killing these homos is not immoral (they r too different than us)
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: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 998 times | Debate No: | 58826 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)
 Pro H. erectus H. rudolfensis H. georgicus H. ergaster H. antecessor H. cepranensis H. heidelbergensis H. neanderthalensis H. rhodesiensis H. sapiens idaltu H. floresiensis  Con 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... |
 |
|
Pro 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. 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. |
 |
|
Pro 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'. Con |
 |
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by YaHey 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Preston | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
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 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Preston | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
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 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Preston | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 2 |
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 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Preston | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Is there even... I can't... THE IDIOCY IT BURNS LIKE ACIDDDDDDD!!!!
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | Preston | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 2 |
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.
i might take the opposite position next, i'm not sure