a homosexual to heterosexuality. GoOrDin does not spare any lurid or graphic details in how he "conducts" Conversion Therapy. He openly says that he would hit his "patient," saying that "injury is applied on the account of [the homosexual man's] bigotry." He later defines "bigotry" as being an endorsement of "a culture which is" structurally reinforcing the enablement of womanizers, criminals, capitalist wh***mongerers, strangers, abusive boyfriends, drug addicts and perverts to the children!" He proceeds by saying "I'd use a double-handed
bunt to the side of [the homosexual man's] head." He ends his "argument," or a lack of one, with "I'd take [the homosexual man] and bring him to the door, drag him to the exit by the collar, murmuring insults [such as] 'Say, think you're good enough to run the planet?' ... and as I open the door, I'd bash that s*** head, like I'd been dreaming of, and as they hit the ground, I'd tell them to get the f*** off my property they're trespassing, and about to be charged with sexual harassment... Cheers." Joke or not, my opponent's argument is no less than revolting, and openly endorses violence against homosexuals.

"Is it a choice to act gay? Yes... Can I address scientifically a plethora of causes of homosexuality that collaborate to afflict an malleable vessel, indeed. Can a homosexual Impose homosexuality upon a child? Yes. (in fact I know a child rape victim, who identifies as gay.)"
Again, my opponent has a complete disregard for my argument and the facts that I have
presented, and suggests things such as the belief of homosexuality being a choice without any sources to back up these baseless ideas. Additionally, his comment on how he believes people can impose homosexuality upon a child by elaborating how he knows a rape victim who identifies as gay is not only unreliable information, but is inappropriate and disrespectful.


Turning a Blind eye, to calamity, merits discipline.
I hope the voters, read the arguments carefully, as I am not permitted to Rebuttal or make arguments this round.

and thank You CosmoJarvis for facilitating me.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
Good debate.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
thanks. I was deciding how I was going to post now... something subtle. Like how Discipline can be physical afflictions.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
I remind you: because you have already posted your two rebuttals, you cannot use the fourth round as another chance for rebuttals.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
and so, I say, "No wonder someone cannot comprehend God, if they suggest that "he" is responsible fro actions. They should try considering God.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
"He states that I seem to drone on, Indicating, being the cause of my natural assumption that He didn't not read my Argument and therefor has forfeited the debate by default. "

Didn't not...
spelling error.

LOL. completely bauched that sentence and point. XD
ouch. that's a point on the spelling meter.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
thanks for responding. I'll get back to this ASAP.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
Sure, sure
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
No. this debate is a continuation of the first contact.
it's not disrespectful, and in fact it is ironic.

I encourage you to move forward, and rebuttal My Round 2 Submission, which I have provided a link for to my facebook.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
Just know that I find it disrespectful to ignore the rules I set in place. If you wanted to negotiate this in advance, I would try to help you find some solution to either respect the rules or change them. Posting your argument in the first round is downright breaking the rules, but for the purposes of debating, I'll continue the debate nevertheless.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
By no means should you be posting your rebuttals in round two. I laid out a fairly understandable and straight-forward plan for this debate, and you're clearly going against it. You didn't even have the courtesy to ask me if you could post your rebuttals in round two. This hastiness and indifference to the rules has interrupted the flow of the debate.
I guess I will proceed with the debate regardless but bear in mind that posting your rebuttals on round two means that you must post your second wave of rebuttals on round three, and must refrain from making any more arguments or rebuttals on round four.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.