Homosexuals who are intolerant of all homophobes are BIGOTS

I shall be the first person to state that my opponent's arguments by their very own nature are incorrect. In this debate I will show why his logic is flawed and how I can win this debate with this altrusistic resolution. The debate resolution can be simply almost eased up to the bellow picture. First I would like to argue on the grounds of certain semantics. My opponent defines Bigot and a key word within the definition that the entire definitions henges on is the word prejudices. Let's define it. Prejudice- an R03;unfair and R03;unreasonable R03;opinion or R03;feeling R03;formedwithout enough R03;thought or R03;knowledge: [1] In this case all I have to do in this debate is to show that there is reason in said hatered or that homophobia is unreasonable or illogical then I would win the debate on these grounds. Next I shall define homophobia. Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals [2]Now let's apply this to my opponent's Argument. By Homophobia's very definition it is prejudice and discrimination against gays. This outright shows my opponent's argument here to be an inavlid one and must be thrown out of the debate as such.Now as for reason. What reason could the homosexual community could have against the homophobes? Things like public attacks, stonings, executions, being forced into insane asylumns, conversion therapy, discrimination, and much more. First I would like to twist this resolution a bit and make it something more relatable to my opponent that I have seen in another debate of his.Under this scenerio the resolution would be, "Blacks who are intollerant against White Suppremisists are bigots." Under this case my opponent would be arguing that "not all White Suppremisists hate blacks or are prejudice against them, but they are disgusted by them. You can see that by this disgust we must keep them seperate because blacks are appaling subhuman creatures." Do you see the redundency behind this mode of thinking? We can simply see that through this term of reversability since my opponent would not like the said flip on him then it shouldn't be applied. When made back to the original resolution, by the same mode of thinking, my opponent would not enjoy the current status quo if he were homosexual and by this regard the resolution fails. Rawls's Veil of IgnoranceIn order to fully refute the resolution we must use the theories of John Rawls. Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [3] Since the person's sexuality and sex orientation is discarded under the Veil of Ignorance there would be a justifiable reason to hate someone who openly discriminates against you and everyone that is like you. This is also a key thing as your enemy would choose your place in society and thus your enemy would make you the one being discrimated against. Though you can hate your hatered cannot justify your rights which have been trampled by those who discrimate against you. Thus we can see under Rawls's Veil of Ignorance this resolution would flow towards my side in this debate. Do to the above arguments we can see that the resolution and my opponent's arguments have been negated.Sources1. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org...) 2. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) 3. ( http://plato.stanford.edu...)