This House Would Ban All Researches or Attempts or Treatments that Seek to Cure Homosexuality

Exercise political correctness wherever you are, not only in a debate chamber. Even if it happens to contradict your conservative/religious ideals. No matter how much you think that being a homosexual will land you on a private 1-on-1 session with Satan in Hell after you die, you shouldn’t express that opinion out loud, just because. It’s just wrong. Furthermore, the reason behind the discourse of this motion is not about “helping homosexuals to turn to the straight path” anyway. When being faced with a Team Negative who rejects this motion because they would like to have these homosexuals repent, affirmative teams can always just concede (for the lulz) that being homosexual is indeed a sin, but they still want to ban these researches/attempts/treatments because even if being homosexual is a sin, these treatments are harmful (could be) and give a false hope and sense of security (again, could be). Just like how the extent of smoking’s harm is not the main topic of discussion in This House Would Ban Smoking in Public Places, the extent of sinfulness in being a homosexual is not the main topic of discussion here. And just like how you don’t expect Team Affirmative to assert that “smoking is harmful” in that motion, you don’t expect Team Negative to assert that “sodomy is a sin” in this motion.

Under this motion, Team Negative should auto-concede these points:

• That these researches/attempts/treatments are harmful in nature
• That these researches/attempts/treatments are ineffective in converting homosexuals

Because they are.. true, in nature. And really, though, you can Google them if you don’t trust us. Expect more to be elaborated by your Team Affirmative (or from us), later on. However, there is a catch: although it is true that they are ineffective in converting homosexuals, it doesn’t mean that homosexuality is untreatable – ahem! We mean, unconvertible. The debate of whether or not being homosexual is related to the genes is still an unsettled debate until as of now. And then, these researches/attempts/treatments, although indeed ineffective in converting homosexuals, has shown at certain times to curb homosexual tendencies in bisexuals (but, then again, this is kinda also to be expected to come from your Team Affirmative too).

Geographical context bias, and time-context bias, should not be too much of a problem. Even if some countries happen to already be tolerant and receptive towards homosexuals, the LGBT movement should be addressed as a worldwide effort. Supposing that this stretches the debate to migration issues, well – that would mean pulling it too far. No sane team would dare enough to pull that trick.

Team Affirmative

1. Because these treatments are harmful in nature (attempts are, too, but, dunno so much about the current and ongoing researches, no idea).

Sorry, everyone. Had to. Team Affirmative needs to explain this point, because, unlike the motion “This House Would Ban Smoking in Public Places” where explanation about smoking being harmful is unnecessary because of the “you don’t say”-ness of the issue, not everybody might have the extensive knowledge as to the various techniques deployed in these attempts and treatments. Google it. But let us spoil you a little bit first, by giving you the most notorious of all the well-known ones: pain-inducement treatment. This is done in order to change the reception within the patient’s psychology towards homosexuality. More to come on the next argument for Team Affirmative. But, seriously, Google the others.

2. Because these researches/attempts/treatments are ineffective in converting homosexuals.

It has been a long-standing issue of whether or not homosexuality is related to the DNAs – okay, okay. Right. Sorry if we have been repeating ourselves.

The problem at hand now is that you have two unresolved disputes

1. Homosexuality is (maybe) related to the genes, thus inconvertible

Should we assert, try to prove, and then confirm this fact? You know, in order to prove the point of how these treatments are ineffective in the first place?

2.These treatments are (maybe) only effective in treating the homosexual tendencies in bisexuals

Should we further elaborate this point?

But, for the sake of it, this. One of the pain-inducement treatment programs include exposing the patients to homosexual pornography and heterosexual pornography simultaneously. When patients receive the visual stimulus of watching homosexual pornography, they are electrocuted, or burnt, or – whatever. And then when the visual stimulus gets changed into that of homosexual pornography, they are given a soothing feeling towards their physical sensory – a massage, or a stroke, or a rub. This pain affiliation is expected to make the subconscious within the patients’ minds to register anything with “gay” to instantly trigger physical trauma, and thus hoping them to only trigger “heterosexual” things in their subconscious. Results vary, mostly failed (this is not a claim, we can confirm this), and then the debate sparks. Some argues that there is no point in trying to convert homosexuals because they were born with it in the first place, some argues that it is ethical to try to set things straight for bisexuals so that they have a proper choice and course of mo—well, you already know where this is going.

Anyway, the answers are no. To the both of them, (a) and (b). Team Affirmative Argument 1 and 2 over here are only precedents that serve to justify the main point behind you carrying over this motion. So both of those arguments are more of a “just-casually-mention-and-then-move-on-to-the-next-point” argument. The main point of this debate, for Team Affirmative, at least, is still in

3. Because to improve the LGBT movement.

This is it. The whole point of the discourse is to find which one proposal, Affirmative or Negative, benefits the LGBT movement better. Political correctness, remember? And that is also why it is to be expected that Team Negative won’t be bothered denying how these attempts/treatments are harmful, or how homosexuality is inherent, or how bisexuals need the every chance available for them to be converted back to heterosexuals, or—whatever. They won’t care about the technicalities and practicalities. It would make more sense that they would be caring about the concerns of the whole movement, as a body.

Yes, unfair motion, yes, extra burdens of proof for poor Team Affirmative, we know, but please just bear with us over here.

So, components for this assertion will be a lot. Not only for satisfying various burdens of proof, but also you really want to fortify all layers of defenses and your rebuttal-rebuttals to the rebuttals for this point of yours. There will be some extra assertions available for you, as always, in the ‘Extra Assertions!’ section in the end of this post entry, which you can use as various sub-points for this assertion. But for now, the rudimentary ones.

Characterize the LGBT movement properly. You need to make it subjective in your opinion so that it fits when you want to bring up the urgency of them still needing the ‘critical mass’ in order to garner sympathy and support – can’t have support from the people when the homosexuals comprise of less than 1% of the whole world’s population, can we? Then, the people themselves within the LGBT movement. Are they wholly proud in addressing themselves as being homosexuals? Are all of them already assuming their supposedly-have-to-be liberal mindsets, ideologies, and values? Not very likely. Then address the harms when there are still some homosexuals who still religiously think that being a homosexual is a sin, and it can be cured. Harms towards the LGBT movement as a whole, of course. Furthermore, characterize the perspectives and points of view from the society, divided into the general society, and the homophobic society. Unfortunately, the homophobic society still comprises quite the majority of the whole population (although, admittedly, as of current events, the number might have dwindled down to be tied-up with the general non-homophobic society, maybe even already at 20-40-40 at this point – we might have to amend/delete this post entry in the years to come, but for now, this stays, ha ha) because like it or not, the majority of people in this world are still religious and do not identify themselves as either atheistic/agnostic. The influence of religion being strong, talk about its potential role in the status quo being worsened. And the more you characterize emphasize the influence, the more urgency this motion has in order to carry forward. Perspectives and points of view from the general society now. Talk about the current progress, of course, we never debate about the present using sociological or anthropological or psychological or whatever contexts in the past, current progress of how the LGBT movement has garnered support and interest from the majority to side with them instead of the homophobic. And that the presence of this researches/attempts/treatments will hamper that progress. There still other actors, lots of them. As well as lots of other perspectives even among and within the same them. And lots of other arguments, benefits or harms, you can come up with. Remember that this point needs serious fortification.

Team Negative

Okay, so.. we… hope that you negative teams have read, or glimpsed through, at least a little bit, part of the Team Affirmative section, before getting here. Now that you have reached this part here, you have already known which parts you don’t want (and you don’t even need to) attack.

1. Because body autonomy (for the homosexual)

The good old classic clash of body autonomy versus social contract which you might expect to occur in most debate motions is—escalated, so to speak, in this motion. Things get a little bit more complicated here. So, you see, everybody has his own body autonomy. That is for sure. And by now we are expecting that you have already known how to properly (or even perfectly) defend, argue, and elaborate this point. But the problem here, is, that, does the body autonomy gives this homosexual his immunity from influence of the government, or influence from the LGBT movement instead? Although things get a little bit easier once you think about it more clearly: this is a form of the government, siding with the LGBT movement, both teaming up, and dictating the way of life for ALL homosexuals. So, it’s like, your one single body autonomy against two different pieces of social contract. Food for thought for you. But, just remember one thing, when delivering this point, you do not represent the religious and the homophobic (hope you don’t glorify how these homosexuals need “salvation”) – political correctness. Again. To make it easier to grasp, not religious values ‘and’ body autonomy versus two different pieces of social contract – ONLY ONE piece of body autonomy versus two different pieces of social contract. Remember that this is about upholding the inherent human right within everybody to choose whatever end goals and options in life they want to pursue. And that includes their sexuality. Being part of the LGBT movement thanks to your genes does not violate it. Being a citizen of a government thanks to your birth lottery does not either.

2. Because body autonomy (for the researchers and clinics)

Like we have said before, complicated. And, plus, you have to pay attention to how the tone of Team Negative Argument 1 back up there has the potential to contradict this Team Negative Argument 2 of yours. This body autonomy piece of argument here should sound familiar to you, though: “Researches, attempts, and treatments all belong to the same identity under economics, being businesses. And the moment when governments step in to interfere with how private enterprises conduct their businesses, that’s when the government turns autocratic and into a dictatorship. From that point on, the government can use that justification to invade, control, and conduct the whole production, distribution, and consumption system within a country as they see fit“. We are sure that you have ever heard of this before. Or something around the tone of this. The potential contradicting point lies when you try to glorify the existence of these researches and clinics – at one point you are going to state that these researches and clinics give them hope. Aand somewhere along explaining your Team Negative Argument 1, you asserted that everybody has his own body autonomy, and that should be interpreted logically as the right from body autonomy to grant them the immunity of reversion (back into being heterosexual), too, aside from the immunity of access to reversion (no one can ban your access when you want to be reverted). So, is the body autonomy weak in its stance, that it allows people to get converted, but it doesn’t protect people when they don’t want to? But, there is a way to get around that and thus preventing the contradiction and knifing from happening in the first place, though. Remember to concede when Team Affirmative states that these researches/attempts/treatments are harmful. That will make you take the stance of “letting things be even when they are detrimental to the society”. Then you try explaining it using analogies and parallel examples of how governments don’t ban cigarettes, or prostitution. Oh, or even KFC! So, don’t glorify, don’t even try to justify – just. Concede. Clue: They don’t interfere with how KFC conducts their business affairs, they use taxes. Sin taxes. Different philosophy.

3. Because this will harm the LGBT movement instead.

Ahh… the—core of this debate. The center of all the value judgment within the motion. The nature of LGBT movement, and all movements, for that matter, is that, yes, of course, needs support. But now here comes the question. After such a method to “cure” homosexuality arises, tension is bound to arise and disputes to manifest within the LGBT movement, where some homosexuals want to convert, and some other don’t. The question now comes to whether or not a movement only needs sheer number in order to garner sympathy and support? As like the “critical mass” point in Team Affirmative Argument 3? Or do you still need to pay attention to the loyalty, integrity, philosophy, and whatnot from all of its members? That is what you are going to argue on behalf of Team Negative. The whole point of Team Affirmative now becomes removal of an option, and Team Negative now becomes stressing how important the availability of an option is. For one, the option can streamline those who are adamant and those who are less integral to the stance of the movement to their own respective places. Characterize why this streamlining is important. Characterize why LGBT needs homosexuals who don’t believe in gay pride to be outside of the LGBT movement, back into being a heterosexual. Explore the other components which a movement might need. Use the feminist movement and environmentalist movement as parallel examples and analogies for your parameters as to what a movement need. Need to acquire and need to dispose of. Then assert how the existence of these researches/attempts/treatments provide the best media to streamline, and finally link everything back from the existence of this streamline to the disappearance of the members who are not integral to how it benefits the LGBT movement in the end of the day.