A debate about homosexuality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 11:38 PM
A debate about homosexuality
http://www.debate.org/debates/Homophobia...sexuals/6/

I am having this debate with this dude on here. Lot's of quackery going on in this site but I find it to be fun every once in a while.

Let me know how I am doing. I am the CON of this argument BTW. This guy has started this same argument multiple times with multiple different people. I am pretty sure he has lost every single one of his arguments and keeps trying to open more arguments about the same exact thing about him being a black atheist who doesn't like gay people because reasons. I mean it is really sad. He has like, 20 arguments going or ended all with different people about the same exact thing.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2015, 12:09 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
you are doing fine, but this is not necessary.
Quote:No my friend
The guy is not your friend and the figure of speech does not fit. Sarcasm is going to be lost and it comes off as condescending.
You can beat the pants off the poor guy without it Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
27-10-2015, 05:23 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
Semantically he's defeated his own argument.

He's saying he's homophobic but is not afraid of gays... which means he's not homophobic.

He's saying that antipathy to gays is formed from disgust not fear. That's homomisia.

He's homomesic.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
He made a fundamental error in listing several possible epigenetic and psychological factors ("including but not limited to sexual abuse, experimentation, childhood gender nonconformity, biological randomness, gay pornography, bad experiences with the opposite sex, child abuse, ect.") for the development of an LGBTQ sexuality, from the Twins Study, then focused almost entirely on only one of those things as causal. There are no doubt some individuals who became functionally homosexual in response to some sort of traumatic abuse (I would argue they are biological bisexuals who developed a revulsion to the opposite gender for psychological reasons, leaving only one option), but when he says "I was kicked out of an atheist forum because I said homosexuality could be caused by sexual abuse. Come to find out, I was correct all alone. I also assumed the causes of homosexuality may have something to do with childhood experiences. Come to find out, I was right about that too", he is revealing the true nature of his debate: he wishes to confirm his bias by reaching for bits of science rather than the whole picture.

It does not follow that because homosexuality may be the result of sexual abuse, that this is the cause of homosexuality in any but a minority of cases, let alone that it is the primary cause, as his conclusion suggests. All this suggests is that homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation are not necessarily the same thing. It would be difficult to explain the pheromone experiments in light of emotional factors.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
27-10-2015, 05:52 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
You already debunked (though I'd have been more forceful about it) the nonsense about STDs, but your reaction was too verbal. He likes to cite sources; refer him to the AIDS-related websites that show this is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease.

By the way, he's not wrong about the cancer thing. He just stated it badly. There are tentative links between HPV and colorectal cancer, which seems to increase likelihood with repeated exposure to the virus during anal sex. This of course applies to heterosexuals who engage in anal sex, as well, but given that this is not the normal/common/frequent practice for heteros as compared to homosexuals, it would play a lower factor-- of course, among heterosexuals, the link between HPV and cervical cancer is well-established. It simply does not follow that the existence of STDs has anything to do with homosexuals more than heteros.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
27-10-2015, 06:34 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
Final thought: He has not established his premise, that homophobia is beneficial. The few tentative links he has provided, like rejection of sexual advances (which can be accomplished by using words, rather than emotions or the sort of hateful outbursts he seems to be implying in his homophobia in order to repel gays; simple phrases such as "No, thank you" will do nicely), and STDs (which I have established here don't show significant differences between hetero- and homosexuals, in terms of effect), are not supportive of his position.

All that remains among his points is "I am repulsed, therefore it is beneficial to me to express homophobia"... that is not only a definitional error for homophobia, as pointed out above, but if it establishes his premise then racism is beneficial to whites, so long as they are genuinely disgusted by interracial relationships to the point that they express discontent of it publicly and aggressively. If we're to assume homophobia has a benefit, we cannot ignore the social problems that being automatically and actively repulsed by 5-10% of the population would entail... even before the modern era, where homophobia has negative social connotations and impact on the individual who expresses such homophobic comments (such as a trip to Human Resources for a "chat").

Unless he can establish that the benefits he alleges for homophobia are real and actually more beneficial than the negative consequences of such a course of action, then he loses on his fundamental premise.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-10-2015, 01:20 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
Well, I think I pretty much have won. I doubt anyone will vote on this particular one since he has done this same argument like 10 times and probably has added more, but I know I have won. Worst case scenario, he gathers internet buddies to fortify his side to give him some sort of false sense of verification for his bias.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 06:11 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
I actually had to vote for him in a couple of categories. Watch your spelling and grammar, since it's a voting category. Also, I warned you he'd be citing several sources; you can't just dismiss those with a hand-wave, and you effectively just replied "all that info doesn't matter". What he cited fails for numerous reasons (I happen to be familiar with most of those studies, and he was reading them "sideways" by extracting only the homophobic information while ignoring that much of it applied to straight people). If you don't call him on it, others might be taken in by the barrage of information and think he won that debate. You also did, in my opinion, an insufficient job of supporting your (correct!) premise that many of the "effects of homosexuality" he listed are not a result of being homosexual, but of being homosexual in a society that is hostile and discourages a more normalized, traditional set of relationships. In other words, he was attacking the result of the hedonist lifestyle more common in gay culture by comparing it to more-common hetero relationships; it was not apples-to-apples.

There are other issues, but in the end, I think you'd have been better-served to take more time with your response, and I don't think you'll get quite as many votes as you'd hoped for. I hope I'm wrong!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
28-10-2015, 08:21 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
It won't let me finish the sign-up process to actually record my vote. Something is malfunctioning at the server level.

I've waited and tried three times over the course of three hours. Sorry, partner.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: A debate about homosexuality
ah, thats ok...besides, they won't let anyone vote unless they take part in three completed debates first which is really lame. But I guess it helps people from artificaly winning a debate etc.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: