Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

Homosexuality is not moral

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
3
1521
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 468 / 5,000

THBT : Homosexuality Is Not Moral

Moral = of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

Homosexuality = the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you:

Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not Moral"
Contender's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Moral"

General Rules:
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Sources should be posted in the debate rounds, hyperlinked or otherwise
3. Burden of Proof is shared

Round 1
Pro
Foreword 

I thank my opponent TXHG for accepting this debate. Before I begin, I have a few definitions to clarify. 


There is no doubt that, upon reading this resolution, there was shock, dismay and disgust. Rest assured that I am not homophobic and that, after reading my argument,  you may have a very different perception about my seemingly uneducated view. 

The reiterate The House Believes That: Homosexuality is not moral. As agreed, the BoP is as follows. 

Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not Moral"
TXHG: "Homosexuality Is Moral"

There are two ways in which I can satisfy my BoP. 

  1. I can go down the path of disavowing the status of being homosexual or 
  2. I could question the hidden premise within my resolution. 
As I am not homophobic and see no issue with homosexuals, I shall be going down the second path. 

The hidden contention 

When I state that "homosexuality is not moral", I am in no way alluding to the fact that homosexuality is immoral. I am simply making a statement on how ridiculous the fundamental question is. For one to say "homosexuality is moral/immoral" is to incorrectly presume that homosexuality falls within the "moral sphere", that is things that can be critiqued and judged by morality. In the following segment, I shall demonstrate how homosexuality cannot be judged by morality, therefore making is "not moral". 

The moral sphere

In the world, actions can be categorised into moral and amoral. In order for something to fall in the moral sphere, there must be

a) A conscious agent performing an act 

b) The act must have some consequence. 

To visualise this better, I shall make use of (some sort of) TABLE(of which was used by Alex O'Connor, aka the CosmicSkeptic) 

                                                                                 Conscious       Unconscious
                       Affects wellbeing                   |_____W_____|_____X_____|
                       Doesn't affect wellbeing    |_____Y______|_____Z_____|
                     
In order for an act to be considered applicable for the moral sphere, it must affect wellbeing and be a conscious act, W. All the other options cannot be considered "moral act"
 
In the case of X, if someone were to be mind controlled to commit murder, one could hardly apply moral weight on the puppet. 
In the case of Y and Z if an action were to have no effect on wellbeing, and morality is all about wellbeing, then it would not be applicable. 

Now that we have determined how an action can be weighed, I shall be inserting the case of homosexuality to see if it upholds. 

Does homosexuality effect wellbeing?

As you accepted this debate presumably supporting homosexuality, I see no need to dwell on this point. I'm sure my opponent agrees that there are no notable effects of homosexuality of which should be used to make a case against it. 

Is homosexuality conscious

Though there is a heated debate about this in the world of politics, the debates usually have the following two qualities clash. Either 

A)Homosexuality is natural and determined by birth (Nature)

B)Homosexuality is instilled into a person (Nurture)

Upon a close inspection, it can be concluded that both of these options have the same conclusion. That whether instilled or pre-determined, it's not the individuals choice. If homosexuality is not your choice you cannot be held morally accountable for the action. 

Conclusion 

To say that "Homosexuality Is Moral" (contenders BoP) is no less absurd than to say "being white is moral", or "being tall is moral". We can't say being homosexual is moral no more than we can say it's immoral. Being homosexual simply is. It's not right nor is it wrong.



Con
Thank you to Wagyu for creating this debate.

Conduct

Before starting the debate itself, it has to be mentioned that  Wagyu has created this argument in bad faith. Wagyu mentions "There is no doubt that, upon reading this resolution, there was shock, dismay and disgust" but that they are not going to make the argument people believe and specifically talks about their argument as "The hidden contention". Wagyu has therefore made it clear that their argument was intentionally deceptive and presented in bad faith.

I will accept the hidden premise of Wagyu's debate as the true one rather than insisting that they act in good faith, as part of my argument will be showing that the hidden resolution has not actually been fully thought through and is actually trivially easy to disprove. However this debate will be ranked on a 4 point system including that of conduct, so I would ask that Wagyu's conduct be taken into consideration when assigning points.

Summary of Pro's argument

Pro aims to make the case that homoesexuality is unrelated to morality. It is neither moral nor immoral, but completely unrelated to morality. This is at odds with Wagyu's intended presentation of the debate which they admit was meant to present the debate as an argument of whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, but for the purpose of the debate to continue productively it will be accepted.

To support their argument, Pro uses a table for classifying moral actions that has been used by a YouTube personality. Pro makes the argument that:

a) Homosexuality doesn't affect wellbeing
b) People have no consciousness of their homosexuality
c) The Youtube personality's table says that actions that don't effect wellbeing  and/or don't involve agency aren't related to morality in any way
d) Therefore Homosexuality is unrelated to morality.

They have provided no evidence to support the contention that Homosexuality doesn't affect wellbeing nor that the table used by a Youtube personality is in anyway worthwhile nor that people have no consciousness of their homosexuality, leaving both of their contentions (and therefore their premise) completely unsupported.

My Contentions

I will content Pro's argument on two points. The key argument will be that Pro has not considered the argument correctly and there is in fact mountains of evidence showing Homosexuality relating to the moral sphere, but I will also make the case that even by Pro's own argument homosexuality falls within the moral sphere.

What does the "Hidden premise" actually mean and how will this debate be decided?

The debate centres around the contention "Homosexuality Is Not Moral". Homosexuality is defined by Pro as "the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you" and moral is described as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".  The contention, in full, can therefore be considered "Being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you is not related to principles of right and wrong in behaviour."

To win my argument based on Pro's argument, I therefore need to establish a relation between homosexuality and principles of right and wrong. Note that there is no benchmark I have to meet higher than a relation and that I need this relation to connect to principles, not absolute moral truths (not that most philosophers would accept the idea of objective moral truths anyway!).

This "Hidden premise" therefore is a question of whether I can point out any relationship between homosexuality and right or wrong in any moral code or school of thought throughout all of human history. In even a single one of all the religions and all the schools of philosophy that have existed over thousands of years of human history makes judgement on the morality (or immorality) of homosexuality, then that is  relationship to principles of right or wrong.

Conversely, Pro has to prove that absolutely no relationship exists between homosexuality and morality. Pro has attempted to do so for one school of thought used by a YouTube personality and I anxiously await them following through by attempting to do so with every single moral principle ever espoused in human history in their next post!

Evidence of relationships between homosexuality and principles of right or wrong

That such relationships exist is so self-evident I'm almost willing to handwave it as so obvious that it needs no proof as pro did for their argument, but to cover my bases.

To pick out one of many innumerable examples, St Augustine of Hippo, Christian philosopher who laid down much of the ethical and moral philosophy for large branches of Christian thought for nearly two thousand years [1] stated that "Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law" which means that his moral judgements apply even to desires (which is what is specified under the definition of homosexuality used in this debate) not just actions [2]. St Augustine not only viewed homosexuality as a sinful and immoral desire with procreation being the only moral rationale for sex, but even hetrosexual desire and lust as immoral too as all human and ALL such sexual proclivities were immoral desires brought about by original sin! [3]

This is a clear relationship between sexual attraction between people of the same sex and a set of principles of right and wrong. This is true regardless of how much credence you choose to give St Augustine's particular thoughts (I give it almost no credence).  On this basis, I have proven my side of the argument.

If Pro disagrees with my reading of the philosophy of St Augustine in particular, I can happily provide a dozen examples of moral stances in R2 if required.

Pro's argument that Homosexuality does not relate to wellbeing?

This is obviously incorrect as homosexuality is punished, including by capital punishment, in some parts of the world. [4] While you can argue those laws crminalise acts, not thoughts, that argument relies on the idea that living a lie and being unable to express your basic desires for fear of literally being killed will somehow not effect people's mental wellbeing in any way. Indeed you can find examples of homosexual people talking about the stress and anxiety caused just by societal pressure of their homosexual tendencies even in countries where homosexuality wasn't outlawed. [5]

Pro's argument Homosexuality is not conscious?

As part of their argument, pro moves the goalposts halfway through. The question he asks is "Is homosexuality conscious". The answer he gives is "homosexuality is not your choice."

In fact if you look at all potentially relevant definitions of conscious, you can see that consciousness and choice are separate and not synonymous. [6] Even if the origin of their thoughts and desires is out of someone's control (which is not a universally accepted axiom and Pro has not attempted to prove), homosexuals are still conscious of their homosexual actions, thoughts and desires. They do not subconciously spend years engaged in loving same-sex relationships and even get married to a same sex partner  and without "perceiving, apprehending or noticing with a degree of controlled thought or observation" that they are homosexual. Homosexuality is conscious.

As Homosexuality is conscious and can affect wellbeing, then even by Pro's own set of principles and criteria homosexuality is an issue of moral agency.

Evidence of

Round 2
Pro
Well that was all very interesting. 

I have to say, I am mildly disappointed at how many times I have been misrepresented throughout your rebuttal, but no matters. All shall be clarified in the following segment. 

===

Conduct Rebuttal 

Before starting the debate itself, it has to be mentioned that  Wagyu has created this argument in bad faith... has therefore made it clear that their argument was intentionally deceptive and presented in bad faith.
Just because you lack the ability to see beyond the surface of a resolution, doesn't mean there is case of "deceptiveness" or "bad conduct" in hand. 

However this debate will be ranked on a 4 point system including that of conduct, so I would ask that Wagyu's conduct be taken into consideration when assigning points.
Unless you can point out what I have done wrong, then I see no point in your fruitless complaints. I have created a resolution and will fulfil it in a way you were initially unable to comprehend. If am allowed to use any means I see fit in satisfying my BoP. As I have already stated in my last argument, I shall be using the unexpected way, that is, to show that being homosexual. 

===

What does the "Hidden premise" actually mean and how will this debate be decided rebuttal

The debate centres around the contention "Homosexuality Is Not Moral". Homosexuality is defined by Pro as "the quality or fact of being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you" and moral is described as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".  The contention, in full, can therefore be considered "Being sexually attracted to people of the same sex as you is not related to principles of right and wrong in behaviour."
Incorrect. To recall, the BoP was set as follows. 

Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not Moral"
TXHG: "Homosexuality Is Moral"

Your goal in this debate is to say that being homosexual is moral. And as per the definition being moral is to be right.  

My goal is to show that homosexuality is not moral. If I can prove that being homosexual has nothing to do with being moral, then it can be concluded that homosexuality is not moral, the same way how it is not immoral. The key difference is the word not. The reason you cannot pull this trick is because your BoP requires you to show how homosexuality is moral/good/right etc. 

===

Evidence of relationships between homosexuality and principles of right or wrong rebuttal

To pick out one of many innumerable examples, St Augustine of Hippo, Christian philosopher who laid down much of the ethical and moral philosophy for large branches of Christian thought for nearly two thousand years [1] stated that "Sin is a word, deed, or desire, contrary to the eternal law" which means that his moral judgements apply even to desires (which is what is specified under the definition of homosexuality used in this debate) not just actions [2]. St Augustine not only viewed homosexuality as a sinful and immoral desire with procreation being the only moral rationale for sex, but even hetrosexual desire and lust as immoral too as all human and ALL such sexual proclivities were immoral desires brought about by original sin! [3]
My opponent is clearly confused. Essentially, the following is their logic. 

If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation. 
Homosexuality has been commented by a philosopher
Homosexuality is a moral dilemma/situation 

Using this logic, the following can also be concluded. 

If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation. 
My mother commented on my intake of chocolate 
Chocolate eating is a moral dilemma/situation 

Clearly, just because someone has commented on my intake of chocolate, this in no way makes chocolate eating a moral dilemma. The whole purpose of this debate is for me to show that people who state that homosexuality is moral/immoral are wrong. So in short, Augustine is wrong and so is anyone who says being homosexual is to do with morality. 

Just because you cite someone who once categorised homosexuality as immoral, doesn't mean that it is anything to do with morality. Anyone can say anything. I can say that being Asian is immoral. I can say having long hair is immoral. I can say being short is immoral. Does this mean that being short is then considered a moral question? How can we even figure out what is and isn't within the moral sphere? By using my flawless criteria (of which has not been debunked)

If Pro disagrees with my reading of the philosophy of St Augustine in particular, I can happily provide a dozen examples of moral stances in R2 if required.
The issue isn't what Augustine has to say. I have already, with my table, demonstrated that being homosexual is nothing to do with morality. This means that citing certain individuals will not help your case as my graph can debunk their statement. What you need to do is show that my graph is somehow faulty. 

===

Pro's argument that Homosexuality does not relate to wellbeing rebuttal

… homosexuality is punished, including by capital punishment, in some parts of the world. [4]
My opponent clearly does not understand what I like to call primary and secondary causes. A primary cause is something which directly effects result of one's action. A secondary cause is a result of someone's reaction to another's action. 

For example, if being homosexual on it's own somehow bought about bad results (your mind commits self destruction), then that could be considered a primary cause. 

However, if a homosexual is attacked for being homosexual, then it is not being homosexual which has caused the breach in well being, it is the attacker. 

Just because a homosexual is attacked for being that, it does not mean that there is some moral reason behind the assault, because the effect on well being is not to do with being homosexual. 

Indeed you can find examples of homosexual people talking about the stress and anxiety caused just by societal pressure of their homosexual tendencies even in countries where homosexuality wasn't outlawed. [5]
Again, the same issue arises in this statement. The "stress and anxiety" is not a result of being homosexual, it is a result of societal pressure, which can be categorised as a secondary cause. There is nothing inherently "moral/immoral" about being homosexual. 

===

Pro's argument Homosexuality is not conscious rebuttal 

As part of their argument, pro moves the goalposts halfway through. The question he asks is "Is homosexuality conscious". The answer he gives is "homosexuality is not your choice."

I think this is a product of miscommunication. For the sake of the graph, I decided to simplify and shorten the terms (in no way voiding them of their meaning) for the sake of simplicity and aesthetics. In your opinion, which graph looks better.  

This?
                                                                                 Conscious       Unconscious
                       Affects wellbeing                   |_____W_____|_____X_____|
                       Doesn't affect wellbeing    |_____Y______|_____Z_____|

Or this. 

                                                                                An action of which was conducted my a free agent of whom consciously participated in an act. Unconscious
                       Affects wellbeing                   |_____W________________________________________________________________________|_____X_____|
                       Doesn't affect wellbeing    |_____Y______|_____Z_____|

However, this isn't all on me. If you visit the dictionary, there are two definitions of conscious. 


The first one refers to the state of being "conscious" and the second one refers to the state of being able to perceive and apprehend (the bold was drawn by the Merriam Webster dictionary) something. 

I assumed that my opponent could, using the very little analytical that it requires, connected the dot and used the second definition given. Nevertheless, they chose to revolve this whole paragraph on this seemingly glaring assumption (I struggle to even call it an assumption).

In the case that you honestly don't know what I'm talking about, here it is. When I mean conscious, I mean someone who consciously chooses to perform an act. Let's use the example of murder. 

If a murderer consciously chooses to commit murder, they can be held morally accountable. 

If someone is mind controlled into committing murder, they cannot be held morally accountable. 

Returning to the case of homosexuality, we can now examine whether people consciously choose to be gay. The following is what the professionals had to say. 

The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. As the ease and affordability of genome sequencing increased, additional gene candidates have emerged with potential links to homosexual behavior. So-called genome-wide association studies identified a gene called SLITRK6, which is active in a brain region called the diencephalon that differs in size between people who are homosexual or heterosexual.
-

Sexual preference is biologically determined.
-
It can be concluded from these studies that people do not consciously choose to be homosexual. If there is no choice involved in the case of homosexuality, then it cannot be considered "moral" or "immoral". 

===

Clarification of my premise and conclusion

I feel that your whole rebuttal was the product of miscommunication so I will now dedicate a paragraph to explain my argument in more detail. 

For something to be considered within the moral sphere, a free agent (conscious of their actions) must perform an action which effects well being. If either or one of these characteristics are missing, then the action cannot be considered within the moral sphere. I will now demonstrate why. 

Can an action which doesn't effect well being be considered moral? 
If an action has no effect on well being then an act cannot be considered within the moral sphere. Take sitting on a chair as an example. It is a conscious action which doesn't have any effect on well being, therefore sitting on a chair cannot be considered a moral/immoral act.

Can an action which was not performed as a result of a conscious choice be considered moral?
If an action is not performed by a conscious agent, then it cannot be considered within the moral sphere. If I were to be mind controlled into committing murder, I cannot be held morally accountable for my actions. 

===

How will this debate be decided

To clarify, the following are the standards each party must satisfy to win this debate. 

Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not Moral"

TXHG's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Moral"

In order for me to win this debate, I must show maintain that the either or both of my premises (consciousness and well being are essential factors to determine if something is moral) are true. 

In order for my opponent to win, they must show that homosexuality is moral. In order to do this, they must argue that people who are gay have achieved some sort of moral state. They must argue that being homosexual is moral. 

To give an analogy of the type of question my opponent is being asked, consider the following. 

Being tall is moral
Having black hair is moral
Being white is moral
Being heterosexual is moral 
Being homosexual is moral

All of these characteristics are things which do not satisfy the moral sphere and cannot be considered moral. However, as my opponent took this debate, they clearly do think that being homosexual is moral. 

Con
Conduct

Just because you lack the ability to see beyond the surface of a resolution, doesn't mean there is case of "deceptiveness" or "bad conduct" in hand. 

True. It's the fact you admitted that you were being deceptive which means there is a case of deceptiveness or bad conduct! Do you deny you tried to present the debate as being about one thing despite it being about another? Given how you talk in R1 about how your contention is "hidden" and I could very well be surprised by it.

You were intentionally deceptive and are now trying to place the blame for your deceptiveness on me. 

Please also note that despite you quoting "Bad conduct", this is a misquote on your part and the actual phrase I used was "presented in bad faith" and " created this argument in bad faith". Bad faith refers to holding one set of feelings but secretly disguising it and acting as if influenced by another. [1] Obviously out of basic respect for your opponents and an interest in openness and honesty, debates should be started based on good faith arguments.

What does the "Hidden premise" actually mean and how will this debate be decided rebuttal

Pro argues

Your goal in this debate is to say that being homosexual is moral. And as per the definition being moral is to be right.  

This is very easily checked and found to be untrue. The definition of moral as provided in both the debate description and Pro's R1 argument is:

"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"

I am therefore NOT arguing that homosexuality is right, as that is irrelevant to the debate. Instead, as Pro requested in the debate introduction and R1, I am arguing if homosexuality relates to principles of right or wrong in behaviour because that is what Pro required by the definition they gave. The ethical framework laid out by St Augustine of Hippo is a set of principles of right and wrong in behaviour. Homosexuality relates to it. I have therefore shown that homosexuality relates to a set of principles of right and wrong in behaviour.

Notably in the next section of the argument Pro even agrees he doesn't actually disagree with my argument, but just thinks it doesn't apply due to Pro's misconceptions over the definition used. Pro has therefore implicitly conceded that I have met my criteria for winning.

Based on the definition Pro themself provided I do not need to show that homosexuality is right or that it relates to principles of right and wrong.

We are therefore in the novel situation of a debator having tried to hide the actual meaning of their debate - but having ended up surprising themself!

Evidence of relationships between homosexuality and principles of right or wrong rebuttal

In response to me saying

If Pro disagrees with my reading of the philosophy of St Augustine in particular, I can happily provide a dozen examples of moral stances in R2 if required.
Pro states:

The issue isn't what Augustine has to say. I have already, with my table, demonstrated that being homosexual is nothing to do with morality. This means that citing certain individuals will not help your case as my graph can debunk their statement. What you need to do is show that my graph is somehow faulty.

This is the truly most notable part of their response because despite their continued confusion the definition of the debate being "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior", despite providing the definition themself, they state they have no issue with my interpretation of Augistine's argument in and of itself.

If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation. 
Homosexuality has been commented by a philosopher
Homosexuality is a moral dilemma/situation 

Using this logic, the following can also be concluded. 

If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation. 
My mother commented on my intake of chocolate 
Chocolate eating is a moral dilemma/situation 

Clearly, just because someone has commented on my intake of chocolate, this in no way makes chocolate eating a moral dilemma.
Not quite. Although my mandate if fairly broad, it isn't quite as broad as that. If someone says "Because god says snakes are evil, homosexuality is wrong" then that wouldn't be a valid argument because despite the claim - the two parts of the sentence don't logically relate. It has to actually relate to a set of principles of right and wrong.

My contention can therefore be summarised as

If an action related to a set of principles of right or wrong in behaviour espoused by an individual at any time during history, then that action is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". This is almost inarguable by definition.
Homosexuality was related to a set of principles of right and wrong in behaviour by St Augistine of Hippo amongst countless others.
Homosexuality therefore is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

As the debate criteria is to show Homosexuality is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" as per Pro's own definition, that makes me the winner.

Lastly, it's worth noting that eating chocolate is very easily brought within the moral sphere. Chocolate contains ingredients (palm oil, cocoa beans, milk, etc) which all have a substantial effect on carbon emissions and often has supply chains involving very low paid workers living lives of hardship. People often, (though a minority) do have moral principles which would label chocolate consumption a moral issue due to the impact on the wellbeing of the planet and others.

Clearly, just because someone has commented on my intake of chocolate, this in no way makes chocolate eating a moral dilemma.
On the other hand, if a set or moral principles has been created makes judgements on the morality or immorality of homosexuality then clearly homosexuality is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".

At this point in the argument Pro seem to be wishing the debate was "Which is the best set of principles to judge if homosexuality is moral". That is not the debate Pro made and just because you don't like that principles or right or wrong can be applied to homosexuality does not make it so.

The whole purpose of this debate is for me to show that people who state that homosexuality is moral/immoral are wrong. So in short, Augustine is wrong and so is anyone who says being homosexual is to do with morality. 
Pro, this is a really startling and out of there claim. We don't have everyone just assume you are right, which seems to be what you are asking for. If you want show that homosexuality is not of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, you have to actually show that is the case by making an argument.

How can we even figure out what is and isn't within the moral sphere? By using my flawless criteria (of which has not been debunked)
You haven't actually provided any rationale for why your table should be used over any other ethical framework or school that classifies morality.

Even if you did, it wouldn't be relevant. You didn't start a debate on "What's the best system for classifying if homosexuality is moral". You didn't define morality as "of or relating to EVERY principle of right and wrong in behavior" or even "of or relating to the principles of right and wrong in behavior as espoused by the YouTuber CosmicSkeptic".

As long as homosexuality is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" then whether it replaces to the specific principles used in your table is irrelevant.

As stated before, you seem to have been caught out by your own topic after trying to do that to me!

Pro's argument that Homosexuality does not relate to wellbeing rebuttal

My opponent clearly does not understand what I like to call primary and secondary causes. A primary cause is something which directly effects result of one's action. A secondary cause is a result of someone's reaction to another's action. 
Firstly, Pro's argument as presented in round 1 does not differentiate between primary or secondary causes. This is a post-hoc justification that does not actually appear in the criteria presented. 

Secondly, this harm to wellbeing can be caused without anyone else's reaction to their actions - as indeed this harm can be caused without any actions whatsoever. People do not need to be hounded and persecuted to internally suffer from fear of persecution despite a lack of reaction on anyone else's part - as indeed homosexuals may still be in the closet at this stage. It is possible for people to suffer completely internally based on the cognitive dissonance between their homosexuality and beliefs which state homosexuality is wrong. [2]

This is in essence what Pro admits would be criteria for effecting wellbeing:

For example, if being homosexual on it's own somehow bought about bad results (your mind commits self destruction), then that could be considered a primary cause. 
Pro's example is pretty much the definition of cognitive dissonance, a person's mind damaging itself and causing psychological stress due to holding mutually incompatible beliefs. [3] As shown this occurs in relation to homosexuality.

Again, the same issue arises in this statement. The "stress and anxiety" is not a result of being homosexual, it is a result of societal pressure, which can be categorised as a secondary cause. There is nothing inherently "moral/immoral" about being homosexual. 
You are changing your argument and are now adding the criteria that Homosexuality needs to be the cause. IN R1 the phrases you use are "must have some consequence" and "Affects wellbeing". There was no mention of primary causes or it being the direct result with no intervening or wider societal links, so are these irrelevant post-hoc justifications or are you saying your argument as presented in R1 was wrong?

Pro's argument Homosexuality is not conscious rebuttal 

 If you visit the dictionary, there are two definitions of conscious. 


The first one refers to the state of being "conscious" and the second one refers to the state of being able to perceive and apprehend (the bold was drawn by the Merriam Webster dictionary) something. 

I assumed that my opponent could, using the very little analytical that it requires, connected the dot and used the second definition given. Nevertheless, they chose to revolve this whole paragraph on this seemingly glaring assumption (I struggle to even call it an assumption).

If you visit the dictionary Pro uses, there are actually eight definitions of conscious, not two as Pro incorrectly states. [4]

Regardless, Pro's argument here, where they seem to think they are catching me out, relies on the idea that homosexual people do not apprehend - are not aware - that they are homosexual. This is clearly and obviously wrong. From personal experience which I'm sure many people share, I've met and talked to people who obviously apprehended they were homosexual. 

While you might be able to argue that in some niche cases, in-the-closet people who've never confronted their urges aren't aware of their homosexuality - the idea that homosexual people who proudly claim they are homosexual, are in homosexual marriages, have gone on homosexual rights parades and proudly identify as homosexual are somehow unaware and unable to notice or perceive that they are homosexual is absurd!

In the case that you honestly don't know what I'm talking about, here it is. When I mean conscious, I mean someone who consciously chooses to perform an act. Let's use the example of murder. 
If that's what you mean, why are you using a contrary definition in the very preceding paragraphs and contrary phrasing in your R1 argument? Choosing to initiate something and being aware of it once it has initiated are two very different things. You are now arguing the former while in the preceding paragraph you gave the definition for the latter. Your argument is mutually exclusive with your own definitions once again.

Pro then provides two articles attempting to prove people do not have agency in homosexuality

The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. As the ease and affordability of genome sequencing increased, additional gene candidates have emerged with potential links to homosexual behavior. So-called genome-wide association studies identified a gene called SLITRK6, which is active in a brain region called the diencephalon that differs in size between people who are homosexual or heterosexual.
-
Of course, earlier in the same article it points out that:

"In a 2019 issue of Science magazine, geneticist Andrea Ganna at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and colleagues, described the largest survey to date for genes associated with same-sex behavior. By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior."

So Pro's evidence that homosexuals are genetically driven to be gay actually shows that genetics is a minority factor in being gay and does not account for the majority of homosexual behaviour. This is of course Pro's handpicked studies and other studies find results such as "Evidence for a "homosexuality gene" was claimed in the early 1990's on the basis of linkage studies that, by current criteria, were woefully underpowered. Indeed, follow up studies gave contradictory results." [5]

Sexual preference is biologically determined.
-
This article is even worse for Pro's case as they are misquoting it. The actual full quote is

Is Homosexuality a Choice?

Ask this question, and you will probably receive one of two responses:

Yes. People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice, which government should discourage.

Or

No. Sexual preference is biologically determined. Government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity.

These two answers have something in common: With both of them, the science conveniently supports the moral decision.

“Being gay is bad. How wonderful it is that nobody has to be gay!”

“Homosexual behavior should be allowed to take place. Isn’t it fantastic that, by an amazing coincidence, there is no way to stop it?”

What if neither answer is right?
The article does not claim that homosexuality is biologically determined, it claims the opposite: that this is what some people think and that those people are wrong. Pro merely stripped all context from the argument. It goes on to explain that although biology can be a big factor in people's urges, people have agency and can learn, grow, adapt and change and shouldn't be considered to default to homosexuality out of their own control.


How will this debate be decided

To clarify, the following are the standards each party must satisfy to win this debate. 

Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not Moral"

TXHG's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Moral"
With morality defined by pro as "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" so the  more fully defined parameters standard being:

Wagyu's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is Not of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"

TXHG's burden of proof: "Homosexuality Is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior"

In order for me to win this debate, I must show maintain that the either or both of my premises (consciousness and well being are essential factors to determine if something is moral) are true. 
False. Homosexuality can relate to principles of right or wrong in behaviour without relating to the specific principles of one particular youtube. Pro's argument is largely irrelevant to this debate.

In order for my opponent to win, they must show that homosexuality is moral. In order to do this, they must argue that people who are gay have achieved some sort of moral state. They must argue that being homosexual is moral. 
Closer but still false. As per the definition Pro themselves provided I must argue "Homosexuality Is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". I do not have to argue that homosexuality is within the moral sphere, just that there are sets of moral principles which relate to homosexuality. A way of phrasing it that the Pro might understand better is that I need to argue that there exists at least one moral framework which puts homosexuality within the moral sphere.

If Pro wishes otherwise they should have defined morality as "being right or wrong in behaviour" rather than "relating to principles of right or wrong in behaviour" which would have required an assessment of which principles of right and wrong are correct and valid, as homosexuality would have to actually be right or wrong. Pro cannot change definitions midway through a debate just because it is easier for them.


Round 3
Pro
Well that was all very interesting. 

Conduct rebuttal 

Do you deny you tried to present the debate as being about one thing despite it being about another?
There is a difference between being deceptive and being intelligent. I questioned the foundation of which this debate was built (knowing that you probably wouldn't) and debated in a way which you didn't expect. As long as both parties BoP and the resolution has remained the same (it has), then there has been no "bad conduct" 

Obviously out of basic respect for your opponents and an interest in openness and honesty, debates should be started based on good faith arguments.
Keep this in mind for later. 

What does the "Hidden premise" actually mean and how will this debate be decided rebuttal

Pro argues

Your goal in this debate is to say that being homosexual is moral. And as per the definition being moral is to be right.  

This is very easily checked and found to be untrue. The definition of moral as provided in both the debate description and Pro's R1 argument is:

"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour"

I am therefore NOT arguing that homosexuality is right,

My opponent seems to not understand that words have different definitions, which can be categorised from general to specific. The definition I have provided is true, however, it could be further built upon. While it is true that morals relate to principles of right and wrong, there is a deeper meaning which I thought my opponent out of "basic respect for your opponents and an interest in openness and honesty", would have picked up on. Sure, if you want to say that morals relate to the principles of right and wrong full stop, then you can do the same with the word immoral, as the word immoral does indeed relate to principles of right and wrong therefore closing the difference between the two words. Of course, common sense can draw a distinction between these two terms. 

On the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there are a further 4 definitions of moral that can be examined. 

b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behaviour
c: conforming to a standard of right behaviour
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
e: capable of right and wrong action

Though it is true that morals relate to principles of right and wrong (just like the word immoral), for the sake of a smooth and functional debate, I would thought the widely accepted inference of the word moral could have been used, on top of my basic definition, which are both mutually compatible. 

Nevertheless, it matters not. I am happy to let this definitional misunderstanding slide as I believe it will not have any notable impact on the course of this debate. 

Pro has therefore implicitly conceded that I have met my criteria for winning.
It must be so implicit that it escaped my knowledge. Could you point out where I said or alluded to saying that I wanted to concede this debate?

they state they have no issue with my interpretation of Augistine's argument in and of itself.
I can assure you that I have much issue with Augustine's statement, though I will save my rebuttals for when you mention him in depth in the later section. 

although my mandate if fairly broad, it isn't quite as broad as that. If someone says "Because god says snakes are evil, homosexuality is wrong" then that wouldn't be a valid argument because despite the claim - the two parts of the sentence don't logically relate. It has to actually relate to a set of principles of right and wrong.
I'm not too sure what my opponent is getting at. The following is what I did. 

If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation. 
Homosexuality has been commented by a philosopher
Homosexuality is a moral dilemma/situation 

Using this logic, the following can also be concluded. 

If an action has once been commented by an individual at any time during history, then it is considered a moral dilemma/situation. 
My mother commented on my intake of chocolate 
Chocolate eating is a moral dilemma/situation 

There is nothing exclusively non sequential about the second argument. I have not deviated from the meaning of the sentence half way through like your god and snake analogy. All I did was put your reasoning next to my reasoning, of which was meant to demonstrate how ridiculous your proposition is. If you find the second conclusion absurd, you should first inspect where I got it from. (your reasoning)

If an action related to a set of principles of right or wrong in behaviour espoused by an individual at any time during history, then that action is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour". This is almost inarguable by definition.
And again my opponent faces a grammatical issue. Just because Augistine says his principles of right and wrong relate to homosexuality, doesn't mean they do. If I pick out a poem from 3rd grade and said that it relates to theories of neuroscience, does that mean this is true? Consider the following. 

Homosexuality was related to a set of principles of right and wrong in behaviour by St Augistine of Hippo amongst countless others.
Homosexuality therefore is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour.

My third grade poem is related to a set of principles regarding neuroscience
My third grade poem therefore is of or relating to regarding neuroscience 

If I proposed that my third grade poem was related to neuroscience, there would surely be questions. Where's the poem? Let's testify it. Does it withstand critique? Is it logically sound? These are all things that need to be considered before coming to a conclusion about the validity of my poem.

You can't just say "well I say it's related. You want sources? Just trust me bro."

This is exactly what you are doing with Augustine. You are not providing any support for his claims nor are you providing any reason for me to believe his claims are valid. Once again, let me reiterate, just because Augustine says his theories connect morality to homosexuality, doesn't mean the connection is valid. The connection is what we are debating. You can't just nab a spokesman from your side and say "he agrees with me". I'm well aware that there are people who believe morality is related to homosexuality which is the whole point of this debate. If this isn't controversial, why would we be debating? The point of this interaction is to determine whether Augustine is right, not for you to say "well that's what Augustine said". The whole point of this debate is to say "wow Augustine says homosexuality is to do with morality, let's see if this is true".

If you want show that homosexuality is not of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour, you have to actually show that is the case by making an argument.
I have, by showing in my later paragraph that an agent cannot be held morally accountable for something which they do not consciously choose to do. 

As long as homosexuality is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior" then whether it replaces to the specific principles used in your table is irrelevant.
How can an action be right/wrong if you did not even choose to do it?

Can you hold a volcano morally accountable for the people it kills?
No because the volcano did not choose to kill.
Therefore the action of a volcano is not relating to principles of right and wrong behaviour. 

Can you hold a gun accountable for the harm it has done?
No because the gun did not choose to kill. 
Therefore the action of a gun is not relating to principles of right and wrong behaviour. 

Can you hold a homosexual person accountable for the action of being homosexual? 
No because the homosexual person did not choose to be gay. 
Therefore the action of a homosexual is not relating to principles of right and wrong behaviour. 

If I wrote a paper about how a gun can be held morally accountable for the people it has killed, does that mean guns are "relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour?" The least that needs to be done is for the paper to be carefully examined before we can make any questions. We cannot just say "well the paper says so". 


As stated before, you seem to have been caught out by your own topic after trying to do that to me!
What you have done is on par with opening a word document, typing the title "homosexuality is to do with morality" and sourcing it. It is utterly ridiculous that you think that mentioning Augustine's theory with no backing up will do you any good. True he believes that his papers relate homosexuality to right and wrong behaviour and I am here to show that he is wrong. 

Pro's argument that Homosexuality does not relate to wellbeing rebuttal

[My opponent stated]… homosexuality is punished, including by capital punishment, in some parts of the world. [4]
[I stated]My opponent clearly does not understand what I like to call primary and secondary causes. A primary cause is something which directly effects result of one's action. A secondary cause is a result of someone's reaction to another's action. 

[My opponent stated] Firstly, Pro's argument as presented in round 1 does not differentiate between primary or secondary causes. This is a post-hoc justification that does not actually appear in the criteria presented. 

Maybe because you didn't make your homosexuality in R1, where I sent out my argument first? You seem surprised that I have bought up a new point to your argument. How else am I suppose to rebut you? Of course I didn't differentiate between primary and secondary causes, I never knew that would be the necessary route to take. You could have debated in a very different fashion which would have yielded a different response.

Secondly, this harm to wellbeing can be caused without anyone else's reaction to their actions - as indeed this harm can be caused without any actions whatsoever. People do not need to be hounded and persecuted to internally suffer from fear of persecution despite a lack of reaction on anyone else's part - as indeed homosexuals may still be in the closet at this stage. It is possible for people to suffer completely internally based on the cognitive dissonance between their homosexuality and beliefs which state homosexuality is wrong. [2]
But this is exactly what I mean by a secondary cause! Upon a visit to the source you have provided, one only needs to look to the title to see where the issue lies. The article is titled "When Christianity and Homosexuality Collide". The fear does not come from being homosexual, it comes from the fear of your religion, and how you God will treat you. I'm pretty sure versus like 

"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
Leviticus 18:22

are what scare homosexual religious people, not the act of being homosexual. Again there is a difference between

P1. The state of being homosexual is destructive 
C1. Homosexuality isn't good 

and 

P1. The state of being homosexual yields unwanted reaction from my religion group. 
P2. My religion group no longer accepts me
C1. Homosexuality isn't good. 

As you can see, it is the religious group which pressure homosexuals, not the state of being homosexual. If you dissect the religion out of the question and simply look at homosexuality, you can find that homosexual people are actually a happy bunch.

Homosexual views are not inherently destructive, it is when paired with contradictory beliefs where the issues arise.

Pro's example is pretty much the definition of cognitive dissonance... causing psychological stress due to holding mutually incompatible beliefs. 
Even my opponent states that it is the mutually incompatible believes which cause issues. Anything can have a mutually incompatible belief. If I gathered a devoutful crowd and created a religion where happiness was considered sinful, then there would be a mutually incompatible belief. Does this mean that happiness on it's own is an issue? No, it is only when paired with my religion where the issues come in.

The state of being happy is not destructive, it is when an incompatible belief is present 
The state of being gay is not destructive, it is when an incompatible belief is present 

Pro's argument Homosexuality is not conscious rebuttal 

If you visit the dictionary Pro uses, there are actually eight definitions of conscious, not two as Pro incorrectly states. [4]
-_-

Regardless, Pro's argument here, where they seem to think they are catching me out, relies on the idea that homosexual people do not apprehend - are not aware - that they are homosexual.
I'm not too sure whether this is some sort of prank or not. I very clearly stated that, after mountains of demonstration 

…we can now examine whether people consciously choose to be gay.
Yet my opponent chooses to play blind. 

If that's what you mean, why are you using a contrary definition in the very preceding paragraphs and contrary phrasing in your R1 argument? 
My argument has been the same throughout this debate. In fact, in my very first argument, I stated 

 If homosexuality is not your choice you cannot be held morally accountable for the action. 
Whilst addressing my article regarding homosexuality, my opponent stated that 

Of course, earlier in the same article it points out that:

"In a 2019 issue of Science magazine, geneticist Andrea Ganna at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and colleagues, described the largest survey to date for genes associated with same-sex behavior. By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior."
Of course, later in the same article it points out that

While there is no single “gay gene,” there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain before birth based on a mix of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses.
I will admit that I misquoted the second article as I simply chose the top 2 sources which appeared on google. Here are some articles for compensation. 

if sexual orientation is a choice, then you should feasibly be able to choose to be straight again if being gay isn’t “working out”.
-

If being gay is truly a choice, then people who attempt to change their orientation should be able to do so. But most people who are gay describe it as a deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off or redirected.
-

If it is not a mental illness, then can it be changed?
-

This new research, he said “provides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life, a conclusion that has been drawn by researchers and scientists time and again.
-

As a result of everything I have read, learned and experienced as a mental health worker, I long ago concluded that homosexuality is not a matter of choice
-
When addressing my source, my opponent stated   
The article does not claim that homosexuality is biologically determined, it claims the opposite:
Again, I will reiterate. There are two factors which can change a human being. Nature and Nurture. Just because something does not happen biologically, doesn't mean it cannot be instilled upon a person. Either way, whether genetics or the way they were raised, homosexual people do not choose to be homosexual, do they? 

Again I will reiterate one more time. If someone does not consciously do something, that is, they do not choose to do something, they cannot be held morally accountable. 

Conclusion

Time after time, my opponent seems to stumble on grammatical issues. Nevertheless, we have reached the conclusion of this exchange in one piece and I would like to thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate. 

Sincerely
Wagyu, 
24/12/2020
Con
It's Christmas and I'd like to spend time with my family so I'll keep this brief as almost all of Pro's argument is irrelevant an based on incorrect definitions that I won't accept a change to halfway through the debate.

Pro's argument can be summarised as halfway through the debate he would like to change not one but two definitions, as he also seeks to change the definition of conscious hee gave last round as:

 If you visit the dictionary, there are two definitions of conscious. 


The first one refers to the state of being "conscious" and the second one refers to the state of being able to perceive and apprehend (the bold was drawn by the Merriam Webster dictionary) something. 

I assumed that my opponent could, using the very little analytical that it requires, connected the dot and used the second definition given. Nevertheless, they chose to revolve this whole paragraph on this seemingly glaring assumption (I struggle to even call it an assumption).
Now seeking to act as if he never said it.

Essentially there are two separate arguments happening. mine relates to the definitions given for the debate in the description and R1, Pro's relate to the alternate definitions they wanted to switch to in R2 and R3.

Merry Christmas to everyone and a Happy New Year.