Britain's immigration service should introduce Kuwaiti-style gay detectors.

Nonetheless, because the maxim "the more truthful, the better" applies to satire, or so I will argue, I shall first describe my general position on the satirical nature of this debate and then address my friend's argument. As Jo Coppola(1958) says, "Good comedy is social criticism. .. For comedy is, after all, a look at ourselves, not as we pretend to be when we look in the mirror of our imagination, but as we really are. Look at the comedy of any age and you will know volumes about that period and its people which neither historian nor anthropologist can tell you. "[1]This argument can be used on satire(which often is humorous[2]), but with a careful elimination of false statements intentionally used by the satirist, and hence my concern is going to be namely with the truthfulness of the general argument put forth. By this approach, I'm not disengaging myself entirely from the realms of satire and comedy; I'm still going to have quips here and there. However, I surely will have a more serious disposition than my opponent, as I find it essential to refute satire with a more accurate construct of reality.1- On the reliability and effectiveness of Kuwait's gay detectorsAccording to Russia Today, there is no information concerning how those "gay detectors" will operate[3]. While in other news websites, no conclusive claim is made but there is no description of the "clinical tests" in Yousuf Mindkar's statement[4,5,6,7]. I've found some untrusted sources who claim it would be a medical test, but they do not specify how a medical test could possibly detect homosexuality. Hence, it is highly likely that such detectors remain unknown and untested. Pro claims, "However, with Kuwaiti-style gay detectors immigration officers will quickly and reliably be able to determine which asylum seekers are really homosexual and which ones are just camping it up to get into the country. "Rebuttal: BoP is on Pro to prove how the Kuwaiti-style gay detectors are more reliable. Pro has not presented us with any description from the Kuwaiti authorities on how the "clinical tests" would be performed or any researches to show why they are reliable enough to be used. I've tried to research and brainstorm a few homosexuality-detection approaches to see if they would hypothetically work in the Kuwaiti clinical test, but all that I reached in my cumbersome journey was utter failure. Here are the drawbacks I encountered for every approach if applied in Britain:Approach 1: Testing the fun-hole for any anal activity.1- Non-comprehensive. How could we identify homosexuals who always like to be the "top" as opposed to those who like to be the "bottom? "2- Unreliable. I've had constipation for weeks and that ended up expanding my fun-hole to the extent that I've been bleeding like a woman for days now. If I were to be tested with this approach, I'll be classified as "too damn gay" even though I'm straight.3- Not very difficult to cheat. A desperate immigrant would do anything. Approach 2: The boner-stimulation through gay p0rnography test1- Easily cheated. All it takes is to choke the chicken five times before having the test.2- Problematic. Straight men might vomit or have psychological traumas while watching a group of men rewarding the one who picks up the soup.3- Non-comprehensive. Young men(below 18) would be exempted from the test, and hence we would never know if they're "rainbowy" as they claim. Approach 3: Furniture and clothing preference test 1- Stereotypical. It is not true that all gays have a good taste in furniture and clothing.2- Easily cheated. A straight man can simply lie and use preferences which he considers "gay. "3- Unreliable. What if it happened that a heterosexual man had a good taste in furniture and clothing? Approach 4: Hand and facial movements test1- Stereotypical. Not all gays are animated speakers who follow the same girlie pattern of talking.2- Easily cheated. Straight men can mimic effeminate men who are very interested in the men around them.3- Theoretical at best. The claim that we can detect homosexuality from facial expressions is not grounded with reasonable evidence but loads of assumptions. In summary, (1) Pro has not provided a description of the Kuwaiti-style gay detectors, (2) Pro has not provided researches that such detectors are very effective and reliable, (3) Pro has not used trusted sources to define the technology and the clinical procedures (4) Existing technologies seem to fail in creating a detector for homosexuality as deduced from the four failing approaches that I mentioned. Therefore, I argue that we shouldn't introduce such a technology to Britain, unless we are sure that it is reliable and effective in helping us keep the lying heterosexuals out. And we currently aren't. The disadvantages of having an unreliable technology is the acceptance of many heterosexual citizens claiming to be homosexual and the rejection of some homosexual citizens who do not fit the stereotypes. It is important to note that this failure would not happen in limited cases, but in many because of how unreliable the technology could be compared to advanced technologies in bioinformatics such as finger-print detection. [1] Coppola, Jo (1958), The Realist[2] Corum 2002, p. 175[3] rt. com/news/homosexuals-kuwait-banned-gays-887/[4] nydailynews. com/news/world/kuwait-developing-gay-detector-test-lgbt-expats-gulf-countrires-article-1.1480804[5] huffingtonpost. com/2013/10/09/gulf-countries-detect-gays_n_4065927. html[6] vocativ. com/10-2013/so-how-exactly-is-kuwait-going-to-medically-test-people-to-detect-if-they-are-gay/[7] jewishpress. com/news/gay-detector-will-prevent-gays-from-entering-gulf-states/2013/10/08/