Instigator / Pro
7
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Topic
#2680

Homosexuality is not moral

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Wagyu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1504
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

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

Ah, Alex. Good content creator, and an awesome musician too

naise

-->
@seldiora

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1 (1 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision:
"This debate is hard to vote on. Pro successfully finds multiple sources that show homosexuality is not based upon choice, while ignoring Con's interesting claim on how the pope decided that the action was sinful and lustful in itself -- acting upon homosexuality. I buy both. I buy the idea that sexual preference is not a moral decision, but the only way to actually display homosexuality is to engage within it, with romantic acts, which is consciously decided and can be moral and immoral. As such, "homosexuality" is muddled down, leading me to tie the arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."

>Reason for Mod Action:

The voter did not properly justify the assignment of the conduct point.

To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.

The voter did #1, but #2 & #3 didn't happen (although I'm not sure that he could effectively argue #2).

-->
@Username

Explain why, did you read my vote? I explained explicitly why I didn't think that

-->
@Theweakeredge

Oh come on. It's clearly a misleading title.

-->
@TXHG

As I said, I'm pretty much as unbiased as I can - in fact I agree with Con's side, not Pro's side, I think that Pro is wrong here, but I don't believe that you have quite enough rebuttal here. Also.... definitely not, if you read my vote, you know exactly why I think that what Pro did was perfectly fine, in fact, its you I believe with the shifty definitions.

-->
@Username

Yeah, I wrote up an in-depth post and then lost it at around 95% completion when my computer crashed. With the holidays underway, really couldn't be bothered to do it again and basically the debate comes down to "Can a debater make up a new definition midway through the debate when they realise they messed up in the debate intro and R1 definitions" so thought I might as well be blunt about it seeing as the answer to that , and therefore all of pro's arguments, should be very very obvious IMO.

Probably would've voted for con if he didn't drop his own shell in the last round. Now I'm not reading this whole thing.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Hard to play the bias card when we're in such an intense clash.

-->
@Wagyu

I'll be voting soon, and as I am currently debating you in another detailed debate, I don't think anyone can claim "bias!"

-->
@seldiora

" Conduct to Con for Pro's hidden argument and the fact that he never made any arguments for immorality prove that he never wanted to argue for "homosexuality is wrong" but rather that the desire or attraction could not be within the moral sphere."

I believe this to be an improper vote. My BoP was never to argue that homosexuality is wrong. In creating this debate, I never set out to argue that homosexuality was wrong. From the beginning, my BoP was to prove that homosexuality is not moral, something which I believe I have fulfilled. Therefore, this hidden premise was something which could have been spotted by a skilful debater.

In order for a conduct point to be deducted, the voter must

1)Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
2)Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
3)Compare each debater's conduct from the debate

Please inform me as to where the breach occurred.

-->
@TXHG

Thanks for an enjoyable debate.

I think I agree with con

-->
@Sum1hugme

Yes, I'll be interested to see how my opponent responds.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Fair point. I probably just should have stuck with my comparison with height.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Yes, Alex never fails to convince

-->
@Wagyu

Lol, saw that coming

-->
@Wagyu

Your argument reminds me of My VR debate... heh.

-->
@Wagyu

I think the most controversial thing you said might be that being white is not a moral issue...at least in the court of fleeting public opinion.

-->
@Wagyu

You clever one you, you just pulled an Alex O'Connor!

-->
@Death23

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

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Leviticus 20:13

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
1 Corinthians 6:9

It's okay for a man and women to participate in oral sex but for a man to do the exact same with a man? That'll be eternity in hell unless you bend your knees and beg for forgiveness. The "acting upon" part doesn't really change anything. A lot of people believe that certain acts can only be morally permissible if acted with the opposite gender.

-->
@oromagi

Ah, an inexcusable error on my part.

Just being gay is immoral? Even if it is not acted upon? I don't think anyone actually believes that.

-->
@Wagyu

You have if you spelled oral with an M.

-->
@oromagi

Have I made a spelling issue?

Now "homosexuality is not oral" is a more debatable subject, if we assume the instigator is misspelling his conditional. Since Clinton argued that oral did not count as sex, I think the affirmative enjoys some precedent.

Every action can be weighed within various moral frameworks. Of course, it could be argued that morals do not truly exist.

-->
@seldiora

However it is worth nothing that at many pro-gay marriage rallies, you can almost certainly find people saying "gay marriage is moral" which is what I (take it how you like) disagree with.

I rather not get into how i intend on winning this debate at this stage, so perhaps you would like to keep an eye out for how this one turns out.

-->
@seldiora

:-)

-->
@Wagyu

I almost accepted but I realized you created a false dichotomy, so... no go for me

-->
@oromagi

I was hoping I would rally up someones emotion with my (seemingly) strongly worded resolution which would make them rush into accepting this debate without thinking too deeply.

That's not to say I was hoping to trick someone. Plenty of people believe that being gay is moral and I would have proved otherwise by demonstrating how that statement would be flawed. (in a way that you would probably not expect)

-->
@seldiora

Surprisingly, I'm not homophobic. I've got a few tricks up my sleeves.

The contender's burden of proof is no more provable than "heterosexuality is moral." The opposite of "homosexuality is not moral" is not "homosexuality is moral" but rather "homosexuality is not immoral." No one would argue that straight people have achieved a moral state merely for being straight so why would you force the contender to show that gay people are moral, inherently? If you change the contender's BoP to "homosexuality is not immoral" I'd be more interested in this debate.

-->
@Wagyu

whoaaa hohooooo that's a controversial opinion