Instigator / Con
Points: 8

Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Kikomori
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
People
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 14
Description
Is sexual orientation determined at birth? Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are? Yes.
Debate Format
Round 1: Opening Statements (If you troll, I win)
Round 2: Rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals and Conclusions.
Rules:
1. No religious arguments (e.g. "THE GREAT GOD GATORADE SAID THAT LGBTQ PEOPLE ARE GOOD.")
2. No trolling (As I said before, if you troll, I win.)
3. No cussing (Unless it is in a quote)
4. No insulting (e.g. "YOU SUCK, MY PEEPEE IS SO LARGE IT IS BIGGER THAN YOURS, I WIN and YOU LOSE)
5. No forfeiting
If you break any of these rules, it will either cause me to win the debate, or you to lose a conduct point.
Clarification: I am pro-LGBTQ, but I am not LGBTQ.
Round 1
Published:
First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
 
Point 1. No One Can be Born Heterosexual or Gay
 
Let's say that you just got born. You have no idea what the world is and how you feel about it. Heck, you probably can't even see the world. But, even with no knowledge about who you are, what your talents are, and what type of person you are; do you automatically decide that you should be gay or straight? No, which proves my point.
 
Point 2. You Just Can’t.
 
At birth, you probably aren’t thinking about your sexual orientation. Your brain (at birth) is “trying to make sense of the world around them from the moment they emerge from the womb.” This means, you, as a baby, can’t even wrap your head around the fact that some people are gay, and some people are straight. You won’t understand it, your brain is too small and too new to grasp this topic. You’re just understanding what you are and your purpose in this world.

I am SO sorry for making this debate short, I am leaving for a trip in 2 days.
 
 
 
 

Published:
As my opponent is clearly time constrained I will try to keep my arguments as short as possible to allow them time to respond.

I will begin with a rebuttal which include my own points.

But, even with no knowledge about who you are, what your talents are, and what type of person you are; do you automatically decide that you should be gay or straight?
Firstly, I must contend the use of the verb 'decide,' which begs the question. Secondly, my opponent demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what 'born x way' really means. It does not mean that, at the point of birth, a baby just is gay or straight, it means that that child has the genetic code, if you like, that will 'make the child gay' (for lack of better phrasing) during puberty and later development. 
This brings me on to my point - handiness. I hope that my opponent would agree that handiness is a genetic characteristic, but a child is not born knowing this, it is only realised years into development. Furthermore, modern science, due to research on twins, raised both together and separately, has shown that when one twin is gay, the other is also gay around 30% of the time - more often, might I add, than when both twins will be left handed.

Point 2 is point one, so...
Round 2
Published:
Secondly, my opponent demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what 'born x way' really means. It does not mean that, at the point of birth, a baby just is gay or straight, it means that that child has the genetic code, if you like, that will 'make the child gay' (for lack of better phrasing) during puberty and later development. 
Ok, you completely conceded to my point. Sexual orientation is not determined at birth, it is determined later on (as you said: "during puberty and later development).  We are not talking about genetics, we are talking about the time that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual. If I didn't explain that well enough I can give you the conduct point. 

This brings me on to my point - handiness. I hope that my opponent would agree that handiness is a genetic characteristic, but a child is not born knowing this, it is only realised years into development. Furthermore, modern science, due to research on twins, raised both together and separately, has shown that when one twin is gay, the other is also gay around 30% of the time - more often, might I add, than when both twins will be left handed.
I don't understand how "handiness" fits into the argument. Also, where are your sources for the study? 
Published:
Ok, you completely conceded to my point. Sexual orientation is not determined at birth, it is determined later on (as you said: "during puberty and later development).  We are not talking about genetics, we are talking about the time that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual. If I didn't explain that well enough I can give you the conduct point. 
Admittedly, it is rather fun when your opponent changes the parameters of the debate halfway through in order to suit his side of the argument. No, we were not talking about 'the time that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual,' because the factor of knowledge was not once mentioned, and, of course, the title of the debate:
Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth? 
Determined. Not known about, not prevalent, but determined. This answer is an obvious yes. My opponent's argument is essentially an extraordinarily obvious 'equivocation fallacy,' wherein he kindly changes the wording for us to realise this. 

My opponent's current argument is exactly the same as: 'sex isn't determined at birth because a child that is born doesn't know what genitals it has!' Nonsensical. Who you are at birth Is determined by genetics, which is why they can't just be ignored, as he claims. For example, I had blonde hair at birth and early childhood, and yet I now have brown. This is solely determined at birth - that is to say, I had those genes at birth. 
I don't understand how "handiness" fits into the argument.
I may not have explained this clear enough, but the point was that genes have a greater influence on sexuality than handiness. If you want more information, this wiki article is a great starting point. 
Round 3
Published:
Admittedly, it is rather fun when your opponent changes the parameters of the debate halfway through in order to suit his side of the argument. No, we were not talking about 'the time that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual,' because the factor of knowledge was not once mentioned, and, of course, the title of the debate:
I haven't switched the parameters of the debate. And, yes, we are talking about the times that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual. As mentioned in the description "Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are?", which means that we are talking about if the person knows (says) his/her's sexual orientation.

My opponent's current argument is exactly the same as: 'sex isn't determined at birth because a child that is born doesn't know what genitals it has!' Nonsensical. Who you are at birth Is determined by genetics, which is why they can't just be ignored, as he claims. For example, I had blonde hair at birth and early childhood, and yet I now have brown. This is solely determined at birth - that is to say, I had those genes at birth. 
When have I ever said that "sex isn't determined at birth because a child doesn't know what genitals it has". I have never implied that, or said that. Don't use false quotes. Also, genes are created at conception which is BEFORE birth, so even if there was a gene called a "gay gene" it would have been made before birth, which is still not at birth. But, you already said this yourself too. 

I had those genes at birth. 
"had" is past tense, which means you have already had those genes.
I may not have explained this clear enough, but the point was that genes have a greater influence on sexuality than handiness. If you want more information, this wiki article is a great starting point. 
Ok, but that doesn't support your argument in any way.

Conclusion: If a gay gene exists, than sexual orientation is determined before birth, but if a gay gene doesn't exist, than it is determined after birth. 


Thanks for debating with me, and vote CON!
Published:
I feel most people reading can clearly see my opponents disingenuity throughout the final debate section.
His comments are, as commenter 'Cogent_Cognizer' put it, an attempt to 'shift the goalposts' rather than engage in a true debate. His comments bragging about a 'free win' due to his purposefully misleading and confusing semantics and word play seems to reinforce this viewpoint.
And, yes, we are talking about the times that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual. As mentioned in the description "Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are?", which means that we are talking about if the person knows (says) his/her's sexual orientation.
To most, this description seems like a subtitle, not a defining statement. Furthermore, it still does not relate to whether 'sexual orientation was determined at birth,' they are completely unrelated. These are two separate questions for two separate debates. This is clearly a poor attempt by my opponent to move the goalposts. 
For example, the subtitle 'Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are?' should, when considering the context of the debate's title, be assumed to mean 'are LGBT people really 'born' who they say they are. If con truly intended for KNOWLEDGE specifically to be a factor, he should have stated it in the title or description. As it stands, knowledge is just a parameter added to get con the easy win he was bragging about in the comments.

If there was any doubt that con was not actually reading my debates, this clears it up.
When have I ever said that "sex isn't determined at birth because a child doesn't know what genitals it has". I have never implied that, or said that. Don't use false quotes. 
I didn't say that. You even included the quote in your own argument - here it is
My opponent's current argument is exactly the same as: 'sex isn't determined at birth because a child that is born doesn't know what genitals it has!' Nonsensical. Who you are at birth Is determined by genetics, which is why they can't just be ignored, as he claims. For example, I had blonde hair at birth and early childhood, and yet I now have brown. This is solely determined at birth - that is to say, I had those genes at birth
I said his arguments are 'the same as,' meaning akin to, or like. It was an analogy.

 Also, genes are created at conception which is BEFORE birth, so even if there was a gene called a "gay gene" it would have been made before birth, which is still not at birth. But, you already said this yourself too. 
More semantics and moving the goalposts from con. 
Let me clear up this confusion.
The statement 'I can drive at 19' is true if I learn to drive when I am 18. Con is trying to play with definitions again here, but most reasonable people would assume that 'determined at birth,' means 'by the time of birth, they are determined.' This means that, as sexuality is defined by genetics (here is evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins discussing evolution's role in homosexuality, evolution can only determine nature, not nurture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmQns78FR8)

Thank you all for reading, and I hope you will consider my arguments, instead of con's insistence on avoiding topics of contention and resorting to wordplay.
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
'If there is a gay gene, then this gene is part of the genetic code at conception, and would not be determined at birth, but rather revealed at some point in the child's life. Much the way eye color, hair color, etc are determined at conception and revealed (not determined) at some later point in time (birth, toddler years, adulthood, etc).
Determined and revealed are not the same thing. In this case, for example, the child's sexuality is DETERMINED by the time of birth, but REVEALED later on. If this is what you are actually saying I agree, apologies though because I am tired and had trouble completely wrapping my head around that one.
Contender
#68
Added:
--> @Gatorade
just read your last argument, i think we are saying the same thing lol
#67
Added:
--> @Gatorade
Nope, that's not what i'm stating. I was playing Devil's Advocate. For starters, I don't believe a Gay Gene exists, so no you can't be "gay" before birth. But let's just say there is a gene that determines sexual orientation. Again, let me repeat- i don't think there is one, this is just for the sake of argument. If there. IF, and it's a big unvalidated IF, there is a gay gene, then this gene is part of the genetic code at conception, and would not be determined at birth, but rather revealed at some point in the child's life. Much the way eye color, hair color, etc are determined at conception and revealed (not determined) at some later point in time (birth, toddler years, adulthood, etc).
My point being, if the "gay gene" is the foundation of your argument, the answer to the debate question would be no, it's not determined at birth.
But again, this is un-substantiated assertion that there exists a gene that determines orientation.
#66
Added:
Whoops, forgot to add this to my argument. My opponent hasn't stated his sources for his study.
Instigator
#65
Added:
--> @GuitarSlinger
So, technically, you can be gay before birth.
Instigator
#64
Added:
I would further add that nothing is "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. A baby's biological sex is not "determined" at birth, but rather revealed at birth (sometimes before birth via ultrasound). When a doctor proclaims "It's a boy" or "It's a girl!", they are not "determining" the child's gender, but rather revealing it based on what we, as a society have determined what makes up a boy (male) or a girl (female).
Now if we are sticking to semantics, say there is a "gay gene". Science is still on the fence on this one, but say, for the sake of argument, there is a "gay gene". I don't hold this belief personally, but let's just say there is one. I'm not a geneticist, but it is my understanding that genes are not made at birth. Rather, the genetic code is determined at, you guessed it...conception. So if anything the sexual orientation would not be "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. But this doesn't seem logical or possible-- it would technically be right to argue that the orientation is "revealed" later.
So technically speaking, if there was a "gay gene", the sexual orientation would technically not be determined at birth, but rather when the genetic code is made (conception).
#63
Added:
This would've been fun to debate. Some thoughts. Words are important:
Sexual orientation is basically a desire or tendency towards a center type of person to satisfy a need for sexual gratification. Is this "determined" at birth? I would say No. As an analogy, we have a desire to feed our bodies, to satisfy a biological urge. This is innate. Yet, how we choose to satisfy this urge is primarily based on what we learn or experience. Some choose to satisfy this desire to eat by eating Steaks...some choose to satisfy this desire by eating Fish.....Some choose to satisfy this desire by eating berries and nuts. The need to satisfy an urge, be it eating, drinking or having sex, might be innate, but what we lean towards (i.e. what type of foods, what type of drinks, what type of people) I would argue is not innate. I might even go so far as to argue that if anything makes sense to be innate, it would be the heterosexual desire, because this, after all is what propagates the species.
#62
Added:
--> @Club
When?
Contender
#61
Added:
--> @Kikomori
the question I said before,
#60
Added:
--> @Club
What question does my argument stunt?
Contender
#59
Added:
--> @Club
Now I'm confused, are you gatorade lol?
Yes I am
Contender
#58
Added:
--> @Kikomori
Wait, were you on DDO? Because I recognize the username.
#57
Added:
Your argument stunts that question. Sorry if I made it unclear.
#56
Added:
--> @Club
Last I checked, the debate's question is 'Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?' If you can see any relation to knowledge within said question or description, go ahead.
Contender
#55
Added:
--> @Gatorade
Thing is though, gato, that you were not explicit. The most common connotation of the verb 'determined' in this context, links to determinism, as in, pre determined. That is the implication. What you are doing, sir, is changing the definition and the derivative of the word to suit your argument, in a rather similar way to Jordan Peterson. What is clear is that you are, as @bmdrocks21 put it, 'looking for an easy win,' by titling your debate one way and arguing from a completely different perspective - deliberately misleading and confusing. If you meant 'Is Sexual Orientation known about at birth?' say that. Don't use the word 'determined,' with its completely different connotations and definition, if you mean knowledge. They are no where near the same thing.
Contender
#54
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con doesn’t appear to offer a cogent thesis here of why he feels that homosexuality isn’t determined at birth.
They key arguments presented by con are that children don’t know what sex or gender they are at the time of birth: this appears to be an odd semantic argument, and one dealt with well by pro - by pointing out the clear and reasonable interpretation of the resolution implies that homosexuality is genetic, or set by the time of birth.
Cons second point, is against a semantic twist by arguing that genetics are determined before birth, which was dismissed by pro as changing the definition.
As a result, I feel it necessary to reject pros approach to this debate as both irrelevant to the resolution, and bordering on trolling.
Pros argument that homosexuality has a genetic component remains unchallenged by con, and clearly meets pros burden of proof in the context of how the resolution is worded, pro offers a basic summary of the information that establishes that homosexuality has a genetic component with how twins example - though could have used more sources, and been a bit more specific.
As a result of this, this goes to pro: he has met his burden of proof here, while con resorts to left field context changing and quasi-semantic arguments that were easily rebuked by pro.
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
R1-Con= a person who is just born couldn't even understand the concept of sexual orientation, therefore they're orientation isn't determined at birth but after birth.
R1Pro= The baby doesn't decide the sexual orientation, the genes do. This is similar to how handiness is determined, by genes. Also, twins are very likely(when compared to the regular population) to both be gay(30%), thus proving that similar genes does produce a correlation in sexual orientation.
Me- Pro won this round, he used statistics(which weren't sited), got to bring him down for that, but the data is convincing, showing how similar genes caused a correlation in sexual preference was much better than saying that it's determined after birth with no data to back that up. Con does state though that babies can't understand the concept of sexual orientation, but pros argument about genetics mitigates this. Good round for both but Pro won.
R2-Con=States how Pro concedes by stating that they're talking about when the child knows he is gay, making genes irrelevant. Good on con for calling pro out for not sourcing.
R2-PRO=States how con never clarified that they were talking about the time the person knows they're gay. Then goes on to equate what con is doing to saying sex is determined after birth because the baby doesn't understand biological sex. Good on Pro for posting his source.
Me-Pro won this round, con shifted the goal posts, con in the future should clarify the parameters of the debate, this fact, which pro points out costs him the round.
R3-Con=States how he didn't change the parameters. Then goes on to say that if a gay gene exists than Sexual orientation should be determined before birth,not at birth as pro claims.
R3-Pro=States that when a person knows they're gay and when it's determined are different questions. He addresses the statement about a gay gene by stating that if he knows how to drive a car at 18 it doesn't mean he doesn't know how to at 19.
Me=Pro won round 3 largely by attacking the title of the debate, stating how con is equating knowing you're gay with having your orientation determined at birth. Pro then stated that just because something is determined before birth doesn't mean it's not determined at birth as well. He achieved this with an analogy.