This House Believes That On Balance Homosexual Acts Are Immoral!

I must admit that I am baffled by the response that kbub gives. I should ask the judges to take into consideration that s/he broke the rules. While they did not engage in rebuttals, the rule was clear when it said that the first round should have been for positive material only. Now I have read the argument three times, and while there is analysis on what I must do, I did not find any positive material. Now outlining the burden of proof of your opponent so deeply counts as negative material, and for this I ask that kbub be sufficiently penalized. Now before going on to start I should note one more thing. The definition of morality and immorality were specified in the opening rounds. While kbub may take their definition and add it, without analysis to show why this new definition should be accepted, it is utterly unimportant. The definition of morality remains as it was. Now here is the burden of proof analysis, or what it should have been. I was to show necessarily H, and to rebut this kbub had to show possibly I. However the rules asked kbub to make a positive argument for necessarily I, which I would have answered by possibly H. Now kbub never gave a positive argument, and this is upsetting. In any case lets connect this necessity with our definition. Now our definition of morality is one based on reason, as is out definition of immorality. Therefore if I can show that reason is necessarily not in favor of homosexuality, I win. This I did with an appeal to reason (not a logical fallacy) in my original argument. Now another thing that needs clarification. Since we were clear that immorality and morality are dependent on reason, it would be foolish to assume at all that we need discuss that which is. Firstly kbub would have to prove they are a purely rational person. Now since this bases itself on reason, this debate is not on what "is" but on what "ought" to be. I feel to clarify this point I should quote Hume, the person who came up with this law. Hume says: '...I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.'[14] What this means is that while we need to understand what is and is not, the relations of reason are bound by ought and ought not. There is a fundamental difference, for ought and ought not "expresses some new relation or affirmation", and therefore is different. In this debate we are debating what ought or ought not happen. Now this ought and ought not is distanced from what is. Therefore since harms relate to is, we can ignore that point too. I need only show that reason is not in favor of homosexuality, so long as I have shown that I have shown that a fully rational person is against homosexuality. This makes sense because a rational person would be an agent, and since the key word is "rational" it means that the agency is that of reason. It is funny since Sir Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, and Alan Turing are completely rational person. Have they never done anything out of emotion? Never cried when they were children over something absurd? I could possibly go about proving that there is an objective standard for rational people, and then show categorically how each one of them is opposed to homosexuality, but that would be an absurd thing. Why go after the agent when I can use the fundamental agency. Since my argument bases itself on reason it is a logically valid argument in relation to this motion. The rest is a history lesson on homosexuality. I accept that these people may practice homosexuality, but it would be a rather pointless thing for that does not make an argument in relation to what ought to be. I think at best kbub's argument is an ad populam. As a last note none of kbub's links are working for me for some reason. With that I beg you to vote Proposition. [14]A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume; Book 3, Part 1, Section 1 http://michaeljohnsonphilosophy.com...