Let's say there's a class that is supposedly highly controversial as the stance of the class is not to support or reject homosexuality and the concept of gender. Students will have to use exclusively academic materials to support their stance. The teacher's position is to be completely neutral on the subject and to look for problems on both sides. This teacher will say things such as these sayings on the list Sayings list - "Those who says sexuality can't change at all, please cite your sources and don't use anecdotal evidences from LGBTQ community. Use exclusively academic materials discussing fluid sexuality." "Those who thinks sexuality can in fact change, please cite your sources and don't use Christian sources or sources that shows absurd reasoning and understanding. " "For those that don't like homosexuals, don't say that homosexuality is wrong because it's perverse. Those that do support the rights of homosexual, don't argue that homosexuality is ok because love is love. Make concrete arguments that does not involve the use of emotions. Always look for problems in your argument and the other sides' argument. We are to point out problems with others' arguments. You are free to express your opinions as you wish in this class no matter how controversial." "Those that thinks men and women are different emotionally and psychologically, cite your sources. Those that don't should do so as well." "I want you people to try to look for flaws in your researches." --- What do you think of this controversial class?
I don't see why it is so controversial. It encourages rational thought in general, as well as encouraging people to reach logical conclusions about the rights of our community. I just have one point of contention: I agree that making emotional arguments (aka this thing makes me happy/sad), however, emotion can still be considered. The rights of homosexuals are largely based on the right to freely express an emotion: love. Part of the arguments must be about the importance of said emotions: (aka, in the absence of harm caused, the right to express the emotion should be granted).
The reason that I'm saying this is controversial because it seems like the LGBT debate in general is full of people with emotional overtones instead of people attempting to use academic sources and rational reasons, I rarely find people trying to think as a observer looking into reasons and problems of each arguments. The problems with emotional appeals is that they're not necessarily convincing and there's nothing to back it up. This is why I resort to telling others to use arguments such as economical effects, productivity ability, problems with each arguments, studies, and you get the idea.
I'd say it was an interesting experiment with the potential to illuminate certain things about the debate regarding sexuality. If the course was presented as encompassing all of the "important" aspects of the debate around sexuality, though, I'd say that was an exaggeration.
