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

Gay people should not be judged

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: People
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,165 times Debate No: 53778
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




First round is acceptance
Second round is new points and rebuttal
Third round is new points and rebuttal
Fourth round is NO new points and only rebuttal


I accept. I will be arguing that everyone has the right to judge anyone they please without harming the other person.

Thank you and I look forward to this discussion.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello my name is Emily and I will be arguing the Pro side.
So just to clear this up i'm not saying that gay people should get special treatment or anything, but should not be judged and should be treated normally. It's like this: Imagine you liked the opposite sex (which in today's society is fine) and that was wrong. People treat you differently and say "it's not right that you like them" and other offensive things. It's not wrong to love someone.


First I will take it upon myself to define the word “Judge” so that way we can clearly understand where this debate is going to go. The definition of judge is “Judged to: form an opinion or conclusion about someone, decide the results of (a competition), and to give a verdict on (someone) in court.”

I’d like to start my debate case with a snazzy analogy, but alas, analogies are like potatoes, they just don’t work. :) On a more serious note I’d like to thank my opponent for initiating this debate, and I’m happy to start my case.

My negative philosophy is that, “Judgments may not always be pleasant, but they are extremely necessary in the foundation of character building, law and order, and discernment. “

Contention 1: Law and Justice

Now the word Judge means to give a verdict on someone in court. If we shouldn’t judge homosexuals then we will be promoting a unorderly country and unorderly politics. We would be allowing homosexuals to run around committing crimes without any punishment and this country would fall to pieces. All you’d have to do is say, “I’m gay.” And then you could do whatever you want.

Contention 2: Freedom of Expression and Speech

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression through freedom of speech from government interference. If you tell people they cannot judge homosexuals then you will be removing these freedoms and would be unconstitutional.

Contention 3: Promotions of Critical Thinking with Good Types of Judgments

There's a huge difference between judging a person by their appearance or background, and judging a person by their actions and agendas. There are so many people that we come into contact with, and it's important that we judge their actions in order to make healthy decisions for ourselves. If we cannot judge a gay person’s behavior it will take away our use of discernment and the quality of our minds.

Contention 4: Promotion of Competition and Achievements

I do high school speech and debate and what happens is we prepare speeches and we preform them to judges. Then they will critique it and give ideas on how to make ourselves better. In this instance it’s perfectly acceptable to judge someone even if they are gay. It wouldn’t make sense not to and it would ruin the competition.

Debate Round No. 2


First of all the definition of judged is form an opinion or conclusion about (the source being Google). This definition was made directly be Google and if you searched it yourself you could see it. My opponent never stated a source for the definition and therefore by definition is far more superior.

The con side could have just made up the definition, so their point on not being judged in court is completely faulty. Also as I clearly stated in my first speech I mean be treated unfairly for who people love. They also stated that it would ruin the freedom of speech and be unconstitutional, but it's completely unconstitutional for people to be able to call people mean things and judge people not by their personality, but by their sexuality. It's not healthy for someone to dis someone else, in fact it could kill considering that people commit suicide. And very last they said that without judging debates it would be unfair, but again their definition was most likely false because they have no source for it.

Other Definitions

Other definitions that proves my definition is correct and theirs is wrong. To form an opinion or estimation of to form an opinion about to form an opinion about something to quickly form a bias and/or personal opinion about someone or something

I have proved my definition is most definitively correct so all of there arguments were false.

Judging Gay People Kills
The Stonewall 2012 Survey discovered that 3% of gay men and 5% of bisexual men had attempted to take their own life, compared to only 0.4% of men in general. In the 16- to 24-year-old age group, 6% of gay and bisexual men had attempted to take their own life compared to less than 1% of men in general.

There are similar findings for self-harming. 7% of gay and bisexual men had deliberately harmed themselves compared to only 3% of men in general, and in the 16- to 24-year-old age group, 15% of gay and bisexual men had harmed themselves compared to 7% of men in general.

So is it healthy to have people die or feel horrible about themselves? Of course.

For these reasons I strongly urge you to please vote Pro.


I’m sorry for not having a link to my definition it somehow deleted. There being, my definition comes from Bing which is equally as credible as Google.

Now my opponent has decided to contest my definition and substitute it with her own. She forgot to mention that the other definitions under the word Judge agree with mine which concede to mibe. Also one of her definitions comes from Urban Dictionary the leading dictionary of erotic definitions and are made by your regular people. The Affirmative was bothered that I could have made mine up when her definition came from equally average people. For these reasons we should drop the argument of definitions because mine is more superior then hers.

Now let’s go to the point. And because few words are always best, her burden of proof has not been fulfilled she didn’t prove that gay men commit suicide because they are judged, for all we know is they committed suicide for lack of judgment.

In debate when a opponent drops arguments that means they agree with them for lack of better response. Because my opponent has not responded she concedes my points.

Debate Round No. 3


First of all we CAN NOT drop the definition argument. My opponent stated that they got their definition from Bing, however when I searched it on Bing for this definition, and it wasn't the actual Bing website definition, unlike the Google definition which was directly on the website, not a link. Also the first link when I searched it was and although it agreed with my opponent's definition, that is only one source, compared to my four sources, so mine is much, much more superior. Also the Con side argued that I forgot to mention that other definitions under the word Judge agree with her definition, but the resolution states JUDGED not judge, so that argument is non-topical to the resolution and therefore that argument was unrelated. Then she argued that one of them came from Urban Dictionary which is made from normal people, but if everyone agrees with that definition (which they did considering it was number one) it is superior. Also not all of of my definitions come from the Urban Dictionary and are made from equally average people. My opponent also said that hers was more superior, but considering they have no source for their definition, and I have four sources for mine, my definition is definitely far more superior than my opponents.

My point did prove that it is judging that they commit suicide for not any other reason, because the title was JUDGING gay people kills, and the reason they didn't say it again was because as my opponent said "because few words are always best"
they shouldn't have had to say it more then once wasting space.

I never dropped any of my oppenets points and therefore she cannot say I agree with them.

Because I proved my definton is superior, and because I defended all of my points and attacked all of my opponents points, I strongly urge you to please vote Pro.


Search with Bing, “Definition of judge.” It pops up making it a Bing definition because it is supported by Bing. We really should not have used this whole debate to contest definitions. I wish my opponent had decided to debate my arguments instead of my definition.

My opponent never linked gay suicide rates with her statistics which are found in a BLOG. Blogs are not a credible source for quoting statistics.

My opponent never contested my points in which we call it a “Drop”. When you Drop arguments one can only assume they had no better response to them, which links to a concession. The famous debate quote that has been floating around is, “Silence equals acceptance.” –Unknown

Vote Con because Pro’s arguments were not linked and have not been proven and I substantially refuted my opponent’s arguments and they left mine unrefuted.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 7 years ago
If they break the law they better be. Why do the LGBT think their sexual preference means they should get special treatment?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither gave reason to lose conduct points. S & G - Con. Pro made a few spelling errors in the beginning of Round 3. Whereas Con failed to make any noticeable errors in proper spelling. Argument - Con. The definition arguments were unnecessary as all it takes is a quick back-n-forth to realize that both definitions start the same way, so arguing over better source was pointless. Furthermore, with Pro focusing majorly on that, she lacked in providing proper rebuttals to the original contentions raised by Con. Failing to show how it is unconstitutional for people to call other's 'mean things'. Also, just because Con didn't source his definition does not mean all of his arguments are false. Pro also failed to show how self-harm was related to name-calling or hurtful judgement cast on them. Sources - Tie. Both eventually shared their sources for the defined term. Aside from that, while quantity matters, Pro failed to source the claims that actually needed sourcing.
Vote Placed by Christian_Debater 7 years ago
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: Conduct is a tie because nobody really got into personal attacks. Spelling and grammar is a tie because both candidates had grammatical errors. I was going to give the point to Pro for spelling and grammar until about Round 3-4. Con made the most convincing arguments, especially Con?s originally arguments in Round 2. Pro should have stated how nobody should be judged, instead of just focusing on homosexuals. As for reliable sources, I put a tie since neither candidate really used a source to prove their point except a dictionary definition.

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