Instigator / Pro
5
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#2650

Nobody is accepting of homosexuality.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
0
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
3
1

After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
19
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Description

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.

This is like a chapter 2 and an idea taken from another debate topic.

It was mentioned in that description about no one denying heterosexuality according to their anatomical setup and design, namely according to their body.

No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior.

It works the same way with food and medical care. I'll break down the scenarios and analogies as the debate proceeds on.

Now I understand that there's probably confusion already.
What do I mean, nobody accepts it?

What about the law? What about society as a whole, the festivities and celebrations?

Isn't this an indication of acceptance?

I guess it comes down to what's meant by "accept" or "reject".

To be sure you're really paying attention to what you are reading and that you're reading it all, the context has been specified to what the topic is getting at.

Now there could be some fundamental problems as anticipated. If you as a person have a particular belief regarding the nature of sexuality and sex disregarding biology, then it's futile of you understanding this topic altogether.

But in any event, you may learn something dealing with biological blueprint. I would have to say that is a start.

So if you disagree and say that some do accept homosexuality in all aspects 100 percent, batter up,step up to the plate.

For questions and advice , please send a message .

Yes sir yes sir.

-->
@Mall

Keep on talking and talking, the fact that i debunked every argument you even tried to imply speaks volumes about the actual evidence you have for such a view. You have no idea what you're talking about, as I have demonstrated thusly. Fauxlaw and I are as separate as can be, and yet even he agreed with my arguments in this debate. This is not a biased vote.

Funny thing is we both agree. However different we choose to express the agreement. People know the body rejects certain things due to nature, people know the truth . The bias and liberalism run rampant.

Final Round Sources listed:

[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273
[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.23908
[3] https://www.biausa.org/brain-injury/about-brain-injury/basics/function-of-the-brain
[4] http://www.mayfieldclinic.com/pe-anatbrain.htm#:~:text=The%20brain%20controls%20our%20thoughts,the%20brain%20and%20spinal%20cord.

The debate is over . We agree of the bodily parts not accepting homosexuality due to their conflicting natures. The nature of one substance linking to a different one versus the nature of the same ingredient linking with that one .

-->
@Theweakeredge

I once had a debate on whether my dog was gay or not... too late as an argument in this debate, but I was quite accepting of my gay dog!

-->
@Mall

First of all, don't bring up debates in comments, that's what the debate is for.

Second of all, I apologize for the forfeit, I was dealing with IRL stuff and didn't have the motivation nor actual care to debate. I do now and you will be getting my rebuttal sometime tomorrow.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

"Anatomically does refer to the mind or is the brain, not a bodily structure?"

Upon doing a google search definition, it states the science of bodily structure especially in dissection. So any part of the body is anatomical. Namely, the point of the sexual reproductive equipment and they do not fit the nature or role other than in the location of heterosexuality.

"My point is, this entire "criticism" is nonsensical, and relying on the Pro's interpretation of "common sense", a term I'm sure the voters are tired of being used to prove something. "

If it's subjective intrepretation, then common sense would be to forget about taking on the debate. If you perceive somebody to be just too much away from reality as you see it, save yourself the trouble.

Do you know what I mean?

"The question is , for who's or what purpose?
Rhetorical, it's used to set up a point I was about to make which you seem to not understand the purpose of. "

Well squash it then or otherwise answer the question. See these questions help you to get specific and to the truth that you evade.

"Exactly, and I have already explained myself in my first round, how the "design" of the mind and of the organs themself don't necessarily reject homosexuality, "

What do you mean by "don't necessarily"?

Are you saying there's no need but still an ability to be done so?

The mind obviously has ability to accept or reject the idea of homosexuality. The body is able to reject smoke as it is a substance forbidden to the lungs .

"No, this is an attempt from Pro to move the goalposts, an informal fallacy which attempts to undermine an argument by not accepting it, even though it has been validated, notice that there is no actual reason for this besides, "its vague and we can use loopholes" what sort of loopholes? Which am I using? '"

You tell me sir or maam. I don't know what you mean by sexuality. I don't know which form of sexuality and under what context.

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying about loopholes. The more broad and less specific a situation is, the more you can get away with something desirable. Like rules to an organization or club. If a rule, isn't specific enough, a way can be found around the rule to do an act that appears to or could violate the rule but technically legal.

"How is it vague whenever you used "Nobody" in your resolution? "

It's vague upon disregarding the whole debate description. That's why the description is there.

"I would also bring up the fact that there are several pleasure receptors in the brain and reproductive organs, so no, sexual intercourse isn't even just for reproduction, they are also clearly "designed" or at more accurately adapted and evolved in such a way to where pleasure was also a goal"

Sexual intercourse is not the topic. You can throw this out now.

"Therefore even if Mall was correct in the angle that they were looking at this, they would be wrong because the body at least, "partially accepts homosexuality" using his terms."

Of course shifting the purpose of something as in regards to the broad subject of sexuality to just being pleasure. We can fit a lot of things under that umbrella that appear to comply.

But we're dealing with the function , role or use of organs. So that is very specific as it has us look at to why and what the function or role is.

"Sexual organs don't have nature, they have functions. "

Its nature is the function. It's in my nature to see. Seeing is a function or work of my eyes within. All nature is , is that what is within. No finicky business over that. If you feel more comfortable with the word function in the place of nature, go head on. It still has no function for homosexual behavior.

"Are you claiming that the only purpose of the penis and vagina are for sexual reproduction? Because as I have pointed out you can be gay and contribute to that. As a male, you can donate sperm, as a female you can choose to be inseminated. Either way, there is no need for a heterosexual pairing, and it is not mutually exclusive."

I'm making no claims other than to the truth about sexual reproductive organs. You said yourself about what's needed for sexual reproduction. Don't turn around and say there's no pairing going on there.

I've made no reference to sexual intercourse, a man and woman getting together. All you have to stick with is the nature or preferred by you , the function of organs. Which means you're just in more agreement but I understand that you may have accepted this debate too quickly without complete understanding of what was being said and not said. Jumping the gun as they say.

"Yes, people do in fact accept homosexuality:"

People accept meaning by conscious choice. Is that right?

You dismiss this question again, you indirectly concede that I'm right, your wrong.

Let me ask, do you agree that the body rejects things ?

"Incorrect, something can be partially accepted or partially rejected. "

So that part that is accepted is not rejected , right. That's what I said.

Something is not accepted and rejected at once. Don't talk contradiction and confusion likened to the nature of homosexuality. No straddling the fence here. It's one or the other

" Again this is dishonest, the description and resolution only ever possibly allude to the, "the body" in the vaguest sense of the word. I refuse to stick to Mall's vocabularies because his definitions are literally arbitrary, my definitions are from actual literary scholars, the dictionary. "

This is totally disingenuous of you to argue with someone deliberately dismissing what they're communicating. If you don't understand something, you ask questions like I do. You don't ask, you accept a debate unsure of what a person may mean hoping it all works out any kind of way like the nature of homosexuality.

"Second of all, Mall continuously attempts to point out that the "function of the body rejects homosexuality" because they can not produce viable offspring. This is quite simply Mall repeating their point over and over again, that the body does not function in a way viable with homosexuality. Except, again, this is presuming that the body only accepts things on an anatomical level, which is false, as I have already pointed out, and I extend those points. "

Not quite as this is too simplified. You already proved my point for me when mentioning the following : " Sperm and an egg are necessary, the obvious alluding is simple, have the male ejaculate in a tube or something else that's tight and insert it into the female. "

This is the nature of those sexual reproductive organs . That's not accepting a homosexual nature to do what you , you just said. Otherwise they would be the same organs.

The word nobody was used in the context of the description which is the body. You want to be finicky about the way the word is phrased, you can't prove that I've said all people in their minds reject homosexuality.

To add on top of this, let's say what I mean by "nobody" the way you think , something that contradicts the description or so you assume, is " no person ". Nobody meaning no person. Follow this right here . I already indicated where I said "No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."

The context is totally cyclic and cohesive. Understand all of the context, don't assume what is meant.

"As any voter can note by now, Mall has completely ignored my actual argumentation, instead of dismissing it by questioning simple terms such as, "Sexual Intercourse" and claiming that this is only looking at it from an anatomical perspective. "

How am I dismissive by asking a question?

You're dismissive by not answering the question.

The difference between no body and nobody is a space between the letters. The rest is up to context . I can choose to phrase it as nobody or no body. The context is clear to what I'm referring to.

From the first round this is highlighted in case you forgot or you're negligent, : "All parallels to no*body* accepting ."

"Everybody or "each body" so we don't get lost in understanding of what's being conveyed, will reject homosexuality due to the sexual organs being denied to reproduce an offspring "

From the description :

"No person accepts homosexuality. That's absolutely no person as in their body accepts homosexual behavior."

So in this segment, I'm using the word person synonymous with body.

"No, I make an objection, "Nobody" and "No body" are clearly different words, they have never meant the same thing, they mean completely separate things with completely separate connotations, having your own interpretations of definitions and such is fine, conflating two words because you realize one doesn't match your intent is dishonest and fallacious. The same goes for the other words Mall attempts to try to redefine with no justification."

From the description : "according to their anatomical setup and design, namely according to their body. "

The context of the debate is clear here. Reference to the body is made. It is made because the meaning of the word "body" has multiple meanings.

-->
@MisterChris

Huh, maybe, it definitely doesn't translate well.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I think he may have been inspired by my "Everyone is at least a little racist" arg... But I don't think that carries over very well to this topic.

Why is this even a debate? Con can just say the LGBTQ community accepts homosexuality...

-->
@Intelligence_06

Yeah it is, but still, I find it just a tad insulting. Maybe I'm just a snowflake.

This is too easy for me to even accept because no challenge = no fun.