Homosexuality Is Immoral!

The resolution is that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral".Rules:1. By accepting the debate you automaticaly bind yourself to the rules and the onus I have set.2. First round for acceptance only.2. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals, and if desired a summary.3. In round 5 a conclusion must be submitted, much like the reply speech in British Parlimentary (in essence you summarize the issues so far and show how these issues were tackled by you but not by your opponent).4. No semantic arguments. 5. All sources are accepted, even books, if the page or chapter reference are give. It is for the voters to decide whether those sources are respectable enough. 6. No moving from the topic, we are not discussing gay marriage or laws, we are discussing whether homosexuality ought to be. 7. Con must provide a counter-argument seperate from rebuttals, the failure to do so should result in loss of voter points. Definitions:1. Homosexuality is consentual and intentiounal 'erotic activity with a member of the sam sex'[1]2. Immoral means that engaging in such an act will not yield the summum bonum, that is the "highest good". In essence that homosexuality ought not to be. 3. Morality will be determined by will, such that if the will is carried out perfectly it will yield the summum bonum, or the highest good.[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...These defintions may be challenged but will result in a definition challenge being issued by the Opposition.[2][2]Part 2 — Definitions 2.1 The definition 2.1.1 The definition should state the issue (or issues) for debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation. 2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.2.1.3 The definition must: (a) have a clear and logical link to the motion - this means that an average reasonable person would accept the link made by the member between the motion and the definition (where there is no such link the definition is sometimes referred to as a "squirrel");(b) not be self-proving - a definition is self-proving when the case is that something should or should not be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal. A definition is may also be self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists or does not exist and there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are sometimes referred to as "truisms").(c) not be time set - this means that the debate must take place in the present and that the definition cannot set the debate in the past or the future; and(d) not be place set unfairly - this means that the definition cannot restrict the debate so narrowly to a particular geographical or political location that a participant of the tournament could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the place. 2.2 Challenging the definition 2.2.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules. The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister. 2.3 Assessing the definitional challenge 2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be ‘unreasonable’ where it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules.2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members asserting that the definition is unreasonable.2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.2.3.4 Where the definition of the Opening Government is unreasonable and an alternative definition is substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may introduce matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government and consistent with the definition of the Opening Opposition.2.3.5 If the Opening Opposition has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable, the Closing Government may challenge the definition of the Opening Opposition and substitute an alternative definition.2.3.6 If the Closing Government has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable (in addition to the unreasonable definitions of the Opening Government and Opening Opposition, the Closing Opposition may challenge the definition of the Closing Government and substitute an alternative definition. Onus:1. The onus of proving that homosexuality is imoral rests entirely on the proposition. If the opposition show that the argument is illogical (it goes against the rules of validity) they gain half the points only. Keeping in mind the "argument from fallacy" they also have to attack premises and show that the argument is unsound. That the conclusion is false. They ay do this by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is, and win the debate. If the opposition should bring about a claim, or evidence such as: homosexuality is natural they must prove that claim beyond doubt. Ajab Please understand that if you are not eligible however you feel you can debate this topic and will properly comment and I will make it so you can accept.