Instigator / Pro
28
1763
rating
29
debates
98.28%
won
Topic
#3207

THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
2
Better legibility
4
1
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 25 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1465
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Description

THBT: Homosexuality is not immoral.

Burden of Proof

PRO = Homosexuality is not immoral.
CON = Homosexuality is immoral.

1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Burden is agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of rules 1-5 should result in a 1 point penalty.

-->
@StevenCrowder

Did you get busy? Want a rematch?

-->
@Intelligence_06

To be immoral is to violate moral principles. Homosexuality does not violate nor conform to moral principles.

-->
@Bones

No. Your stance is that homosexuality is NOT immoral. I get you are trying to tell us that it is neither moral or the inverse of moral, but immoral is defined as not moral, which homosexuality isn’t “moral”.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Exactly. Saying homosexuality is "moral" is like saying being black is "moral".

-->
@Bones

Well, one definition of the term "immoral" is not moral, and you have basically shown that homosexuality is unrelated to the branch of knowledge regarding what is right and wrong.

-->
@Bones

Just like our understanding of reality is "subjective" because we cannot be certain. We can be certain to a degree that makes me more confident in our reality existing than soliphisim, but not enough to dismiss the possibility, its a practical axiom that we accept to be 100% certain. Further, morals are on a basis of a human understanding, without it, we have no basis, or more accurately, praxis, for morality.

To be more clear: we have no actual evidence of human's importance on an universal scale, we matter because we ARE humans, its subjective at its basis. However, accepting the axiom that a certain group have moral value, or a certain aspect matters: like humanity or sentience (the latter for me) we can make objective rules on that basis's worth. The part that you have to listen to is because you ARE a human, any basis you could try to make for any moral work relies on the same basis, therefore you follow it. This is a very short, and a bit incorrect explanation, unfortunately I am busy with classes so here you go.

-->
@Theweakeredge

How do you assert that we ought follow moral rules, yet prescribe to moral subjectivism? Also, do you believe mathematics is subjective?

-->
@Bones

Certainly interesting, I'd disagree, I think morals are subjective as can be. Doesn't mean that they ought not be followed though.

-->
@Bones

By what standard?

-->
@Intelligence_06

I believe moral answers are as objective as mathematics and science.

-->
@Bones

Or not. Are you assuming that morals are objective and can be proven/disproven?

-->
@Intelligence_06

"You can challenge a debater this debate."

I know, but I don't mind if other's want to participate.

"Also, I think you are arguing a truism."

You'll be surprised with what religion can do to people.

-->
@Bones

You can challenge a debater this debate.

Also, I think you are arguing a truism.

-->
@StevenCrowder

for you.