Instigator / Pro
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4102
There's nothing wrong with being against homosexuality also meaning to discourage it as well.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Best.Korea
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 month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1309
rating
270
debates
40.74%
won
Description
Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I wanted to stir up the pot further with the "discouraging" part. Just in case many find it non controversial or no debate on people being simply being against homosexuality, I added some impact to being opposed .
So this is what comes along with it friends.
Any questions on the topic, anything stated here, leave a comment.
Round 1
Pro
#1
I can't think of a single example why it be wrong to be against or oppose to homosexuality.
For example, if I allow folks into my house and in my house I allow or disallow certain things because it is my house, from that standpoint, what is wrong there?
I can prohibit which is going up and beyond passed discouraging anything to include homosexual behavior.
So unless the opposing side can present what would make that wrong, adverse, hurtful or destructive , I think we can say the topic statement is true through and through.
Con
#2
Thank you for starting this debate.
In the interest of the debate, I will try to argue as Con.
The topic is: "There's nothing wrong with being against homosexuality also meaning to discourage it as well"
My position is that it is not true that "There's nothing wrong with being against homosexuality also meaning to discourage it as well".
I have to point out that my position in the debate does not reflect my views. Instead, I am simply trying to make arguments to support this position.
I can't think of a single example why it be wrong to be against or oppose to homosexuality.
Is a claim that I would like to respond to by saying that I can think of some examples why it be wrong to be against or oppose to homosexuality.
My first reason would be "an increase in violence".
Usually, discouraging some behavior can lead to violence being used as punishment for that behavior.
My second reason would be "an increase in discomfort".
People will not feel better when you oppose to what they do in private. It could cause them to feel discomfort.
My third reason would be "a damage to boundaries of private life".
Each person has private life that others should not violate. Each person has "the pod" that belongs to him/her. If the person is deprived of it, that would be harmful to the person. It would cause a person to feel bad. It would feel like injustice.
For example, if I allow folks into my house and in my house I allow or disallow certain things because it is my house, from that standpoint, what is wrong there?
Is a claim about your house. However, the topic does not mention your house specifically. It includes the places outside your house too.
I can prohibit which is going up and beyond passed discouraging anything to include homosexual behavior.
Let us talk about your house specifically. "Your house" does not lead us to think that "you can hurt people in your house". You can ask them to leave, yes.
However, the topic includes the claim "there is nothing wrong with discouraging homosexuality". Using your house to "tell homosexuals that you disapprove of homosexuality" is different from "telling homosexuals to leave your house without mentioning your disapproval of homosexuality".
So unless the opposing side can present what would make that wrong, adverse, hurtful or destructive , I think we can say the topic statement is true through and through.
I believe I have presented some claims.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"My first reason would be "an increase in violence".
Usually, discouraging some behavior can lead to violence being used as punishment for that behavior."
What is the evidence for this?
This is just a claim or belief without proof. In my example, it outlined no point of violence whatsoever.
You have to prove that any person will resort to violence to discourage the homosexual behavior.
This looks like a huge leap in logic along with questioning correlation and causation.
"My second reason would be "an increase in discomfort".
People will not feel better when you oppose to what they do in private. It could cause them to feel discomfort."
This is too subjective. Why should anybody's discomfort be wrong?
Just like my example, I can't allow people to do what they wish in my house because they're uncomfortable.
By this standard, cops shouldn't arrest criminals granted that it makes them feel uncomfortable .
Parents shouldn't take their children to the dentists due to the children's high discomfort level.
This standard according to you is insubstantial.
"My third reason would be "a damage to boundaries of private life".
Each person has private life that others should not violate. Each person has "the pod" that belongs to him/her. If the person is deprived of it, that would be harmful to the person. It would cause a person to feel bad. It would feel like injustice."
I have to refer back to my example again. I'm entitled to control what goes on in my house to include to interrupt homosexual behavior. I can do so with my conversation. My conversation will not support it. I will not hold a shelter to embrace it. The behavior gets shutdown by directing the homosexual members to leave my property.
Also I don't have to invade privacy to be opposed and non supportive of it. Obviously there are laws regarding privacy. But I don't have to intrude on people. I don't have to knock on doors and impose on people.
I can simply not support it with conversation. I can speak against it in appropriate spaces and boundaries. I don't have to directly invade personal matters to oppose this.
It can be done in my own legal jurisdiction.
"Is a claim about your house. However, the topic does not mention your house specifically. It includes the places outside your house too."
Right but for me to be opposed to it , it's not required to be outside my house. Even outside my house , freedom of speech has its place.
If you familiar with street preachers, they fall under the same category. There are those that preach for and against certain lifestyles.
"However, the topic includes the claim "there is nothing wrong with discouraging homosexuality". Using your house to "tell homosexuals that you disapprove of homosexuality" is different from "telling homosexuals to leave your house without mentioning your disapproval of homosexuality". "
I'm not following the point you're attempting to make here.
"So unless the opposing side can present what would make that wrong, adverse, hurtful or destructive , I think we can say the topic statement is true through and through."
"I believe I have presented some claims."
You have not for what would be wrong meaning adverse , hurtful or destructive.
You claim somebody that is opposed to it will drive people to violence. But we have a correlation issue.
My being opposed to it, speaking out against it, I can do that in a peaceful manner number one.
Those that do commit violence are responsible for themselves.
So it's a faulty point to an example of what is supposed to be destructive.
You mentioned about discomfort and the problem is with this argument from you, discomfort and wrongness are not synonymous. Why ? There are many instances where discomfort may or will exist for the good. So it's insubstantial for an example of what would make the topic statement false.
Your third example number one, doesn't even have to be necessary let alone it actually being harmful or destructive as long as you're not invading to attack like a home invasion.
So these points are not strong enough. Now you can come back and rebut my counter points and we can go from there.
But in all actuality, simply being opposed to something doesn't necessarily mean or warrant militant, extreme, violent attacks that you're reaching for.
Con
#4
What is the evidence for this?This is just a claim or belief without proof. In my example, it outlined no point of violence whatsoever.
I believe it is common sense that discouraging something can result in violence. It has in the past.
You have to prove that any person will resort to violence to discourage the homosexual behavior.
Maybe you wont. But the people you teach might.
This is too subjective. Why should anybody's discomfort be wrong?
Why would anything be wrong? It is a moral question. Most people agree that upsetting others is wrong.
Just like my example, I can't allow people to do what they wish in my house because they're uncomfortable.
You can ask them to leave.
By this standard, cops shouldn't arrest criminals granted that it makes them feel uncomfortable.
Criminals are hurting people, hence making people uncomfortable. Not arresting criminals leads to great discomfort.
Parents shouldn't take their children to the dentists due to the children's high discomfort level.
Not going to dentist could lead to great discomfort.
I have to refer back to my example again. I'm entitled to control what goes on in my house to include to interrupt homosexual behavior. I can do so with my conversation. My conversation will not support it. I will not hold a shelter to embrace it. The behavior gets shutdown by directing the homosexual members to leave my property.
As stated, you dont have to discourage homosexuality. You can simply not encourage it and ask them to leave your house. However, discouraging homosexuality is equal to hurting people. It is not something you can do in your house.
I can simply not support it with conversation. I can speak against it in appropriate spaces and boundaries. I don't have to directly invade personal matters to oppose this.
I dont see how you can "not invade personal matters" and at the same time "talk against other people's personal matters and cause them to feel bad".
Right but for me to be opposed to it , it's not required to be outside my house.
The topic is apsolute. It includes outside and inside of your house, and any place, and any situation.
Even outside my house , freedom of speech has its place. If you familiar with street preachers, they fall under the same category. There are those that preach for and against certain lifestyles.
Freedom of speech is good, unless it leads to violence and people being hurt for no reason.
You claim somebody that is opposed to it will drive people to violence. But we have a correlation issue.My being opposed to it, speaking out against it, I can do that in a peaceful manner number one.Those that do commit violence are responsible for themselves.So it's a faulty point to an example of what is supposed to be destructive.
I would recommend that you add "in a peaceful manner" to the topic next time. Current topic obviously includes non peaceful as well. Further, it was historically proven that discouraging usually does lead to violence.
Could you present us proof that your version of discouraging wont lead to violence?
Round 3
Pro
#5
"I believe it is common sense that discouraging something can result in violence. It has in the past."
Let's have a look at prison systems, what are they put in place to do? What are death penalties put in place to do?
If you're familiar with the "Scared Straight " programs, the point is to discourage would be, wannabe aspiring criminals. Which in many instances result in not a criminal life but non violent one .
This is why I asked for proof that any person will resort to violence. You gave me your belief which is not the same as fact. You can believe, trust, think that something is true but you apparently have no proof.
That's a big burden to meet and I was betting on you not being able to fulfill it. To be able to prove any person, that's one incredible part of the burden, then prove any person will, the second astronomical part of that burden .
Take it from me, drop the point on leading to
violence.
"Maybe you wont. But the people you teach might."
I rest my case on that. Drop it.
"Why would anything be wrong? It is a moral question. Most people agree that upsetting others is wrong."
So something is wrong based on consensus, is it really?
"Just like my example, I can't allow people to do what they wish in my house because they're uncomfortable."
Your response.
"You can ask them to leave."
It makes them uncomfortable being asked to leave and left out. I can't do that, it be wrong according to you. Now you'll have to drop the point of somebody being uncomfortable as being the standard for wrongness or retract the encouragement for asking people to disassociate.
"Criminals are hurting people, hence making people uncomfortable. Not arresting criminals leads to great discomfort."
In other words you'd have to retract your standard of discomfort so we can arrest criminals. Let us not avoid that.
"Not going to dentist could lead to great discomfort."
In other words you'd have to retract your standard of discomfort so parents will take their children to the dentists . Let us not avoid that.
You're evading that point because it stands fallible.
"As stated, you dont have to discourage homosexuality. You can simply not encourage it and ask them to leave your house."
If a homosexual act is going on in my household, I do indeed have to break it up, interrupt thus discouraging the act in order to maintain control of my household. You got to think deeper than that .
"However, discouraging homosexuality is equal to hurting people. It is not something you can do in your house."
Just like parents that have control over children in their household, to have full control,they have to be able and successfully discourage behavior not permitted. Either through discipline or punishment. Either you're lost on the ranges of discouragement or need a refreshing on it.
This may be why you're confusing discouragement with hurting people. By this standard of yours, parents can't fully parent worrying about discouraging their children.
You are to drop this point as well.
"I dont see how you can "not invade personal matters" and at the same time "talk against other people's personal matters and cause them to feel bad". "
Let us get clarity on what we're talking about because I believe all of us can benefit from it. I understand there are those that can careless what a person means when saying something but I'm not one of them.
When I say "invading personal matters", it's like invading somebody's house. I'm invading in conversation by asking probing questions or perhaps ease dropping. I have the freedom of speech to say what I say of the information I know and have been made to know. If it's not of my business, that information will not be given to me because it's too personal.
I can say what I wish in my own household, control my household as I see fit .
See I'm still operating within proper boundaries. I think you're taking this to extreme, militant measures.
"The topic is apsolute. It includes outside and inside of your house, and any place, and any situation."
I guess I'll say it again, I can discourage people from within my house. If I'm actually able to do the act it's a done deal. It doesn't matter where. Why? We know it's not possible to reach every person in the world regarding this. You can't say and be correct that a police officer is not enforcing or upholding the law just because they can't apprehend or don't apprehend every single perpetrator there is.
They do so from their jurisdiction and fit the bill without having to go outside it.
"Freedom of speech is good, unless it leads to violence and people being hurt for no reason."
Fine and well. It has nothing to do with my position though.
"I would recommend that you add "in a peaceful manner" to the topic next time. "
I would suggest you not assume there's nothing peaceful in this topic across the board. The word "discourage" does not mean kill or be violent. At least when I use the word it doesn't. It is totally fallacious to lump all people opposed in with legitimate hate groups provoking bloodshed. Totally biased move on your part .
"Further, it was historically proven that discouraging usually does lead to violence."
You have to prove in all cases. This is where the "absolute" argument comes in properly. As long as there are instances we can say it's not wrong to discourage based on the meaning, that's all that's required to be focused on.
See I don't have to look at all forms of protests as corruptible resulting in poisonous hatred and whatnot. On top of that, discouragement in and of itself doesn't outright mean to hurt , harm or kill somebody. You continue to say "lead". Just lead, lead,lead, lead, lead because discouragement by itself doesn't necessitate violence. This is where we run in this correlation/causation issue as there can be many other factors separate and not exclusive or connected to discouragement. Other elements may come into play if not one alone.
Same thing with people tying homosexuality erroneously to molestation. The correlation may not be the causation.
"Could you present us proof that your version of discouraging wont lead to violence?"
Yes I discourage myself from supporting to encourage homosexuality.
Scout's honor, it has not led me to violence.
As far as something you can see for yourself, preachers that preach against homosexuality don't get violent because violence and preaching are two different things .
Another example, homosexuality in penal prison systems that's discouraged by segregating inmates certainly keeps violence away.
Trust me, discouraging and violence are not synonymous.
You can peacefully protest, peacefully demonstrate, you can discourage in and of itself or in your thought process "peacefully discourage ".
Like I say, I can break up, discourage, interrupt homosexual behavior taken place in my home kindly requesting the homosexual party to vacant.
If need be, I'm sure the authorities will do the same if called upon .
Con
#6
I agree that the topic "There's nothing wrong with being against homosexuality also meaning to discourage it as well" is to be argued in relation to Pro's house specifically.
I ask voters to discard my arguments related to the outside of the Pro's house.
That being said, I want to see which arguments were more convincing dealing with the mentioned house, since thats what the talk was about.
Thank you for this debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Good debate, I vote Con and here's why
1. I buy that since there isn't one example of discouragement leading to physical violence, it probably doesn't.
2. I buy that morality is determined by consensus since Pro doesn't give an alternative to Con's method. This means that making people uncomfortable is bad.
3. In regard to the police example, Pro doesn't answer Con's argument that we can make people to prevent more uncomfort through the argument that the police have to stop those committing crimes. Essentially, utilitarianism.
4. I buy that Pro doesn't have to intrude to discourage homosexuality because he can ask if they are gay and they can not tell him because the information is private.
5. I buy that the core of the question is if there is something wrong with discouraging homosexuality in Pro's house, or more accurately, at least some instances.
6. I buy that freedom of speech is bad if it hurts people.
7. I buy that it makes people uncomfortable to ask them to leave or discourage their activity of homosexuality in the house, which is bad.
8. I buy that Pro has to discourage homosexuality to control his house.
In conclusion, making people uncomfortable is wrong, so I am to avoid that at all costs. Since it makes people uncomfortable to be discouraged from homosexual activity and to be asked to leave, we shouldn't do it. Pro never tells me it makes them uncomfortable to not have control over their house, so I at most extreme, want them to not have control of their house so they can't make anyone uncomfortable, and at least extreme, don't care if they have control of their house.
Good round, if yall have any questions, feel free to message, comment, or question me!
I don't know what proof a person is looking to prove a person runs their household.
It's really not about demonstrating that this occurs.
I simply just pointed out the fact that a person is entitled and justified and there's nothing wrong to discourage homosexuality inside their home. That's a fact we know exists in reality.
What is so hard to accept about this?
You know.....very factual.
I'm a fuck up and forgot notes for yall.
Notes for Pro
1. Don't give Con their moral framework, they will only use it to beat you. They chose it because it proves their point. Provide a counter framework.
2. You can't just say you need to control your house. You need to prove that.
Notes for Con
1. Push harder on discouraging is not only in the house, but a universal act. Pro was losing on this argument, and the Kantian ideal for morality is interesting to enforce.
2. You need a formal "language can be violence" claim. That with some good reasoning would get you so far.