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:
--> @Gatorade
In what way are you pro-alphabet?
#8
Added:
--> @Gatorade
Our perception of time only goes in one direction. Time is actually absolute though, so anything that "will be" determined is necessarily already determined. Furthermore, even if time didn't work that way, a computer with an unfathomably vast CPU could plot the entire universe from start to finish with 100% accuracy based only on exact measurements of the first instant of the Big Bang. There is nothing to be determined that isn't already.
#7
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Determinism also popped right into my head, but thought of the same problem. I hate that I am less creative than I think
#6
Added:
--> @oromagi, @christopher_best
I am pro-LGBTQ, which means I think that people can decide their gender/sexual orientation NOT during birth. Which means that I do NOT think sexual orientation always has to be determined at birth. I am Con-Sexual orientation is determined at birth and Pro-LGBTQ. If you need more clarification, I would be happy to explain more deeply.
Instigator
#5
Added:
A religious argument in favor of this resolution just popped into my head. God commands it!
...
Incidentally, determinism would cover it broadly but someone might pull semantics of 'well that would mean it's determined before birth...'
#4
Added:
If you are con, and don't think that sexual "orientation" is determined at birth, I would be willing to debate this with you.
#3
Added:
--> @Gatorade
I agree with oromagi, are you pro or con?
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @Gatorade
Your format indicates that u will prove that sexual orientation is NOT determined @ birth. But your description answers the question affirmative. Why say at birth rather than genetically or at conception? How shall we interpret the orange peel reference?
#1
#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.