Homosexuality is not wrong
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
𝐈 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐑𝐎 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞: 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐱𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠
Both PRO and CON are provided with f̲i̲v̲e̲ rounds with the deadline of o̲n̲e̲ week per round to respond.
This argument should only include actual facts and logic. Failure to do so only results in your own loss. Feel free to involve your feelings if you so choose to ignore. If you choose to forfeit I will extend it if or until the last round. If it continues to be a forfeit it is most obvious I have won the debate. Thank you.
Audience, please do not send hate towards me or the other contender. You may submit questions and/or comments below. Other than that, choose wisely!
First off, I did not even know we could put formatting into the description; so well done on teaching me something!
On a related note, the a good description to model future debates on is at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4222
So key definitions laid out, along with one or two metrics for measurement (which to me doesn't mean they're the only ones, but it gives a baseline to decrease arbitrariness).
...
Ok style criticism:
Please recycle the headings throughout the debate. It makes it so much easier to follow, and saves a ton of characters.
Argument 1; Homosexuality is Natural
While not advancing his own case, con wins this hands down by pointing out that natural or unnatural is irrelevant to good or bad. This one seems to be pro falling into the tactic of trying to pre-refute arguments an opponent is likely to make but has not made. When it works it can be beautiful, but other times it's a strawman; generally I'd advise against trying those in R1 (and/or keep it minimal).
Not sure why con thought pro's definition limits homosexuals to humans, and sure pro comes back with how it applies in the animal kingdom; but again, con is right that natural doesn't matter.
Argument 2; Homosexuality is not a disorder
This is more akin to what arg1 meant to be. A reminder of a common abuse hurled at anyone who isn't asexual (in addition to anyone who is asexual).
I get con's complaint over the word "psychopathology," the sentence indeed did not come together when initially put forward.
Con pivots here with standards for how it could be classified as a disorder (even if such would not be recognized as one by the American Psychological Association).
Argument 3; violence
Con argues that gays are more prone to violence. This is the first really important claim in the debate, so really should have gotten a heading (there were other claims next to it, but this is the big one!).
Pro counters that the claim is unwarranted, and mentions non-homosexuals abusing them as the real wrong.
Con argues that having the disorder homosexuality causes others to inflict harms upon them, and they are therefore wrong for being harmed... He reminds us that disorder is defined as "something that disrupts the function of an individual"
Pro responds with something about secret gays... Expected more of a slam dunk here... Oh gets fun with a counter about curing Korean for how odd talking about removing identity from people really is.
Argument 4; successful reproduction
Con throwing this one out there caught my attention, but seems like an ok metric, to which pro would need to outweigh with positive ones.
However, pro uses IVF to show that they do a have children.
This really should have been followed with some comparison of the average quality of parents among both groups.
Argument 5; diseases
Con points out increased disease rates,
Pro counters with a study about straight men who have sex with men being more likely to get sick than actual gay people (I was in the military too long; I'm still laughing about this, and I feel bad for laughing!)
Con counters that half of gay men are positive for STDs (this would have been strengthened with the comparative rate for straight people).
Pro comes back with disease rates from Planned Parenthood (actually this is part of why I'm not giving sources, as I am not seeing the table within that link), showing heteros having higher STD rates than some gays (the letters should have been spelled out a bit).
...
Things basically just repeat themselves a bit from there.
Were the debate to have the "definitely" qualifier, I'd vote against pro; as is, it seems far more likely than not that homosexuality is not wrong. I'm left with the impression that non-homosexuals have a problem of committing violence, which makes the ones not committing said violence a decrease in the amount of wrongness; further the STD rates favored the gays (I actually don't believe this based on my own research, but no counter evidence was used for me to align with).
That said, it was close. Pro fell solidly flat on their main two contentions, and only attained the high ground within the framework con put forward. I think I'd still be putting this down as a tie (maybe giving pro conduct for con missing two rounds), if not for the whole remove Korean from people; that one gives me food for thought about the greater implications of trying to make people homogeneous (pun intended!).
Arguments:
Pro started off with a convincing argument, stating that Homosexuality doesn't harm people in a physical sense, and occurs naturally. They go on to provide sources, and a firm argument for that case.
What really got me though, was when Con made the argument that homosexuality is not a natural occurrence, given that the only place it shows up in, is humans. Then Con also goes on to say, that homosexuality causes more harm than good, because of the suicide and depression rates. Con does not provide any statistics or evidence for this, but Pro does rebuttal this statement so I will count it in my vote.
This is where the argument gets interesting. Pro states that the cause in violence is due to others being aggressive and demeaning to homosexuals, and that it isn't the homosexual's fault, but what Pro does not realize is that they are attacking their previous argument, in saying that homosexuality doesn't harm people. Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true. But dangerous doesn't entirely constitute as wrong all the time, so this was a hard vote for me.
So, all in all, what got me to vote for Con, was that Con proved that.
A. Homosexuality is not a natural occurrence, yet a human made one.
B. Homosexuality causes its own danger.
So, danger, plus unnatural usually = wrong.
Sources:
Goes to Pro, because Con provided 0 sources.
Your vote is appreciated. Next time when doing this debate, ill keep the recommendations in mind.
Mostly to improve my first arguments along with information on gays being better parents on average.
Thank you.
Huh?
Its okay, because you were talking about South Korea.
Based on Barney's vote, it brought up words I forgot about. I apologize about that Best.Korea. My comment, "Curing homosexuality? Would that be the same as "curing Korean"? As many Koreans have violence occur in their life. I would presume we would want to "cure them" to greatly reduce the amount of violence, correct?" was unnecessary.
That study about how self identified straight men are more likely to have sex with multiple other men… ☠️
I instinctively doubt those findings or the interpretation of them, but still, I’m ☠️
Many thanks, good to see someone thinks similarly.
I'll probably vote on this later, as one of the votes here (not going to name names) appears to be insufficient.
"Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this."
The statement Con made was true.
If no homosexuals existed, then there wouldn't be any violence towards homosexuals.
As for all your other questions, there was a lot going on in that debate, and those points that I made, I felt were the main arguments that were being made, and I wanted to wrap up the vote as quickly as possible, and those points out of the whole debate, helped me make my decision.
The other points were good, but I didn't want to make the vote too long.
Further (forgot to add this to the comment), you say "Then Con rebuttals in saying that if there were no homosexuals, then the violence wouldn't exist, which is true."
Correct how? In my last round I denied it and they had nothing to say. Meaning, that claim is incorrect based on my arguments, which is highlighted in the comment before this.
That said, i'm not completely sure if the voting policy says anything on your vote meaning no matter the reason it won't affect anything. Just curious.
I see. Thanks for the vote.
I do have some questions.
What about the arguments con dropped in the first argument? Which means con didn't fully fulfill the BoP. Con dropped my arguments, while I dripped none of his.
As for this part "Pro states that the cause in violence is due to others being aggressive and demeaning to homosexuals, and that it isn't the homosexual's fault, but what Pro does not realize is that they are attacking their previous argument, in saying that homosexuality doesn't harm people" homosexuality verus homosexuals are different. And in my last argument, I state that one again its not homosexuality that causes the violence. Homosexuality does not harm people and it even goes with the me saying its due to the violence of others. "Homosexuality is not wrong or the reason for violence, its the discrimination and stigma against them."
I state: "Any violent act has a reason for its violence whether it is because they dislike some.thing of a person, disagree, or anything of sorts. This is not something that happens with just homosexuals. It is a person's mindset (opinions, beliefs, etc) that creates the violence.
Not everyone will violate a homosexual for being homosexual. What does this mean? If not everyone will violate a homosexual and can be respectful towards them, it is the person violating causes the violence"
A. Con dropped this part, never rebuttaling against how it is natural. Meaning con never proved this.
B. My first part of this argument explains this
Not saying your vote is wrong, just need a bit more clarification.
Much appreciated.
No problem
I'm going to go ahead and mention a few people who showed interest in this debate..
Not sure about the others.
Do you guys mind voting? If possible.
(Would rather this not end in a tie)
Going to go ahead and bump this.
Oh, I see. Thank you.
Melacharaz is saying that he believes homosexuality is firmly wrong and would fear that his vote would be deemed biased unless he voted for your side.
Quite unfortunate you won't be able to vote.
I'm unsure what your meaning. Would your vote be biased against me or for me? Either case it doesn't matter being it would be a unfair vote - just curious. And by saying giving all points to me, is that your biased voting opinion? Or your none-biased voting opinion?
i wont be able to vote on this. someone could report my vote for bias, even if i just used debate info only. unless i gave all points to bella.
Im glad your enjoying this debate.
I'm not sure if I should worry.. Right now, I think I am in a solid area. But who knows..
I like this debate so far.
Though so far, I can obviously see a clear winner.
I agree with you.
Though with my opinion on the topic of this debate, I have nothing to judge. It's not that I am one-sided when it comes to my opinion however I am certain with my opinion. That is until someone possibly changes my mind. Unlikely, but possible? Yes.
If your talking about how I do my debates, I already am already aware of my errors. That said, my judgement has already been decided.
at the end of the day, if you judge yourself, you will be wiser.
10 billion people could disagree with you, but its your conscience and guilt you must live with.
now, as to what standard you judge yourself, thats for you to decide.
Hm.. This isn't much up for me to answer. My judgement could be questioned regularly outside of this debate or inside of this debate. Simply, yes, this debate regarding (or my personal idea) on this topic can affect how people view my judgement. However, what much is there to judge?
Does the arguement of morality concerning homosexuality, affect you to the extent that your judgement could be questioned?
That's good.
It's always good to be curious once and a while. I apologize if that sounded a bit harsh or aggressive. I wasn't sure if it was a genuine question or more so a "hate" comment. Hopefully my previous response answered your question.
no problems. i simply wish to understand the reason for it.
Forgot to mention your user, my apologies.
I'm unsure what your point is concluding. This debate is not regarded off of "higher authority" on what is "right or wrong" and would be incorrect.
Debating is different for everyone. Debating can be to prove a point, enjoy or something following along. However for me personally it can change frequently as it could most. This being my first debate I have engaged in on DART I decided to come up with a topic I am somewhat passionate about.
Do you have a problem with this debate? If so, what? I'm curious to some degree.
The point of a Debate Site is to debate, regardless of the subject.
I mean, all someone has to do is appeal to a higher authority on what is " right/wrong" the logic then followed based on their position of authority.
i dont understand the reason for this debate.
will probably vote pro on this one...
Wow, i'm quite ashamed of my argument this round. Due to the lack of time I feel some of my mistakes have put me at a disadvantage, though I do think for the most part I have covered everything that was mainly in need for a rebuttal. Many of edits to my argument were not saved. However, I would much rather post an argument and have a few mistakes rather than not have any argument posted at all (with a forfeit round). Even with various things I was wanted to get rid of in my argument. That said, if anything doesn't make sense, I might clarify it in the next round or upon request.
References (that were not mentioned due to lack in time):
Utah University State. 2023.
O'Reilly. 2019. Retrieved from Elitedaily.
PubMed Central. 2012.
1. just leave it
2. an illness is still a... "unique characteristic"(trait)(unique in the sense of not being normal and only held by few people)of a person, even though it is not positive. And yes homosexuality is BOTH a trait and a practice, otherwise gay people would be asexual, not having intercourse. If it was only a trait, it would be bad to say it is wrong. Since it is also a practice, however, their arguments remains valid.
(I personally don't think being gay is bad, there are some exceptions where it is bad, bored to go into detail).
"Dropped point" refers to someone dropping their claim not if they don't support it well. Considering they haven't responded to my rebuttal against my rebuttal starting an entire new claim I assume he has dropped it. Though you're right, it's possible he hasn't dropped it.
Also if you consider a "dropped point" as not supporting it well, he still does not have a backed up response with evidence.
Also his "valid explanation" is not really considered valid being he hasn't backed it up. I have already responded to his claims "when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong." and he has not responded to them. Hence why I think he has dropped that claim. (You would not be assuming their gender as their gender is being displayed in their profile).
I never mentioned homosexuality as a illness. I simply say they did not CHOOSE to be homosexual, not they did not choose to have these illness (referring to homosexuality).
1. Unsure what you mean?
2. Homosexuality is not a practice, I have already stated the definition. I am not sure where you're getting that an illness is a trait. The definition of a trait is: "a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person." I don't think an illness is a characteristic of someone. You are referring to homosexuality as a disorder. I have already proved how it isn't a disorder. Con has not provided ANY evidence on how homosexuality is a disorder. In a sense con is wrong.
Might be my last response. I don't want him getting any ideas.
What does drop a point mean? Assuming it means don't support it well, I would say he hasn't dropped it, it is a valid explanation that when something disrupts the function of an individual, it is wrong. And I do agree with his definition of disorder.(oh no "their" definition because God forbid we assume their gender lol Oh and did I JUST REFERENCE GOD?) (sorry not trying to be cocky, just voicing my concerns over wokeness).
And what you said about how people with various illnesses did not CHOOSE to have these illnesses, however they can be defined as wrong, I reply;
1) It isn't wrong to be sick
2) Homosexuality is a PRACTICE. An ilness is a TRAIT. Homosexuality is the ACTUAL PRACTICE of something that disrupts a human's behavior and function. In that sense, con is tottaly right.
HOWEVER, I personally Do believe that homosexuality is wrong but I also believe that no one has the right to stop these people to do whatever they want in their HOUSES (not some pride parades). Afterall, we live in a free country, well you at least 'cause I live in greece
Disclaimer: It's not that con isn't doing a good job, i'm just genuinely curious how they're doing a good job or bad job for future reference.
I agree with you. However, is it possible for you to define "pretty good job"?
Con has yet to provide any scientific evidence towards any of their claims or rebuttals against my claims.
Furthermore, they dropped their claim, "homosexuality is a disorder is proven correct by the claim homosexuality disrupts functions of an individual, where disorder is defined as "something that disrupts of functions of an individual". While dropping this and not responding to my objections, they leave my claims standing.
Well, although con has done a pretty good job so far, they have failed to portray if correlation between HIV and homosexuality is also a causation. It could be that the CHOICES of gays (during sex) make them more vulnerable to HIV and not that just by practicing homosexual intercourse, gays are more likely to catch it.
Thank you.
They took my voting rights due to my troll vote on Novice's debate with oromagi.
That being said, I dont usually vote anyway.
Could I get your vote on the Nicolino vs Floyd Mayweather debate?
"Would you be willing to have a mod change the amount of characters we are able to use, if even possible? If not that is quite alright as well."
Yes, I am fine with that.
"I apologize for how long it is taking for me to respond"
There is no need to apologize. The time is set to one week.
I apologize for how long it is taking for me to respond, as currently I am trying to fit all my words in my rebuttal.
Would you be willing to have a mod change the amount of characters we are able to use, if even possible? If not that is quite alright as well.
*can be attractive to someone (not something) else*
Hi Wylted,
When creating this debate I was playing devil's advocate, as this is my first debate I would like a much debated topic in the world!
However, when you brought up this comment it gave me a chance to think "do I think homosexuality is alright?". The answer is yes, I do see that man on man sex should be alright and/or okay. There is nothing harmful (that I can see) with man on man sex.
It is most obvious you are hetrosexual, which is completely fine. However a sexual orientation is based on person to person, you finding something unattractive can be attractive to something else. Such as I might like pasta while others might find it disgusting.
are you arguing devil's advocate or do you really believe that man on man sex is okay?
It seems disgusting to me. What is attractive about Harry asses?