Instigator / Pro
14
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Topic
#3396
On average, one is better off not being LGBT
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1458
rating
7
debates
21.43%
won
Description
To be LGBT for this debate means to be either:
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or any combination of them.
This is an on average debate.
Better off: In a more desirable or advantageous position
Round 1
Pro
#1
RESOLVED: On average, one is better off not being LGBT
FRAMEWORK
- As per the rules of accepting a debate, the description is binding and our framework has been established.
- To be LGBT for this debate means to be either: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or any combination of them.
- This is an on-average debate.
- Better off: In a more desirable or advantageous position
C1. HEALTH
- According to "Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors," Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth." (1).
- Many trans people have one of the most unfortunate conditions known as Gener Dysphoria which causes an internal conflict between their biology and desired identity.
- According to Mayo Clinic: "If gender dysphoria impairs the ability to function at school or at work, the result may be school dropout or unemployment. Relationship difficulties are common. Anxiety, depression, self-harm, eating disorders, substance misuse, and other problems can occur" (3).
- Now one can argue that this is just trans people, so what about other LGBT people, but we can look at average health patterns within them and make an extended case.
- According to the CDC as Healthline reports "In 2019, around 23 percent of LGB youth attempted suicide versus 6 percent of heterosexual youth" (4).
- We can reasonably conclude LGBT individuals are more prone to suicide and suicidal ideation, so on average someone who si not LGBT will live a much better life.
- According to medical news today: "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other self-identified queer (LGBTQ) youth have higher rates of mental health issues than people in the general population" (6).
C2. AVERAGE QUALITY OF LIFE
- Let's agree that we have already established that LGBTQ individuals are more likely to undergo depression and other mental health issues as well as more likely to have suicidal thoughts.
- To solidify this argument we have to see on average how significantly worse the quality of life of an LGBTQ individual will be.
- As Healthline (4) further states:
- "The True Colors Fund states that 4.2 million youth experience homelessness every year and that 40 percent of these homeless youth are LGBTQ. This number is even more astounding considering that LGBT people make up only 7 percent of the youth population (4). Despite being a small 7 percent of the population they make up 40% of the homeless youth.
- LGBT individuals are more likely to be homeless.
- As the UCLA Williams Institute states, "LGBT people are nearly four times more likely than non-LGBT people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In addition, LGBT people are more likely to experience violence both by someone well-known to the victim and at the hands of a stranger" (7).
- LGBTQ individuals are significantly more likely to be victims of violent crime and assault.
- Finally according to INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON POVERTY, "People who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) have higher rates of poverty compared to cisgender (cis) heterosexual people, about 22% to 16% respectively" (8).
- We concluded that on average, LGBT people are more likely to be impoverished.
CONCLUSION
- In this debate, we are evaluating the average quality of life to determine on average, whether one is better off if he is not gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
- We can look at this syllogism.
P1) It is better to have a life of less suffering and greater quality, than not.
P2) On average, LGBT individuals have lives of less quality and greater suffering
C) Therefore on average it is better for individuals to not be lesbian gay bisexual or transgender.
We know premise two is true because LGBT individuals on average are
- Significantly more suicidal
- Are more likely to have emotional and psychological suffering in dysphoria and depression
- More likely to be impoverished
- Are more likely to be homeless
- LGBTQ individuals are significantly more likely to be victims of violent crime, and physical and sexual assault.
Onward to CON.
SOURCES
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/
- https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-
- https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc
- https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/gay
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States
- https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/lgbt-youth-and-mental-health
- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-lgbt-violence-press-release/
- https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/the-complexity-of-lgbt-poverty-in-the-united-states/
Con
#2
Okay, the first thing I’m confused on is what the opponent means by disadvantage or advantage. Disadvantage or advantage in relation to what? Orin what context?
First, I want to rebut what the opponent has said, as well as discuss "better or worse" or "disadvantage or advantage". In this way, I want to both reveal the flaws in the opponent's arguments and use of statistics, as well as show the flaws in their handling of the framework of the argument (not the framework itself, but how they treat the framework).
Then address the problem of context and understanding disadvantages and advantages in relation to certain things,
Then, provide examples of how LGBT people have advantages by the opponent’s explicit and implicit criteria,
Then move on to provide other criteria by which LGBT people are at an advantage.
First thing: I’m confused what the opponent means by disadvantage or advantage. Disadvantage or advantage in relation to what? Orin what context?
Is it more advantageous to be a fish or a bird?
Well, it really matters on context, doesn’t it? Also, it probably would’ve been better to be a fish when water levels were at their highest and a bird, most likely, when insect populations were their highest and feline populations were their lowest, and it certainly would’ve been better to have been a fish or bird before humans were around. Not only does the question revolve around the context of environment, the time period or historical context, but it can also be an absurd question. Would you say it was disadvantageous to be a sperm whale in the 1800’s?
Well, yea, sperm whales were almost hunted to extinction. However, it kind of misses a point. The sperm whales would’ve been fine if it wasn’t for humans.
Another point here, in relationship to whether or not something is advantageous or not is the degree to which the descriptor in and of itself has any direct relationship to its advantage or disadvantage, or the correlation between the descriptor or attribute of the thing and the direct affect on whether or not it possesses an advantage or disadvantage.
For example, if there is a rock that is red and a rock that is gray, what is the advantage or disadvantage one has over the other? None, they’re both rocks. Neither is a better or worse rock.
Now, let’s say we arbitrarily add the measurement, “Which rock has a better advantage in regards to being chosen as a part of a gravel driveway?” Well, at this point, the attribute of the rock’s color has no direct correlation with it’s inherent rock-ness, but the attribute of the rock’s color indirectly has a correlation with whether or not it has an advantage to being chosen for a gravel driveway.
So, the rock doesn’t have a disadvantage or advantage to rock-hood, or rock-ness, based on this attribute, but, in relation to this arbitrary metric, this attribute possesses an indirect advantage. It’s different.
You’re implying that there is something inherently advantageous or disadvantageous in regards to being LGBT. The point is that there are only advantages or disadvantages due to arbitrarily selected metrics. Because of this, it may appear as though being LGBT inherently means a higher suicide rate, a higher rate of mental illness, and so forth, but this may only be the case because arbitrary metrics decided on by society which put LGBT people (arbitrarily and artificially) into advantageous or disadvantageous situations/positions. But this does not mean it is more or less advantageous to be LGBT or not.
It is a neutral attribute. It does not confer advantage or disadvantage on its own. There is nothing better or worse about being LGBT.
I hope that makes sense. If not, let me know, I’ll try tore-explain it a little better.
Anyway.
Moving on.
You can skip to the “###” if you just want to see my argument, but, between there and here, I dismantle the opponent’s argument.
C1 Rebuttal:
So, beginning with the Trans Suicide statistic. This does not imply that it is better or worse to be Trans, it only implies to be that it sucks to be Trans in high school, which probably has some lingering psychological issues across a person’s life. This, to me, does not confer advantage or disadvantage inherent to being trans, it confers a lack of compassion in a society.
Are you ready to learn some critical thinking skills and how to use statistics?
Let’s start with looking at bullying in general, then move on to trans youth, then onto trans suicidality and mental illness as a whole.
So, around 15% - 22% of students in the US are bullied, and those who are bullied are more likely to develop or experience symptoms of mental illness, or a mental illness itself—up to 40%more likely, and (foreshadowing a later topic) 35% more likely to be unemployed later in life.
LGBT students can be around twice as likely to have reported incidents of bullying, with some stats showing around 50% of LGBT students have reported incidents of bullying, and Transgender students have even higher rates of bullying, with up to 61% of Trans students reporting bullying.
In addition, most bullying occurs in Middle School, with it becoming less prevalent in High School. This means, the earlier you begin experiencing trauma, the longer it affects you, the less developed socially, emotionally and psychologically you become. In other words, being bullied at a younger age is worse than being bullied at a later age.
What this means is that there is not an advantage or disadvantage to being a transgender youth. What this means is there is an advantage or disadvantage to being bullied.
We can assume that, if trans people are more likely to be bullied, this means they are not conferred the disadvantage of mental illness by any inherent attribute of being transgender, but of being bullied for being transgender.
You aren’t more likely to kill yourself because of being Trans, you are more likely to kill yourself if you’ve been bullied or have had trauma of similar kinds. Your own source mentioned that Trans people might be abused at home, by family members and so on. I’ve linked some stats to that as well.
And, using… your own source…
“
- Fifty-five percent of LGBT youth feel unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, and 37 percent feel unsafe because of their gender expression.
- Seventy-four percent of LGBT youth were verbally harassed because of their sexual orientation, and 56 percent were verbally harassed because of their gender expression.
- Sixteen percent were physically assaulted — either punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon — because of their sexual orientation, and 11 percent of them experienced this type of assault because of their gender expression.
”
Now, let’s actually break down suicide rates a bit more, and what this means for what you’re trying to prove. What I am about to try and prove is that transgender people are just as likely or even less likely to have suicidal ideation than the average person with mental health disorders, and that the mental health disorders trans people have are not an inherent aspect of being trans, but of how society, and people like you, treat LGBT people.
In essence, I’m going to show why you are a "black and heavy weight."
Lol jk, you are not "a black and heavy weight," but it feels bad to be called names, doesn’t it?
Did you like that little rhetorical strategy there?
Anywho.
I’ve actually found a few additional statistics on suicidality among gender dysphoric individuals which somewhat contradict what you’ve said (the importance of finding statistics across multiple sources, rather than relying on one source).
According to one source, only about48.3% of people with gender dysphoria report suicidal ideation, and only 23.8%have attempted suicide.
In another quasi-meta-analysis ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meta-analysis ), gender dysphoric individuals only have a .6% suicide rate; whereas people with MDD have a 20% risk of suicide, with inpatient MDD patients having a 2% suicide rate and outpatients having a 4% suicide rate; the attempted suicide rate of transgender youth is below 41%; and that individuals with psychiatric or neurodiverse conditions other than gender dysphoria are far more likely to die from suicide.
What this means is that otherwise normal people who suffer from mental illness, but are non-LGBT, are more likely to kill themselves. So, as far as suicide goes, you’re wrong. It would appear that trans people are less likely to kill themselves than non-LGBT people with mental illness, which might mean it confers an advantage over non-LGBT people.
The lifetime prevalence of MDD is around 20.6%; the lifetime prevalence of GAD is 5.7%; and the prevalence of personality disorders is around 9.1%.
However, only 7.1% of people in the US are LGBT.
This means there far more people in the country who have a mental disorder with high rates of suicide and are not LGBT than there are LGBT people in the United States.
To wrap that up, being LGBT does not seem to mean you are more suicidal than someone with a mental illness, and that any mental illnesses which could lead to suicide among LGBT people are more likely caused by bullying (at home, at work, at school, online, etc.) than by some inherent property of being LGBT.
C2 Rebuttal:
So far, your argument here just kind of reiterates my point: if it sucks to be an LGBT person, it sucks because other humans make it that way.
Did you know that if you are sober, you’re more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a drunk driver is? Which means, it's disadvantageous to be a sober driver, and it’s advantageous to be a drunk driver.
That’s the logic you’re using here, just saying.
But let’s go over quality of life.
First of all, you make a huge mistake right off the bat. You talk about homeless youth, and then you say LGBT people are more likely to be homeless.
Here’s another parallel to your logic.
Country A is more likely to have thunderstorms in May than Country B, therefore, Country A is more likely to have thunderstorms than Country B.
Just because it rains more in May, doesn’t mean you can make conclusions about the rainfall of the entire year without additional data.
Just because individuals of a certain demographic are more likely to face hardships at one portion of their life does not mean they will likely face similar hardships across their entire lives.
In addition, a higher level of homeless among LGBT youth still does not confer a disadvantage to some inherent property of LGBT people, but, rather, the treatment of them. Why would an LGBT youth be homeless?
Being homeless when you’re under 18,for the most part, has nothing to do with the youth, but with their family, with their providers, guardians and so forth. If someone is homeless and they’re under 18, odds are, it’s not their fault. It’s their living situation, their providers and their guardians.
In general, factors that contribute to youth homelessness, “include lack of affordable housing, economic insecurity, violence at home, behavioral health, lack of social support, and involvement in the child welfare system.”
These same factors are prevalent in the causes of mental health issues in LGBT youth. Lack of social support, abuse at home, and likely abuse at school, or a lack of the same social connections non-LGBT people or children at risk of homelessness would likely face at school.
Once again, no inherent advantage or disadvantage, but, rather, a difference in how LGBT people might be treated. Same goes for the sexual assault statistics.
As far as your poverty statistic,
It’s actually a lot more complicated than you’re making it out to be, which shows me you’re not actually engaging with the statistics, with what the statistics (and the aggregate conclusions of the statistics) are saying.
So, first of all, gay men are actually the least likely out of all groups (including straight cis-men) to experience poverty. Gay men have a poverty rate of 12.1%, while straight men have a poverty rate of 13.4%.
So, this shows an advantage for gay men.
In addition, cis-gender straight women and cis-gender lesbian women have almost identical poverty rates, 17.8% and17.9%, respectively. This means, among straight and lesbian women, there seems to be no advantage or disadvantage to whether or not you will live in poverty due to your sexuality.
Bisexual men have a 19.5% poverty rate, and bisexual women have a 29.4% poverty rate. The increase in poverty rates between bisexual men and women are approximately the same, by ratio, as the increase in poverty rates for cis-straight men and women.
And then, trans people have the same poverty rates as bisexual women. This, to me, shows there is only really a disadvantageous difference in poverty for LGBT people if you are bi or trans, and that gay men actually have an advantage here. This goes along with what I’ve been explaining so far, showing how the cycle of abuse can affect people, cause long-term mental illness, and that our treatment of LGBT people is likely what causes the appearance of disadvantage.
Except for gay men. Apparently, they’ve escaped the poverty trap and cycles of abuse and mental health slightly better than everyone else.
In addition, the total percentages(~16% poverty rate for non-LGBT and ~22% for LGBT) might be skewed due to the relatively higher rates of poverty among smaller populations of LGBT people. Gay men comprise the highest population among LGBT people, but bisexual men and women as well as transgender people have higher poverty rates, despite having lower populations.
So, smaller populations of LGBT people with higher rates of poverty might skew the poverty statistics.
As a rough parallel.
10 people have between 80 and 90dollars.
On average, they each have about 95dollars.
5 people walk in who each have between 40 and 45 dollars.
Well, now, on average, everyone in the room each has about 77 dollars.
So, you could make the claim that, on average, everyone in that room makes less than 80 dollars, but, actually, most people in that room are making more than 80 dollars. However, because a small number of people in that room make way less, it makes it seem like everyone else in that room is making less than they actually are.
(I used your own source for all of this, by the way. You really need to get better with sources.)
And this one
(And here's the stats on population sizes)
Moving right along now to my own arguments.
###
Okay, so, long story, short, that’s my response to everything you just said.
Now, onward to my argument.
First of all, to reiterate, we have to expand what we consider to be advantages and disadvantages, or, what we consider to be better or worse.
What metrics do we use to measure whether it is better or worse to be of a certain sexual orientation, or better or worse to be of a certain characteristic in general.
So, here are some inherent differences between heterosexual people and LGBT people that I would consider to be advantages.
First of all, bisexual men and women and homosexual men and women all have higher levels of the psychometric trait, Openness to Experience, which correlates, typically, with higher levels of intelligence. In fact, LGBT people and Gender Non-Conforming (GNC) people have higher IQ’s on average.
On top of this, bisexual and homosexual men have higher levels of trait Agreeableness, homosexual men have higher levels of trait Conscientiousness of trait Extraversion.
In summation, LGBT people are typically friendlier, smarter and more open-minded than non-LGBT people. Gay men especially are all of those things, and more. This means: LGBT people are inherently better than non-LGBT people, and non-LGBT people are the problem.
I was going to go way more in-depth on this, but it’s only round one. You have a whole lot you have to do tore-prove everything I disproved—like, a whole lot of mental gymnastics you’re gonna have to do—and I’m running out of time, and you can’t really disprove my argument, it’s kinda based (in science).
And I have two more rounds to keep making my argument.
Good luck.
Round 2
Pro
#3
- CON needs to cite sources for the claims they make, not state a list of random claims and dump a bunch of sources at the end because now we don't know which source is for which claim. This is very poor form by CON and it prevents me from responding properly
REBUTTAL
"Okay, the first thing I’m confused on is what the opponent means by disadvantage or advantage. Disadvantage or advantage in relation to what? Orin what context?"
- If you mean the definition of better off, we are talking about on average considering all the relevant factors that pertain to one's life and the quality of it. Would one be in a more desirable or advantageous position on average based on all the relevant factors we can consider and propose that impact both groups.
- Overall we are discussing the average quality of life and which is better off.
"You’re implying that there is something inherently advantageous or disadvantageous in regards to being LGBT"
- No, im not at all.
- While there are many inherent disadvantages to being LGBT, I am simply arguing that on average someone who is not LGBT is better off because of several reasons, whether health-related or societal related, etc.
"CON: It is a neutral attribute. It does not confer advantage or disadvantage on its own. There is nothing better or worse about being LGBT"
- Disagree. Conditions such as gender dysphoria are largely suffered by LGBTQ individuals. That's a significant disadvantage suffered by many transgender people.
- Regardless the debate isn't necessarily whether being LGBT is innately worse off (although it has its disadvantages). This debate is about whether one is worse off being LGBT.
SUICIDE
CON: So, beginning with the Trans Suicide statistic. This does not imply that it is better or worse to be Trans, it only implies to be that it sucks to be Trans in high school, which probably has some lingering psychological issues across a person’s life
- It actually implies a significant drawback to being trans on average, because conditions like gender dysphoria lead to increased rates of emotional distress that lead to depression and/or suicidal ideation.
- This is an argument in favor of my position. You admit that trans people probably have lingering psychological issues across their lives. That would contribute to them being worse off, no?
"LGBT students can be around twice as likely to have reported incidents of bullying, with some stats showing around 50% of LGBT students have reported incidents of bullying, and Transgender students have even higher rates of bullying, with up to 61% of Trans students reporting bullying"
- Sure. Thanks for providing this statistic. Therefore on average, one is better off not being LGBT because they are significantly more likely to be bullied. This is an argument in favor of the resolution.
- You have now made two points for me.
You aren’t more likely to kill yourself because of being Trans, you are more likely to kill yourself if you’ve been bullied or have had trauma of similar kinds. Your own source mentioned that Trans people might be abused at home, by family members and so on. I’ve linked some stats to that as well.
- Yeah, I agree that bullying plays at least some role in this. I never claimed otherwise so it appears as if you are refuting the air here. You are essentially making my point for me. Trans people are more likely to experience the severe bullying which increases these rates
- While this is the case, we can't look past the rates that aren't caused by bullying and are caused more so by internal psychological distress.
- For example according to a UCLA Williams Institue study: "The prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts was lowest (31%) among respondents who felt that being transgender or gender non-conforming had not markedly affected the quality of their lives (see Table 22) (Williams Institute)
- So Trans people who believe being Trans has not affected them still attempted suicide at a 31% rate. There is evidence that this persists without bullying.
HARDSHIP/HOMELESSNESS
Just because individuals of a certain demographic are more likely to face hardships at one portion of their life does not mean they will likely face similar hardships across their entire lives.
- I agree. I dont believe there is data to show that ALL LGBT individuals will be homeless for their whole lives, but I have certainly shown you that on average they are more likely to be homeless. I don't think your objection means anything.
In addition, a higher level of homeless among LGBT youth still does not confer a disadvantage to some inherent property of LGBT people, but, rather, the treatment of them. Why would an LGBT youth be homeless?
- I don't know the exact reason why they would be homeless. It could be several factors including discrimination.
- Your argument here is in support of the resolution, however. We can even fill at the end of the resolution with it and it. On average, one is better off not being LGBT because they suffer poor treatment from other people.
These same factors are prevalent in the causes of mental health issues in LGBT youth. Lack of social support, abuse at home, and likely abuse at school, or a lack of the same social connections non-LGBT people or children at risk of homelessness would likely face at school.
- Sure. All these are arguments for me.
- On average, one is better off not being LGBT because as you just claimed:
- They lack social support
- They are abused at home
- They lack social connections
POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES
- Let me address you conclusion directly. You say:
In summation, LGBT people are typically friendlier, smarter and more open-minded than non-LGBT people. Gay men especially are all of those things, and more. This means: LGBT people are inherently better than non-LGBT people, and non-LGBT people are the problem.
- I'm sorry to say but none of this matters to the quality of one's life unless you can show how it has benefitted them. You can be the kindest person in the world and if you are homeless and constantly bullied, emotionally distressed, or dysphoric you won't have the opportunity for these traits to benefit you.
CONCLUSION
- I will address your argument about poverty in round three because I want to dedicate a lot of statistical analysis to it
- CON's case stands on this line of reasoning
- LGBT individuals are bullied and therefore...they are not worse off?
- I'm confused. Most of your case was directly arguing from my side
- I have successfully turned most of CON's arguments around on them
Con
#4
This tells me that my opponent still hasn’t engaged with my arguments, or I didn’t explain myself well enough for them to understand.
God bless 'em.
Okay. So. On average, is it better to be a business owner?
Well, on average, they make more money than most people.
Also, you can make the argument that business owners get to make their own hours, no one tells them what to do, and so forth.
However, only 1/3 of all businesses, approximately, stay in business after 10 years. So, on average, it actually really sucks to be a business owner.
There were three things I was trying to demonstrate with my statistics and my arguments, as well as with what I just demonstrated here.
First, statistics and how we view statistics can be complicated, and the conclusions we make with statistics shouldn't be as black and white as you were making them out to be. This is what I was trying to demonstrate with the suicide and mental health statistics, as well as with the poverty statistics.
For example, with the suicide statistics, while Trans people have high rates of suicidal ideation, they are less likely to kill themselves than someone with depression, and the majority of people with depression are non-LGBT, just by the numbers. Part of the point with the poverty statistics was to show that you can’t simply say, “LGBT people are more likely to live in poverty,” as a blanket statement, when gay men are less likely to live in poverty than straight men, and lesbian women are just as likely to live in poverty as straight women.
Second, there can be advantages or disadvantages to things that we might not readily take into consideration. This was what I was trying to get across with the fact that there are more metrics besides yearly salary to measure why it might be good to be a business owner. As far as LGBT people, the fact that LGBT people are, on average, more creative is a metric to show why it might be better to be LGBT.
Third, how we perceive advantage or disadvantage is relative. For example, it probably would’ve been great to have a tech startup in 1999 (small business owner). It would’ve been really bad to have one in 2000.
I believe I saw somewhere in either your or my stats that LGBT people face higher levels of poverty in rural areas, so LGBT people might fare better in urban cultures. On top of that, there are certain industries where LGBT are more represented, such as banking, insurance, tech, law, business and financial industries, and these are often lucrative job markets. So, LGBT people might do better in different work environments, and, in those settings, might be conferred advantages on average.
So, it all depends. Advantages and disadvantages are relative, you fixate on only a few metrics and perspectives, and you
The point I’m trying to make with LGBT people and bullying is that the major disadvantages LGBT people have are not mental health problems, poverty, suicidality and so forth. Those are not disadvantages of being LGBT, those are disadvantages of your environment, of childhood development, and other traumas.
The actual disadvantage here for LGBT people is how they’re treated. That’s what the statistics actually show. That was the point I was making.
I am running out of time, so I have to be somewhat brief.
Some more advantages LGBT people have.
Children of LGBT people are more likely to do better in school and LGBT people tend to be great parents, which means they likely have parenting advantages.
As I previously mentioned, LGBT people are represented more in certain industries, which likely means they have advantages in those industries.
In addition, with higher levels of the traits openness, agreeableness and extraversion, as outlined in my closing of the last round, LGBT people are conferred a variety of advantages throughout life. With higher levels of openness, there is typically a higher correlation with IQ, as mentioned and shown in the last round, and higher levels of IQ are typically associated with higher levels of life success/outcome, and extraversion confers a great amount of advantage in the workplace.
To address your conclusion:
Conclusion
- Please do
- My line of reasoning is that the disadvantages you mention are not disadvantages of LGBT people, they are disadvantages of, largely, mistreated people. The disadvantage that LGBT people actually face are not the stats you mentioned, but how they are treated. It’s kind of like saying that people who live in a desert have the disadvantage of being thirsty a lot. Well, kind of, but the actual disadvantage is that there’s no water around.
- On top of that, the framing of your statistics almost feels like you’re putting the onus of these disadvantages on LGBT people, on top of not engaging with some of the stats at a deeper level.
- I'm sorry for including a lot of sources in the last one. I eased up on them for you in this round.
- Anyway. I hope Round 3 will be productive, and I hope I'll have more time to respond to this better.
Round 3
Pro
#5
NOTES
- Sourcing: As pointed out in round two, CON uses very poor form to source their claims and it makes them harder to attack. They make a series of random or connected points and they drop a list of sources, but we don't necessarily know which source is for which claim. I mentioned this in the previous round but CON went right back to doing the exact same thing without any heed. It makes it hard to go through the information and it's a dishonest method.
FRAMEWORK
- I stated in round two that "If you mean the definition of better off, we are talking about on average considering all the relevant factors that pertain to one's life and the quality of it. Would one be in a more desirable or advantageous position on average based on all the relevant factors we can consider and propose that impact both groups"
- CON does not dispute or object to the point of quality of life or factors that pertain to one's life so their either accept the framework of the debate or seemingly drop the argument.
- Overall we are discussing the quality of life and which group is likely to be better off. Furthermore, I want to specifically note that this is an on-average debate. I believe that when we consider aggregates, one is better off not being LGBTQ on average.
POVERTY
- First as promised in round 2 "I will address your argument about poverty in round three because I want to dedicate a lot of statistical analysis to it"
== part 1 ==
- According to CAP: "Gay men are sometimes poorer and sometimes less poor than heterosexual men, but stunning findings show that lesbian women across data sets are consistently poorer than their heterosexual counterparts. The National Survey of Family Growth found that, 24 percent of lesbian and bisexual women between the ages of 18-44 are living in poverty in contrast to only 19 percent of heterosexual women. Yet NSFG data shows that gay and heterosexual men have relatively equal poverty rates: fifteen and 13 percent, respectively" [1].
- 22% of LGBTQ people live in poverty in the US while only 16% of cisgender straight people live in poverty [2].
- I believe CON agrees that LGBT people are more likely to be poor.
- CON dropped that LGBT people are more likely to be homeless. As a reminder, according to survivors against sesta: "For homeless and housing unstable youth, the disparities are even more pronounced, with some cities reporting that 40-50% of homeless young people reporting to be LGBTQ-identified" [5].
- According to the Williams Institute, "LGBT people are more likely than non-LGBT people to face housing instability" [6].
MINOR POINT REBUTTALS
The actual disadvantage here for LGBT people is how they’re treated. That’s what the statistics actually show. That was the point I was making.
- Great, so you are making an argument that LGBTQ people are treated worse and therefore on average one is better off not being treated worse, therefore one is better off not being LGBTQ.
- I don't believe you understand this yet. Starting from the first round you have been making arguments that support my side of the debate.
- Expanding on this, the Guardian reports that "Gay relationships are still criminalized in 72 countries." You admit yourself that LGBTQ people are treated badly. Now imagine their mere relationships being outlawed, persecuted, and criminalized in almost 1/3 of countries globally. Surely it is much better to not be LGBT on average.
As I previously mentioned, LGBT people are represented more in certain industries, which likely means they have advantages in those industries.
- First of all, I don't think CON has mentioned this. Give me a specific example of an industry?
- Secondly, it's really irrelevant. What does this have to do with one being better or worse off on average being LGBTQ? It seems like a really weak point because that doesn't speak to the quality of life they may have, their experiences, their mental health, etc.
REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS
Children of LGBT people are more likely to do better in school and LGBT people tend to be great parents, which means they likely have parenting advantages.
- This is actually pretty irrelevant on the front that this debate is not about whether the children of LGBT parents are more likely to be X, but whether one is better or worse off being LGBT.
In addition, with higher levels of the traits openness, agreeableness and extraversion, as outlined in my closing of the last round
- And how are any of these necessarily good or better?
- I can give an example to illustrate my counterargument. According to Psychology Today article titled Why Extraversion May Not Matter:
- "In a very recent study, we found, consistent with previous research, that extraversion was related to both the attainment of leadership positions and a self-rated measure of leader effectiveness. But rather than using leaders, we used a longitudinal sample of everyday adults. However, we also measured key social skills. In our analysis we found that social skills also predicted leadership. However, when we found that when social skills were put into the equation, extraversion no longer predicted leadership. In short, only extraverts who possessed high levels of social skills were more likely to be leaders (and effective leaders)"
- So as this study found, extraversion doesn't matter without proper social skills, and because of the significant mental health issues and conditions we have established that LGBT people suffer from, including emotional distress and anxiety, disproportionately, we can only conclude that they have less developed or adequate social skills.
With higher levels of openness, there is typically a higher correlation with IQ, as mentioned and shown in the last round and higher levels of IQ are typically associated with higher levels of life success/outcome, and extraversion confers a great amount of advantage in the workplace.
- As I stated in round one none of this matters to the quality of one's life unless you can show how it has benefitted them. You can be the kindest person in the world and if you are homeless and constantly bullied, emotionally distressed, or dysphoric you won't have the opportunity for these traits to benefit you.
- You have mostly dropped or admitted yourself to many of these factors so I don't see why someone being suicidal and creative is any better than being just suicidal for example.
My line of reasoning is that the disadvantages you mention are not disadvantages of LGBT people, they are disadvantages of, largely, mistreated people. The disadvantage that LGBT people actually face are not the stats you mentioned, but how they are treated.
- It actually doesn't matter if they are exclusive to LGBT people. I would agree many people can face these issues, but they are most significant among LGBT people and therefore one is better off on average not being one.
- While some are a result of society, some are inherent/illnesses such as the suicide rate. CON argued that this was only a result of people bullying trans individuals, but as I pointed out in ROUND 2, trans people for which being trans has never affected the quality of their life still had a 31% attempt rate.
- "The prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts was lowest (31%) among respondents who felt that being transgender or gender non-conforming had not markedly affected the quality of their lives (see Table 22) (Williams Institute)
CON: Cis-gender straight women and cis-gender lesbian women have almost identical poverty rates, 17.8% and17.9%, respectively
- Even if they are close cis gender stright women still have a slight advantage
CONCLUSION/FINAL REBUTTALS
"I'm sorry for including a lot of sources in the last one. I eased up on them for you in this round"
- The issue isn't the sources. It's your horrible organization of them which makes it difficult to see where you got certain pieces of information from etc. More of dishonest practice.
CON has said the following themself:
- "LGBT students can be around twice as likely to have reported incidents of bullying, with some stats showing around 50% of LGBT students have reported incidents of bullying, and Transgender students have even higher rates of bullying, with up to 61% of Trans students reporting bullying" (round 1)
- "It sucks to be Trans in high school, which probably has some lingering psychological issues across a person’s life" (round 1)
- "These same factors are prevalent in the causes of mental health issues in LGBT youth. Lack of social support, abuse at home, and likely abuse at school, or a lack of the same social connections non-LGBT people or children at risk of homelessness would likely face at school" (round 1)
- Remember we are debating whether one is better off not being LGBT on average. CON mostly admits to most of the large disadvantages and adds some themself.
- Around 72 countries (about 1/3 of them criminalize homosexual relationships.
- LGBTQ are significantly more affected by mental health issues such as depression and suicidal ideation
- They suffer from homelessness and housing instability more often
- As CON said, they have a lack of social support, are abused at home, and are likely abused at school
- My opening syllogism was this.
P1) It is better to have a life of less suffering and greater quality, than not.
P2) On average, LGBT individuals have lives of less quality and greater suffering
C) Therefore on average it is better for individuals to not be lesbian gay bisexual or transgender.
- Both premises are true and therefore my conclusion is true.
- Most of CON's case is directly arguing for my side of the debate.
SOURCES
- https://www.americanprogress.org/article/poverty-in-the-lgbt-community/
- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-poverty-us/
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201110/why-extraversion-may-not-matter
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/27/gay-relationships-still-criminalised-countries-report
- https://survivorsagainstsesta.org/lgbtq/
- https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbt-housing-press-release/
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Conduct - forfeit Round 3 by Con
Arguments to Pro
Economics - Con literally concedes that LGBT people on balance are worse off economically, the only exception being gay men who seem to have less of a disadvantage there.
Bullying, Trauma and mental health - Con again literally concedes that LGBT people are worse off in these ways but blames the bullying as being unrelated to their LGBT status... Really? Con admits extremely statistical discrepancies for the LGBT demographics and then says their being LGBT was not what was to blame because the bullying is to blame... Seems like a real red herring strawman to me.
Pro says this:
"Sure. Thanks for providing this statistic. Therefore on average, one is better off not being LGBT because they are significantly more likely to be bullied. This is an argument in favor of the resolution."
and this:
"Yeah, I agree that bullying plays at least some role in this. I never claimed otherwise so it appears as if you are refuting the air here. You are essentially making my point for me. Trans people are more likely to experience the severe bullying which increases these rates"
That alone handles the entire Kritik red herring that Con brings up. I don't even understand what was brought up. It is as if being more likely to be bullied as a result of being LGBT is somehow taken as an illusion to Con, who blames the bullies for making the biased decision to bully LGBT more... What is the actual argument there? Is it a disadvantage, advantage or neutral? How did Con prove it neutral?
I mean honestly I don't follow Con's case at all, the case tells us that it's not a disadvantage to be LGBT, the only disadvantages are the treatments and drawbacks that come along with it... I wonder what those treatment tendencies and drawbacks are... DISADVANTAGES!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The outcome is relatively straightforward largely because only one side is really framing their case based on the resolution, and that would be Pro. Pro is arguing that the life of a person who is LGBTQ is, on average, harder than the life of someone who is not. He explains what he means in expressing said difficulties, most clearly in his syllogism, but at several other points as well. He supports those points with numerous sources about how LGBTQ individuals generally have worse quality of life and are more often subject to pressures that lead to their suicides. While not all of this goes through perfectly, a majority of it stands largely uncontested.
Con's response is to engage in two different points of attack. He starts by arguing that we cannot know what "better off" means on an objective level, which functions largely as a Kritik of the phrasing of the resolution. It's fine if you want to argue that, but a) you have to be directly responsive to your opponent's points about what "better off" means in this context (I don't see much in the way of direct responses to that point), b) it has to be clear what I should do with that knowledge (though Con seems to be driving at a "voters should treat any improvement as equally beneficial since they can all exhibit different benefits in different contexts," a point that would have been nice to see directly instead of being vaguely hinted at), and c) absent a means for voters to do something with b), you need to give me an alternative interpretation (I'll get to this on the next point, though it's not framed as an alternative). The second point is potentially consequential, since Con largely dismisses Pro's case on the basis that his impacts are consequences of others discriminating against LGBTQ people rather than consequences of a person being LGBTQ. The trouble is that I don't get this framed as a distinct and preferable interpretation of the resolution. If you want me to think of "being LGBTQ" as those benefits/harms that exist in a vacuum absent other members of society, then you need to tell me why. It's fine if you think that the goal should be to focus on those aspects of LGBTQ people that are inherent to themselves, but you need to give me a reason to prefer them. Pro keeps telling me that the world imposing harms on LGBTQ persons indicates support for the resolution not opposition to it because that is how he framed the resolution. You have to either reframe the resolution or find some way to elevate your impacts over his. Unfortunately, I see neither. I see an independent case being made without addressing why I should prefer either your view of the resolution (which I never clearly see) or your alternative regarding what "better off" should mean in this context, and without either and with most of Pro's case (particularly suicides and mental problems - arguing that comparing them to depressed individuals makes them look good isn't exactly a point in your favor) standing, my vote goes to Pro.
Please vote!
Please vote if you can. I tagged whiteflame just because, and I tagged you because you commented in the debate
PLEASE VOTE
Take your time, it was a long response. I wanted to make sure you not only had fun, but that you had fun for a long time.
I will have fun in this debate.
I agree
Okay? Have fun debating a truism lmao
Gays and Bisexual men are more likely to get HIV from their promiscuous sex. This would be akin to saying that "On average, one is better off not being promiscuous" which is accurate.
Transgenders often have to pay for a surgery that's expensive. But this is akin to saying, "On average, one is better off not needing glasses" because glasses are also an expense.
The description is quite clear.
One is better off if they are not lesbian gay bisexual or trans.
This debate needs clarification. One cannot choose to not be LGBTQ. If the resolution is that cishet people are better off on average, that's a truism (they're identical in all-but not having to face discrimination, which is a gigantic positive). If the resolution is that a person shouldn't come out as LGBTQ and should live their live as though they were cishet regardless of what they know themselves to be, then we have a debate on our hands.
I want to debate someone who is relatively high on the rankings, but anyone is fine.