CreateDebate


Debate Info

41
56
Yes NO
Debate Score:97
Arguments:109
Total Votes:97
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (41)
 
 NO (51)

Debate Creator

BigOats(1449) pic



Are all people infected with Ebola's disease, born that way?

I mean, would you ever choose to have Ebola's? Of course not. So, isn't not a choice, and, using LOGIC, we conclude that such people are born with the disease.

Yes

Side Score: 41
VS.

NO

Side Score: 56
1 point

I prenatally wished to have the Ebola when I was delivered. It, sadly turns out that I tested negative; can I sue the doctor who delivered me for malpractice? They must have don't something wrong to keep me from having my desired infection.

Anyone who knows of a lawyer that specializes in medical suits, or only class action suits of this nature, please let me know.

Side: Yes
1 point

Thank you for a beautiful message of love! I knew someone would speak out against bigotry.

Side: NO
1 point

Ebola comes from African Nations and Africans need to keep that problem there

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

So you support the idea that everyone who had Ebola, was born with it?

Side: NO
DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

Ebola comes from Africans in African Nations. Your realization of that would heighten your intelligence at least somewhat.

Side: Yes
ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

Ah yes, they're suffering from diseases, but that's not our problem.

Side: NO

If you mean that they weren't born with immunity from the disease, then yes, they were born with the disease, potentially.

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

No, that is not what I meant. I meant that applying the flawed logic of the LGBT can produce statements which are obviously incorrect.

Side: NO
1 point

Let's see, then. I can classify the things you get in 3 categories. Tell if you think something more should be added.

Things you choose to happen

Things you are born with

Things that happen to you in life outside of your control

Side: Yes
1 point

"We conclude that such people are born with the disease" Yes they are born with said disease.

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

The statement I'm arguing against, is "everyone who has ever had Ebola, was born with said disease". That statement is false. But such a statement can be produced using LGBT logic. Which means that their logic is faulty.

Side: NO
outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

It is false to say people are not born with Ebola just as it is false to say people are not born with cancer.

Side: Yes
1 point

Everyone born will get ebola at least once in their life... this is fact not non-fiction.

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

You're right what you're saying is "not non-fiction". Which means that it's fiction.

Side: NO
hoehoe69(7) Clarified
1 point

Well... you're not wrong so..............................................................................

Side: Yes
3 points

Well said. I am not anti gay rights but it makes me feel uneasy to extent to which the message "it is okay to be gay" warps all other facts. It is a fact that homosexuals are more likely to have been abused when they were children. This is one of, I suspect, many events in a persons life that can determine their sexuality. The only answer I have got from people that say that all homosexuals are born that way is that gay children some how attract pedophiles. Being that most pedophilia occurs by the father and another close relative I find that very hard to believe. I am also surprised by people suggesting this as it goes against the modern paradigm that it is unacceptable to draw any casual link between the victims behaviour and their abuse.

What I find even more bizarre about this is that the only articles you can find online that even remotely hint at homosexuality possibly being cause by early childhood experiences are those from extremist Christian website: which of course are going to be instantly dismissed by anyone that isn't also a hardcore Christian.

Side: NO
1 point

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

I would like to clarify that I don't consider myself an anti-gay person. I'm disgusted by people who attack gays for the sole reason of them being gay. There are bastards among gays, too - so I would not totally exclude the possibility of fighting a gay. Same goes for Christians.

I support the values of classical liberalism, which were formulated by Locke. The identity policies which are endorsed by the neo-liberals, are actually working against liberalism in its classical sense. This is why I'm targeting all identity policy activism, including LGBT activism.

Side: NO
1 point

What do you think is wrong with "it is okay to be gay"? Is it not okay to be gay if you were abused to get that way?

Side: NO
Atrag(5666) Clarified
1 point

I think the message that it is okay to be gay is alright. It is fine to be conditioned to be gay through your experience and to act on those tendencies.

Side: Yes
2 points

That must mean people infected with Ebola are unnatural.

Side: NO
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

Ebola is natural, to the same extent as death is natural .

Side: Yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

I have been assured that if you aren't born that way it isn't natural.

Side: NO
2 points

WTF are you talking about?

Is this supposed to be some sort of metaphor for claiming that Gays are born that way and do not choose to be Gay?

Whatever. Sorry, your example here does not work at all. It actually makes very little sense as well.

First: Ebola is a virus. It is acquired the same way all viral infections are: the virus enters your body, either via injection or inhalation or ingestion, and then enters a cell and begins "hijacking" the cells DNA so it can replicate.

If course nobody would choose to have ebola, as it is probably the most gruesome virus out there with a very high mortality rate.

But you need to read my OP on being Gay and if its a choice or a genetic pre-disposition. I laid it all out pretty well and accurately. The answer, BTW, is "both." A person can be born with a genetic tendency that inclines them to favor homosexual behavior, or they can indeed choose to engage in homosexual sex. And a person can also be bisexual. There are gradations of "gayness." Shades. It is not a black or white, yes or know, Gay or straight thing all of the time.

Also, know that gay women, your lesbos, are far more likely to have simply chosen to be a dyke than to be born with the genetic disposition, as is usually but not always the case with Gay men.

hope this helps, as you sound way confused, amigo.

SS

Side: NO
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

Is this supposed to be some sort of metaphor for claiming that Gays are born that way and do not choose to be Gay?

Congrats on totally missing the point. This debate is a refutation of the so-called "logic" used by the LGBT in their propaganda. "Could you choose to be gay? -> No? -> So we didn't choose to be straight -> So we were born that way". This bullshit needs to be confronted.

I have shown that the same logic in a different situation, produces an incorrect statement. Therefore the logic itself is flawed. If you didn't choose to be affected by a certain condition, it doesn't mean you were born with that condition.

A person can be born with a genetic tendency that inclines them to favor homosexual behavior What is a genetic tendency? If you mean genetic trait, well yes, some genetic traits could probably turn the odds against a person in resisting environmental influence, which leads them to homosexuality. But that's very far from "genetic predisposition". Society plays a decisive role in this conditioning.

I know quite well that women often simply choose to be lesbian, rather than being conditioned by the environment. The reason is that male homosexuality is directly linked to the primal archetypes of domination and submission, but female homosexuality is not.

Side: Yes
SlapShot(2608) Clarified
1 point

In Biology and genetics we often specify between the two terms regarding somebody being born with a genetic trait or a tendency. As they are not the same thing.

Rather, they are gradations, or, say, slight genome variations that each imbue differing levels of physiological or psychological impact.

If you're born with a full-on trait, like, say, blue eyes or obesity, then your inherited genes from one or both of your parents "coded" for that physical trait. That is, you have it. Period.

But in the case of a tendency, that means your genetic pre-disposition was such that chances were more favorable than not that you would at some point in your life acquire that trait. At which point you would "have it" just the same as somebody who acquired it "full-on" at birth.

IOW: the person with the "genetic tendency" does not have that coded trait "etched in stone." Or "hardwired" if you prefer. To go the electrical metaphor one better: instead of a hardwired fully-connected circuit, your "wires" were laid in place and connected with loose, barely-touching connections in that circuit, and the electricity (in the case of nucleotides) may or may not ever get "switched on."

This is why the "tendency" to engage in homosexual behavior, or bisexual behavior, instead of being full-on Gay.

So...OK, that was a brief and very-generalized and layman-termed synopsis on my own words. Here is a bit more on this if you are interested.........

http://knowgenetics.org/common_misconceptions/

SS

Side: Yes
1 point

If you didn't choose to have a certain condition, it doesn't follow that you were born with it.

Side: NO
DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

Africans in African Nations aren't born with the AIDS virus ?

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

You're totally on the wrong track here. Can't you see that this is sarcasm aimed against the "born this way" rhethoric?

And your post is irrelevant because the debate is asking whether or not EVERYONE who ever had Ebola disease, was born with it. It's not in refference to a subset, but to the whole set. Google set theory in your free time.

Side: NO
1 point

The weren't born with Ebola therefore they don't deserve to be treated equally in society.

Side: NO
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

I'm sure you meant "They were born with Ebola therefore they don't deserve to be treated equally in society"?

Side: Yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

No. I meant what I wrote.

Side: NO
1 point

How does it follow from that?

Side: Yes
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Good point. Now imagine if we weren't talking about Ebola.

Side: NO
1 point

That's not true. We all born in the same way, with a healthy body. Ebola is a disease with an unhealthy way to be in. Patient may survive from Ebola but wit a small chance, it doesn't come from our mom or dad

Side: NO
1 point

Right, so the fact that people do not choose to have Ebola, does not mean they are born with it.

Side: NO

Correct. Now, assuming that you're using this against gay rights, you'd also have to first have the premise that-

a) Homosexuality or other LGBT "illnesses" are contagious, and,

b) Homosexuality is harmful enough to make an effort to get rid of.

Then you could conclude this as a good argument to try and prevent homosexuality, or else it's just a false equivocation.

Side: NO
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

I'm using this to prove that LGBT activists use flawed pseudo-logic in their propaganda.

Side: Yes
ironskillet(220) Disputed
1 point

I understand the point, but what argument are you making? That being homosexual is harmful to a person?

Side: NO
1 point

I think, and this is just my idea on it, the better analogy would be, if I was born with brown eyes but wanted to be green eyes instead. Sure I can change the color of my eyes with contacts but I have a genetic predisposition to have brown and eventually I should come to accept that, changing the color by contacts doesn't change the fact that I still have brown eyes.. Being gay isn't a choice like choosing color contacts though, so I think that's where the analogy ends. Ebola is a transmitted disease, not exactly the best comparison for being LGBT.

Side: NO
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

The point is that the "logic" used by LGBT activists is not logic. It proves nothing.

Side: NO
Mint_tea(4641) Clarified
1 point

Their logic is indeed flawed if they are in fact saying that. It implies that homosexuality is a disease, it is not. And that it communicable....it is not.

Side: Yes

No.

ARE YOU DUMB?

First off, no one "chooses" to have any disease. That does not mean they are born with it.

You don't choose to have aids but.... that doesn't mean you are born with it.

Side: NO
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

No.

YOU ARE DUMB.

The point of this debate is to demonstrate that LGBT "logic" is fallacious.

If someone didn't choose to have acertain condition, it doesn't mean he was born with it.

Side: Yes