Instigator / Pro
7
1314
rating
50
debates
13.0%
won
Topic

The science of sex appeal makes homosexuality non-sense.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
2
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
2
3

With 3 votes and 14 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ragnar
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
21
1760
rating
34
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 1,399 / 5,000

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

The science of sex appeal makes homosexuality non-sense.

This documentary, "The science of sex appeal", which I highly recommend you watch in order to really debate this topic makes sense of heterosexuality. So much so in contrast, homosexuality doesn't make sense at all .

The best argument anyone can use against this topic is that everything in the documentary was heavily theorized or speculated.

The documentary goes on to say and accounts for all causes of attraction to specific body parts, smells, anatomical design and male versus female traits. Particularly traits that spring via puberty and hormones.

By the end of the documentary, you'll ask yourself a question. Something to the effect of " Well where does this leave homosexual attraction?"

Basically all of the studies in the documentary were pointing to one thing. That is baby making.

Please comment or send a message for questions and clarity.

Round 1
Pro
The description will serve as the first round.
Con
Preamble:
I shall prove my case on only a single front:
  1. Homosexuality is not nonsense.

Burden of Proof
The resolution means homosexuality is an unintelligible concept since 2009 (the year of the documentary), so I should win if I prove it remains intelligible. Conversely, my opponent should win if he proves it is not intelligible.

Definitions
The description lacked certain key definitions, so to avoid semantic issues…
Merriam-Webster defines the following:
  • Nonsense is “words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas.”
  • Homosexuality is “sexual or romantic attraction to others of one's same sex.”


I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
The term homosexuality clearly had not ceased to have intelligible meaning as proved by the definition above and the self evidence continued existence of gay people [1], in spite of some documentary existing. Therefore the resolution is false.

Syllogism [2]
  • P1: If homosexuality is nonsense, then men must not be attracted to each other.
  • P2: Hot man on man sex continues!
  • C1: Therefore, homosexuality is not nonsense.

Sex for pleasure
Sex is enjoyable even when not “baby making,” so people and animals have sex (hopefully not with each other but that ever happening also falsifies pro’s conclusion).

According to Discovery Magazine [3]:
There is also no shortage of examples where non-human sex has nothing to do with reproduction at all. Females of many species mate with males when they are non-fertile (marmosets for example). And same-sex sexual behavior, which is definitionally non-reproductive, occurs in every vertebrate species in which it has been looked for, along with some non-vertebrates (bedbugs, for example, or fruit flies).

Still on the rise
In 2018 the LGBT demographic reached 4.5% of the U.S. population. Comparatively, in 2012 it was only 3.5% [4]. So rather than all disappearing in 2009, their numbers continue to grow (no pun intended... or was it?).

In fact, even if gays secretly don’t exist, the concept is so popular that gay porn continues to be produced. The very existence of gay marriage also disproves the resolution, yet strangely in homophobic states where gay marriage is illegal so there should be the least gay people, those apparently hetero people watch more gay porn than non-homophobic states. As was reported by Pornhub Insights [5]:
The majority of states with a high percentage of gay viewers is in the South, where gay marriage is illegal in all states. Dixie loves dicks so much, that the percentage of gay viewers for every single state in the South is higher than the average of the legal gay marriage states.


Sources:
  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kblc4gJsLjE
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
  3. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/yes-other-animals-do-have-sex-for-fun
  4. https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx
  5. https://www.pornhub.com/insights/gay-usa-porn-equality
Round 2
Pro
"I shall prove my case on only a single front:
Homosexuality is not nonsense."

Stop right there. You're in an incorrect context already.
No where is it stated without a particular context that homosexuality is nonsense.

You have to falsify that the documentary didn't make sense of homosexuality.

"The resolution means homosexuality is an unintelligible concept since 2009 (the year of the documentary), so I should win if I prove it remains intelligible. Conversely, my opponent should win if he proves it is not intelligible."

You have to falsify that the documentary didn't make sense of homosexuality.


"I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
The term homosexuality clearly had not ceased to have intelligible meaning as proved by the definition above and the self evidence continued existence of gay people [1], in spite of some documentary existing. Therefore the resolution is false."

Please show where in the documentary, it made sense of homosexuality, directly or indirectly.

"Sex for pleasure
Sex is enjoyable even when not “baby making,” so people and animals have sex (hopefully not with each other but that ever happening also falsifies pro’s conclusion)."

What does this have to do with the documentary?

The basis of the debate is the documentary. Please affirm your viewing of it.

"According to Discovery Magazine [3]:"

This should be according to the documentary. This is disqualification worthy. You've hijacked the goal post.

The remainder of points are extraneous sources .

You haven't made one move to showing how the source material in the context of the debate makes sense of homosexuality.

You can just concede it doesn't and then go on speaking of other things out of basis for this exchange.

The documentary once again, explains heterosexuality down to a "T" that it leaves no room to account for any other sexuality.

The science of sex appeal is learning teleological explanations of physical, aesthetic, sexual attraction.


Con
nulla. Pro’s case:
Pro has declined to even suggest any way the 2009 documentary has reduced homosexuality to nonsense, which the resolution mandates (not to be confused with men dating...).

The description even clarifies that viewing said documentary is optional (being a mere recommendation). Sure, it apparently makes sense of the breeding fetish (“baby making”) [1], but the claim that only one thing on the planet can make sense is the single worst example of a false dichotomy [2]. That’s like saying 2+2=4, therefore no other combinations of numbers can equal each other; or that a gay hottub orgy has at least four participants so it cannot have more.


I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
Extend. And given the context of this debate dealing with hot guys attracted to each other, to which to act on it they must first extend parts of themselves, pun fully intended!

Further, hetero’s are incapable of the same kind of love as extended gay men. It makes sense that people want love, and as Rick and Morty revealed, hetero girls are envious of the love that can only be experienced between gay men docking with each other, stating [3]:
“I want that kind of love like that docking kind of love. Like, penis in the foreskin kind of love Mm-hmm just, like, warm, just like…” -Tricia Lange


II. Kritik:
Pro’s counter case is a weak Kritik that he did not intend to debate the topic he selected. The resolution is that a 2009 documentary made homosexality nonsense, as opposed to the new claim that it merely neglected to explain why homosexuality makes sense.

Plus, a counter case without first offering an affirmative case… That seems like degradation.


Sources:
As a reminder, thus far no evidence has been provided to support the resolution.
  1. https://www.mamamia.com.au/breeding-fetish-sex/
  2. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma
  3. https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/Rest_and_Ricklaxation/Transcript
Round 3
Pro
"Pro has declined to even suggest any way the 2009 documentary has reduced homosexuality to nonsense, which the resolution mandates (not to be confused with men dating...)."

It does not make sense of homosexuality for the umpteenth time. Have you viewed it? If so, how does it make sense of it?

"The description even clarifies that viewing said documentary is optional (being a mere recommendation). "

I recommend it because it may not be required to watch to understand what it's about. But the basis of the debate is the documentary. So it would MAKE SENSE, that I advise a HIGH RECOMMENDATION, to view the material. The debate is about specific material. It's not about a flat statement being made such as "homosexuality is nonsense".

It be different if that statement was made flat out and one of my sources was this documentary. The topic is the documentary itself.

"Sure, it apparently makes sense of the breeding fetish (“baby making”) [1], but the claim that only one thing on the planet can make sense is the single worst example of a false dichotomy [2]. That’s like saying 2+2=4, therefore no other combinations of numbers can equal each other; or that a gay hottub orgy has at least four participants so it cannot have more."

Are you saying the documentary doesn't make sense of heterosexuality?

The remainder of what you said, I see nothing stating that this documentary made sense of homosexuality.

You really mistook this debate being about the subject homosexuality being non-sense where the precursor starts at the documentary.
Anything else you're bringing just translates to arguing with the documentary and or the makers of it. You have to dissect , analyze the source material established in the title of this debate and explain how there is no disharmony between sexualities that can otherwise be represented as such via physiological, teleological explanations.

Con
nulla. Pro’s case:
Extend. Pro is refusing to indicate any part the documentary which within any context makes homosexuality nonsense. This is as bad as someone denying being gay, and seeking to prove it via spending a lifetime repeatedly convincing authoritative men to send them to the dungeon where they can take part in nothing but gay sex, just to make sure they don’t really enjoy it... and of course then sagging their pants on the outside, possibly to show how sexually available they are to any willing men but definitely to help those yummy uniformed authority figures catch them [1].

“Are you saying the documentary doesn't make sense of heterosexuality?”
While I accept that it likely does make sense of one gross and dangerous hetero kink (a far cry from making sense of heterosexually in general), even that hasn’t been proven. So yes, no argument has been offered that it actually makes sense of yucky hetero sex, which would be the necessary first step building toward a premise that it therefore does not make sense of fun gay sex, which would then still be pretty far from proving the conclusion that it therefore somehow makes either nonsense.


I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
Like the metaphorical soap in the shower, pro has chosen to drop this. So like two men docking, double extend!


II. Kritik:
Pro also chose to drop the rejection of his Kritik, which firmly (do I even need to say pun intended anymore? Because it totally is!) leaves the topic of the debate my original interpretation.

To be sporting, since the topic is sense, I’ll give pro a Kritik he can work with: I’ll concede the debate if he’s able to show anywhere that the documentary proved gay sex is not-sensual. Of course this is to further point out how dumb his semantic Kritik is, by pointing to another that could have been made of the topic… Needless to say, gay sex is actually better at engaging the senses than hetero, I mean just consider the pineapple [2]; whereas heteros have a lingering problem with the very idea of engaging the senses with foreplay [3, 4].



As a note here due to receiving a complaint from an ace that I have not likewise defended asexuality: My job in this debate is to refute the resolution's claims against homosexuality, either with evidence against and/or pointing to pro’s lack of having met the basic burden of proof to affirm. To my knowledge, homophobes are not attacking the absence of sex (which many of them take pride in failing to engage... but this is really drifting off topic enough already).


Sources:
Not normally a contention, but pro actively chose to to drop the absence of evidence… So yet another extension.

Additionally, there was a request in the comment for an alternative link to the Pornhub Insights data, which can be found via Cosmopolitan [5].

  1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115077011253684835
  2. https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a22516437/pineapple-semen-taste/
  3. https://gfycat.com/forkednextconure
  4. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0179116/characters/nm0584575
  5. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/videos/a21993/gay-porn-stats-by-state/

Round 4
Pro
"Extend. Pro is refusing to indicate any part the documentary which within any context makes homosexuality nonsense. "

I'm sorry, ALL PARTS of it.

"While I accept that it likely does make sense of one gross and dangerous hetero kink (a far cry from making sense of heterosexually in general), even that hasn’t been proven. So yes, no argument has been offered that it actually makes sense of yucky hetero sex, which would be the necessary first step building toward a premise that it therefore does not make sense of fun gay sex, which would then still be pretty far from proving the conclusion that it therefore somehow makes either nonsense."

Do you want to go view the documentary then come back to this debate?

"I’ll concede the debate if he’s able to show anywhere that the documentary proved gay sex is not-sensual."

Can I do this without your viewing of the documentary?

How would you know?

Are you being disingenuous?

Let me know if you've seen it. Explain what's it about and argue that based on what it demonstrates, it does nothing to make nonsense of homosexuality.

Again if I have not made it clear before, the science of sex appeal deals with explaining sexual attraction via biological, anatomical, physiological, hormonal analysis to the point where it leaves no room to ascertain how homosexuality fits amidst the various analytical data.

Con
nulla. Pro’s case:
“I'm sorry, ALL PARTS of it.”
That would be a great answer to which parts of gay sex are best; but the the question was about the documentary, to which no parts have been shown.

Do you want to go view the documentary then come back to this debate?”
I’m flattered at the suggestion of us watching a movie together... but I’m just not into straight boys, sorry.


I. Homeosexuality is not nonsense:
So much soap has been dropped in the shower, I don’t even know where to begin...


II. Kritik:
“Can I do this without your viewing of the documentary?”
Of course. You can do anything you want, you just need to believe in yourself… Well, believe in yourself and use evidence; kind of like if I were debating that our lord and savior wasn’t straight, instead of claiming the whole bible says that if you just read between the lines, I’d point to how many kids he didn’t have and his complete immunity to feminine temptations.

“How would you know?”
Oh I actually have watched it. My favorite part is when they dress a bunch of vigorous young men in white t-shirts, have them run on the treadmills to get all sweaty together, then start undressing; I mean network TV couldn’t show what happens next, but we all know… The filmmakers then contrasted it with how silly hetero sex is, by showing straight girls sniffing the discarded clothes afterward, as if trying to guess at what happened (or maybe that’s what straight people think sex is, just sniffing clothes… eww!).
NOTE: This actually happened.


Sources:
No more sources this round but if anyone if anyone wants more comedy, I suggest reading the following article: Kids in the Hall's Scott Thompson Revisits Buddy Cole