Homosexuality is Immoral
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
My opponent will be arguing that homosexuality is immoral. I will be arguing that it is not immoral. If you are planning to use quotes or statistics, do not forget to cite your sources.
"First, Con has to let us know what is the basis for morality."
"It has broken homes, devastated wives, confused children and has led to widespread AIDS all over the world."
"Homosexuals have committed suicide and there is an even higher homicide rate among them than among heterosexuals."
"That personal trait is called sin. We are all born with a tendency to sin.
"Is it immoral to go to war? War is harmful to many people yet it is necessary in order to defeat enemies. How about life imprisonment, that is harmful to many people. What about the businesses that produce cigarettes and beer? They harm many people, are they immoral? What about abortion, that causes harm to many babies, is that immoral? So obviously some people have reason to harm others and it is considered moral."
"AIDS is also spread by heterosexual sex"This is true. That is why sex outside of marriage is also a sin.
""homosexuals can easily avoid getting AIDS during sex by simply using a condom."This is also true, yet obviously they don't or else we would not have an AIDS problem.
"However, even if they did use a condom, we all would know what would happen if they didn't."
"My morality comes from a higher source that just arbitrary man. My source for morality comes from God."
Yes, but this only happens is one of the two have had sex out of marriage and acquired that disease. Therefore their sexual intercourse before marriage. whether homosexual or heterosexual, caused AIDS within marriage. However, two virgins getting married will not bring AIDS.
AIDS comes only through sin.
Part of your statement is true and part of it is false. Morality from God is not arbitrary because He does not change. Man does change, that is why it is arbitrary. There is only subjective morality.
This command you should know is part of what is called the Civil Law in the Bile. There are three types of laws in the OT. 1.) The moral law: this is the law for all people everywhere. 2.) The civil law: these are laws specifically for Israel as a nation. 3.) The ceremonial law: this is the dietary laws and the Temple laws. In our case the moral law would be that homosexuality is wrong for all people everywhere. The civil law is what God wanted the nation of Israel to do with homosexuals in their land. I do not live in the nation of Israel, I live in the USA. The worse the USA ever did to homosexuals was put them in jail. God never commanded the nation of Israel to kill the homosexuals when they were captives in Babylon, Greece or Rome.
I will not answer this question because it does not have to do about homosexuality. If you want to debate on that specifically you will have to create another debate.
reason for decision
con defines immorality as something you do that harms other. This was impossible for con to meet because homosexual acts have harmed other people. given the definition all pro had to do was say homosexuality harms people in any way and that would be enough to win.
pro uses three points to support his claim. One being homosexual act cause aids and homo acts transfer them. his second point is people get aids from needles. the third point being the emotional pain from a wife finding out her husband is gay. Con does not object to the definition of immorality. Which was his downfall because he was unable to prove that homosexual acts do not cause harm to others and thus pro met the definition of immorality And con ignores the needle point. mostly focuses on the transferring aids thing.
pro says
"It has broken homes, devastated wives, confused children and has led to widespread AIDS all over the world
con says
AIDS is also spread by heterosexual sex, and by blood donations. Does that mean that heterosexual sex and blood donations are immoral? Furthermore, homosexuals can easily avoid getting AIDS during sex by simply using a condom. Homosexuality itself is not the cause of AIDS, unprotected sex with strangers is.
all pro had to do was prove it harmed people. he proved it harmed the wife's and children emotionally. con does not respond to the emotional pain. so pro proved it harms other was met.
same with the needle
Pro provided one sufficient source. Although not being backed up by any arguments, I assume that the source that pertains to violence amongst homosexual couples was supposed to be a complement to his earlier point about leads to suffering. Then again, I can't be sure of this, so no points to Pro for not being clear in how it fits into his case and for not making an argument related to violence.
Pro brought up God (which is problematic given that it creates a 2nd burden on Pro) and the Bible, to which he argues that God's morality isn't arbitrary because he remains in the same state as he always has. This point is correctly deemed irrelevant by Con as he points out that it is an appeal to authority, one such authority that again, isn't proven to exist in the debate. Pro also argues that there are 3 laws in thr Old Testament that pertain to people: The moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Since this debate is about homosexuality in general, proving that homosexuality is immoral by moral law (that applies to all people) would give the most impact to Pro's arguments. He says that God only wanted those in Israel to kill homosexuals, but this debate is not about Israel, it is about if homosexuality in any case is immoral. Pro does argue that God made AIDS incurable as a means of punishment for homosexuals, but doesn't substantiate this claim with anything, thus making it hollow. He later stated that God didn't set the standard of "homosexuals must be executed" to moral law, which is a concession that homosexuality is not ubiquitous in its immorality according to God.
Again, there was never any evidence for God's existence, with Pro's only argument for said existence being that the moral law exists. This is not supported by any evidence and doesn't help his case.
To add insult to injury, Pro only cited the Bible ONCE, and couldn't do so for his "God made AIDS incurable" claim, which was an important one.
I will again bring up the no-source link from Pro, which couldn't adequately corroborate that homosexuality is a choice, so that point falls flat.
Overall, Pro made a lot of claims that he couldn't support, when he tried to, he didn't bother making an argument for the source, and couldn't prove that God existed nor that it is universally immoral. Con, being the one to negate the resolution, didn't have to do much to knock Pro's case down as the arguments weren't supported anyway, and by arguing that God shouldn't be a model for morality (essentially implying that Pro made an appeal to authority fallacy) and that he doesn't exist, he secures the win for what was the crux of the debate.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: CommanderCornJuice // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: His reasoning about the AIDS, confused children, devastated wives, etc. just shows how it impacts people around them including themselves. The AIDS through needles (most likely blood transfusions) show that being can actually hurt (and sometimes kill) others. If you normally hurt or kill someone, you can be charged for assault, manslaughter, homicide, etc. It was also a very good point when he explained the difference between Civil Law, Moral Law, and Ceremonial Law. Therefore, I think he proved the point of the argument, which may I remind you all, is whether homosexuality is immoral, not whether you support it or not.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
In addition, the voter does not justify either arguments or conduct as required. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments the main arguments; nor provides any explanation of conduct.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
Thank you for voting!
Trying to get someone to accept this again?......
Con even has an angle to take that will counter a lot of Pro's arguments:
That it isn't homosexuality that's evil, only acting on it that is.
This troll-angle is extremely powerful if Con does it correctly because it leaves voters who aren't dedicated to voting against Con, the ability to side with Con from two totally opposing angles on homosexuality as an act in and of itself.
whoever accepts to be publiclay shamed as this site is VERY po homos