Saturday, September 18, 2010

Contention 3

-I believe that society can either accept homosexuals and treat them as an equal or not accept them and deny them participation. I am against the latter because when it has been done in the past it has had an adverse affect on the people denied their rights. You are proposing societal indifference which is similar to social exclusion. This is a black and white matter because you can either exclude or include. You cannot exclude and include.

This is where I officially discount Pro's argument as worthless competition. Absurd, and utterly laughable, the notion that he is actually trying to argue that society can only pick between exclusion or inclusion. If society actually functioned in such a manner we would have died out even before modern civilization initiated. This minimizes our decision space down to yes or no. 0 or 1. Mind me, but even if this was the case; 0 or 1, we would still have an infinite number of variational decisions within (how else would binary code function?) 0 or 1. The thought that non exclusion means inclusion and vice versa is so mind numbingly stupid that I really just don't know what to say to you if you actually believe such a thing. Your logic is grievously flawed. Yet another one of Pro's 'points' refuted(via reductio ad absurdum) effortlessly by yours truly. Let us all consider how easily negated every single one of Pro's proclaimed logics are when voting. 

No comments:

Post a Comment