Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#5219
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
To avoid ambiguity of the word "wrong" I will use it interchangeably with "acceptable." (Feel free to challenge that)
BOP is on my opponent to develop a positive case for the immorality or wrongness of homosexuality.
Round 1
I thank my opponent for engaging in this debate-
With the parameters of the round and all else included let's see what you have to say
With the parameters of the round and all else included let's see what you have to say
I am Con to
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality
So essentially, I have to prove
There is something wrong with homosexuality
And that is what I am going to do exactly
Homosexuality, while not inherently more wrong than heterosexuality or bisexuality, still has something wrong.
Point: Granted suffering to people
Homosexual tendencies are causal to mounting cases of HIV and other STDs among men, which absolutely do not feel good and are suffering. HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men | NIH
These sufferings, being direct or pseudo-direct ramifications of homosexual tendencies, are thus the wrongdoings of homosexuality.
I am not saying homosexuality is more wrong than heterosexuality, that is a common misconception one would have upon reading this topic, a position that I do not hold. In fact, the same STDs are caused in higher numbers in non-homosexual populations. Global HIV & AIDS statistics — Fact sheet | UNAIDS Still, this does not negate such an example regarding homosexuality in illustrating there is indeed something wrong that could sprout from homosexuality itself by being one.
Since there is something proven to be wrong with homosexuality, the topic is proven false.
Round 2
Thank you, Intelligence,
I suppose there is some semantic miscommunication here-
Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that the existence of negative consequences associated with homosexuality like HIV and other STIs, constitutes evidence that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality itself, but it does not follow that practical issues with something makes it inherently wrong.
Now this is probably my fault for not being more specific lol but I'll have a go at it:
As an analogy consider I said- "There is nothing wrong with sleeping in on Saturday night" this is not to say that there are no issues with sleeping in but rather that there is no inherent moral detriment with sleeping in. The same is true for saying "There is nothing wrong with eating meat."
In these cases, the former part of the sentences "there is nothing wrong" isn't used to express that there are no peripheral issues surrounding a topic, but it is used in a colloquial manner to say that "There is no inherent wrongness to x." Given this, the debate isn't about whether homosexuality has no consequences or challenges associated with it but that there is nothing fundamentally wrong about it.
If that semantic analysis does not convince you then another point, I will bring up is charity and intent-
Sentences that are either structurally or lexically ambiguous can be cleared up by stated clarity of intentions
assume the following is written down: "I saw her duck."
This is lexically ambiguous because duck can have many meanings here. However, if the speaker behind these words were to clarify that she is using "duck" to refer to an animal then we can logically deduce that she is referring to a person's pet.
It is my stated intentions to use "wrong" as a term for ethical implications and not challenges or issues
Another is a principle of charity
According to Wikipedia; "In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn,[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."
I'd urge my opponent, even if he finds everything, I have previously said to be unconvincing, to be charitable in order to make this discourse as constructive as it can be and in order to avoid an eristic discourse.
For none of these have actually been stated, I consider this an attempt of moving the goalpost.
I extend as the debate's currently only example. Pro has yet to give any.
Round 3
Thank you Intelligence,
Moving the goalpost in essence means changing the rules or criteria of the debate— typically in a way that gives a side a favorable advantage or disadvantage.
In my case I offered clarification for why my opponent’s case does not match the laid out criteria of the debate (i.e. his argument is essentially not truly engaged with the topic) and thus I am not moving the goalpost
However my opponent would still have to provide a case that explains why homosexuality is inherently wrong— not why it has consequences
See excerpts of my arguments:
Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that the existence of negative consequences associated with homosexuality like HIV and other STIs, constitutes evidence that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality itself, but it does not follow that practical issues with something makes it inherently wrong.
It is my stated intentions to use "wrong" as a term for ethical implications and not challenges or issuesI'd urge my opponent, even if he finds everything, I have previously said to be unconvincing, to be charitable in order to make this discourse as constructive as it can be and in order to avoid an eristic discourse.
Forfeited
what do you mean there is nothing wrong with it. It seems gay to me.
I'm using "translates" in a colloquial manner to say "This really means"
Generally, if there is nothing ethically wrong with something then it follows that it is permissible and that is the similarity I am trying to draw
"There is nothing with murder" and "Murder is permissible" are two different concepts with two different meanings emphasizing how complex their connection is as well.
You are not making logical sense.
"translates" by definition means "express the sense of (words or text) in another language."
You are using English translating it into English, hence you are not expressing the sense of the words or texts in another language, you are expressing the sense of the words or texts in the same language but not as it should logically follow.
The concern does follow. For example:
A- There is nothing wrong with murder (focused solely on the subject)
Translates to
Murder is permissible.
B- Murder is not considered wrong (focused on the attitudes of specific regions towards the subject)
Translates to
Regions think that murder is permissible
I think it's great that there is still research being done but giving what we know I am concluding that there is no ethical detriment associated with homosexuality that makes it wrong
Your concern doesn't exactly follow the topic itself; the topic is very generic, making most or all conclusions about the topic possibly fallacious continuously.
Disregarding the concern following the topic itself (a case itself in the point), homosexuality is still being researched and no one exactly knows what is wrong or right about it "in and of itself".
I understand but I am not concerned with whether homosexuality is considered unacceptable in regions I am concerned with whether homosexuality is acceptable or unacceptable in and of itself
Typo in #5: " ..that homosexuality is wrong or acceptable."
Correct form: "..that homosexuality is wrong or unacceptable."
For homosexuality, including activities that involves homosexual activities:
This is pretty much unacceptable in most countries or some countries considered generally; most or some countries can account for 90% or 40% or somewhat other percentiles of the countries that currently exist.
So there is something wrong with homosexuality, if you make something wrong with homosexuality which in conclusion can mean that there are places that homosexuality is wrong or acceptable. Either way, this subject is going to be very.. subjective.
Changed it. I kept the wording the same though. Both titles more or less entail the same concept
Make it three rounds and 5000 characters and I'll accept. Also, change the wording to "homosexuality is not moral".
Just edit the debate by clicking on edit.
Now, there are some arguments to be made against homosexuality, but there are not many.
This is because even if homosexuality is not beneficial, banning it is less beneficial,
and considering it morally wrong just makes the world a worse place.
Messed up in the description. I will be using wrong interchangeably with "unacceptable"