Being gay is harmful to society.

"If the resolution is not proved true, the winner of the debate defaults to Con." Rebuttal : a) There are many discussions on the forums where this issue of burden of proof is presented and arguments are made for both sides, and thus there is no consensus in the community. Ex. : http://www.debate.org... Here Freeman argues and wins that the side who made the positive claim has the burden of proof. THis position he again takes up in the comments, where he unfortunately, and showing extremely poor form provides an argument on a meta-position in an active debate, and further still notes that he would use and abuse his right to vote simply to advance his person position on this matter, and further still use the comments section of an active debate to advance such a position - for shame, more should be expected of such a long time member of the community. As a counter example showing the existing contention to this position advance by rogue which is clearly present (and known to be present) in the DDO community : http://www.debate.org... Here gahbage presents the argument that the instigator bears the burden of proof and wins the debate. The same back and forth is also noted in the forums on several threads (references can obviously be provided if requested) and thus it is clear that the community has no resolved position on the matter and is split even among members of the leader board with Roy and theLwerd taking opposite positions in the threads for example, where theLwerd goes as far to argue that it is poor conduct to instigate as Con and shift the burden of proof. b) There is no official position in the ToS/ToU and thus without a community consensus this contention is obviously part of any debate as a meta-position : http://www.debate.org... c) Ironically, if one were to accept the position of rogue, that pro automatically has the burden of proof, then being pro on that very position she has the onus to provide a locus for it, otherwise it is automatically negated. Thus as she has not done that and beyond that moves further to note she in fact refuses to do so, she is not even being consistent with her own argument and she forfeits, she is simply stating opinions without a locus which is hardly a debate and is pointless at best trolling at worst. I would therefore put forth the notion that this debate clearly belongs to Pro with no further argument needed, however as it is completely trivial to support the assertion as Pro it therefore would be asked that no vote be given to Pro simply on the basis of the obvious forfeit but to consider the following argument and vote accordingly. "Being gay is harmful to society." Now Con has not denied the above definitions and they will be applied in the following argument, which in its simplest form is : 1) Gays are part of society 2) Being gay causes those people to come to harm through the negative view of others towards being gay 3) If something harms members of society then it harms society Conclusion - Being gay is harmful to society. That there is harm inflicted on people who are gay simply because they are gay can not in any way be contested, there are countless examples such as direct violence : http://news.pinkpaper.com... indirect violence : http://perezhilton.com... Now the obvious rebuttals of it is not their fault", "there is no need", etc. are all true and could not be contested (without extreme ignorance or Religious assertions - i.e. gay is a sin). But the resolution is not about justified harm, it is simply if harm exists. Now I suspect Con actually wanted to refute something similar to "Resolved : individuals should come to harm for being gay" but again this is not the resolution made. There are of course countless other examples of harm which comes to gay people simply for being gay. The most obvious being they are denied legal rights of relationship. Again, Con could argue this is not justified - and again this is not the contention if the harm is justifed, the resolution is simply does harm exist. Finally, the fact that there are gays causes considerable tension, loss of relationships, suffering to the families. Parents turn their back on children, children walk away from parents all because of a lack of acceptance of homesexuality. Again it is obvious that this fact can not be contested, nor would anyone sanely argue that splitting up a family does not cause loss. In summary, Con instigated a debate then forfeited the responsibility to provide an argument the debate at that point is clearly over and goes to Pro both on arguments and conduct an sources. However as that is a trivial victory, I would urge such a vote, though justified not be taken and instead evaluate the argument in support of the obvious and trivial contention that Con made.