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

Because Pro didn't really format R2, I'll just use my original format.Framework:Pro seems to conflate the use of scientific evidence to support a point with the bare results of a scientific study. No scientific study could ever prove that anything is "good". You could prove that it avoids disease (which Pro hasn't, as I'll get into), but you must make the normative leap to saying something is "good" through your own reasoning, which Pro fails to provide. Science quantifies, describes, and explains the observable world. I challenge Pro to contrive an example in which the scientific method is utilized to postively determine the "goodness" of something. Pro's only legitimate example is a woman not having sex with a bisexual man because he may have STDs, however you can cross-apply my point about the STD rate differential resulting from more modern phenomena, such as contraception. Also, homosexual individuals may very well engage in less conservative sexual behavior because institutions which are conservative by nature repudiate homosexuality. Homosexuals, then, would be less likely to affiliate with, say, religious institutions, which would bar casual sex. Once again, we are weighing Pro's bizarre scenario in which a man with an STD contracted from sex with another man attempts to have sex with a woman (to be impactful today, remember that this sex would have to be performed without any sort of protection) and homophobia comes to save the day. I've given you many concrete examples of the quotidian suffering of homosexuls all around the world. Prefer my tangible, quantifiable harms to Pro's poorly warranted hypothetical. Deontology:A very poor response from Pro on this point. In my debating experience, you do not want to be the boy who cried "fallacy", as you're usually missing the point. Did I "straw man" his point? No. I showed that homophobia leads to some extremely terrible outcomes. I even described how homophobia in its most innocuous state creates rifts in the human species and damages cooperation while dehumanizing and otherizing particular human beings. But the harms such as bullying, persecution, and hate crimes still exist, as well as denial of basic rights in many countries. The hilarious "not all homophobes are violent" argument misses the crux of Pro's own resolution. The fact that homophobia "is" the root cause of these heinous acts and laws means that homophobia "is" detrimental to humans. Pro's resolution states that it "is good" for humans. It is actually irrelevant for Pro to establish an idealistic world in which homophobia doesn't lead to harms, and his dissociation from the real world is the reason he loses this point. Ironically enough, I am contesting the notion that homophobia is good for humans with real world data and examples, while Pro is defending his resolution, inherently grounded in the real world, with hypotheticals. Getting into Utilitarianism (I think)"Homophobes are disgusted by behavior, not the people". I'm gonna have to call BS on this point. Behavior is inextricably linked with the person, and in the moment when one is disgusted by behavior, you're usually disgusted by the person as well. I don't think anyone reading this debate is going to buy the point that no homophobes would be disgusted by a homosexual individual. Google "define homophobia", and you get the definition "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". Pro reveals his own discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals when he goes on a tirade against gays regarding sexual orientation as a component of identity. Yes, sometimes you don't realize someone is gay until they inform you of it. Who cares!? But I digress...The crux of my argument was that gay people are people, and homophobia leads to harms directed towards gay people. Therefore, homophobia harms people. Very simple, difficult to dispute. Whether or not they "bring it upon themselves", and whether or not we're disgusted by behavior or individuals, we can still recognize that individuals are harmed as a result of homophobia. Pro calls straw man, but he's the one missing the core of my actual argument. And the response to the mental health argument is actually horrendous. It can be structured as follows: "High rates of mental health issues amongst gays are present in countries most accepting of gays, therefore lack of acceptance doesn't cause these issues." The assumption necessary to make this argument work, namely "countries like the Netherlands do not discriminate and otherize homosexuals" is patently false. Lower levels of discrimination to not undermine a broad sense of ostracization. To say that bullying and ostracization is not linked with mental health issues and suicide is, to be honest, delusional. Pro warrants no link between the "lifestyle" and mental health issues, only linking us to "LifeSite", a site dedicated primarily to pro-life stories. Obviously, the CDC is preferable to LifeSite. Finally, Pro says I'm appealing to pity (which is a rhetorical strategy, not inherently fallacious if the argument exists to back it up). Pro manages to squeeze in a comparison of homosexuality to bestiality (he already hit pedophilia), attempting to link homosexuality with a health risk, but once again is unable to produce an evolutionary link to these higher rates of disease, and without such a link, he is unable to argue that we evolved homophobia as a subcategory of disgust to shield us from diseases. Once again, Pro makes no attempt to outweigh my cited harms with this nebulous health risk which is completely preventable in the 21st century. RebuttalsHave "gays" harmed themselves more than any homophobe? Probably not, but it's irrelevant. This round is about how much good or bad homophobia has done, not how much the gay community has harmed itself. Ignore Pro's repugnant comments here. Once again, Pro decide to use his round to rant about homosexuals, displaying obvious disdain towards the LGBT community. "The condom strategy has failed." WTF does this mean!? Promoting easy access to condoms is obviously an integral component in combatting aids, probably better than policing the sexuality of individuals. Once again, Pro equivocates on the point of homophobia as an evolved response to disease and as a strategy to combat new disease. Gays are not persecuted most in countries where they "embrace high risk behavior". If you think that the most outspoken and visible gay communities exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Uganda, think again. Contraception is almost certainly the difference-maker, as countries without access to protection with the highest rates of HIV, namely those in Sub-Saharan Africa, actually have more women with HIV than men, destroying Pro's "gay lifestyle" theory. http://www.prb.org...Pro struggles to find his way in the end of R2, ranting more about anal sex and gay behavior, refusing to connect it back to the resolution. Homophobia is triggered by any act perceived as homosexual, not just sex. People are disgusted by men kissing and holding hands, yet I find it hard to believe that this behavior is any more "high risk" than heterosexual couples kissing and holding hands. Furthermore, the notion that we needed homophobia tens of thousands of years ago is absurd. Pro cites very recent statistics showing higher rates of STDs amongst gay communities, giving us no reason to believe that STDs were more common amongst gays pre-civilization. I argue that social factors, such as repudiation of Christian and conservative beliefs and lack of incentive to use condoms, lead to differentials in STD rates. Pro makes no link between gay sex and STDs that exists naturally and uniquely. No response to my argument about the uniqueness of homophobia except an example of bisexual transmission of disease, further damaging the impact of Pro's case. I'll do more weighing and framing in the final round.