Debate club? (Uh-oh)

Not a problem, win the debate and convince someone in the audience that this should happen.

...do you think can you change the topic?

 

What kind of a topic is that????

 

Homosexuality would be outlawed? :wow: What the hell kind of debate topic is that? I'm sorry but I have no clue what to say for that, I just can't believe that's the topic?

 

Frankly that anyone would have this be a topic for speech and debate is preposterous. There are no arguments one can make that aren't very offensive.

I'd try to get a new topic.

 

You could argue that all Gay people should be sent to a certain place, which is designed entirely for the LGBT community, for reasons like these:

- Gay people don't want to be hit on, bothered, attacked etc by Straight people, and vice versa
- Most Gay people want to hang around with other members of LGBT community, because they are safe from homophobic straight fools
- Homophobic people wont come in contact with gay people, meaning lower suicide and mental illness percentages, and less hate crimes and homelessness rates
- It would benefit Gay people by allowing them to be part of an inclusive, supportive community, with greater business opportunities and chances of finding a partner.

Really hope this helps!

 

I can't think of a reason that $1000 is worth selling your soul for.

I could never understand scholastic debate, despite having done it for two years of high school. I only argue about things I care about.

 

Honestly, no good reasons come to mind, even after searching a bit on Google.

I'd try to get a new topic, because it's an obsurd one...

 

Can you make it a comedy? I'm sure you could really deliver some funny lines, yet make a point too.

I don't know how all that works though, so probably not.

 

Is it possible for there to be any (decent) anti-homosexuality secular arguments? I can't think of any...

The key to winning this would be some really good rhetoric. (Because lets face it, that's all there is on this side of the argument.) And I can't really help you there. Heck, I don't even know who exactly to point you to here. I'm sure there are people who have debated this issue and have some good rhetorical skills, but I don't exactly keep up with the "debate" over homosexuality beyond seeing stuff in blogs about groups like AFA.

And to be honest, I don't think this is exactly a fair topic. You have to have some really good rhetoric to be able to win something like this imo. I don't think its impossible, but certainly not a walk in the park. I don't think I'd personally do it. The 1k doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

DISCLAIMER: People will hate me for this, but I don't care. Debating for difficult sides is like going on a field trip for me. I'm having a lot of fun right now.


Despite the large amount of data and researches I've accumulated regarding homosexuality, I haven't found any information or credible research that could point towards homosexuality being a behavior that should be outlawed. You're likely going to lose this one regardless of the outcome because you were put on the most difficult side to defend, but the idea is interesting so I'll provide some help.

I think the best way to argue against homosexuality would be to use undeniable reasons under undeniable circumstances, use poorly made studies showing homosexuality in a bad light (considering your opponents would be unprepared to deal with such studies thus unable to repudiate them), cover the increased exposure of STIs in homosexuals.

For example, we currently live in a society with a significant amount of baby boomers retiring and families that are not procreating enough to make up for the economical impact resulting in the loss of senior employees and the lack of youths to fill those jobs. It could be argued that, given the incapacity of homosexual couples to procreate naturally, legalizing homosexuality would effectively reduce the number of country-born children who will come to support our society in the future. Basically, it's an argument about population control, in that you want more procreation to ensure the economic safety of the country.

You could also ignore the economical aspect and strictly go for the social aspect in that we have a growing number of retirees and a shrinking number of youths to make up for the loss. The argument could also apply to lesser populated countries or also use aboriginal groups like the ones present in Australia who had banned same-sex relationship prior to the arrival of religion in a possible attempt to ensure the group's survival given the tendency of these groups or tribes to only comprise of a very small population, thus homosexual relationship could endanger the survival of the group by being "unable" to reproduce.


In regards to poorly made studies and researches, these are researches that puts homosexuality in a bad light. They have already been debunked, but they're useful in arguments against uninformed opponents. I'll also post a link that covers why these researches are poorly made so as to not cause any confusion and also prepare for any potential counterarguments (there won't be any, but it's always good to know both sides to come up with counter-counterarguments).

First bad research : Walter R. Schumm : Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals
Proof that Schumm's research is bollocks : Box Turtle Bulletin » “Children of Homosexuals” Researcher More Apt To Ape Paul Cameron

Second bad research : Mark Regnerus - Research on Gay-Parenting
Proof that Regnerus' research is bollocks (as covered by the scientific journal's audit, Sherkat) : Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal's Audit Finds - Percolator - The Chronicle of Higher Education


On STIs:
Why are HIV Rates Higher In Gay Men

U.S. Gay Men's Astonishing HIV/STD Rates

STI epidemic amongst gay men undoubtedly contributing to continuing high rate of HIV transmission

Gay Men & HIV/AIDS (and Other STDs) in the U.S



Have fun going through all this. I sure did.


"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." - Frank Dane

 

I don't think it's 'selling your soul' to argue an opinion you don't agree with in a debate club. You know the opinions are assigned, and what the person's arguing isn't necessarily what they believe. And I think it's a good thing to understand the opposing side better - it helps you convince them, and plus it shows more respect for them as human beings than if you see them as strawmen bigots.

I use a similar logic when I write characters I disagree with. I have one character who's a fundamentalist Christian vampire convinced that she's going to go to Hell. I would get into pretty heated arguments with her if I met her (in fact, another character pretty much tells her exactly what I would) but from her perspective it all makes perfect sense.

 

I remember being in a situation like this in a mock debate in university. I was on the team that was assigned the "Climate change is not real" argument. Obviously a much easier point to argue than homosexuality should be outlawed, but the preparation would be relatively similar I'd assume. It's tough to argue FOR something that is blatantly discriminatory, but it's not impossible. And even though this will be difficult for you, I think you can do it. I think a lot of the suggestions given in this thread, especially those from Calico and Hefiel, would be very useful for you. Good luck!

 

I'm gonna be honest here, I would be jumping for joy if I got that topic in debate. All I've ever gotten is crap that no-one really cares about.

Be happy that you got a controversial topic on this, and remember that at the end of the day, debate is not about fighting for what you believe in, but rather being able to fight for your given side no matter what it is. As an example, in debate provincials this year, one of the impromptu topics was "BIRT men's sports should get more coverage than women's", and I was assigned opposition. My opponents were two girls who did amazingly well at convincing everyone that women aren't as entertaining as men, despite their personal beliefs.

My point is that in debate, your personal opinion means absolutely nothing, and that's the fun of it. Go through with it, and argue your assigned side, even if you have to quote the Westboro Baptist Church. Just try to win.

As for reasons, all I can really think of is stuff like "gays are bad influences on children", and "nature dictates that organisms live their lives to procreate, so homosexuals are basically a waste of space (I would be slightly more subtle on that one)".

 

Argue that gays want their habits to be illegal so they get to meet sexy cops when they're found out.

If you actually do win that one, I would try to do some damage control if you actually do convince any impressionable doofuses out there. I wouldn't want anyone believing it, no matter how persuasive you are.

 

If it's about homosexuality itself, then you can't win, I'm sorry. Issue a complaint about the topic.
If it is gay marriage, this is an argument. What you could argue is that marriage, whether it be between the same or opposite genders, is bad. You could say that same sex marriage is only perpetuating a broken institution, and the next step is to remove all marriage. It is the only reasonable argument I can come up with (even though I don't agree with it). I would issue a complaint to the debating society over the one-sided topic, as well as give moral objections.

 

I've never heard of any decent secular arguments again it. I've been able to pick holes of ridiculous size into any secular arguments. What may be easier for you, as others have said, is to argue from a gay rights point of view about how marriage should be avoided, or something like that.

 

I guess we'll disagree here, but it's not challenging: It's offensive. No debate club would ever force kids to argue against interracial marriage, or on how some races are inferior to others, or whatever. I could come up with several inane and offensive arguments to argue any of these things, but that doesn't mean doing so would be productive in any way. The topic is culturally insensitive and any arguments one can make are based on BS studies and biblical morals. Shouldn't we be teaching kids to debate based off of more than that?