Instigator / Con
8
1458
rating
12
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#1201

Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Kikomori
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1495
rating
4
debates
62.5%
won
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.