Instigator / Con
14
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#904

Is homosexuality evil?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
11
1481
rating
11
debates
40.91%
won
Description

Before we begin let's clarify a couple of rules and definitions.

Evil: Harmful to society

Homosexuality: Attaining sexual pleasure from members of the same sex.

Rules:

- Religious arguments aren't allowed on account of them being arbitrary.

- Prefer not to have this debate centered around semantics however a little won't hurt.

- The burden of proof will be 90 % on Pro however I will provide a few reasons as to why it isn't evil.

-->
@Tiwaz

I "omitted" what? I did the best I could sitting through the trash that was your debate. The last Rounds were nothing important to the specific topic at hand and since the more recent Rounds you could not substantiate the points you were making I don't even know why you even accepted this debate. The loss of this debate is on you and when someone else does vote on this debate they will vote for the instigator not you.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You have omitted (presumably, willfully), many things from your analysis including statements I make which directly address your opinionated objections.

I didn't expect your vote to change considering who you are, but at least you read the debate this time.

-->
@Pinkfreud08
@Tiwaz

good debate.

-->
@oromagi

Don't worry about it. You have 9 days. You can decide to do it early so you don't do it later on or have some free time then later on to vote on it.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I started yesterday but got pulled away. I’ll try to get back to it this weekend

-->
@Ramshutu
@oromagi

Can you vote on this debate?

-->
@Tiwaz

Not a problem. We make mistakes at times and we would always be willing to listen to appeals. This was a bit of a challenging decision.

-->
@David
@Ramshutu

Thank you both for the fair, open, and respectful analysis of his vote.

-->
@Tiwaz

See below

-->
@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: omar2345 // Mod Action: Removed

Points awarded: 4 points to con for arguments and conduct

RFD: see below

Reason for mod action: This vote was rather difficult to judge. Upon closer inspection, I believe that the vote should be removed. First, To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
 The key word here is explaining how this was excessive and making the debate toxic. I don't see enough analysis in this vote to award conduct point. The argument point is borderline; however "to award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
" There are many arguments and counterarguments that are left unaddressed in this vote.

The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4

*******************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

The instigator's points were that sex is great and homosexuality isn't harmful. The instigator laid theses points very simply which I am sure helped the reader the contender understand what he was saying. The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. Second blunder of the contender was not addressing the instigator's arguments. He had more than enough space because he hardly used any and there was a 30k character limit. After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

(3/3

So basically the contender failed to point out how homosexuality is evil or even harmful to society whereas the instigator clearly showed the problems if they had a specific response to his arguments. The contender went down the your analogy doesn't apply route which is wrong and was not clearly shown by the contender to not apply to the debate at hand.

The instigator also gets the conduct point because he did try to rebut the contender's point and that same courtesy was not shown by the contender. The contender also tried to change the way the debate was headed and I would consider lying about his positions.
Everything else wasn't relevant to my vote so I left it out.

-->
@Ramshutu

I understand, and I've just read the CoC.

Under the Voting Policy section I, part A., "Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate."

He did not do this, as evidenced by this quote: "He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?"

I did not change the instigator's resolution given his definition of evil. This is clear evidence of him not "surveying" the counterarguments sufficiently. If you disagree, I would kindly request you forward this to Virtuoso or Bsh.

-->
@Tiwaz

What is important to understand here is that my vote moderation isn’t assessing the accuracy of the vote or whether it is “correct”, but whether it meets a set of predefined criteria. I can’t judge the vote based on whether it is a correct vote or not - if we did that, then the winners of the debate would likely be down whoever the vote moderators decide it is, which is not a good idea.

In terms of debate rules, while we consider the rules - for example if someone made a rule and a voter placed a vote referencing that rule, (ie “rules say forfeit means a loss of arguments), we take that into account; but we don’t typically enforce the rules (IE: we won’t remove votes that are deemed insufficient as per the rules posted in the debate definition).

In this case, I believe the voter meets the overall voting criteria both in terms of general precedent and the CoC- I could have called the argument points borderline also, but felt that they were just about sufficient- but felt that conduct was borderline.

While I completely understand the frustration, I believe the issues you raise fall under the issues of accuracy and whether the vote is correct, rather than whether it is sufficient: and unfortunately that is not the purpose of the moderation - and not something I can make a decision on.

There are a couple of things you can do here: you can ask Omar about the vote (though be respectful) - he may have missed these issues: and I have seen voters change their mind when they realize they have made a mistake.

Second, you can post the debate in the DebateArt forum “debate voting” thread to request more votes, which may very well counter the effect of one vote you think is bad.

-->
@Tiwaz

Finally, you can most certainly appeal to Bsh1 or Virtuoso by tagging them in your response. I recognize that I am imperfect and capable of making mistakes - one of the other vote moderators may come to a different conclusion than me on this, or hold a different view. It’s worthwhile highlighting the area of the CoC voting standards you feel weren’t met by the vote.

-->
@Ramshutu

Furthermore, he sates, "After not really that much added onto the instigator's Round 2 in the contender's Round 2 pretty much stated white people are not harmful to society but before that states he doens't know black people are harmful for society. I think this is a sign of cowardice by him for not stating his actual positions because more often than not white crime rates are of course compared to black crimes as well. With this in mind I believe he is actually lying about his position. This would me be enough to give the instigator a conduct point as well. The contender did not try to make a good faith approach to debunk the instigator's arguments tried to change what the debate was about and on top of that was what I consider lying about his position."

I debunked pros argument in atleast 3 ways. I directly addressed both of the cases to show why they aren't analogous in round 2 (in a show of good faith), I called it a red herring/false-equivalence aptly when he accused me of a red herring for directly addressing his analogy, and finally in the last round I stated "Okay? Even if all of these things are true, they don’t somehow become relevant to homosexuality being harmful or not."

-->
@Ramshutu

I take issue with this. In the vote he states, " The contender made points about homosexuality being evil by saying something done by homosexuals is harmful rather then how homosexuality is evil. He also decided to change what the instigator made this debate to be about with this "Is homosexuality harmful to society?". If the contender did not like the debate don't accept it or ask the instigator to change the debate in order to fit what he wanted. "

In the description of the debate it clearly defines "evil" as harmful to society. This implies he did not read anything other then the instigators' arguments. I did not need to prove why homosexuality is immoral, or meeting the colloquial definition of "evil," only that it is harmful to society as that was how the instigator himself defined evil.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments, 1 point for Conduct

>Reason for Decision: See vote

>Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is deemed sufficient. The conduct point is considered borderline - thus sufficient.

************************************************************************

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Look at the debate description. He defines evil as "harmful to society" before the debate even began. I clarified this exclusively so it wouldn't cause this exact type of confusion.

-->
@Tiwaz

>>You are blatantly lying in multiple cases to justify your vote. I will not make any accusations here, but this vote is incredibly suspicious.

Blatantly lying is an accusation so you don't even follow your own words.

Report me then lets see if the moderators agree with you.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I don't normally report votes, but it just seems you haven't read my case, or past the description. Not only that, but in the debate I went on to elaborate directly afterwards why I don't know if black people are harmful to society. These are by definition red herrings, and the way he used them constitute them being an equivalence fallacy.

You are blatantly lying in multiple cases to justify your vote. I will not make any accusations here, but this vote is incredibly suspicious.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I changed nothing. Read the match description, where he defined evil. I don't personally think homosexuality is immoral, but that wasn't the proposition of the debate.

Another thing to note, I did address his examples - I called them irrelevant and a red herring, because they are.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

It's primary purpose is for reproduction, but it can also be used for gratification.

-->
@Alec

Awesome. Now you're getting close to the heart of the issue. It's primary purpose/objective is reproduction. but likewise, it has a secondary purpose-- gratification...."fun", as you put it.

But would you agree it's primary purpose is reproduction?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

The purpose of it is for reproduction. However, it can be done for fun under some conditions in my book.

The basic question that must first be answered is, what is the purpose/objective of sex? How would y'all answer this?

-->
@Alec

No problem

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Sorry about not seeing the sources you posted. My mistake.

-->
@Alec

I already provided 3 sources,

However, I can respect your needs.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sex-and-relationships/sex

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201101/attention-ladies-semen-is-antidepressant

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Can you prove how sex is beneficial to the individual with a reliable source?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

If heterosexuals have an STD, they shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

-->
@Alec

Fair point, however, if you're going down this route than by logical extension you'd have to agree that people who are heterosexuals shouldn't have sex since protection doesn't always work.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

Protection is not prevention; it doesn't always work.

-->
@Alec
@Pinkfreud08

Assuming we were able to reduce promiscuity in the Gay community through means of culture or otherwise (which is highly unlikely, at this rate). Then AIDs infection rates would fall by approximately 60% if you disclude the women who are infected by bisexual men. Furthermore, this is assuming promiscuity is the primary issue with contraction which I'm not convinced of.

Data on STDs will be taken from the CDC. I will post my first round later.

-->
@Alec

Assuming they wear protection, I don't see a problem with them having sexual intercourse. Even then however, I feel they should be somewhat limited of how much they have sex and they should tell the person they are having intercourse with that they have a disease.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I am saying that anyone with any STD(s), whether gay, bisexual or straight shouldn't be allowed to have sex in order to reduce STD rates across all sexualities.

-->
@Alec

Are you implying that homosexuals should have restricted rights compared to heterosexuals simply because their AIDS rates would be higher?

If the roles were reversed would you restrict heterosexuals rights since they would have higher STD rates?

-->
@Pinkfreud08

If gays were less promiscuous, then AIDS rates would fall. It's not an absurd argument because they don't want gay people dying due to them having promiscuous gay sex.

-->
@Alec

It's not absurd that AIDS is common throughout the LGBT community, it's absurd that this is an argument used against LGBT rights.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

I could see how it wold be inconsistent because straight people get it too, but absurd? The LGBT community needs to stop being promiscuous. I say this as someone who is bisexual. We also need laws prohibiting people with STDs from having sex otherwise, eventually every human will have every STD.

-->
@Alec

If the argument is addressed in the debate, I will rebut it.

If it doesn't then I will take the time to respond to it here.

All I will state is that logic would make someone either logically inconsistent or absurd.

-->
@Pinkfreud08

How would you respond to the argument that gays and bis are more likely to get HIV due to the inherent promiscuity that comes with many LGBT relationships? I support the right to be gay, but the gay and bi communities need to be monogamous or abstinent.