Instigator / Pro
2
1500
rating
19
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6320
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Pro- Duh
Con-oh hell no
Round 1
Con
#2
(Note: read comment #9)
You know, I often hear people say, “It’s out of love.”
Oh, darling—love doesn’t come with conversion therapy.
Love doesn’t say, “You’re broken.”
And it sure as hell doesn’t come with the audacity of thinking you can edit a soul.
Let’s get one thing straight here—your child’s sexuality is not a parental DIY project.
It is not ethical—not even remotely ethical—for parents to try to “prevent” or “change” their child’s homosexuality. End of story. Because what you're really doing is forcing conformity, not fostering care.
You are not “protecting” the child. You are protecting your own discomfort- your own insecurity. And if you think that’s parenting, then let me introduce you to a little word called harm.
Studies by the American Psychological Association and UNICEF have consistently shown that attempts to change a child’s sexuality—whether through control, coercion, or the silence of shame—lead to increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide.
You cannot say “I love you” in one breath and crush their identity in the next.
And what is this fear anyway? That your child won’t get married? That society will whisper? Let them whisper. Let them choke on their whispering. Because ethics is not about catering to social comfort—it’s about standing up for human dignity.
And NO parent has the moral right to bulldoze their child’s truth just to build their fantasy of a “perfect” son or daughter.
This is not tradition. This is not culture. This is emotional violence dressed in family values.
So, let me end with this:
You cannot love someone and simultaneously wish them into someone else.
And if a parent truly wants to raise a child with ethics, start by respecting the one thing no one else can ever own—their identity.
O Aditya? No. O Morality. O Constitution. O Conscience.
Let it sink in. Thank you!
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you IamAdityaDhaka for a challenging and compelling debate!
Before I begin, if you haven’t read the comments, I unfortunately forfeited due to lack of time, which wasn’t measured properly.
Please read the comments for more information.
Both me and IamAdityaDhaka agreed not to count the first forfeiture for future voting. Please note that.
I will first present a rebuttal for con’s argument. Then, I will present my own argument.
With all that said, I will start with the rebuttal:
Con has presented a strong argument, but also made one big mistake: he did not add the parents perspective. Which, I believe, is crucial in this debate.
, “It’s out of love.”Oh, darling—love doesn’t come with conversion therapy.Love doesn’t say, “You’re broken.”
I agree with you, coercive conversation therapy is harmful and overall unethical. Ok but here’s the thing: not every parents who struggle with their child’s gender/identity engages in conversation therapy. They’re merely trying to protect their long preserved culture/religion.
How would you feel if everything that you did in your routine is suddenly forever changed? If I was you, I would try to bring it back. That’s exactly what this situation is like. This isn’t a monster we’re talking about, its called normal human fear.
Let’s get one thing straight here—your child’s sexuality is not a parental DIY project.
Of course its not. But parenting has always involved shaping values, beliefs and behaviour in many aspects of a child. Like how a child eats, speaks or sleeps. We must remember that the line between guidance, and control exists. And it must be drawn carefully. Labelling a parents discomfort or hesitation as “parental DIY project” just oversimplifies the entire process of upbringing.
You are not “protecting” the child. You are protecting your own discomfort- your own insecurity. And if you think that’s parenting, then let me introduce you to a little word called harm.
Let me introduce you a little word called fear. Now, many parents experience fear from their child every single day. And obviously we can’t stop some things from happening, but they still try to protect whats left. Fear that they will lose it all. Fear that their child won’t make it out alive. Fear that they will never be good parents. According to the Pew Research Centre (2022), 37% of Americans believe same Ge gender relationships are wrong, 46% of people don’t even care, which means that they haven’t even experienced this situation. Now I don’t know if your goal is to shame them into silence, or bring them to understanding, but calling the 37% of people insecure is just a excuse to avoid meaningful engagement.
Studies by the American Psychological Association and UNICEF have consistently shown that attempts to change a child’s sexuality—whether through control, coercion, or the silence of shame—lead to increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide.
Ok but can we also consider the child themselves. Not all humans have the same way of thinking. Which is exactly why mainstream psychology condemns conversation therapy. The parent’s might not have even disagreed, they might be just a little bit against it, and yet, the child might have a weak state of mind, hence thinking of suicide. I agree that parents could go softer, but fear may turn them onto the wrong direction. In fact, a JAMA Pediatrics (2021) study found that LGBTQ youth who had at least one adult who respected their identity were 40% less likely to attempt suicide. That respect doesn’t have to mean full agreement. It means presence, protection, and patience.
You cannot say “I love you” in one breath and crush their identity in the next.
Very powerful words. However, love does not always mean accepting, if we accepted every single thing thats put in front of us, well, that, in my opinion, isn't how love works. Love involves wrestling with the truth, love also involves understanding and love can also involve mistakes. The truth is, parents may genuinely believe their child’s identity is spiritually or dangerous, not out of hate, but through their deepest understanding of whats right. If you are telling them to abandon their belief instantly, you’re basically asking them to abandon their own identity.
Let’s look at the harsh reality, in the end, someone has to give in to the others side. This session takes somewhat months, even years to fully move on. Some side with their parents some parents side with their child. And in my next argument I will show you why parents are the right people to side with.
Argument
Now I will start the next argument for round 2 which will be heavily based on religion.
Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion.
Religious frameworks don’t revolve around self-expression or modern cultural norms. They revolve around obedience to divine law. If a parent genuinely believes that homosexual behavior is sinful and puts their child at risk spiritually — then acting to prevent that behavior isn’t hatred, it’s moral duty.
Now let’s be precise: this doesn’t justify abusive behavior, forced conversion therapy, or emotional manipulation. Those are separate moral failures. But the act of trying to influence or guide a child away from homosexuality, through religious teaching or personal example, is ethically consistent within their belief system.
We allow parents to shape their children’s values all the time. A secular parent might teach that sexuality is fluid and self-defined. A religious parent might teach that sexuality has moral boundaries. The difference in worldview doesn’t make one ethical and the other unethical. What matters is whether the parent is acting in sincere pursuit of what they believe is good — and within that, religious parents are operating from a well-defined, internally consistent moral code.
So if we’re judging this from a secular lens only, we dismiss half the picture. But if we take the religious worldview seriously — which we must in any fair ethical discussion — then yes, it is ethical for a parent to attempt to guide, prevent, or discourage homosexual behavior in their child, as long as it’s done through conviction, not coercion.
Con
#4
My opponent wants me to review his argument only on the basis of religion.
Wants to dictate what I must do in my round?
Sweetheart, this is a debate, not a religious sermon. And if you’re playing God, then I’m here to bring the thunder.
You said I have to “rebut using religion”?
Excuse me? Trying to write my argument for me? That’s rich- especially coming from someone who spent half their round romanticizing fear and the other half soft-launching spiritual gaslighting.
Parent's fear does not excuse harm. You don’t get to traumatize your child and then cry “but I was scared” or “I wanted everything to be normal”. That’s not parenting. That’s cowardice hiding behind culture.
“Parents shape beliefs like how a child eats, speaks or sleeps.”
Yes, they do. But there's a slight difference between broccoli and bisexuality.
You can encourage bedtime routines.
You cannot “encourage” heterosexuality like it’s an after-school hobby.
This is not chess club, this is someone’s identity.
Parents can guide. They cannot rewire.
“Love means wrestling with the truth.”
Sure. But if your version of “love” means treating your child like a theological crime scene, then that’s not love. That’s emotional conversion therapy with lipstick on it.
And by the way, just because you wrestle with something doesn’t mean you pin your kid to the mat and call it moral clarity.
“Respect doesn’t mean full agreement.”
Cute sentence. Let’s flip it.
Would you respect your child’s heterosexuality if they were raised in a pro-LGBTQ household and wanted to become a celibate monk? Would you tell a straight teen “Hey, I disagree with your orientation, but I respect you”?
No. You wouldn’t. Because we all know this isn’t about disagreement. It’s about discomfort dressed up as discipline.
“Religion gives moral consistency.”
Oh honey. Consistency is not the same as correctness.
Plenty of things were once morally consistent—slavery, caste discrimination, child marriage.
Religion is not a free pass to moral immunity. You don’t get to throw out ethics and say “God said so.”
In fact, if your religion tells you to make your child feel ashamed for who they are, maybe it’s time to ask why you’ve made fear your God and bigotry your Bible.
“It’s not hatred—it’s moral duty.”
Trying to erase someone’s identity is not “moral duty.”
It’s psychological violence in parental packaging.
And don’t come at me with “Well, if done without coercion, it’s okay.”
Please. That’s like saying, “I gently told my child they were a disappointment.”
Just because you didn’t shout doesn’t mean you didn’t destroy.
And finally, to your line:
“If you are telling them [parents] to abandon their belief instantly, you’re basically asking them to abandon their own identity.”
No. We are asking them to do what every decent parent is expected to do:
Put their child’s life, safety, and mental well-being above their own biases.
That is not abandonment. That is maturity. That is parenthood.
And if your beliefs cannot coexist with your own child’s existence—maybe it’s not the child who needs changing.
Parents are not moral monarchs.
They are stewards. Guardians. Grown-ups.
And the moment they start using their child’s identity as a battlefield for their insecurities or scripture-based panic—
They lose the right to call that parenting.
So no, it is not ethical to try and change your child’s sexuality. It is not love. It is not duty. It is delusion.
And if your argument depends on fear, fantasy, and forced faith—then don’t expect me to treat it like it came from a place of reason. This isn’t just a rebuttal.
This is a reminder: Your child was never the problem. Your discomfort was.
MY ARGUMENT #2:
The topic asks whether it is ethical for parents to try to “change” or “prevent” their child’s homosexuality. The right answer is a clear no. A parent may have personal, cultural, or religious discomfort, but that does not give them the ethical right to interfere with a core, unchangeable part of their child’s identity. Just because a parent is uncomfortable does not mean the child must be “fixed.” Ethical parenting is based on support, not control. Attempting to change a child’s sexuality, no matter the method, is a violation of that principle.
In every case—whether it’s fear, tradition, belief, or concern—a parent trying to change their child’s sexuality is neither effective, ethical, nor justified. It leads to trauma, it doesn’t succeed, and it treats the child’s identity as a problem to fix rather than a person to love. That is not parenting. That is control.
Let’s talk ethics. Parents are supposed to protect, not ‘fix’ their children. Trying to change a child’s sexuality isn’t guidance — it’s control. It's forcing shame where there should be pride, and science backs this up. Studies show that attempts to change someone’s sexuality — often under the disguise of 'therapy' — lead to anxiety, depression, and even suicide. So let’s call it what it is: psychological harm masked as parenting.
And no, 'intentions' don’t justify actions. Even if parents say it’s out of love, love that demands a child erase who they are isn’t love — it’s ego. It’s about the parent’s discomfort, not the child’s wellbeing.
Trying to ‘change’ someone’s identity isn’t just unethical — it’s dangerous.
I can say it's unethical, and it is. You can keep on saying that parents do it out of love, this religion says that about that, parents do it out love, out of the feeling of everything being normal again. There's no end to this. Parents who want everything to be normal again and think that changing their child's homosexuality will do it, need to adapt to the new normal.
- You can not ask me to respond to your arguments on the basis of religion or on the basis of this or that. It's on me to decide how I want to reply or on what grounds I want to reply. Get over it.
- What has religion has to do with someone deciding their gender? Homosexuality is one's personal choice, no religion, no parent, no friend, no government or anything can force them into changing it. It's NOT ethical. Loud and clear.
Thank you.
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent wants me to review his argument only on the basis of religion.Wants to dictate what I must do in my round?Sweetheart, this is a debate, not a religious sermon. And if you’re playing God, then I’m here to bring the thunder.
You said I have to “rebut using religion”?Excuse me? Trying to write my argument for me? That’s rich- especially coming from someone who spent half their round romanticizing fear and the other half soft-launching spiritual gaslighting.
Ok sir let me clear something up. I never said Con ‘must’ use religion. I said this round will focus on religion because it’s one of the most central, real-world reasons parents try to change their child’s sexuality. If you want to debate the ethics of the issue seriously, you can’t just ignore religion because it’s inconvenient. That’s not me controlling the round. That’s me keeping it grounded in reality.
Now, Con can make all the thunder and lightning jokes he wants. He can call me ‘sweetheart’ and toss out dramatic metaphors. But none of that answers the actual question: Is it ethical for religious parents who truly believe they are doing the right thing to guide their child away from homosexuality?
He hasn’t touched it. He’s just performing. And performances don’t win debates. Arguments do.
I really don’t understand that, I really dont. Im usually not like this in debates, but if con acts like th, Im not standing by it.
Parent's fear does not excuse harm. You don’t get to traumatize your child and then cry “but I was scared” or “I wanted everything to be normal”. That’s not parenting. That’s cowardice hiding behind culture.
Let’s get something straight: we’re not talking about fear. We’re talking about faith. You’re acting like every religious parent is panicking and projecting their anxiety onto their kid. No many are acting calmly, deliberately, and out of deep, moral conviction. They don’t see homosexuality as “identity” they see it as moral behavior. That’s not fear that’s belief. And in ethics, belief matters.
You can’t ‘encourage’ heterosexuality like it’s an after-school hobby. This is not chess club, this is someone’s identity.
That’s just rhetoric. No one is treating sexuality like it’s a chess club. But guess what? The world encourages sexuality all the time. Whether it’s LGBTQ clubs at school or pride ads on TikTok, society absolutely encourages certain views. The difference is you’re fine with it when it matches your beliefs. But the moment a parent teaches something different, suddenly it’s “harm”? That’s not ethics. That’s hypocrisy.
If your version of love makes your child feel like a theological crime scene, it’s not love.
False. Real love doesn’t always feel good. Sometimes it challenges you. A parent saying, “I love you, but I don’t agree with everything you do,” isn’t abuse — that’s called boundaries. We accept this in every other area: drugs, crime, lying. But when it comes to sexuality, apparently the rules change?
Trying to change someone’s identity is psychological violence.
Woah buddy slow down. First of all, religious parents don’t believe identity is something you invent they believe it’s something you receive from God. So trying to “change” identity? No they’re trying to align it with what they believe is true. You don’t have to like that but that doesn’t make it violence. Unless we’re saying disagreeing with someone is now abuse? That’s not progressive, that’s just fragile.
Religion isn’t a free pass to moral immunity.
And no one asked for one. But religion is a legitimate moral framework. And your argument doesn’t get to dominate the conversation just because it yells louder. Ethics isn’t about which side is louder. it’s about whether people can live according to their conscience. And the moment you tell parents they’re “unethical” for disagreeing with you you’ve crossed into moral authoritarianism.
If your beliefs can’t coexist with your child’s existence, maybe it’s not the child who needs changing.
That’s a cute soundbite. But again you’re twisting belief into hate. Religious parents can absolutely coexist with their LGBTQ+ kids. They do it every day. They just don’t celebrate something they believe is wrong. That’s not erasure. That’s called honest parenting. You want full approval, not just tolerance. And that’s not ethical that’s entitlement.
Look, I’m not here to preach. I’m not here to pretend every religious parent gets it right. But let’s be honest this debate isn’t about extremists or abuse cases.
It’s about whether it’s ethical for parents especially religious ones to try and prevent their child from being homosexual. And here’s the truth: yes, it can be ethical.
Because belief doesn’t stop being valid just because it’s unpopular.
Religious parents aren’t evil. They’re not villains in some movie.
Most of them are trying to raise their kids the best way they know how with the values they believe are right. They’re not trying to erase their child. They’re trying to protect them from what they genuinely believe is wrong spiritually, morally, eternally.
And you don’t have to agree with that belief.
But calling it unethical? That’s a stretch.
Because here’s the thing: Everyone teaches their kids something. Some parents teach, “Be whoever you want.” Others teach, “Follow what God says is right.”
You can’t say one is loving and the other is abuse just because you don’t like it.
Let’s stop pretending this is black and white.There is grey and we know it. Most parents aren’t shouting at their kids or forcing them into camps. They’re sitting at the dinner table, struggling to balance love and faith. They’re trying to say, “I love you but I can’t lie to you about what I believe.”
That isn’t hate. That isn’t harm. That’s what real parenting looks like sometimes messy, painful, but rooted in truth.
And in an ethical society, we don’t punish people for disagreeing respectfully.
So no it is not automatically unethical for a parent to say: “I believe differently, and I want to guide you the way I believe is right.” That’s not brainwashing. That’s not violence. That’s what every parent does religious or not.
You don’t have to like it.
But if you want to call it unethical, you better bring more than just emotion and metaphors. Because values matter. Belief matters. Parenting matters. And the moment we act like only one kind of love is valid We stop debating ethics. We start pushing ideology.
Thank you
And thank you con for participating on this debate.
Con
#6
Apologies if you find my argument too short or blunt.
Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s homosexuality?
No. The topic is this. What has a parent's religious belief have to do with anyone's gender? The Con has mistaken religion for ethics. He talks about religion is this, religious parents believe this. I ask all of you: What has religion have to do with anyone's homosexuality. It's their personal choice.
People in comments are saying: why are we debating this in 21st century of course it is not ethical. One person is saying that they were harassed by their parents related to their homosexuality. Even after all of this, even after reading about how kids suicide when put under pressure by their parents for changing their homosexuality. People die because of their parent's or (whatever religious parents con is talking about) religious beliefs. I ask you: is it right or wrong for one to die because someone's religious beliefs say that it's not right to choose your own gender?
People die because of their parents trying to change their homosexuality. People go into depression and anxiety. They become a victim to violence and still we are arguing if it's ethical or not. What in the world? It's unethical. End of story.
Nobody's religious beliefs have nothing to do with anybody's religion.
A person, with even an inch of humanity, will not argue this being ethical. But alas!
Have a good one!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFV
(See Comments #29 and #28 of this debate, for a lengthier RFV)
Pro worked the angle of how much/hard change is pursued, 'very well.
And managed to counter many of Cons arguments such as it still causing damage, or the value of individuality.
Con I think made errors, by not more pursuing their sources/citations of pushback damage.
As well as neglecting making arguments of why/what makes Individuality and Homosexuality Good or Neutral values.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
While Con raised a minor amount of logical points - this was overshadowed by his rude, dismissive, arrogant, inappropriate and defensive stage performance.
Really, this was an adolescent rant dressed up as an intellectual analyses.
Can't really blame though, him since his bio reads:
"Obsessed with truth, allergic to nonsense. I debate because silence isn't my strong suit. Interests: public policy, legal theory, and calling out lazy arguments."
Furthermore, Con used a vastly - appeal to emotion argument - with immensely painful execution. Along with centering many arguments around fallacies such as ad hominem.
Pro on the other hand, calmly threw Con off his carnival stage through kindly dismantling his and rudeness and arrogance, along with his emotion induced points.
Additionally, Pro cited multiple verified and credible sources which further his arguments.
Furthermore, Pro systematically broke down Con's points and used solidified evidence rather than emotional appeal.
In conclusion,
Pro appropriately engaged in this debate through professionalism, organization, citation and effective dismantling of points.
While Con ultimately led a stage performance, with little to no logical points, along with no citations at all for many bold claims.
Con used fallacious styles of argumentation such as ad hominem.
I refer Con to these sites as a kind helping gesture - https://www.holidify.com/pages/carnivals-in-india-3538.html
- https://www.talktoangel.com/best-therapists-in-india
Debate Title
My 'first instinct, is that 'most current society would say no.
Course I imagine there is 'still many religious individuals not 'fond of homosexuality.
. . . What if I switched it, to Is it ethical for parents to try to prevent or “change” their child’s heterosexuality?
Well, then I have a reaction, a clear dislike, course one hears some cultures were pretty gay in history. Pederasty in ancient Greece. Course even 'current culture wouldn't like that much, because of power imbalance, underage thing.
Cultural norms eh?
. . . What else ought I compare sexuality then? Favorite color? Political views? Philosophy?
Arguably we try to change our kids already, school education/indoctrination and all that.
Current society probably wouldn't like a parent naming their kid Adolf and raising them as a Nazi. Though I still don't 'like that, I don't have the same knee jerk against it.
Freedom of family and all that. . . I 'would have a knee jerk against a family raising it's kid under obviously false conspiracy theories.
Course 'then one can get into a Theist and Atheist problem. Though I don't think it's 'so clear myself, it is to the hardliners on either side.
Well, I look forward to reading the debate anyhow.
Pro Round 1
Forfeit. Not 'ideal.
But Con seems to accept Pro's apology and excuse.
Con Round 1
Eh, love 'can come with conversion therapy. Try to 'convert someone out of drugs for instance. Or try to encourage someone on what one thinks is the moral right path in life.
Though I suppose people 'can be misguided sometimes.
Church groups who burn D&D books for instance, I'm not 'certain they're a path to the Devil. Though an argument 'could be made.
Morality is often confirmative.
Good argument though, on "increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide"
Including sources would help though.
. . . I'd imagine drug addicts can get those as 'well, when getting off drugs. So I'm not sure it's the 'best argument. But that depends on how Good/Neutral/Bad homosexuality ends up argued in the debate. Drugs, people usually see as bad, Homosexuality, many might say Neutral or equal Good to Heterosexuality.
'Some Ethics is about catering to social comfort, duty.
Depends which Ethics you ask though.
Con makes an alright argument, appealing to individuality and arguing that attempts to change a child’s sexuality could be harmful.
Pro Round 2
'Possible mistake, or Possible advantage.
When Pro say's "Coercive", something I realize, is the debate does not state how 'hard a parent has to try to prevent or change their child's homosexuality.
It's 'great you two are 'referencing stuff, but I think accessible sources are 'ideal.
Makes religious argument, but I think their 'strongest point in this round, has been in arguing for softer more accepting methods in changing their child's sexuality.
This currently has them winning in my book,
But I think Con can make a comeback.
. . . Just because a religion believes X, may make it 'understandable for them to encourage X, but X could still be a practice that 99% of current society finds immoral. Or in this case neutral, to people who view homosexuality neutrally.
So Con 'could push the view that while soft pushing for a child to change their sexuality isn't 'as bad as Coercive Conversion therapy, it 'still ends up as bad, just far 'less bad. No matter the parents motivations.
Con Round 2
Well, in a 'sense Con 'will have to use religion. But that's by the definitions of people who view even atheistic group ethics/morals/beliefs as a religion.
Con 'has been using Individuality in their argument, and that 'is often a shared group value.
I'm 'not highly convinced by Con's arguments that we cannot rewire identity.
Even as adults, government attempts such on us, soft 'or hard.
But as 'children 'especially, parents and governments take 'great interest in developing us towards their ideals.
If one wanted a positive outcome, then a level of acceptance 'would be ideal. Even if one disliked celibate monks.
Not a 'fan of all the sweetheart or honey, used by Con.
Con makes a point that conformity isn't 'everything.
But we 'do raise our kids not to be 'purely self interested, even if such might help them more.
We see a 'duty to society, and raise them not to steal, to care for others.
The 'existence of studies is great, but 'sources are needed, whether 'links or 'exactly what I need to Google.
I'm not 'fully convinced that trying to change someone's sexuality would 'always be harmful.
Fair number of bisexual by nature individuals, might not be too harmed by nurture, one way or the other.
Well, my vote is still with Pro.
Valuing personal identity 'so strongly, I don't think is working for Con, given how much society molds kids.
And a Value 'is Religion in a way. A group holds a Value Sacred, and by that pursues it. Doesn't matter if they 'call it religion or not. It's a normalized within that society value.
. . . I think Con would do better to argue homosexuality as not harmful or wrong and argue it a greater wrong to try to change someone's individuality, than to accept it. But accept softer means as 'less wrong than hard coercion.
It could 'still end up wrong, and per the debate title, count as a win.
Pro Round 3
"Note that con will also have to make rebuttals based on religion." Pro Round 2
Well, doesn't 'really matter, and one could argue Pro meant religion is going to factor into the debate, being so world popular.
Means and Motivation VS Ends?
Subjective, Objective. . .
Pro makes a good argument with how much society at large is encouraging different sexualities, different moralities, beliefs.
Pro argue the existence of tough love.
Religious parents can 'still be 'wrong though.
Even if someone has the right 'motivations, and is influenced by their own past, they can 'still make the 'wrong decision (Subjectively/Objectively/Depending on One's Beliefs)
. . . Well, maybe.
Con 'did need to do more, to substantiate their high valuing of Individual Identity.
They also could have pushed harder at potential wrongs, even if slight, by the influencing of the parents.
As well as made arguments for homosexuality not being wrong. Never 'mind the parents motivations.
At this point, I'd give Pro a 'strong lead.
Con Round 3
Ah Con, I think you could have done 'so much better by going over and 'strengthening again your argument that 'any pushback or attempt to change their child's sexuality can have 'some negative effects.
Pro has some 'answers to that, such as acceptance, or arguing that pushback on 'any identities can have a negative effect.
But Con should have made stronger arguments normalizing Homosexuality as something not 'needing to be changed, unlike heavy drug use.
What does that mean?
Sorry I’m a bit new to that
- - - Shane.Roy’s original vote - - -
While Con raised a minor amount of logical points - this was overshadowed by his rude, dismissive, arrogant, inappropriate and defensive stage performance.
Really, this was an adolescent rant dressed up as an intellectual analyses.
Can't really blame though, him since his bio reads:
"Obsessed with truth, allergic to nonsense. I debate because silence isn't my strong suit. Interests: public policy, legal theory, and calling out lazy arguments."
Furthermore, Con used a vastly - appeal to emotion argument - with immensely painful execution. Along with centering many arguments around fallacies such as ad hominem.
Pro on the other hand, calmly threw Con off his carnival stage through kindly dismantling his and rudeness and arrogance, along with his emotion induced points.
Additionally, Pro cited multiple verified and credible sources which further his arguments.
Furthermore, Pro systematically broke down Con's points and used solidified evidence rather than emotional appeal.
In conclusion,
Pro appropriately engaged in this debate through professionalism, organization, citation and effective dismantling of points.
While Con ultimately led a stage performance, with little to no logical points, along with no citations at all for many bold claims.
Con used fallacious styles of argumentation such as ad hominem.
I refer Con to these sites as a kind helping gesture - https://www.holidify.com/pages/carnivals-in-india-3538.html
- https://www.talktoangel.com/best-therapists-in-india
Great job on your debate!
The fact that you centre your initial set of sentences around me "crying into my debate champion 2017 certificate from model UN' points towards you commending my style of debate even whilst providing a painful attempt of a "jab back".
I used whiplash as a personification of parental discipline, something your self centered mind couldn't comprehend due to being gate kept in denial.
You helplessly ramble on in regard to me being "insecure" or "casually racist". While having no ground to call me insecure and misinterpreting my arguments in order to call me "casually racist".
Due to your profile, I am aware of your place of origin.
Referring to your country, currency and national events does not make me "casually racist". It means I'm culturally aware.
None of my writing has included "emotional breakdown energy", as I only gave logical and evident analyses based upon your fallacious methods of debate. Which by only reading few sets of arguments. Already indicate strong use of straw man, red herring and ad hominem.
I never "spat out slurs". Lying will not boost your performance in any argument. Your parents should've thought u that.
Cultural elitism = the belief that some cultures, or aspects of culture, are inherently superior to others.
Your claim that my arguments have implication of "cultural elitism" are merely your own fantasized perceptions, as I never once suggested superiority of other cultures compared to India.
Arrogance = An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.
- implies exaggerated self-importance, often with a lack of respect for others.
Confidence = A feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust.
- implies trust in oneself or others without belittling anyone else.
The listing of the definitions alone tear down your whole entire perception that you are "confident" rather than "arrogant".
You act as a severely entitled troglodyte, belittling others through your maliciously prideful way of speech, and verbal attack.
Lastly, my debate space is of intellectuals who are capable of effectively dissecting arguments, applying logical points of interest, effectively making use of evidence, etc.
The only correct thing you've stated in our threads of exchange is that you don't belong in that space, my space.
"You’re not my judge or my intellectual equal. You’re just background noise."
If these affirmations comfort you, I will allow you to continue.
In conclusion,
You are arrogant. You misinterpret arguments and use many fallacious variations of argumentation.
You attempt to provide more of your pathetic "comedic roasts" which ultimately miss helplessly.
I'm going to ask that you both take a breath here and refrain from attacking each other too personally in these responses. Seeing a lot of attacks on each other personally that stretch the limits of the CoC.
@Shane lines like "I'd personally strap you down into their office for mental examination" and "Although maybe if your parents did physically whiplash you more, you wouldn't be a brat with an over inflated ego" are particularly inappropriate.
I can't help but laugh. Stop throwing tantrums on me ans lucystarfire. There it is. The fragile masculinity manifesto disguised as feedback. Tell me, did you write that before or after crying into your ‘Debate Champion 2017’ certificate from Model UN?
Let’s start with your ‘critique’, if you can call that deeply unhinged monologue critique. You didn’t just miss the point; you boarded a flight out of the realm of relevance, crash-landed into casual racism, and built a hut out of insecurity.
Saying my parents should’ve hit me?
You just confessed to fantasizing about child abuse, and you think I’m the unfit one to debate? What you need isn’t a vote button — it’s a therapist with a cancellation policy tough enough to handle your projection issues.
Calling me a brat with an over-inflated ego?
You wrote a full essay with emotional breakdown energy, spat out slurs, and still somehow sounded like a rejected Philosophy major trying to prove his IQ with Grammarly on. Spoiler: it didn’t work.
And oh, the 'Indian carnivals' jab?
Cute. Racism and cultural elitism, the last resort of someone who knows they lost the argument but wants to feel like they won the war. Keep the fake generosity, and don’t act like your “rupees in the mail” wasn’t laced with colonial-level condescension. Do send it, will frame them besides your “failed to be relevant certificate”, you don’t sound superior. You sound like a 19th-century missionary trapped in a Discord mod’s body.
As for dragging my bio? The fact that you had to scroll down to quote it means I left an impact. You can call it ego. I call it not being a doormat for strangers who wear fake civility like it’s deodorant. Spoiler: it doesn’t cover the stench. I can only imagine how low your esteem is, that you are explaining you entire bio just because I mentioned it once. Get a life!
You said I don’t belong here? Darling, I don’t belong in your version of a debate space — where emotion is weakness, logic is gatekept by bigotry, and fragile boys with internet access pretend their tantrums are TED Talks. You think you ended me, but all you did was showcase how low people stoop when they can’t handle being challenged.
And no, I’m not silencing myself. You don’t get to tell me when to stop speaking. You’re not my judge or my intellectual equal. You’re just background noise. Have
Keep talking nonsense.
Dumb = Not smart or showing poor judgment.
If giving an effective analysis along with a critique signals strong poor judgement, or strong "lack of smartness" in your perception. then you're not long for this world.
If you prefer being a masochistic punching bag, I do not discriminate.
"I am a man of Jesus Christ.
I am completely against gay sexuality and do not support it, tho I do not see those people as consisting of anything less than equal to heterosexuals."
This is the section of bio this person deems as "hateful".
It indicates that I'm a firm Christian believer and am mentally against gay sexuality.
I also clearly mentions that I do not deem gays as unequal.
An individual holding an opinion which you may not have is not mere "hate".
Grow up
It's a voter indicating your flaws and providing strong critique. Something you may clearly not be used to receiving.
Whats really a superiority complex is you unprofessionally ranting on and on without providing a mere basis of logic.
If I genuinely sounded like Chatgpt as you suggest, I'm clearly significantly more "scholarly" than you.
This debate did not emotionally "whiplash" me. Although maybe if your parents did physically whiplash you more, you wouldn't be a brat with an over inflated ego.
I cited your bio in order to put your arrogance into perspective for the audience rather than merely "rage scrolling", which clearly worked successfully by sparking yet another adolescent tantrum. Which further proves my points in the vote description.
Your "comedic roasts" don't empower you. They are sad and painful testament to the type of individual you are. Rude, arrogant, desperately needing a reality check and not fit to engage in a civil conversation.
Lastly, those sites were genuine gestures of kindness, if that vote really led you to write a 200 word reply 10 minutes after the vote was made, you really do need TalkToAngel. Unfortunately, I do not live in India, or I'd personally strap you down into their office for mental examination. However, I will send in the mail how ever many "rupees" you may need to cover to costs if necessary.
If you cannot calmly receive critique, then you don't belong on this debating site. And judging by your prideful way of speaking coupled with your stage performances. You really do belong in those Indian carnivals I recommended (still as a kind gesture).
I would strongly advise you to now silence yourself, as you've already made enough of a fool of yourself, and your parent's method of parenting which fostered an individual such as yourself.
Some voters are very dumb. It happens.
I have got standards so I will not go on and brag about your bio in which you claim to be hating gays
And maybe you can also use the therapy to understand the pain of children who suicide because of pressure by their parents to change their homosexuality.
Oh, look, a voter trying so hard to sound scholarly, they ended up sounding like ChatGPT having a superiority complex. Your entire feedback was basically an insecure fanfiction about how calm the Pro was and how personally offended you were that I didn’t speak like a TED Talk intern.
Calling my argument ‘adolescent’? you’re out here writing 300 words dissecting my tone like a rejected drama critic with a WiFi connection. If this debate gave you emotional whiplash, maybe the issue isn’t the argument: it’s your paper-thin threshold for discomfort.
You want citations for lived reality? Should I quote peer-reviewed trauma too, or will you need subtitles for that as well?
And dragging my bio into it? That’s not critique, that’s you rage-scrolling my profile because deep down you realized — I said what you were too polite, too sanitized, and too spineless to say.
Keep your backhanded “kind gestures.” TalkToAngel? Sweetheart, I suggest you go first — and ask them why you confuse confidence with arrogance and compassion with ‘carnival.’
Next time you vote, try using your brain instead of your biases. Maybe use those therapy links to learn how to be unbiased, I will pay for it. I give as good as I get.
They try to prevent homosexuality by bullying a child, usually telling him that he will burn in hell or get terrible disease, or by shaming him, disowning him, beating him...ect.
Um ok
What an absurd topic. And how do you prevent your child's homosexuality mr.21pilots? Funniest thing i have read in a while.
Of course
It was my mistake.
I understand. Can I just make my argument this round and you publish a longer argument?
I am truely sorry for forfeiting the first round, I was at a cultural festival and lost track of time.
I have prepared for this but it seems that I put it into one day which wasn’t what I intended.
If it is ok with you, I would appreciate it if you skipped round 1
Thank you for understanding.
My parents tried to prevent my homosexuality, and people around me mocked me for my "gay behavior". Now they wish I was gay.
Well, nvm then ig
Honestly, 1 week. I know that's a lot of time and I understand if you don't want to be waiting up to a week for my arguments. However, I'm crazy busy at work these days. I have to work overtime almost every day. I might still accept if the time for argument is 3 days however. I'll have to think about it.
How much time would you like?
I may just accept this one, then. I would prefer more time to write arguments, however. I have a very busy schedule.
Yes
Pro is to say yes it is ethical
Con is to say no it isnt
To be clear, you intend to take the Pro position?