The Gay Rights Campaigns regarding the Olympic games in Sochi, could cause more harm than good

Nonetheless, I will be happy to engage with his argument. With regards to the background on graffiti and public sex acts, I think Pro put it best: "I completely agree with Con that the loosely worded "Anti-propaganda Law" is not in anyway an acceptable or responsible way of tackling/preventing the above from happening. " This is not appropriate policy. Russia already has anti-graffiti laws, though they are themselves problematic,[1] and I would say that it is much simpler to ban public sex acts and nudity as a whole. Such a law as this is not justified, and so far, Pro has not offered a single reason why this specific law is beneficial. So long as Pro does not provide any support for this law, he is reliant on the harms of protest to win this debate, and therefore the law as it stands serves as my positive matter. Extend all my arguments about the importance of free speech and that Russia not engage in discrimination, as those go unaddressed. The only response Pro places on this is that he's not advocating silence. I have a few responses here. First, Pro is shifting his case away from the resolution. Look back at that topic: "The Gay Rights Campaigns regarding the Olympic games in Sochi, could cause more harm than good. " This isn't specifically talking about a certain kind of protest, it's talking about all of the gay rights campaigns during these Olympic games. If he meant a specific subset of protests during these games, he should have made that clear in his first post. It shifts me out of some of my argumentation from R1 by specifying his case this late in the debate. Second, I'm not sure what is outside the limit of "personal safety. " He provides all of one example: boycotts. I'd like a little more specificity here, because at this point, I have no idea what causes violence against the LGBT community in Pro's estimation and what doesn't. We get the vague idea increased visibility is bad, but no clue as to what safe protest looks like or how effective it is. Third, Pro argues that the movement should essentially have all of its teeth removed, taking away any capacity to make any reasonable impact during these games. I would argue that boycotts are one of the few methods available to bring home their message without pursuing violence. I don't know what Pro wants them to use to make their case, but he's removing options, and by removing peaceful methods, he makes it more likely that they will engage in violent methods out of sheer frustration. More importantly, he does this in a way that is not likely to reduce violence against the LGBT community. This isn't hard for me to prove. The subject of the documentary "Hunted" isn't resulting from any boycotts, it's coming from a group of people who hates gay people. They view all homosexuals as pedophiles, and take vigilante justice on them for that perceived crime. [3] Fewer boycotts wouldn't stop this. The only way this goes down is if homosexuals go into hiding, or, in other words, engage in absolute silence. If my opponent is arguing that, then he buying into my arguments against silence. It also yields to them, essentially letting bigots control their protests as well as Russian policy. If Pro is arguing that they should engage in other public methods, he'll have to state why that will lead to fewer people being targeted. Now, onto defending my violence points. 1) Pro isn't at all responsive to this point. Exposing the actions of the Russian police and vigilante groups to a wider audience is sufficient to incite international action, even if that action is simply of foreign LGBT groups. 2) You have a bit of dissonance between your points here and those on 4. Russia's resilient to external influences, but other countries that criminalize homosexuality directly affect their choices. I'm not sure why a mass boycott is ineffective when the Olympics are supposed to be a big money-maker for a country that desperately needs it either. As the jobs created by hosting the Olympics are short term, they'll need to make more than decent money in order to benefit. [4] There are certainly issues to be had with using the same tactics as previous in this case, but since the international community is now involved, the effects of making a stink are far larger. The past failures of the movement have been against local governments, which are more intransigent. More importantly, for all Pro purports that these techniques are ineffective, he offers none of his own, and therefore doesn't improve on the situation. In fact, all he does is reduce the options available, making it more hopeless. 3) Pro says that violence is always bad. This isn't really responsive to my point. Pro is apparently interpreting my argument as being supportive of violence from the protesters. I never said that. I said that sometimes enduring increased violence is preferable to yielding before bigotry. I gave the example of the black civil rights movement in America, which endured incredible beatings, hangings, unjust incarcerations, and more to earn their civil rights. We would all prefer that no one have to endure violence, but the reality is that vigilante groups and Russian police discrimination doesn't just disappear if homosexuals do less to support their rights. And doing less will only ensure that they are stuck behind that wall of anti-homosexuality for longer, with more oppressive laws on the way. 4) This is a good point. Pro is right that Russia is very close to some allies in the Middle East (Iran and Syria come to mind), and China. However, that doesn't mean that the Western world has no sway here. The European Union is by far their biggest import and export market. A large proportion of its imports come from Japan and the U. S. , and much of their exports go the other way as well. [5] They're currently a part of the permanent UN Security Council, and highly value that position to protect their interests abroad. [6] This is particularly important: it is precisely this relationship with Middle Eastern countries that they need to retain this position, and the more that they stress that relationship by harming their human rights record, the more they threaten to lose that position. Their chances of joining NATO will only become more distant as well. [7] These are things they can't afford simply for slightly improving relations with their current allies. They have far more incentive to remove the law following the application of international pressures from the Western world. So what's going on in this debate? What we have from Pro is an argument that says that we should focus on reducing violence to LGBT people in Russia. We should do this by reducing the number of methods they have to pursue equal rights by some vague amount. At the very least, this will substantially decrease their possible routes of protest. At worst, it completely defangs the movement, removing their capacity to affect any change. He provides no reason to believe that violence will go down by doing this and says there are alternatives without stating what they are and how they can be successful. In the meantime, Pro is granting all of the harms of the current anti-gay rights policy, and then handicapping them in an effort to protect them. It simply doesn't seem practical. Back to Pro. 1. . http://themoscownews.com... 2. . http://abcnews.go.com... 3. . http://www.theguardian.com... 4. . http://www.ibtimes.com... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://www.un.org... 7. . http://www.economist.com...