Gays

Unfortunately at this point this debate is over, as Con has dropped every single one of my arguments and has failed to uphold his burden of proof. Let's review my contentions:C1) Egalitarianism -DroppedC2) Prejudice -DroppedC3) Homosexuality is natural-DroppedC4) Condemning homosexuals leads to violence and hatred -DroppedI would also like to point out that there was no clear resolution: the title of this debate is simply "gays," and when we lack a resolution, we default to the title of this debate. In fact, in my Round 1 acceptance, I noted that I would be defending the gay community. Arguing against the notion that they in some way are harmful to society was a subunit of the point -- indeed, one that is part and parcel of it, but hardly the resolution. But the fact is that, even if that were the resolution, Con still bears the burden or proof -- either because he is arguing against the status quo by expressing disdain for an entire group of people, or because he is making a positive statement -- and he still has lost this debate. At this point, I don't even much care which resolution we're going to abide by. I'll even use the latter one to placate him. He hasn't demonstrated any evidence for harm, and therefore he loses. In his opening statements, he claims that "gays are harmful to society." I have addressed this extensively by pointing out that (1) homosexuality is natural (2) he cannot demonstrate to us causation and (3) he has not demonstrated any negative effects, which we shoud be able to see if they actually exist.His last argument should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me. However, he, not I, possess this burden because he is the one making a positive statement. I am simply negating it, and have negated it thoroughly.At this point, I'm not going to go through his arguments point by point and refute them. Con states that "Nowadays, parents are dressing their kids up with gender roles reversed, which is harmful to the kids."This argument is completely incoherently not only because it isn't sourced, not only because he hasn't provided us with any means by which to verify, but also because he has not connected this causally to harmful.Even if we were to accept that it were true -- and I have seen no evidence to this effect whatsoever, so we can simply discard the argument immediately because Con has the BOP -- he has to demonstrate to us why this would be harmful to society. He must be able to demonstrate causation. However, he cannot demonstrate causation and has not because gender roles, ipso facto, are contrived: they are arbitrary and rooted largely in culture. Gender roles aren't even relevant to homosexuality unless Con is claiming that a gay man, for instance, will demonstrate behavior that he would call "feminine." Not only is this not the case in every circumstance, but I have to ask a very bold question: who cares? Truly, that is the crux of this point, and this is what I addressed when I spoke of egalitarianism. Who cares? If a gay person is not harming anyone -- which is true, and Con has yet to prove otherwise -- why should Con care? He claims that it harms kids, or that parents are harming them by "reversing gender roles." How? To what extent or in what way? Con provides us with no evidence. The point of egalitarianism is also quite critical in addressing the point of gender roles. Gender roles dictate essentially that women ought to be subject to a "cult of domesticity" -- that is, that they should be confined to the home. If Con is arguing in favor of gender roles, he must defend that. However, he has not, and my first contention on egalitarianism refutes this handily. Con then states that "Parents are also teaching their kids that being gay is normal (or for a better term, "okay")."First and foremost, the claim is unsourced, even though it may well be true: homosexuality is becoming increasingly accepted by society. So? How exactly is this harmful? Con insinuates that this is a bad thing and is harmful to society, but the logic is circular. His case is, by and large, "homosexuality is harmful because 'trust me,'" as though we should accept his case as prime facie. That isn't how it works, especially when he has no sources and has the BOP.Then he states that " If their kids grow up doing that, they will be made fun of, feelings will be hurt, and it could possibly waste taxpayers money in extreme bullying cases. It is not acceptable, and should be put to an end."First, I must ask, doing what? For what will they be made fun of and bullied? For being homosexual?How can Con link that to the acceptance of homoseuxality, which he claims is a bad thing? I addressed this point as well (see? My points are still relevant). Because many people still do not accept homosexuality and many people feel virtually powerless, are told that they are in some way deviant or "not normal," they are more likely to commit suicide or to bottle up their feelings. That is what leads to bullying. Acceptance of homosexuality is not. He then makes a point about taxpayer dollars being "wasted on bullying campaigns." First of all, this is a tangential point because (1) he cannot prove that taxpayer dollars will be used for this purpose (2) he has not proved to us empiriclaly, or argued normatively, that this would be a "waste" (3) the point still stands that acceptance of homosexuality is what would reduce bullying. He then asserts that "It is not acceptable, and should be put to an end."What isn't acceptable? Homosexuality? I have a few questions for you, Con: how, in what why, why, to what extent, etc.? You haven't addressed any of these. Once again, your entire argument boils down to "trust me." (Side note: he claims that homosexuality isn't acceptable while asserting later on that the resolution is about homosexuality being harmful. This is a highly deceptive form of argumentation that attempts to transition between two entirely different resolutions, both of which he cannot win). He then claims that homosexuality should be "put to an end." What does this mean? He wants to put an end to homosexuality? How? There are countries around the world where gay people are literally incarcerated or put to death. Surely Con is not arguing for any of these. So what does he mean by "put to an end?" This case is incoherent, and I hope he realizes how insensitive his arguments are, as well.As for his final argument:Con begins by claiming that "nobody can decide whether it is morally right or wrong." But not only is a large part of his case arguing that homosexuality is wrong and that is why, he claims, it should be "put to an end," but I have demonstrated to you that it was quite likely that he was in fact arguing for that resolution. And, at the same time, it is quite possible, as I have done, to refute his arguments with an appeal to philosophy. He then makes a completely incoherent, factually incorrect remark. This demonstrates that he has confused what a positive statement is -- this has absolutely nothing to do with a "negative or positive standpoint," and I never used those terms. A positive statement is a statement of "what is." He has made a positive statement to the effect of "homosexuality is harmful," and therefore he bears the burden of proof. By statin that he doesn't need to provide evidence, he has effectively conceded the debate.His argument as to whether I am taking a positive or negative statement is also laughable, because in order for this to be so, the notion that homosexuality causes harm, and thus he is arguing for preventing harm and I am arguing for causing harm, must be prima facie. It, however, is not. I have provided plenty of evidence for why the general statement "homosexuality is harmful" is factually and morally misguided. ConclusionCon has not met his burden of proof, nor has he provided any evidence. He tried to shift the BOP to me in the last round, and has dropped every one of my arguments in the process.