The science of sex appeal makes homosexuality non-sense.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Not much of a contest. PRO never makes an affirmative argument of any kind. PRO lazily offers that some person on some other website somewhere once said something. PRO never gives a link to that argument or any kind of summary of that argument. Merely referencing somebody else's argument is not itself an argument and referencing without demonstrating any kind of affirmative interest in the nature or structure of that argument amounts to the rhetorical equivalent of no argument at all. All of PRO's efforts here are just critiquing CON's interpretation of the offsite argument but CON has no rhetorical or rational burden to disprove other people's arguments on other people's websites. PRO's thesis asserts that homosexuality is nonsense and in the very first line of argument PRO asserts that nowhere has he stated that homosexuality is nonsense. PRO irredeemably disproves his own thesis in the first sentence of his own late-in-coming argument. CON's light-hearted approach provided an attractive counter-point to PRO's grisly self-immolation.
ARGs to CON.
SOURCES to CON. PRO hinges his entire debate on somebody else' argument but never links to this argument or credit the authors. PRO's effort would amount to plagiarism if he weren't to lazy to bother with the cut & pasting.
CONDUCT to CON PRO's refusal to offer any argument but only complain about the ways CON fails to PRO's job for PRO amounts to argument in bad faith. Additionally, PRO forfeited R1 by failing to argue and failing to seek a waiver in debate terms. PRO failed to convince this VOTER that he was seriously interested in this topic or its arguments for or against.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4807-rfd-for-debate
PRO's case basically boiled down to "this documentary said this."
CON's immediate response was homosexuality is indeed still capable of being understood after 2009... And yes, there are still homosexuals.
The semantic play here is probably not what PRO was intending to face when making the resolution, but given the wording of the resolution it is valid. I really think PRO should take notes from the interaction here and make their resolutions less exploitable.
CON's addition of alternative reasons of having sex other than baby-making was the nail in the coffin of PRO's case.
PRO tries to make up ground by moving the goalpost on what the resolution means. CON dismantles the attempt.
PRO's last-ditch effort was to argue CON failed to falsify the claims of the documentary, to which CON essentially replies that PRO had failed to support his interpretation of it. I am awarding sources to CON because of the dismantling of the singular PRO source and his consistent application of more reliable sources in the debate.
Note to both CON and PRO:
Although completely hilarious, CON's humor was borderline disrespect to PRO in my eyes. I'm not sure I would label it a conduct violation, but it was approaching that territory. With PRO's attempt to move the goalpost on the resolution, though, I think conduct is about even.
The documentary is like one big verse in let's say the world of science or biology. Why? It deals with one context just as a verse does in the bible.
And by comparison to the "particular Bible verse" you would use, which parts of the documentary did you use?
If I ask you have you read a particular Bible verse and you're not giving an answer that I can see, although not confirmed, it's indicative as like you have not.
Now if it appears that I made an accusation, I had no intent in doing so.
However, the debate indeed went no where as we never went in depth in details of the documentary.
This is a formal debate site, to which people are limited to voting based on the competing evidence offered. If only one side offers evidence, then their hands are tied.
Imagine if I were debating about the bible, do you think I'd list passages from it to support my thesis, or would I merely accuse the voters of having not read it?
But the debate was about the documentary. You people are not understanding me. Then have nerve to vote on something you don't understand. You have to accept and understand what a person is communicating. What in the world is this?
"And these are the voters that haven't seen the documentary.
What a fraud."
Even if we had, it would've changed nothing. Your argument just stunk. Accept it and improve!
What do you mean what happen?
The student can only judge how much they've learned, ain't that right?
To be honest, I would too,dismiss something that looks like it goes against what I believe in or support. I can't blame anybody for that.
What happened to "the students are the absolute judges"?
And these are the voters that haven't seen the documentary.
What a fraud.
Thanks for voting!
Bump.
Coffee is indeed a double edged sword.
drank a late night coffee
Thank you for the insanely detailed RFD! It was more than this debate deserved.
Yes the students are the absolute judges. Those that read now and in the future. Let's just acknowledge we have our own classroom of pupils.
For your teachers analogy: You forget they can demonstrate their lesson plan for the potential learning offered. Were we competing teachers, your lesson plan would exclusively be to complain about mine. Whereas mine, used various texts to teach something about the topic.
It's UP TO THE PERSON THAT'S LEARNING TO DECIDE HOW MUCH THEY'VE BEEN EDUCATED. UP TO THE PERSON, NOT EITHER DEBATER TO DECIDE.
I am a student some where, only I can decide, declare, demonstrate how much I've learned, not the teacher .
My responses and comments apply to all. Thanks again for the constant unnecessary counseling on this site. Yes I'll continue to indicate this is a learning stage. I'll continue to do things in my manner, unconventional. Also you should enjoy yourself while learning.
I hope you all enjoyed the debate. It was quite enjoyable to write my half of it.
Seriously, when replying to a specific person, please put their name in the receivers section.
> They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again.
Interestingly, of the two of us, I'm the only one who has mentioned any details from it to imply viewership. But yes, if you ever want a rematch, I'm game for it.
> The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears.
I agree. Hence I argued it was not homophobic, even listing a scene that was outright homoerotic.
> There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
You did not use any sources in this debate.
> I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth.
How is the voting system rigged? While there do exist bad voters as you've mentioned (those who would give you the source point for example), that is them rigging it against its structure. Whereas any decent voter like myself, will vote based on argument strength even if it's against our personal beliefs.
> it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
I actually highly agree with your premise on the importance of learning (not so much the conclusion). By this standard, which of us has done more to educate people within this debate?
You don't know every single individual personally that has or will read this so called debate. Remember , there will be those that'll agree with me. They'll ask have you watched the documentary. Watch it and maybe we can try this again. The science of sex appeal has nothing to do with anybody's fears. Just like a study on cigarette smoking has nothing to do with any of that nonsense. It's about education and this debate didn't go anywhere because you were prepared to put up this awesome defense for homosexuality. But the topic was about the documentary. Now continue your disagreement, you're entitled to it.
People that read this aren't just people that agree with you. There are those that understand what I'm talking about and they're the ones that say I won because of what they've learned about those dismissing source material.
I make those disclaimers due to the rigged voting system as it's based on an echo chamber , not truth. Being that this whole thing is about education, the most important thing, it's up to each individual to say who won in the debate based on what the debater helped them learn from the debate.
I thank you kindly.
Please consider the first line of the description: "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"
Have you done anything to inform those who view this debate about the documentary? You claim it's implicitly overwhelmingly homophobic, but failed to point people to either it or at least clips from it which might suggest that premise. Again, it was literally not my job to tell you about the documentary, rather it was your job to tell the audience about it to give something of structure value to take away.
Were I to have gone off topic, you would still have the same duty to inform the audience of the intended subject. Instead, you actively allowed my Scott Thompson impersonation to be the only value people took away from this.
"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."
It's not a surprise people ignore your "setup." It is so vague and meaningless for deciding outcomes that people assume your just being rhetorical. Plus you seem to have no understanding that the resolution is the thing you must prove as instigator.
It informs me like many other debates that many of you can't cooperate with a debate description and setup.
This debate really tested that. Somebody can't even tell me about a documentary they should of seen first before arguing.
Y'ah mean?
That is what I've learned over and over.
Humor aside, I hope this debate was informative for you about how to structure an argument and leverage evidence.
I ended up rewriting sections which outright crossed the line. While a homophobic topic like this warrants some mockery, I wouldn't want to lower myself to making a bunch of sexual Ad Hominems.
Also I would have gladly engaged with the moved goalpost were it supported with any evidence (my final round stuff about the shirt sniffing, I prepared expecting to use it in R2 against video evidence... Yes, I would have twisted any segment of the video to be as gay as Archie if you just read between the lines).
It came close to one but with PRO's special pleading it balanced itself out
@VOTERS:
I agree with any conduct penalties applied to my case.
If this guy is a cabbage cannon Ragnar is a tactical nuke
At the end of infinite valuable arguments we have several people. These people have lots of ammos to shoot out of the tank. Basically unending.
In the middle is also several people(including me), they stop firing when the tank is severely damaged.
At the other end is this guy. After firing all his ammos he starts shoot with cabbages that are supposed to be his dinner tonight, and when he runs out of cabbages, he claws around out of the tank and tries to take the entire military force by fistfight, despite that it probably works not.
Accurate
He is the type of guy that NEVER concedes, even if it means to write absolute nonsense. Anything but concession.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure Mall's only strategy is to avoid giving actual arguments by pretending the resolution doesn't mean what his opponent thinks it means
I have yet to see PRO actually give an argument.
Here's a link to a snippet of the same data:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/videos/a21993/gay-porn-stats-by-state/
(And yes, I'll try to remember to include it next round for anyone in need of an alternative link).
I am afraid to click the pornhub link. Seriously, is there no other statistics that could be used?
How tf is PRO supposed to win? How does a documentary make every single case of homosexuality nonsense?q
As a reminder, your argument is due early tomorrow.
This is pretty hilarious.
Without a doubt one of the deepest and most thought-provoking intellectual discussions on the platform thus far.
A pornhub citation... and man look at that P2! "Hot man on man sex continues!"
Hall of Fame worthy indeed. >insert lenny face<
If there are lesbiens in the audience (and not in the joking way that I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body), I will happily dedicate one of the rounds to women instead of men.
My opponent should definitely use that as a point.
Sometime's it's hard to see why traits may have been selected for during the formative period of human evolution. This can be even more difficult when the traits are psychological adaptations. The underlying issue is whether homosexuality has some objective function or is a mental disorder. There have been some imaginative proposed hypotheses for homosexuality. Though, I'm wondering whether the classification as to function or disorder is relevant in any policy making because I don't think it's something that can be changed.
A suggestion: Don't put the first-round argument in the descriptions. Put them in the first round argument slot.
Called it. Dopamine time!
Um, if pigs have sec for pleasure, why not humans?
If you guessed it's heading in a homoerotic direction, you would be correct.
If PRO had titled the resolution something less exploitable maybe there would be a decent argument on both sides... But I think I know where this is headed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmswmbosYo