A ban on sex between men should be introduced in order to help prevent the spread of AIDS

Thank you, Eggleston, for submitting this debate. It's ironic you should post this as it sounds like you have one massive stick up your rear. I'll start with my my case and if I have room, I will attack my opponent's case. (Let me just say out of the scope of the debate, I have nothing wrong with gay people. My best friend is gay. O.o) I will offer definitions and framework considering my opponent neglected to. I promise not to be abusive (that's what he said!). I DEFINE BAN-to prohibit especially by legal means* SEX- (See Sexual Intercourse) 1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis* PREVENT- to keep from happening or existing * AIDS- a disease of the human immune system that is characterized cytologically especially by reduction in the numbers of CD4-bearing helper T cells to 20 percent or less of normal thereby rendering the subject highly vulnerable to life-threatening conditions (as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia) and to some (as Kaposi's sarcoma) that become life-threatening and that is caused by infection with HIV commonly transmitted in infected blood especially during illicit intravenous drug use and in bodily secretions (as semen) during sexual intercourse* HOMOSEXUAL- sex between two men (As used in context for this debate.) My opponent has no choice but to accept these definitons considering his inability to clear the resolution and being that he was generous enough to make this debate very short. (Really Eggleston?) I OBSERVE: 1) The resolution is not specific to any one country. It merely urges a ban on homosexual sex. Thus, any country-specific sources must be transposed on a worldwide scale (ie if America had five out of the one thousand reported cases of AIDS in the world, we would consider any and all social anomalies in America to be pertinent to that five). 2) The resolution requires that if even if 50.0000000001% of the reported cases of AIDS were due to homosexual actions, we have grounds to consider the Affirmative as a plausible solution to the AIDS epidemic. If even 49.9999999999999999999999999999999->**% of the reported cases of AIDS were homosexual, we wouldn't have enough reason to consider homosexual intercourse something worth banning. If we ban homosexual sex, we might as well ban heterosexual sex because there would be more of a chance that one could contract AIDS from sex with the opposite sex. You must accept my observations because my opponent has offered no framework for the debate. CONTENTION ONE: MOST REPORTED CASES OF AIDS IN THE WORLD ARE NOT A RESULT OF HOMOSEXUALS According to a study done by until.org (http://www.until.org... [A leading AIDS researching group and fundraising effort for the AIDS vaccination]) "Over 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS [worldwide], and 74 percent of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa." This study points to a clear reconsideration in my opponent's claims being that "Unlike in developed countries, where over 90 percent of AIDS cases are homosexual males, intravenous drug users and blood transfusion recipients, African AIDS is supposedly suffered by men and women in equal numbers who contract it, presumably from heterosexual intercourse" (According to the African Studies Center of the University of Pennsylvania). If an equal amount of men and women are contracting AIDS in Africa, we can assume that either the entire population of Sub-Saharan Africa is involved solely in homosexual activity or is involved primarily in heterosexual activity. It is only logical to assume that heterosexuality (being the majority versus the homosexual minority) is being practiced over homosexuality in this area. For this reason, we must assume that 74 percent (or minutely less) of the population in the world living with AIDS are practicing heterosexuality. (Also, let us keep in mind that any statistic concerning homosexuality is dealing with the man on man homosexuality and woman on woman. Therefore, there is less chance man on man is to blame for the majority of AIDS) CONTENTION TWO: INTRODUCING A BAN ON HOMOSEXUAL SEX WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE BAN OF HETEROSEXUAL SEX. In my first contention, I established that the majority of those living with AIDS are heterosexual. Under that we would have very little reason to ban homosexual sex when heterosexual is the majority. Banning homosexual sex would be like banning apples to try and prevent the eating of fruit. We still have the option of strawberries, peaches, and bananas (XDDD). Now I will move on to my opponent's case: "[...]and by far the most common way of contracting AIDS is through sexual intercourse between men." See my C1 His source is also moot considering it concerns a small number (less than one million) of the 22 million reported cases of AIDS. "Seemingly, if someone becomes infected with AIDS as the result of these men's perverted promiscuity, that's just too bad because most politicians would rather see innocent people die than confront the gay mafia and their powerful friends in the media." I'm friends with Elton John, so I'll see what I can do. His entire case rests on one contention: Gay men cause AIDS. However, I have already proven that there is little to no warrant to his claims that a ban should be enacted. As stated in observation two, if my opponent can provide a legitimate statistic concerning homosexuals in the world outweighing heterosexuals with AIDS, you have a reason to consider the AFF. That is not to say that you should affirm but it would give you reason. I have abolished all reason to vote aff and given you a substantial reason (see C2) why you should negate. Thank you, Vote NEG -EG