Homophobia is a natural disease avoidance behavior. Therefore, homophobia is good for humans

Readers of the debate, if you were looking for amusement, you got what you came for. But if you came to see a close, competitive round, you have been let down. Pro's arguments lack nuanced analysis, he fills space where there ought to be warrants with inordinate amounts of irrelevant studies and links, and he refuses to engage with the bulk of my argument. Pro has been very eager this round to defend his own analysis. However, he pays little attention to my offense and nigh ignores my philosophical framework. I win this round for 2 reasons primarily: 1. Deontology (basically dropped)2. Utilitarianism (woefully underaddressed my offense and fails to show why good outweighs bad)Pro REALLY wants to focus on disease! But you can't win a debate by only talking about what you want to talk about! Deontology:As explained in R1, deontology (Kantian) is a moral theory which prescribes morality on the basis of recognizing inherent value in humanity and treatment of humans as ends in and of themselves. Pro gives an unsatisfactory response to this in R2 and drops my R2 response in R3. Take it as conceded in the round that homophobia falls short on deon. This portion of R3 is short, but that doesn't diminish its importance. Pro literally concedes that, under a philosophical framework which values moral consistency and inherent human value (including valuation of humans in and of themselves), homophobia is abhorrent and impermissible. This could win me the round alone, but if you have ANY doubt in your mind as to who won the Utilitarian side of the debate (which Pro unwittingly sticks to the entire round), then vote Con on deon. I'll throw in Pro's new definition of "good" here as well. Attempting to combat nuanced, warranted analysis as to why "good" is a normative claim with a definition of good specifically pertaining to disease is, I'll admit, an admirable attempt, but ultimately silly. Type "define good" into google and you get "to be desired or approved of". Flow through my earlier arguments regarding "good" as necessarily moral, and Pro's failure to meet my challenge of devising a hypothetical in which the scientific method is utilized to determine what is good. Utilitarianism:I highlight many deleterious impacts resulting from homophobia:1. Bullying and Hate Crimes2. Denial of basic human rights3. Institutional persecution, actual death and imprisonment on the basis of sexual orientation4. Lower self-esteem, suicide, mental health problems5. Divisiveness within the human species, impediment to cooperation and empathy, which is key to overcoming problems and surviving as a speciesHere's Pro's response, in a nutshell:1. Disease2. More disease3. *Squints at notecard* even more diseaseIn fact, he even tries to respond to my harms with "but disease". While I call into question the impactfulness of disease as well as the validity of the argument, he responds almost exclusively with his only offensive point! It is damning to one's argument when one fails to come up with anything remotely creative and unique to defeat the opponent's offense. Remember, by saying that it's justified because we're avoiding disease, Pro is not saying that my cited harms are not harms. He is merely making an argument which attempts to rationalize the allowance of those harms. Flow through ALL of my harms, because whether or not "they bring it upon themselves" (a repugnant thing to say), harms are harms! Moral desert is not a facet of utilitarianism! Even if we extend this "moral desert" argument under the assumption that it helps avoid disease, we find ourselves denying rights, bullying, and killing homosexuals when the disease avoidance, because we're discussing STDs, would merely require an avoidance of sex with homosexuals. Look, the fact that innumerable kids are committing suicide, people are being denied basic rights, jailed, and killed, and the human species is (at least for people like Pro) embracing disgust towards an entire subset of itself is reason enough for me to win utilitarianism. But Pro's arguments are very limited in terms of both homophobia's solvency and its uniqueness. Pro's Case (AKA "Disease! ")As discussed above, Pro's case is a one-trick pony. Unfortunately, that one trick isn't even very good. Homophobia is probably rooted in disgust. Ok. I conceded that at the top of R1. Disgust, broadly, is and probably has been beneficial for humankind. Fair. Does this mean we jump through Pro's hoops of logic and conclude "homophobia is beneficial for humankind"? NO! As discussed (and dropped by Pro) in previous rounds, disgust broadly is different than disgust on a case-by-base basis. Just because disgust is broadly beneficial does not instantly mean every instance of disgust benefits us. For example, I think it's fair to say that fear is probably broadly pretty beneficial to most species, including humans. It creates avoidance-based behaviors which steer us away from, say, cliffsides or bear dens. Phagophobia is a fear of swallowing. Does it follow that phagophobia is good for the human species? Of course not! Neither would it follow that fear of clowns or fear of social situations is good for humans! In fact, phagophobia could lead to difficulty eating. So now to win the debate Pro must outweigh a deontological concession and a pile of serious util. harms with exampes of situations in which people may avoid STDs through homophobia. My responses:1. Homophobia could not have evolved in response to STDs, as factors leading to disparities between STD rates amongst homosexuals and heterosexuals (especially with HIV) are recent. I supported this with statistics showing that STD rates are actually higher amongst women than men in South Africa, a country with an extremely high STD rate, because the causal factors are sociocultural. Pro's response that STD rates are up in all countries is explained by the presence (while varying in magnitude) of conservatism in all countries and cultural spillover effects across national borders. 2. Homophobia is not unique. Especially with gay men attempting to seduce straight men, Pro offers no reason as to why total lack of physical attraction would be insufficient -- as to why disgust is a prerequisite to avoiding sex with gay men when heterosexuality already implies a sole attraction towards the opposite sex. 3. (I'm actually developing this argument more now, in response to the absurd bisexual argument) Homophobia is not solvent. If a bisexual man approaches a woman in a bar, there is no incentive (and perhaps a disincentive, as Pro's case shows) to mention previous gay partners. How being disgusted by homosexuals would combat sex with bisexual men is unclear if, as PRO SAYS HIMSELF, sexuality must be revealed by the individual to become known, and as PRO SAYS HIMSELF, denial is more likely if previous homosexual relationships are revealed. I suppose I can't say for certain that NO disease is prevented by disgust towards homosexuals. But as my mitigatory string of arguments show, homophobia is probably not evolutionary in basis (undermining Pro's thesis), it's not unique, and it solves virtually nada. Simple weighing will show that Pro cannot possibly outweigh my harms with his benefits, and that Pro should count homophobia's plausible successes on his right hand, not in the millions. Pro cites an article regarding seduction of straight men in a futile attempt to salvage an absurd point, that homophobia is the only thing standing between straight men and gay sex. But I need not repeat my responses from earlier to negate some blog post by a man with 2 followers and a stupid hat. Do these instructions on casting love spells prove that we need counterspells? . http://www.wikihow.com...Homophobia solves nothing and probably isn't grounded in evolution. It devalues inherently valuable human lives, leads to societal rifts, and causes quantifiable and unquantifiable harms, ranging from suicide and mental health issues to violence and death.